Evolution vs. Creation

There are 162147 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.

FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#81486 Mar 18, 2013
Evolution claims the mutations didit and it seems evos have given up on the survival of the fittest simple to complex claims, or have they? Creation claims a beginning with purpose and the other side suggest no reason other than survival, am I right?

“Geaux Tigers!”

Level 9

Since: Jun 12

Down on the bayou

#81487 Mar 18, 2013
I didn't think the Ferret was allowed to leave his basement, much less Shitcago.

Level 6

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#81488 Mar 18, 2013
Evolution is not real. I t never has, does not and never will exist :-)
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#81489 Mar 18, 2013
The eagle can always fly high like the free bird! ROCK ON!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81490 Mar 18, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't ask you what you thought they could have used to imply the shape of the world, I said provide the word used to sphere. Saying balls are sphere is no different then saying balls are round and the earth is both round, circular, and spherical.
Idiot fail number one. No, balls are spheres. You made the idiot claim that they did not have a word for sphere and I showed how completely idiotic that was.
Your entire problem is that you are insisting that something means one thing because there exists another that doesn't quite say it either but you somehow insist that the implied is wrong in one hand while always correct in yours. That makes you deluded. There was no word for sphere, you cannot provide one that does not force a person to take the same leap in judgement. It is too late for you to find an article period as the information simply does not exist.
Idiot fail number two.

No, I have seen an article by someone who new the language of that time. As I said, it was too late and I did not have the time to look for that article then. Somethings on the internet can be hard to find. I am not a creatard and do not need to lie. You cannot find a legitimate article that will back up your claim that there was no word for sphere.

And you still have not shown why the word ball is not an acceptable word.
<quoted text> Perhaps you should take a logic class and geometry. Ever heard of a football? Balls are circular too. You are simply incorrect.
Idiot fail number three.

And it is a lulu. A specially shaped ball that did not appear until the 19th century is going to disprove that balls are not sphere?

Please, I have seen three year old children that can lie better than that.
<quoted text>Your do not follow logic. You are insisting something is only the way you want it to be without any evidence backing it up while at the same time insisting that evidence is needed in order for it to be true. So which is it? Or is it one of those cases where you can be the only person who defies your own demands and makes crap up at will to form reality into your own worldview. A lot of delusional people are like that.
Idiot fail number four.

No, I am pointing out that the language used could be applied to either a spherical or flat Earth whenever they talk about the Earth. But from context the description describes a flat circular Earth and not a spherical one. For example when the sky is said to be "draped over the Earth like a tent" that applies only to a flat Earth and not a round one. And that in several places the geometry they use could only apply to a flat Earth. At least twice it describes seeing all of the Earth from a high place. I know you failed geometry but you should still be familiar with the concept of a horizon. On a round flat Earth you could see all of the Earth from a high place. From the top of Mt. Everest you will see less than 1% of the Earth's surface. The Earth is BIG.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81491 Mar 18, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text> Many of the stories in the bible take place on ships and near ports. Anyone who has seen ships or other objects in the distance incrementally appear as they get closer knows the world is round. You would first see the tallest parts of the ships and eventually all the ship that was above water when the ships would sail into port. As you approach landmarks in the distance, you gradually see more and more of it as your sight becomes less limited by the curvature of the earth. None of this eluded the authors of the stories in the bible. No one really thought the earth was flat except you self proclaimed atheist who demand things are the way you want them to be in order to feel good about your life choices. You are living a fiction- your entire diatribe is a fraud. You are not even offering scientific arguments to support your claims and crossing into very unscientific realms of argument while trying to claim everything must be scientifically supported. You are a sham.
No story in the Bible takes place on a ship. One takes place on an "Ark" but we know that is a myth and does not really count. A few on boats yes, not none on ships. The simple shepherds and fisherman did not have ships. The boats that they used were not ones that would leave the shore far enough behind so that sailing over the horizon was a common thing. Now you are truly grasping at straws.

You are trying to change what is in the Bible to cover your idiotic claim that the Jews had no word for sphere. Now if they knew that the world was spherical don't you think that they would have a word to describe that? That is how language usually works. If you don't have the words for a concept then odds are you don't have that concept. It is a bit circular reasoning, but for words it is usually true. If they knew the Earth was a sphere they would have had a word for it, which they did. Your idiocy reminded me of the phrase that got me the article that listed the Hebrew word for sphere.

So since I forgot it earlier this is idiotic fail # 5 of that post of yours and here is the article:

http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...

Level 2

Since: Aug 12

Antalya, Turkey

#81493 Mar 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! Just related to a chimp.
Yeah because I love to eat tropical fruits LoL and I like it when someone plays with my hair LoLoLoL just like monkeyssss :p

mmm archaeologists always find dinosaur fossils , isnt it . Dinos are more older than human race . Why they cant find any primat fossils ?
Dont say me they found. You know there is nothing like this.

???

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#81494 Mar 18, 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
And there he goes, hoppity skip,
Blissfully down the garden path.

Sorry, child, your ignorance of science is not evidence of your deity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81495 Mar 18, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, have you even graduated high-school yet? Of course I'm not claiming that at all. I'm claiming that there wasn't a word for sphere which you have yet to produce one in use at the time of the stories and that the people the stories were originally told did not need a word for sphere in order to understand what was being said. This entire flat earth thing is made up and doesn't exist and never has.
There was a word for sphere. As I also said it was too late to find the article I was talking about last night. I am not a lying creatard. I have no need to lie. And here is the article:
http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...
<quoted text>And your point is completely incorrect. You cannot be intellectually honest and say lets compare something of science and something not of science then declare the not of science to be not true because the science is not there. Science is contrived to support itself all the time, it's a if it works, don't mess with it. Even science itself is limited to saying this is only one of many possible ways if it finds something could have happened. What science does with evolution is gives us a useful model that we can build other things from. It does not mean evolution was the only way possible or that it was in fact what happened. Saying so would continue your legacy of unscientific thought.
Also, you should learn what evidence actually is. There are several types and you would be fallacious in claiming there is absolutely no evidence. There might not be any scientific evidence, but that does not mean it is not true or that there is no evidence at all.
Actually you do have a small point here. It was very late when I wrote that and did forget the word "scientific". Of course since we are having a debate about science I meant "scientific evidence" and I usually do use that phrase.

Also since science describes the real world scientific evidence is usually the best kind. Since we seem to agree that you believe there is no scientific evidence for creation, and of course if you know the meaning of the term you know the ones at fault for this are the creationists, the question still stands. Why believe in creationism?
<quoted text>Actually you do not seem to know what a concordance is or at least you are not acting like it. Please tell me where any of them translate it into flat at all? Circular is the meaning given and flat is all you injecting whatever you want it to be into it. Of course you have to do that in order to maintain your lie otherwise the truth seems more appealing.
You may have edited it out, but I know more than once I stated that in context the verse describes a flat circular Earth and not a spherical one. We already know that you failed geometry but did you fail English too? Do you know of the meaning "in context"?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#81496 Mar 18, 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.
<quoted text>Yes, I have dealt with it quite nicely
<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.
<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.
<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.
So, the deity couldn't make himself clear, and has to rely on a bunch of rank amateurs of dubious motive to translate? Over and over?

Perhaps that whole idea of the Tower of Babel wasn't so smart after all.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#81497 Mar 18, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how you label people when you are filled with shame of your own disease. Go see a psychiatrist. There's medication for psychopaths.
This whole discussion has pretty much gone down the tubes. If it's not the silly arguments that aren't worth refuting, it's the political trolling and harassment.

Perhaps the scientists ARE doing the right thing by denying access to current research to the riff-raff. But, yeah. I guess you can see why I deal with the obsessive-compulsives the way I do. It's not sporting nor is it even civil but I refuse to lend honest efforts to keep the topic interesting to a collective group that wants to choreograph it to the level of an old "Little Rascals" show.

Queue the exit music while the monkey in a suit screeches and the puppy in a tutu does flips. We's all just a zany bunch o' working guys.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81498 Mar 18, 2013
<quoted text>Once again, you are showing how limited your knowledge is and how ignorant you appear to anyone with the least bit of intelligence. Why would a scientific journal be accepting articles written about faith and religion? They already accept more scientific articles then they should with the problem or retracting quite a few of the articles. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/science/stu...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189726835576...
That was a severe reading comprehension fail on your part.

I don't know how you got so far off the subject I was talking about. You must have seen some of the phony journal articles from Answers in Genesis and other creatard sites. They pretend that their articles on creation were peer reviewed. That is the sort of fake article I was talking about.

And the problem that you linked with scientific journals were articles in medical journals. Yes, they are scientific journals, but they are specialized scientific journals. It is not honest to apply that to all scientific journals.
<quoted text>You simply are talking out your ass now. You have absolutely no facts to back the claim of christian scientists up and are more likely speaking about anecdotal observations found through confirmation bias which in and of itself is entirely unscientific. Why do you hate science until it supports your views? Why do you insist on scientific evidence for everything you disagree with and ignore that with what you want to push as if it is true?
Actually I have plenty. There are many creationist scientists that were peer reviewed in their previous occupation. They avoid peer review for their creationist ideas. If I was wrong someone should be able to list hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed articles by these scientists. No one has to date. They can find regular science articles that these creationist scientists have done since they got in contact with creationist sites. They can find articles in fake creationist journals that try to look like peer reviewed articles.

No one to date has found a creationist science article in a peer reviewed journal.

I found my article that you challenged me on. Let's see you find one now.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#81499 Mar 18, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Very simple...
the galactic center is 27,000 light years (ly)away from Earth.
the a star in Sag. is 170 ly from Earth.
the b star is 378 ly from Earth.
the b2 star is 137 ly from earth.
the gamma star is 125 ly from earth.
the delta star is 85 ly from earth.
the epsilon star is 125 ly from earth.
the lambda star is 70 ly from earth.
the galactic center of the milky way does not lie in teh constellation of saggitarius.
The correct statement would be, "The center of the galaxy lies in the direction of Saggitarius.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#81500 Mar 18, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong again..."everywhere" does not define a center.
There is no center of the universe, just as there is no center to the surface of a balloon.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#81501 Mar 18, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sagittarius is a constellation of the zodiac, the one containing the galactic center."
So I said "the center of the milky way galaxy lies in the constellation of Sagittarius."
and you claim this to be a false statement????lol
It is false.

The galactic center lies in the DIRECTION of Saggitarius.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#81502 Mar 18, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no center of the universe, just as there is no center to the surface of a balloon.
We really don't know enough about the universe to claim there is no center or left and right or top and bottom for that matter.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#81503 Mar 18, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So, the deity couldn't make himself clear, and has to rely on a bunch of rank amateurs of dubious motive to translate? Over and over?
Perhaps that whole idea of the Tower of Babel wasn't so smart after all.
If the Creator of the universe were to make himself known, we would immediately be judged for our misdeeds and even our wrong thoughts. We are living in the very short period of the age of grace and forgiveness which only comes through and by the work of Jesus Christ.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#81504 Mar 18, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>If the Creator of the universe were to make himself known, we would immediately be judged for our misdeeds and even our wrong thoughts. We are living in the very short period of the age of grace and forgiveness which only comes through and by the work of Jesus Christ.
Says who?

You contradict yourself yet again. If we are nothing more than raw materials for His greater plan, why would he punish us for being what we are? Why can't he create his final result instead of us raw materials anyway? What need would a creator have to exist within His own creation? You have no idea! Nothing!

You judge others just as quickly as your enemies with whom you are in bed with. You keep your secrets well, as long as you're both throwing your excrement in all directions....but everyone knows who you are, or will soon anyway.
d pants

United States

#81505 Mar 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If theories are currently used then they ARE valid. Theories are made up of facts. They use them to make scientific predictions about natural phenomena. Theories NEVER get "proven" to become "laws". This is what separates them from religious dogma.
valid yes, but ony as a theory and that's all. That's why its still a theory, the facts used to try to validate it don't prove it as law. Its either wrong or just missing a substantial peice of the evidence.
d pants

United States

#81506 Mar 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The way I understand it a hypothesis is not yet valid.
A theory is something that has been shown (by multiple testing) to be well on the road to being valid....or in the case of evolution which has been tested for over 150 years and passed with flying colors, it borders on fact.
evolution? Yes iwould say its been proven as law. Human evolution/darwinism? No. In fact every peice of biollogical evidence that questions it is ignored. Even archeological finds that prove the existance of inteligent humans when we were only supposed to be making primitive tools is ignored, both by theists and darwinists.

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
motorcycle traveling stories 5 min RainbowHoHoFarm 643
last word - first (Jun '12) 7 min Cyan in CA 7,729
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 11 min Nobody 2 Special 8,147
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 12 min Cyan in CA 56,711
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 17 min Cyan in CA 8,427
A six word game (Dec '08) 19 min Cyan in CA 18,324
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 19 min Doug77 5,331
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 33 min Sublime1 8,429
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 36 min Grace Nerissa 245
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr CJ Rocker 161,911
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 40,322
News Study: Beards are filled with poop and 'as dirt... 4 hr DILF 47
More from around the web