Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
75,981 - 76,000 of 113,285 Comments Last updated 18 min ago

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80538
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80539
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80540
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80541
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80542
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80543
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"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."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80544
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80545
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80546
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80547
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80548
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80549
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80550
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Creationism with Scientific Facts

There are many scientific facts supporting creationism. While these facts do not scientifically prove creationism, they do carry some weight when deciding whether or not the biblical account of creation is a scientifically valid theory. Before we continue to the facts supporting creationism, let's delve in a little deeper into what I consider creationism.

Creationists usually believe that the world and all living things were created in six 24-hour days. While there has been some argument about whether or not creation took 6 day or 6 thousand years because of 2 peter 3:8 (one day is with the Lord as a thousand years), please assume in this article that I am talking about six literal days.

Creationists also believe in a worldwide flood. The water is believed to have come from underground springs and an atmospheric water canopy. The water canopy, which would be much denser than the clouds nowadays, would have created a superior climate. The Bible talks about the opening of "the windows of heaven" (NKJV), which can be explained by the theory of the water canopy. It would also be the explanation as to why wooly mammoths have been found buried with food still in their mouths.

Creationists also explain the earth's layers with the flood. The Mt. St. Helens eruption, which as stated previously produced fossils of upright trees, also produced thousands of geologic layers in a matter of days. The fossils found within the layers would be expected if there would be a worldwide flood. The dead animals would float at first but given enough time, would sink and become fossilized. The process of fossilization would be much easier underwater than dry ground.

The sudden explosion between the Precambrian and Cambrian period can also be explained by creationists. These animals were created by God, and then when the flood came, they were cooked alive by the underwater springs.

As stated above, fossils would be fossilized much easier in a worldwide flood than on dry ground. The reason is because when animals would sink, the sediment would quickly cover the animal because of the water currents.

Almost all the animals in the world would have been killed; the only exception would be the animals in the ark. Consequently, there would be heaps of animals on the floor. Great groups of fossils would have been created. Big fossil graveyards would have been created. The same fossil graveyards that evolution has failed to explain."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80551
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Oooh boy!priests are one of the highest groups for suicides and drug addiction...
anything else?
WTF? How do you go from talking about the suicide rate of countries per capital, to the suicides rate of catholic priests, as proof of the suicide rate of countries.?

scienctific deduction at it's best.lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80552
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
if you are so creative, why can't you think of something that i cannot shoot down in two seconds?

perhaps if you go back to being a decent human i won't make you look so foolish.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80553
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Behemoth/Brachiosaurus statue
Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs?

Many people think that the bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. They use this as an excuse for not believing in creation. The fact is, there are 3 animals in the bible that are unfamiliar to us. These animals are the tanniyn, behemoth and the leviathan. The bible gives a very detailed description of the behemoth and the leviathan.
hope

Hannibal, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80554
Mar 12, 2013
 
hatuey wrote:
learn how to wake-up inside your dreams and test the 5 senses therein, then maybe your ideas about evolution vs creation will expand. please judge my comments
Just 5 senses....how senseless.The human mind is an amazing devise.....its potential is rotting away on religious and political waste of the pure evil kind. 5 senses? Try again, more brain this time!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80555
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

typo...'per capita'...(I was laughing so hard at your logic...)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80557
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
"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."
no it hasn't. not at all.

the layers of ash that buried those trees carry the same fingerprint. no-one would ever think that one layer spanned millions of years.

where do you get this dreck? you can't eriously believe it, can you? even third graders can figure out what bullshit it is!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80558
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
don't go insulting rocks...they express more reality than these clowns ever will.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

180 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 min MistySomers1973 16,073
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 5 min Hidden Nikki 13,082
"Poetry in Motion" (Sep '13) 10 min Hidden Nikki 115
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min just an allusion 141,698
Julie Anne Flannery of is a psychic who loves t... 26 min Jen and Arlene Toast 1
topix.com describe in one word (Apr '13) 26 min Dogomit 121
I read the news today, oh boy (Jun '10) 31 min Frankie 845
Grammar Blogger Fired Over 'Homo' in 'Homophones' 56 min wichita-rick 5
Fisherman's wharf restaurant fields angry calls... 3 hr Phyllis Schlafly s Stain 4
•••
•••