Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216710 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#76166 Feb 15, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Archaeologists have also been unable to find evidence in Egypt for a million+ Hebrews living in or leaving Egypt at any time."
We can't seem to find the rock that provided the last missing mineral to the primordial soup that created life either.
Go figure!
You make fun, but I have given you a real example of science disproving your 'Holy' book, that is supposedly inspired by God.

Nope....no Godly inspiration there.

OK here's another real one that has some impact on Christian Dogma.

We know for a fact that humans were spread ALL over the earth by 15,000 years ago. There were humans living in China, Korea, Japan, Egypt, the Indus Valley, India, Australia, all of Europe, all of Asia, and all of the Americas, both North and South.

Your own theologians put the Tower of Babel and the subsequent confusing of human languages around 2200-2000 BC.

Do you think all these millions of people already spread all over earth were grunting at each other? Or just maybe they were already speaking their own languages...after all they had been there for thousands of years and counting.

Another founding story of the Christian God gone kaput and the scientists didn't even realize it for awhile.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76167 Feb 15, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
oh nice that's another lie! Have you no shame!
Fine, you think you know your Bible better than I do?

Here is a simple challenge. Answer this multiple choice question:

In modern day English what is forbidden by the 10th commandment:

A: Cheeseburgerz.

B. Smacking your old lady around.

C. Shtuping the neighbor lady.

D. Watching Football.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76168 Feb 15, 2013
And of course by the Ten Commandments I am referring to the ones that were supposedly carved in stone by Gawd Almighty himself.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#76169 Feb 15, 2013
earlyapex wrote:
<quoted text>
If only it were so! Unfortunately, science is run by humans, and humans do what they always do - insert bias. Even science is biased dramatically by personal political beliefs (i.e. global warming - look up the p-value on the relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature).
There are very few, if any, scientists who initiate a study without the intent of proving his/her particular theory.
Back on topic, if evolution is false why are so many genes homologous between a human being and a rabbit for example? Why is it that we are able to grow human recombinant proteins in e. coli bacteria?
The only requirement to disbelieve in evolution is a lack of education. Now Darwin didn't get it all exactly right. Real evolution happens a lot faster than what he estimated because cells have a lot more ability to rearrange DNA (ie spliceosome) and create different proteins, etc. Hell, we even have nucleic enzymes that can move DNA around on a chromosome.
"Back on topic, if evolution is false why are so many genes homologous between a human being and a rabbit for example? Why is it that we are able to grow human recombinant proteins in e. coli bacteria?"
The answer is that simply we are made of the same building blocks as anything else in this self sustaining ecosystem. I would be surprise if there were not genes that are homologous. In creationism, everything is made the same way, the only thing that differentiates life from non life in creationism is that God breathed life into living creatures. We agree that physically we are a creation, the same as animals, why then would there NOT be homologous genes? Such is necessary for survival on earth. Goodness, such a shallow argument! There are even millions of beneficial bacteria living in us that also provide the same benefits in animals. Nothing is different or exceptional about the physical body of man except that god breathed life into him.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#76170 Feb 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You make fun, but I have given you a real example of science disproving your 'Holy' book, that is supposedly inspired by God.
Nope....no Godly inspiration there.
OK here's another real one that has some impact on Christian Dogma.
We know for a fact that humans were spread ALL over the earth by 15,000 years ago. There were humans living in China, Korea, Japan, Egypt, the Indus Valley, India, Australia, all of Europe, all of Asia, and all of the Americas, both North and South.
Your own theologians put the Tower of Babel and the subsequent confusing of human languages around 2200-2000 BC.
Do you think all these millions of people already spread all over earth were grunting at each other? Or just maybe they were already speaking their own languages...after all they had been there for thousands of years and counting.
Another founding story of the Christian God gone kaput and the scientists didn't even realize it for awhile.
Which theologians date the tower of babel at 2200 - 2000 bc? No they were not "grunting" They had thier own languages. Ever really study that mummy they found in the snow a few years ago? Curious thing, they found evidence that he was a multicultural and probably multilingual trapper and trader. The story of the tower of babel is not contradicted by evidence that there were multiple languages and cultures, it provides an explanation for it.

By the way, why do we so often just assume that populations that existed eons ago were less cultured, smart or sophisticated than us? That mummy they found in the ice?, that multicultural polymath that he probably was, was infinitely more sophisticated than most modern men.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#76171 Feb 15, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Charles Idemi wrote:
“Of course i agree, the Catholic church then, did alot of bad things to people, but all these, does not change or invalidates the reality of God.”
So we have an all-powerful and all-loving God who either can’t or won’t establish a church better than the Christian church has done.
If God is all-powerful, why CAN'T he establish a church which would not usher in the Dark Ages?
If God is all-loving, why WON’T he establish a church which would not usher in the Dark Ages?
I would reply that a polymath churchman and scientist named Copernicus likely ushered in the age of enlightenment.

Ever hear of the polymath named Erasmus?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#76172 Feb 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You make fun, but I have given you a real example of science disproving your 'Holy' book, that is supposedly inspired by God.

Nope....no Godly inspiration there.

OK here's another real one that has some impact on Christian Dogma.

We know for a fact that humans were spread ALL over the earth by 15,000 years ago. There were humans living in China, Korea, Japan, Egypt, the Indus Valley, India, Australia, all of Europe, all of Asia, and all of the Americas, both North and South.

Your own theologians put the Tower of Babel and the subsequent confusing of human languages around 2200-2000 BC.

Do you think all these millions of people already spread all over earth were grunting at each other? Or just maybe they were already speaking their own languages...after all they had been there for thousands of years and counting.

Another founding story of the Christian God gone kaput and the scientists didn't even realize it for awhile.
I see so you're in the camp of no proof is proof.

What is this strange drug you all are on?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#76173 Feb 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Fine, you think you know your Bible better than I do?

Here is a simple challenge. Answer this multiple choice question:

In modern day English what is forbidden by the 10th commandment:

A: Cheeseburgerz.

B. Smacking your old lady around.

C. Shtuping the neighbor lady.

D. Watching Football.
"Exodus 20:17" "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that [is] thy neighbour's."

If you don't understand this I'll explain it to you. Just let me know.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76174 Feb 15, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Exodus 20:17" "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that [is] thy neighbour's."
If you don't understand this I'll explain it to you. Just let me know.
Wrong on two levels. First you did not pick one of the supplied answers. It seems that you meant to pick C. You might have missed my second post where I specifically said the Commandments carved into stone.

I guess Langoliers does not know his Bible. I will see if he gets the correct answer the second time around.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76175 Feb 15, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I see so you're in the camp of no proof is proof.
What is this strange drug you all are on?
Please, only alkies are concerned about proof. Scientists work from evidence. You obviously work from alcohol.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#76176 Feb 15, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theologians date the tower of babel at 2200 - 2000 bc? No they were not "grunting" They had thier own languages. Ever really study that mummy they found in the snow a few years ago? Curious thing, they found evidence that he was a multicultural and probably multilingual trapper and trader. The story of the tower of babel is not contradicted by evidence that there were multiple languages and cultures, it provides an explanation for it.
By the way, why do we so often just assume that populations that existed eons ago were less cultured, smart or sophisticated than us? That mummy they found in the ice?, that multicultural polymath that he probably was, was infinitely more sophisticated than most modern men.
Below find a link to a paper that has the clearest exposition of the Tower of Babel I have ever found.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebran...

There is no doubt that the story is false....it has been proven to be so.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#76177 Feb 15, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I see so you're in the camp of no proof is proof.
What is this strange drug you all are on?
Aha!, I see you are of the 'deny it' school of creationist 'science'.

Your bible is toast dude.

Of course there is more proven wrong.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#76178 Feb 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Below find a link to a paper that has the clearest exposition of the Tower of Babel I have ever found.
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebran...
There is no doubt that the story is false....it has been proven to be so.
Bravo! Referencing anything having to do with Westminster theological seminary is sincerely appreciated and respected by me.
The article is indeed fascinating well thought out.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#76179 Feb 15, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theologians date the tower of babel at 2200 - 2000 bc? No they were not "grunting" They had thier own languages. Ever really study that mummy they found in the snow a few years ago? Curious thing, they found evidence that he was a multicultural and probably multilingual trapper and trader. The story of the tower of babel is not contradicted by evidence that there were multiple languages and cultures, it provides an explanation for it.
By the way, why do we so often just assume that populations that existed eons ago were less cultured, smart or sophisticated than us? That mummy they found in the ice?, that multicultural polymath that he probably was, was infinitely more sophisticated than most modern men.
You mean Otzi the Iceman in the Alps?

"A group of scientists have sequenced Ötzi's full genome and the report was published on 28 February 2012. The Y-DNA of Ötzi belongs to a subclade of G defined by the SNPs M201, P287, P15, L223 and L91 (G-L91, ISOGG G2a2b, former "G2a4"). He was not typed for any of the subclades downstreaming from G-L91. G-L91 is now mostly found in South Corsica.

Analysis of his mitochondrial DNA has shown that Ötzi belongs to the K1 subclade, but cannot be categorized into any of the three modern branches of that subclade (K1a, K1b or K1c). The new subclade has provisionally been named K1ö for Ötzi.[32] Multiplex assay study was able to confirm that the Iceman's mtDNA belongs to a new European mtDNA clade with a very limited distribution amongst modern data sets.

By autosomal DNA he is most closely related to southern Europeans, particularly geographically isolated populations of Sardinia and Corsica.

DNA analysis also showed him at high risk of atherosclerosis, lactose intolerance, and the presence of the DNA sequence of Borrelia burgdorferi, making him the earliest known human with Lyme disease.

A 2012 paper by paleoanthropologist John Hawks suggests that Ötzi had a higher degree of Neanderthal ancestry than modern Europeans".
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

Hmmm....high degree of Neanderthal ancestry. Veeerry interesting.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#76180 Feb 15, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I remember the thread title. I took it as an invitation to debate.
I while away the odd idle hour pointing out why Evolution (supported by rational, scientific, demonstrable data) works.
And why "Goddidit", supported by nothing but the assertion, doesn't.
Science works.
Doesn't give a sh!t what you believe, Charles.
Hence the insults. But actually can any insult or disprove God? no one!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#76181 Feb 15, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>So you would rather rely on strangers for your information than to search it out for yourself when you have access to the one tool that can bring it to you directlty?? Oh wait... you're a 'believer' which means having your thinking done for you is par for the course.
A question for you. Can any humans create a natural brain of human beings, yes or no?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76182 Feb 15, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Hence the insults. But actually can any insult or disprove God? no one!
Once again Chuckles, it is up to the person making the POSITIVE claim to provide evidence for their beliefs. If none is given the null hypothesis says there is no reason to believe him.

You know that would be true if I made claims about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You know that you cannot disprove the existence of his Holy Pasticity. It is also a ridiculous challenge.

Come on, prove the nonexistence of the FSM, I dare you to.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#76183 Feb 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor have I seen evidence of the Almighty.
<quoted text>
Yup. And lying in the graveyards and crematoriums next to we non-believers and skeptics will be the pious and self-sanctimonious Christians.
Ofcourse no arguments, every one will die, but no one whether powerful or not, can stop the work of God.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#76184 Feb 15, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Will three historical references do the trick?
Nicolas Flammel (c. 1330-1418) was a French scrivener.
Legend shrouded Flammel with supernatural powers by people living in the Seventeenth Century, not by J. K. Rowling.
Paracelsus (1493-1541) was a German Swiss astrologer.
Henry Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535) was a German astrologer and alchemist.
All three historical figures are mentioned in the Harry Potter books.
You say that if King Herod was an actual person, that proves that the entire Bible is true?
Then if Flamel, Paracelsus, and Agrippa were actual people, why doesn't that prove that the Harry Potter novels are true?
These people were mentioned based on permissions from them or their families. There are no archaeological confirmations for Harry Porter unlike the Bible.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#76185 Feb 15, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Huh. I guess I'd better not refer to Maggie Thatcher next time I write someth...
Ooops.
There are differences between books for sale and ordinary books for relaxation.
Projects, seminars and thesis, can name or quote any authority without their permissions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Officials: Passenger hit train's emergency stop... 2 min Knock off purse s... 2
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 2 min GLEN CARTER 1,394
News House party takes bizarre turn as woman strips ... 3 min Knock off purse s... 6
News Scientists say nuts to heart disease 10 min Knock off purse s... 7
The letter E (Jun '13) 11 min GLEN CARTER 1,272
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min Princess Hey 206,980
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 12 min GLEN CARTER 10,601
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 38 min Enzo49 67,188
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 40 min Enzo49 20,485
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 59 min Enzo49 1,472
More from around the web