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
76,881 - 76,900 of 113,231 Comments Last updated 25 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81469
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81470
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Huntington, WV

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81471
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81472
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81473
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81474
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81475
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81476
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81477
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81478
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“talk to the kitteh”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81481
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81482
Mar 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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
That's another reason I left the West Virginia area....

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81483
Mar 17, 2013
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Which reminds me; can we get back to the subject of mens' nipples?
I'm definitely into the female version.

Shame on me....
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81484
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
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.
Subduction Zone wrote:
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?
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.
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
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.
Subduction Zone wrote:
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, 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...
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
.
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?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81485
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
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.

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.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Balls ARE spheres. Take a geometry class.
Perhaps you should take a logic class and geometry. Ever heard of a football? Balls are circular too. You are simply incorrect.
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
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.
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
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.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81486
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Chesapeake, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81487
Mar 18, 2013
 
I didn't think the Ferret was allowed to leave his basement, much less Shitcago.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Level 6

Since: Dec 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81488
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Evolution is not real. I t never has, does not and never will exist :-)
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81489
Mar 18, 2013
 
The eagle can always fly high like the free bird! ROCK ON!

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.

•••
•••