Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 210001 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.

Mark

United States

#81460 Mar 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. In other words biology is not a good comparison to design. Setting aside of course that there are no mechanisms or theory for ID.
Dude,

It's just one bird. A very interesting design that worth a study. My point is look at the blueprints, the anatomy, the genetics that create it. Its flight specs, g-forces, max speed, dive speed, endurance. Slow down and look at just this one animal and try to call it an accident.

Look at anatomic parallelism as it relates to genetics. Read Denton. You know, the finding where one wing's development is controlled by a diff. gene than the other and on and on.. Pretty lucky accident of mutations to get both sides at the same time! Effects all parallel appendages...even lungs! Bird lungs are another example. Design, function, design, function. Is that not intelligent,- design = ID?

You need a mechanism, most likely because I challenged you to present one for evolution. I'll give you one. Some time ago a biologist took apart a virus and killed it. He then put it back together and it revived! Now take a car. Remove the engine, panel etc. and it won't run right? Put it back together and she starts right up. My point is you won't stand there and say, man, this car is amazing, it created itself and I figured it out! No, a car has a creator, Ford, Chevy, BMW, you won't argue that, that would be foolish!

But because its a living thing you say "no creator needed"! Same for the humming bird or a Blackhawk. I run Lama's.

M
Mark

United States

#81461 Mar 17, 2013
I have a cool pic of a P-51 on a ramp from WWII. It's Sunday and a service is going on around it in a war zone. The caption reads;

Machine needs man, Man needs God.

Thats what I beleive -

M

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81462 Mar 17, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I saw a pic from Hubble of it, It has a cross in the center of the star, a rugged cross. no joke
Optical anomaly.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81464 Mar 17, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
whatever turns you on. lol
You do sweetie..:-)
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#81465 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
LOL, I will take the word of actually scholars of the Hebrew language over a biased concordance that you did not even link.
You are doing neither with this as concordances are created by scholars of the Hebrew language as well as greek, latin, and others. If you do not know what a concordance is, you never should have bothered answering.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Creatards are notorious liars and without links it is safe to assume that they are either lying or wrong.
And so are you. I have looked through some of your other posts. It would seem you and the truth have a big love hate relationship with you being on the opposite side quite often. However, I will say that to your credit, you do seem to believe the untrue things you spout as if they were true. This doesn't mean you are a direct liar, just that people you are getting your worldviews from are liars.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Please note, I provided a link that supported my side.
You made the incredibly stupid claim that ancient Hebrews did not have a word for sphere. I showed you were wrong. The word used in the Bible COULD be used to mean a sphere, just like round can mean a sphere too. In that case we have to look at the context the word was used in. Guess what, the context is that of a flat Earth, not of a spherical Earth. You still lose.
You provided a link to an idiot, that doesn't mean the idiot was right. In the verses you quoted, at the time of the verses, sphere was not a word and no other word was used for it. You went on about how a ball could have been used but wasn't but your problem isn't your inability to understand, it was their ability to understand.

It is amazing that for more then several centuries, people knew the world was round and only the self proclaimed atheists seem to have a problem with this. It is even more amazing that people like you insist that even after being told you are off your rocker, that something is as it is not.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81466 Mar 17, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude,
It's just one bird. A very interesting design that worth a study. My point is look at the blueprints, the anatomy, the genetics that create it. Its flight specs, g-forces, max speed, dive speed, endurance. Slow down and look at just this one animal and try to call it an accident.
Look at anatomic parallelism as it relates to genetics. Read Denton. You know, the finding where one wing's development is controlled by a diff. gene than the other and on and on.. Pretty lucky accident of mutations to get both sides at the same time! Effects all parallel appendages...even lungs! Bird lungs are another example. Design, function, design, function. Is that not intelligent,- design = ID?
You need a mechanism, most likely because I challenged you to present one for evolution. I'll give you one. Some time ago a biologist took apart a virus and killed it. He then put it back together and it revived! Now take a car. Remove the engine, panel etc. and it won't run right? Put it back together and she starts right up. My point is you won't stand there and say, man, this car is amazing, it created itself and I figured it out! No, a car has a creator, Ford, Chevy, BMW, you won't argue that, that would be foolish!
But because its a living thing you say "no creator needed"! Same for the humming bird or a Blackhawk. I run Lama's.
M
They know evolution is made up logic test for every ape mentality that's still around so they could evolve and get smarter.

There is no scientific theory for ID because we already have hard science stuff, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. That is enough evidence to explain the nature of our world. But they keep asking for evidence for a creator as if they really want a bearded old man who punishes every sinner on Earth. If that's the kind of evidence that will make them believe, well let's see it happen. lol.

Anyways, I like your example of a bird. I've observed a bird that can go in different directions so fast that it would violate the law of physics if it were an airplane. Although I'm impressed with pilots who could maneuver in the directions they want. I've seen some made a U-turn coming at my direction just above my head. I've always wondered how how pilots register aerial mapping in their minds during flight almost instantly. The only thing I could do is pretend to fly when driving through a fog. lol
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#81467 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There are almost as many different definitions of creation as there are sects of Christianity. The title of this thread is Evolution vs. Creation. That assumes that you either believe on or the other.
Well, you know what they say about people running around assuming. Here is a clue, I have stated several times here that evolution could be a product of creation for all you know. And there is nothing scientifically that you can do or say that disproves it. It is very possible to take both sides of the argument.
Subduction Zone wrote:
And I doubt if you could spank your grandmother, dead or alive. So far you have been wrong on every post of your and are afraid to face even a simple challenge.
Actually, it has been you that has been wrong. You insist that you are right by finding websites that have about as much legit authority as any other random stranger on the internet outside of your confirmation bias. Millions of people for hundreds of centuries did not have a problem with it and all the sudden you think you have stumbled onto the holey grail of disbelief. All you are is a troll trying to satisfy your own choices in life by putting others down to feel good about yourself. One of these days, when you get out of your mom's basement and enter the real world, you might see things a bit differently but I'm not holding my breath for you.
Subduction Zone wrote:
So what do you believe and why?
Both. Simply because one could have been created by the other even if only in appearances. One is a useful scientific tool that helps us understand our world around us so we can have dominion over it like the bible says we have.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Do you believe common descent? What is the evidence that supports your beliefs? Do you even know what evidence is? Most creatinists don't understand evidence.
I know exactly what evidence is. We do not have any direct evidence of common descent but we do have evidence of it's likelihood. As I have already said before, this is moot because all speciation is a semantics game.
Mark

United States

#81468 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Optical anomaly.
I know its not science, thanks for the research

It's "God Particle" week over at CERN. We creationists are celebrating. CERN is worried that if they don't come up with a find on dark martter soon their bucks will be cut off. God Particle's come in handy now at budget time!

On your comment regarding evo's not debating anymore, Johansson debated Gish once in front of 1100 people and one dog... and he (Johann) never once brought up human evo...he knew Gish would have destroyed him. Lucy was big bucks and lights for him, with her knee from 5 miles away from where her body was unearthed, the knee of a human connected to an Orangutan. She had curved fingers with a V jaw, an Orangutan. You won't read that in the papers but Johan knew that Gish knew. And Piltdown - 500 Phd's were conferred on that hoax, none were returned. This goes on and on. Look for a human U-shaped jaw and upright knee walking angle on your pre-humans and you will come up empty handed.

M

M

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81469 Mar 17, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You are doing neither with this as concordances are created by scholars of the Hebrew language as well as greek, latin, and others. If you do not know what a concordance is, you never should have bothered answering.
<quoted text>And so are you. I have looked through some of your other posts. It would seem you and the truth have a big love hate relationship with you being on the opposite side quite often. However, I will say that to your credit, you do seem to believe the untrue things you spout as if they were true. This doesn't mean you are a direct liar, just that people you are getting your worldviews from are liars.
<quoted text>You provided a link to an idiot, that doesn't mean the idiot was right. In the verses you quoted, at the time of the verses, sphere was not a word and no other word was used for it. You went on about how a ball could have been used but wasn't but your problem isn't your inability to understand, it was their ability to understand.
It is amazing that for more then several centuries, people knew the world was round and only the self proclaimed atheists seem to have a problem with this. It is even more amazing that people like you insist that even after being told you are off your rocker, that something is as it is not.
The problem with the concordances is that all of them already knew the Earth is spherical. Do you seriously think that did not affect their translations at all? Plus there are many flat Earth verses that do not mention the shape of the Earth at all. For anyone that did not fail geometry they are obvious.

That being said, I think your disagreement about how the Bible does tell us the Earth is flat has been dealt with.

Now when it comes to the theory of evolution what evidence do you have to support anything else? I guarantee you that there is no real science behind creationism and even creation "scientists" know it. Just as Biblical scholars have concordances science has peer review. Creationists avoid peer review like vampires avoid holy water. Many of them have written peer review articles in their chosen careers before they tried to contribute to creationism. None of these people right peer reviewed articles with a creationist paradigm. That lack of action shouts volumes.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81470 Mar 17, 2013
adif, you are an idiot.

I did not read all of your post but I have seen that unbelievably argument before.

Of course they had a word for a sphere. Are you telling me that they did not play with one of the oldest toys ever made, the ball?

You had to read that off of some incredibly idiotic creatard site. Somebody who did not understand the language must have made that claim and you like a blind idiot agreed with him.

So, yes, the ancient Hebrews did have a word for a sphere. If it wasn't in the article I linked I am sure I could find one that does mention it.

So you claimed my article was written by an idiot and you turn out to be even a bigger one.
me u no

Lynchburg, VA

#81471 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The problem with the concordances is that all of them already knew the Earth is spherical. Do you seriously think that did not affect their translations at all? Plus there are many flat Earth verses that do not mention the shape of the Earth at all. For anyone that did not fail geometry they are obvious.

That being said, I think your disagreement about how the Bible does tell us the Earth is flat has been dealt with.

Now when it comes to the theory of evolution what evidence do you have to support anything else? I guarantee you that there is no real science behind creationism and even creation "scientists" know it. Just as Biblical scholars have concordances science has peer review. Creationists avoid peer review like vampires avoid holy water. Many of them have written peer review articles in their chosen careers before they tried to contribute to creationism. None of these people right peer reviewed articles with a creationist paradigm. That lack of action shouts volumes.
I think u try and sound smart... You no what they say if u have to try... Well ur not hummm Yummy Rock On Let all party til we puke then make another thread about that then we can change our profile name huhuhu no life pp lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81472 Mar 17, 2013
me u no wrote:
<quoted text>
I think u try and sound smart... You no what they say if u have to try... Well ur not hummm Yummy Rock On Let all party til we puke then make another thread about that then we can change our profile name huhuhu no life pp lol
And you try to sound idiotic.

And yes, you are.
Mark

United States

#81473 Mar 17, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
They know evolution is made up logic test for every ape mentality that's still around so they could evolve and get smarter.
There is no scientific theory for ID because we already have hard science stuff, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. That is enough evidence to explain the nature of our world. But they keep asking for evidence for a creator as if they really want a bearded old man who punishes every sinner on Earth. If that's the kind of evidence that will make them believe, well let's see it happen. lol.
Anyways, I like your example of a bird. I've observed a bird that can go in different directions so fast that it would violate the law of physics if it were an airplane. Although I'm impressed with pilots who could maneuver in the directions they want. I've seen some made a U-turn coming at my direction just above my head. I've always wondered how how pilots register aerial mapping in their minds during flight almost instantly. The only thing I could do is pretend to fly when driving through a fog. lol
Birds are cool and perplexing to our folks, like me in the past, I had all the answers and would not listen because it is spiritually decerned. You are right that people need love not logic on this issue. God needs to show up before the next step occurs if their heart will open up to it. The popularity and acceptance issue is big, egos are big, many of my freinds said bye bye but I knew what I knew was truth. It's really easy to recall truth, you don't have to keep all those wild tails straight! Heavens, whale evolution!! Bears getting in the ocean and loosing their fur!! Their nose traveling to their back!!! Its amazing what these people can think up with enough time!!

Its like the Princess and the frog; She kisses the frog and bang, he's instantly her prince!- a fairy tale! Have the frog and add a few million years and bang, get your prince, thats science!lol
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#81474 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with the concordances is that all of them already knew the Earth is spherical. Do you seriously think that did not affect their translations at all?
Not at all. Concordances are not attempts to confirm the bible, but to explain the language to aid in knowing what was originally written. They are made by scholars in the languages and often provide cross references to other languages too. It's like picking up a dictionary in 1920 and reading the definition of the word queer so you understand that it may not be the same as understood today.
Subduction Zone wrote:
That being said, I think your disagreement about how the Bible does tell us the Earth is flat has been dealt with.
Yes, I have dealt with it quite nicely
Subduction Zone wrote:
Now when it comes to the theory of evolution what evidence do you have to support anything else? I guarantee you that there is no real science behind creationism and even creation "scientists" know it.
What is your point? the lacking of scientific evidence does not mean something is not true, it simply means there is no evidence of it being true or not. Quantum mechanics operated for quite a long time with no real scientific evidence, yet we know many aspects to be true.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Just as Biblical scholars have concordances science has peer review.
You obviously have absolutely no clue what a concordance is. It does not validate the bible, it validates the language used in the bibles. This in and of itself is also peer reviewed.

Subduction Zone wrote:
Creationists avoid peer review like vampires avoid holy water. Many of them have written peer review articles in their chosen careers before they tried to contribute to creationism. None of these people right peer reviewed articles with a creationist paradigm. That lack of action shouts volumes.
They write peer reviewed articles all the time. This is the reason why there are over 3000 separate denominations within the Christian religion alone not to mention the several different sects of Islamic and Jewish religions. Now maybe what you mean is scientific peer reviewed articles and that would be true because religion is not science.

I am simply baffled by the problem people like you have insisting that something is not valid if it is not scientific, yet reality proves you wrong every day. I've already been over the entire discussion about someone approaching you and asking directions and you having no scientific way to prove it doesn't mean it never happened, yet you think that because something that is not science doesn't profess itself in science, it automatically is invalid. I seriously hope you are not involved directly with science as all future discoveries would cease to happen if real scientist ever adopted your methodology.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#81475 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Of course they had a word for a sphere.
What was the word for sphere then? the best you can come up with isa word for ball which in a story after the stories of the quotes you mention. And remember this, the documentation of the bible was not someone sitting down remembering the old stories told around the camp fire, everyone in the tribes were expected to learn the stories and pass them around to each other and when something was wrong, they were expected to speak against it. The wording of the story when created would be the wording written regardless of when it was actually written.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Are you telling me that they did not play with one of the oldest toys ever made, the ball?
You had to read that off of some incredibly idiotic creatard site. Somebody who did not understand the language must have made that claim and you like a blind idiot agreed with him.
Are you trying to claim that Ball in the bible means sphere? I simply cannot find any translation or concordance that makes that claim. Only you who insists the world is how you view it and a few websites you probably shaped your worldviews from. So here we have a situation where you are arguing the exact counter to science and insisting what you believe to be true is in fact true despite no evidence of the case being true outside of self proclaimed atheist the last hundred years trying to justify their beliefs.
Subduction Zone wrote:
So, yes, the ancient Hebrews did have a word for a sphere. If it wasn't in the article I linked I am sure I could find one that does mention it.
So you claimed my article was written by an idiot and you turn out to be even a bigger one.
Actually, I am claiming you and the author of the article are both idiots. Your reasoning doesn't follow logic, you are insisting something exists with absolutely no proof of it existing, and claiming everyone who doesn't believe you is wrong and inferior. That makes you a moron by most standards

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81476 Mar 17, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds are cool and perplexing to our folks, like me in the past, I had all the answers and would not listen because it is spiritually decerned. You are right that people need love not logic on this issue. God needs to show up before the next step occurs if their heart will open up to it. The popularity and acceptance issue is big, egos are big, many of my freinds said bye bye but I knew what I knew was truth. It's really easy to recall truth, you don't have to keep all those wild tails straight! Heavens, whale evolution!! Bears getting in the ocean and loosing their fur!! Their nose traveling to their back!!! Its amazing what these people can think up with enough time!!
Its like the Princess and the frog; She kisses the frog and bang, he's instantly her prince!- a fairy tale! Have the frog and add a few million years and bang, get your prince, thats science!lol
Actually we need a third L to the equation: love, logic, and language. I'm not going to mention the fourth one. ssh. You almost sounded like a different person when you switched your tone. lol

Well, I wish I could kiss a frog! Brothers Grimm were linguists. In fact, all literature will reveal a pattern in language used. This is why English is so amazing that it could not be just coincidence. Evolution is a tale in scientific terms. That's all it is to me. However, a work of genius.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81477 Mar 17, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text> Not at all. Concordances are not attempts to confirm the bible, but to explain the language to aid in knowing what was originally written. They are made by scholars in the languages and often provide cross references to other languages too. It's like picking up a dictionary in 1920 and reading the definition of the word queer so you understand that it may not be the same as understood today.
So are you claiming that the interpreters of the Bible did not know that the world was spherical? What are you doing? Trying to challenge Jimbo for master idiot of this part of Topix?
[QUOTE}

<quoted text>Yes, You have dealt with it quite nicely.[/QUOTE]

FIFY.
<quoted text>What is your point? the lacking of scientific evidence does not mean something is not true, it simply means there is no evidence of it being true or not. Quantum mechanics operated for quite a long time with no real scientific evidence, yet we know many aspects to be true.
My point is that this is scientific debate. Science describes the real world. There are literally mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creation. Why believe in something that is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever?
<quoted text>You obviously have absolutely no clue what a concordance is. It does not validate the bible, it validates the language used in the bibles. This in and of itself is also peer reviewed.
No, I do know what a concordance is. It is the best translation available. And please note. They did a fairly decent job. As written the Bible describes a flat circular Earth.
<quoted text>They write peer reviewed articles all the time. This is the reason why there are over 3000 separate denominations within the Christian religion alone not to mention the several different sects of Islamic and Jewish religions. Now maybe what you mean is scientific peer reviewed articles and that would be true because religion is not science.
I am simply baffled by the problem people like you have insisting that something is not valid if it is not scientific, yet reality proves you wrong every day. I've already been over the entire discussion about someone approaching you and asking directions and you having no scientific way to prove it doesn't mean it never happened, yet you think that because something that is not science doesn't profess itself in science, it automatically is invalid. I seriously hope you are not involved directly with science as all future discoveries would cease to happen if real scientist ever adopted your methodology.
No, I am talking about real peer reviewed scientific journals. The so called Christian science journals are only a circle jerk that any real scientist would laugh at.

Once again. Many of the Christian scientists are published authors in their field. They then switch to a different field for sites like Creatard.com or others and write outside of their comfort zone and it shows.

Once again, there is no valid science behind creationism. And that is not the fault of evolutionary biologists. It is the fault of creatards that run away from real science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81478 Mar 17, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>What was the word for sphere then? the best you can come up with isa word for ball which in a story after the stories of the quotes you mention. And remember this, the documentation of the bible was not someone sitting down remembering the old stories told around the camp fire, everyone in the tribes were expected to learn the stories and pass them around to each other and when something was wrong, they were expected to speak against it. The wording of the story when created would be the wording written regardless of when it was actually written.
You are really trying to be an idiot tonight aren't you?

It is too late for me to find the article tonight, but I will do so tomorrow.

And what is wrong with using the word for ball anyway?

Here is a simple question that even you should be able to answer:

What it the geometric name for the shape of a ball?
<quoted text>Are you trying to claim that Ball in the bible means sphere? I simply cannot find any translation or concordance that makes that claim. Only you who insists the world is how you view it and a few websites you probably shaped your worldviews from. So here we have a situation where you are arguing the exact counter to science and insisting what you believe to be true is in fact true despite no evidence of the case being true outside of self proclaimed atheist the last hundred years trying to justify their beliefs.
Balls ARE spheres. Take a geometry class.
<quoted text>Actually, I am claiming you and the author of the article are both idiots. Your reasoning doesn't follow logic, you are insisting something exists with absolutely no proof of it existing, and claiming everyone who doesn't believe you is wrong and inferior. That makes you a moron by most standards
Actually my reason does follow logic. Of course I follow logic. The Bible translates literally to describe a flat Earth. It has geometry that only would occur in a flat Earth. The writers obviously that the Earth was flat.

Here is a very simple question for you: What evidence do you have that the writers of the Bible thought that the Earth was spherical? Don't let the fact that the Earth is spherical affect your answer.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#81479 Mar 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that sucks....
Which reminds me; can we get back to the subject of mens' nipples?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81481 Mar 17, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I know its not science, thanks for the research
It's "God Particle" week over at CERN. We creationists are celebrating. CERN is worried that if they don't come up with a find on dark martter soon their bucks will be cut off. God Particle's come in handy now at budget time!
On your comment regarding evo's not debating anymore, Johansson debated Gish once in front of 1100 people and one dog... and he (Johann) never once brought up human evo...he knew Gish would have destroyed him. Lucy was big bucks and lights for him, with her knee from 5 miles away from where her body was unearthed, the knee of a human connected to an Orangutan. She had curved fingers with a V jaw, an Orangutan. You won't read that in the papers but Johan knew that Gish knew. And Piltdown - 500 Phd's were conferred on that hoax, none were returned. This goes on and on. Look for a human U-shaped jaw and upright knee walking angle on your pre-humans and you will come up empty handed.
M
M
You ever hear of the 'Gish Gallop' Google it sometime

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
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 min Spirit67_ 33,693
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 min 8541 MARINE 61,593
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 2 min Princess Hey 147,265
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 3 min Spotted Girl 4,239
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 3 min Spirit67_ 471
News REVEALED: Bizarre ways shoppers have tried to a... 3 min Spotted Girl 5
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 7 min DondoDork 8,985
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 7 min Spirit67_ 9,160
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Northeast 201,108
Who won the Presidential debate 2016 ? 1 hr Republican 124
More from around the web