Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209850 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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80530 Mar 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
of course you don't know the deference between a soul and a sole...that goes without saying.
there is no evidence of any soul or spirit. none whatsoever. that too, is a myth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80531 Mar 12, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
http://www.intelligentdesignth eory.info/creation_vs_evolutio n.htm
"37 Facts of Creation vs. 30 False Theories of Evolution
<snip>
Langy, why do you post crap like this?

It looks like it was written by a sixth grader.

It was obviously not written by anyone who knew anything at all about science. Their first claim alone proves that.

I know that you have no real evidence so you go to these sites to get somebody to lie for you. It does not seem like that big of a lie if you get someone else to do the dirty work.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80532 Mar 12, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I said THE NAZIS ridiculed the jews every chance they got, not you!
Why don't you just realize that you have a poorly developed sense of humor and drop this subject?

You can't win this argument.

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80533 Mar 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is no evidence of any soul or spirit. none whatsoever. that too, is a myth.
wrong, there is no physical evidence...because the soul in not physical in nature, the same as god.

you ask for physical evidence of the non physical, and claims that the non physical does not exist, because there is physical evidence.

God and spirit and soul do indeed exist.

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80534 Mar 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually in countries with the highest number of nonbelievers, the kids are the best educated in the world, they are the healthiest, happiest citizens and they enjoy the highest standard of living. seems your entire theory is baseless.
teaching kids lies, like there is any evidence of any god whatsoever, or any soul is tragic.
nonbelief is in no way nihilistic. Not even close.
perhaps you should understand what you are talking about before posting such rot, from the first to last word of that post...
What? Countries like Russia?...yea right...lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80535 Mar 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong, there is no physical evidence...because the soul in not physical in nature, the same as god.
you ask for physical evidence of the non physical, and claims that the non physical does not exist, because there is physical evidence.
God and spirit and soul do indeed exist.
Then what is your evidence of their existence?

They may exist, I am not denying that. But if we have no evidence of their existence their is no point in believing in them.

A person may argue fervently for a Magic Teapot on the far side of the Moon. Would you believe him no matter how fervently he argued if he could supply no evidence at all? Let's say he had a book that was 2,000 plus years old, would you believe him then? What if he said his book was perfect, even though you can see thousands of mistakes in it. Would you believe him then?

I think I know what your answer would be.

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80536 Mar 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually in countries with the highest number of nonbelievers, the kids are the best educated in the world, they are the healthiest, happiest citizens and they enjoy the highest standard of living. seems your entire theory is baseless.
teaching kids lies, like there is any evidence of any god whatsoever, or any soul is tragic.
nonbelief is in no way nihilistic. Not even close.
perhaps you should understand what you are talking about before posting such rot, from the first to last word of that post...
Or are you referring to Japan?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80537 Mar 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Countries like Russia?...yea right...lol
No, Russia has quite a few believers still. Countries like Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, etc. all are very wealthy, healthy and have a high rate of atheism.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80538 Mar 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually in countries with the highest number of nonbelievers, the kids are the best educated in the world, they are the healthiest, happiest citizens and they enjoy the highest standard of living. seems your entire theory is baseless.

teaching kids lies, like there is any evidence of any god whatsoever, or any soul is tragic.

nonbelief is in no way nihilistic. Not even close.

perhaps you should understand what you are talking about before posting such rot, from the first to last word of that post...
You know nothing about psychology. You are trying so hard to be rational because you are a drunkard and talks to a bong and plants flowers. Don't you see you are a contradiction. Give it up and surrender! Stop being in denial.

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80539 Mar 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually in countries with the highest number of nonbelievers, the kids are the best educated in the world, they are the healthiest, happiest citizens and they enjoy the highest standard of living. seems your entire theory is baseless.
teaching kids lies, like there is any evidence of any god whatsoever, or any soul is tragic.
nonbelief is in no way nihilistic. Not even close.
perhaps you should understand what you are talking about before posting such rot, from the first to last word of that post...
Suicides per 100,000 people per year

Japan is 8th in the world.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80540 Mar 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You know nothing about psychology. You are trying so hard to be rational because you are a drunkard and talks to a bong and plants flowers. Don't you see you are a contradiction. Give it up and surrender! Stop being in denial.
My...the personal atacks!

i understand how haveing every freakin' one of your stupid hippy dippy cult inspired bullshit theories shot down in two seconds worth of reasoning can be disheartening to a fool like you, but the logical thing to do would be to rethink your views, not attack the person steering you towards reason.

If what you say were true...what does it say about you that all of your ideas are proved foolish by a drunken bong hitting, flower planter?

see...you really need to think a little more before posting...if you are able to think more...it wouldn't appear so.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80541 Mar 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Suicides per 100,000 people per year
Japan is 8th in the world.
Oooh boy!priests are one of the highest groups for suicides and drug addiction...

anything else?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80542 Mar 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
What? Countries like Russia?...yea right...lol
Are you really that stupid? C'mon, grow up an dlearn about your world.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#80543 Mar 12, 2013
"The theory of evolution sounds true, yet, even Charles Darwin admitted that the theory is shaky. He put it this way,

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Many people believe it has come to this point. A slight modification of a vital organ would prove a fatality. By common sense, people should know that an organ would not function properly with the rest of thee system of it would be slightly modified. Therefore, according to natural selection, the system with the slightly modified organ would die out and the original would still survive.

Source: flicker
The Mousetrap Analogy

A good example of this idea is the mousetrap analogy. A mousetrap's function is to kill a mouse. The trap has four basic parts: wooden platform, metal hammer, spring, and metal bar for holding the hammer. The question is, how can it be slightly modified to make it more suitable for is purpose? Maybe by removing a part or making one part larger or smaller? The answer is, it is impossible because it is irreducibly complex! Regardless whar modification is made, it is ruined or handicapped. Consider this sequence, "skateboard, toy, wagon, bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, airplane, jetplane, space shuttle." (Behe, "The Concept") It is easy to see the relation between one vehicle to the next, but the sequence only has conceptual connection, not physical. For example, a bike cannot be made into a motorcycle with only bike parts, and certainly not into a space shuttle. So for a mutation, a change in DNA, to occur, a nucleotide would have to be either switched, added, subtracted, and it is impossible to tell whether many small mutations could cause numerous anatomical changes to occur.

A mousetrap could perhaps be modified two ways that wouldn't ruin its function, changing the color and size. This would be called microevolution. Microevolution occurs when the species' looks change,, through tiny changes, but it wouldn't change its appearance. An organism could change its color or size, but not change from from a frog to say... a lizard."

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80544 Mar 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is your evidence of their existence?
They may exist, I am not denying that. But if we have no evidence of their existence their is no point in believing in them.
A person may argue fervently for a Magic Teapot on the far side of the Moon. Would you believe him no matter how fervently he argued if he could supply no evidence at all? Let's say he had a book that was 2,000 plus years old, would you believe him then? What if he said his book was perfect, even though you can see thousands of mistakes in it. Would you believe him then?
I think I know what your answer would be.
don't you mean, where is the physical evidence of your non physical claims?



Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80545 Mar 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong, there is no physical evidence...because the soul in not physical in nature, the same as god.
you ask for physical evidence of the non physical, and claims that the non physical does not exist, because there is physical evidence.
God and spirit and soul do indeed exist.
We have evidence of many non physical things. love. pain. happiness.

sorry, you lose again.

have you thought about re-thinking your world view to something you can actually defend?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#80546 Mar 12, 2013
"It is ironic that scientists could date rocks before radiometric dating was invented, but it's more ironic the way they dated the rocks. First of all, they will propose a date to a fossil according to the phylogenetic tree. After this, they find a layer of earth with the same fossil as the one just assigned the date to and say that this layer is that old. Then they publish the "evidence" saying that they knew the age of the fossil by dating the earth surrounding it.

When radiometric dating was invented, they said that they now have a much better way to date fossils. Again they were wrong. Different methods of radiometric dating produce different results of an object. There was one such occasion where scientist tested different parts of a rock and they came out with three different dates!(1.87 million years, 25 million years, and 500 million years) Also notable, is the fact that the people who dated the rocks asked for the proposed age before that actual dating took place. Therefore, scientist can actually control the date of a fossil using different dating techniques."

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#80547 Mar 12, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>My...the personal atacks!

i understand how haveing every freakin' one of your stupid hippy dippy cult inspired bullshit theories shot down in two seconds worth of reasoning can be disheartening to a fool like you, but the logical thing to do would be to rethink your views, not attack the person steering you towards reason.

If what you say were true...what does it say about you that all of your ideas are proved foolish by a drunken bong hitting, flower planter?

see...you really need to think a little more before posting...if you are able to think more...it wouldn't appear so.
I know how to reason, be rational, think logically, but you not much. All you say is this and that doesn't exist or no shred of evidence over and over. I can teach a kinder gardener that.

So what does that a person as creative as me says to someone who pretends to be rational as you? Think about it. You are talking to a flower and you don't even know it! LOL

Next time talk to a rock. You have something more in common.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#80548 Mar 12, 2013
"Perhaps the most down-putting fossils found are those that span millions of years of geologic layers. Many trees have been found still standing upright buried. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, many of the surrounding trees were buried in the same fashion. The concept that geologic layers are representations of long period is immensely discredited by these fossils and by the eruption of St. Helens.

If an animal dies in the field right now, it wouldn't just sit there until it would be buried under sediment, it would either be eaten up, blown away, or blown away, or decay first. This is all just logical thinking, it would not take a mad scientist to figure something like this out. Sometimes, fossils are found in large groups. The large group of fossils are commonly called graveyard. Again, use of logic thinking would show that it isn't very apt that animals would die in a heap and then just remain there until it would become fossilized.

Some fossils from millions of years back haven't changed their shape up to now. Evolutionists have come up with the concept of stabilizing selection for the explanation. They state that natural selection suppressed innovations by negating all the changes, sometimes for millions of years. This is the exact opposite of natural selection."

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80549 Mar 12, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"The theory of evolution sounds true, yet, even Charles Darwin admitted that the theory is shaky. He put it this way,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Many people believe it has come to this point. A slight modification of a vital organ would prove a fatality. By common sense, people should know that an organ would not function properly with the rest of thee system of it would be slightly modified. Therefore, according to natural selection, the system with the slightly modified organ would die out and the original would still survive.
Source: flicker
The Mousetrap Analogy
A good example of this idea is the mousetrap analogy. A mousetrap's function is to kill a mouse. The trap has four basic parts: wooden platform, metal hammer, spring, and metal bar for holding the hammer. The question is, how can it be slightly modified to make it more suitable for is purpose? Maybe by removing a part or making one part larger or smaller? The answer is, it is impossible because it is irreducibly complex! Regardless whar modification is made, it is ruined or handicapped. Consider this sequence, "skateboard, toy, wagon, bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, airplane, jetplane, space shuttle." (Behe, "The Concept") It is easy to see the relation between one vehicle to the next, but the sequence only has conceptual connection, not physical. For example, a bike cannot be made into a motorcycle with only bike parts, and certainly not into a space shuttle. So for a mutation, a change in DNA, to occur, a nucleotide would have to be either switched, added, subtracted, and it is impossible to tell whether many small mutations could cause numerous anatomical changes to occur.
A mousetrap could perhaps be modified two ways that wouldn't ruin its function, changing the color and size. This would be called microevolution. Microevolution occurs when the species' looks change,, through tiny changes, but it wouldn't change its appearance. An organism could change its color or size, but not change from from a frog to say... a lizard."
Sorry, you are wrong again. look atr the new plastic moustraps. no trip bar that holds back the snap bar.

again, logic and reality are not your strong suit.

then again, there is the sticky trap. totally redesigned mouse trap and even more effective.(though very cruel. do not use them)

any other way you want this silly idea proved worthless?

you really need to put at least a little efoort into this...

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min xxxooxxx 200,976
True False Game (Jun '11) 3 min andet1987 12,740
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Grace Nerissa 61,560
Name an item game 4 min Knock off purse s... 287
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 6 min Knock off purse s... 147,233
Philly grey poster hangout 7 min Knock off purse s... 69
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 11 min Knock off purse s... 27,651
Who won the Presidential debate 2016 ? 13 min Knock off purse s... 46
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 25 min Luckys Mommmy 9,126
More from around the web