Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82451 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, we know what geometric shape balls can be but not always are. Or are you trying to say that a football is a sphere? Either way, you was simply wrong in expecting the bible or anyone else to say the earth is a ball when what was used makes more literary sense. You are simply wrong in claiming all balls are spheres or that because someone did not use a third word to describe a sphere that they did not mean what is equivalent to a sphere. It takes a real moron to insist as you do, that because something more resembled what was real but was a toy, the fact that it wasn't used to describe something not a toy means whatever you imagine it to mean. Grow up.
<quoted text>No you did not. In the article you linked to, the author refers to concordances which you until you recently found out what they actually were, completely dismissed. What you have is a blinded idiot that you found through confirmation bias in your search for answers that fit your needed worldview. Nothing more.
<quoted text>Yet it is still a ball and you are attempting to claim that all balls are spherical therefor not comparing the earth to a ball means they had no clue to it's shape even though a word meaning circular was used. You are the one who is failing logic here.
Does your desire to be right in your mind outweigh your ability to be correct in real life?
<quoted text>I seriously hope your parents live a long time and you are not forced out of their basement any time soon. You wouldn't last a year on your own with your mental capacity. You see, the books in the bible are not one story written from start to finish, they are collections of stories and texts created and written over time and need to be compared with that in mind. It is completely insane for you to insist that two supernatural beings are somehow restricted to natural physics or to use that irrational thought to dictate how other books have to be interpreted in order to save your worldview.
Balls are almost always spherical. I challenge you to find a nonspherical ball that was made before the year 1 AD.

And it is hilarious when a retard who believes fantasies lectures me about living in my parents basement.

Seriously if you believe the nonsense in he Bible why don't you believe that the Lord of the Rings or other fantasy stories are true.

You could not debunk one of my claims so you tried to insult me.

That didn't work either.

Back to the drawing board creatard.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82452 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Very nicely put. I commend you on a well stated post.
That is only because, sadly, you are even denser than he is.

Too bad you have the brain capacity of a squirrel.

Hey Langy, Look!! An acorn!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82453 Mar 23, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so you think that intelligence and education is bad.
all cults think intelligence and education are bad. knowledge is the death knell of cults...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#82454 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only because, sadly, you are even denser than he is.
Too bad you have the brain capacity of a squirrel.
Hey Langy, Look!! An acorn!
What's the name of the prehistoric squirrel in the Ice Age movies?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82455 Mar 23, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Nutjob nonsense.
Where is FossilBob when we need him? LOL
FossilBob is a professional geologist and teacher of geology at U of Indiana who recently retired. He has been spending much less time here on Topix, but his mission here on Topix was to expose and teach and embarrass YEC Christians who make silly claims like this.
Perhaps we can find him and direct him here.
Your inane "Biblical" nonsense won't play in conversation with a REAL geologist!
He's a bit busy with other stuff at the moment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82456 Mar 23, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What's the name of the prehistoric squirrel in the Ice Age movies?
Scrat, Google is your friend.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#82457 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
Radioisotope dating is widely perceived to be the "gold standard" of dating methods and the "proof" for millions of years of earth history. But when the method is tested on rocks of known age it fails miserably.(The lava dome at Mount St. Helens is really not a million years old! We were there! We know!) By what twisted logic then are we compelled to accept radiometric dating results performed on rocks of unknown age? I would submit we are not so compelled, but rather called to question and challenge those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. promote the faith of radioisotope dating.
" Creationism.org "? Really?

And Steve Austin? The ONLY people who use him as a source are his fellow creationist nutters.

I meant a real source.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82458 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only because, sadly, you are even denser than he is.
Too bad you have the brain capacity of a squirrel.
Hey Langy, Look!! An acorn!
It? It? wow are you that desperate to cling onto your worldview that you not only ignore what is in the bible that directly contradicts your statements but you ignore the other examples that were outside the bible but in the time of it?

You are seriously showing how deeply vested you are in this mythical reality you have built for yourself. It's like you don't care about what is real as long as you can imagine it somehow.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82459 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Balls are almost always spherical. I challenge you to find a nonspherical ball that was made before the year 1 AD.
I don't have to. I have challenged you to find the word for sphere- a term created well after the stories in the bible you mention was created and you have failed to do so. The best you can come up with is this nonsense about a ball that you insist should have been used instead of a word for circular. Well, describe a ball to me without using the term sphere or any other words not in existence when the bible stories were created. You can't do it and I bet you will flop and fail at it or you will ignore that altogether because as soon as you do, it will expose what a loon you are.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And it is hilarious when a retard who believes fantasies lectures me about living in my parents basement.
Seriously if you believe the nonsense in he Bible why don't you believe that the Lord of the Rings or other fantasy stories are true.
First, you have never established that I believe anything in the bible. I have only commented on how evolution could be a direct result of creation and how you are completely fallacious in your reasoning and interpretation of the bible. I have posed the theory that you have created this fictitious world in which you have to ignore sane reality in order to maintain it's persistence else you will have nothing left.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>You could not debunk one of my claims so you tried to insult me.
That didn't work either.
Back to the drawing board creatard.
I debunked all your claims. I dismissed them out of hand because they have no bearing on reality and I addressed your selection bias with reality. Your position seems to be "what you believe is true because you believe it to be true- and look, someone else does to" while at the same time demanding that others using the same logic is flawed. There was no word for sphere, the entire concept as a geometric shape was created after the fact, and you can't find a word that says sphere. You found one that says ball, but we know balled are not always spheres.

So in the end, you are simply a failure. It must take some deep seated beliefs with no supporting evidence in order for that kind of cognitive dissonance to thrive in your mind. As for me insulting you, I do not believe I said anything you have not already demonstrated to be fact except maybe you living in your parent basement. But then again, it is probably true considering your posting habits here.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82460 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It? It? wow are you that desperate to cling onto your worldview that you not only ignore what is in the bible that directly contradicts your statements but you ignore the other examples that were outside the bible but in the time of it?
You are seriously showing how deeply vested you are in this mythical reality you have built for yourself. It's like you don't care about what is real as long as you can imagine it somehow.
How did the Bible contradict my statements?

The concordance translation does not. The original wording does not.

You have yet to show any evidence that my claim that the Bible teaches that the world is flat is wrong.

The verses that describe the Earth use a word that properly means a flat circle. It CAN be used for a sphere, but that is not proper use of the original word.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. They might mean that the Earth is spherical and not a flat round circle. If you read the verses in context what do the imply. Oops, in context they say that the Earth is flat. You cannot stretch the heavens "like a tent" over a spherical Earth in any meaningful way. You can stretch the heavens over a flat Earth in a meaningful way.

So what is your evidence that they meant that the Earth was spherical and not flat? You have yet to post any.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82461 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have to. I have challenged you to find the word for sphere- a term created well after the stories in the bible you mention was created and you have failed to do so. The best you can come up with is this nonsense about a ball that you insist should have been used instead of a word for circular. Well, describe a ball to me without using the term sphere or any other words not in existence when the bible stories were created. You can't do it and I bet you will flop and fail at it or you will ignore that altogether because as soon as you do, it will expose what a loon you are.
<quoted text>First, you have never established that I believe anything in the bible. I have only commented on how evolution could be a direct result of creation and how you are completely fallacious in your reasoning and interpretation of the bible. I have posed the theory that you have created this fictitious world in which you have to ignore sane reality in order to maintain it's persistence else you will have nothing left.
<quoted text>I debunked all your claims. I dismissed them out of hand because they have no bearing on reality and I addressed your selection bias with reality. Your position seems to be "what you believe is true because you believe it to be true- and look, someone else does to" while at the same time demanding that others using the same logic is flawed. There was no word for sphere, the entire concept as a geometric shape was created after the fact, and you can't find a word that says sphere. You found one that says ball, but we know balled are not always spheres.
So in the end, you are simply a failure. It must take some deep seated beliefs with no supporting evidence in order for that kind of cognitive dissonance to thrive in your mind. As for me insulting you, I do not believe I said anything you have not already demonstrated to be fact except maybe you living in your parent basement. But then again, it is probably true considering your posting habits here.
Balls are spheres, with very few exceptions. Heck, find a ball before the year 1,000 that is not a sphere and I will acknowledge defeat.

We know that the ancient Hebrews could have likened the Earth to a ball if they thought it was spherical. Instead they used the word for a circle that is inscribed with a compass.

The article that once again proves you wrong:
http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#82462 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It? It? wow are you that desperate to cling onto your worldview that you not only ignore what is in the bible that directly contradicts your statements but you ignore the other examples that were outside the bible but in the time of it?
You are seriously showing how deeply vested you are in this mythical reality you have built for yourself. It's like you don't care about what is real as long as you can imagine it somehow.
There is lots of stuff in the Bible that is directly contradicted by modern day science....also by modern day morals. The Bible is not keeping up my friend.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#82463 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):
Historic Lava Flow
Potassium-Argon "age"
(in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09
0.25 ± 0.15
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
You know I think that 'problem' with the age of rocks top and bottom was resolved pretty quickly, by geologists, after creationists brought it up
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82464 Mar 23, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There is lots of stuff in the Bible that is directly contradicted by modern day science....also by modern day morals. The Bible is not keeping up my friend.
There is not much that is contradicted by science. You will find that there are more stuff in the bible that can be scientifically explained then there is that is contradicted.

As for morals, I don't really care about them. If it is your concern, I suggest you find someone who does.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82465 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Balls are spheres, with very few exceptions. Heck, find a ball before the year 1,000 that is not a sphere and I will acknowledge defeat.
We know that the ancient Hebrews could have likened the Earth to a ball if they thought it was spherical. Instead they used the word for a circle that is inscribed with a compass.
The article that once again proves you wrong:
http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...
You see, could have done something is not proof that something wasn't done. This is very unscientific of you to assert. I also see you refuse to describe a ball without using the word Sphere. I know that you realize you cannot do it and are clinging onto whatever resemblance of faith you still have so you won't do it.

The article proves no one wrong. It just shows how desperate you are.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82466 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How did the Bible contradict my statements?
The concordance translation does not. The original wording does not.
You have yet to show any evidence that my claim that the Bible teaches that the world is flat is wrong.
You have failed to show any evidence that the bible teaches the world is flat. All you have done is say "nuh uh, because I said so" and "what about a ball, they could have said the world was a ball". None of that is proof that the bible teaches anything you say, it's just proof at how gullible you are.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The verses that describe the Earth use a word that properly means a flat circle.
Where are you getting this flat from? Seriously, I have ask you this already and you have failed to bring anything to my attention. NO definition I can find says a "flat" circle. It's all circular but never flat. Why are you imposing this quality that no one else ever does and insisting on it being true when no one else seems to consider it unless they are attempting to mischaracterize passages in the bible in order to boost their worldview's worth to themselves?

You see, if you remove what you claim to be in the definition of the word and stick to what is actually there and supported by literature, then you get round. If you draw a circle starting at any point in the world and go in any direction to the completion of a circle, then end must meet the beginning therefor sound logic must determine it is round.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>It CAN be used for a sphere, but that is not proper use of the original word.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. They might mean that the Earth is spherical and not a flat round circle. If you read the verses in context what do the imply. Oops, in context they say that the Earth is flat. You cannot stretch the heavens "like a tent" over a spherical Earth in any meaningful way.
You can't? Well, I suppose you are not familiar with a condom but you have never stretched a balloon over a ball or another balloon and inflated it? Have you ever blew bubbles inside of bubbles as a kid? Either you are lieing through your teeth on this or you simply have not been around long enough to know what is possible. In either case, that would still make your assertions completely stupid. Oh yeah, I already went over how ignorant you are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82467 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You see, could have done something is not proof that something wasn't done. This is very unscientific of you to assert. I also see you refuse to describe a ball without using the word Sphere. I know that you realize you cannot do it and are clinging onto whatever resemblance of faith you still have so you won't do it.
The article proves no one wrong. It just shows how desperate you are.
You might want to try to rewrite your first sentence. It makes no sense as written.

Do you want me to describe a ball without using the word sphere? It is easy to do.

By the way, did you read my article? I bet you didn't. It points out how the word Hebrew word for ball has been used in the old testament.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82468 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You have failed to show any evidence that the bible teaches the world is flat. All you have done is say "nuh uh, because I said so" and "what about a ball, they could have said the world was a ball". None of that is proof that the bible teaches anything you say, it's just proof at how gullible you are.
<quoted text>Where are you getting this flat from? Seriously, I have ask you this already and you have failed to bring anything to my attention. NO definition I can find says a "flat" circle. It's all circular but never flat. Why are you imposing this quality that no one else ever does and insisting on it being true when no one else seems to consider it unless they are attempting to mischaracterize passages in the bible in order to boost their worldview's worth to themselves?
You see, if you remove what you claim to be in the definition of the word and stick to what is actually there and supported by literature, then you get round. If you draw a circle starting at any point in the world and go in any direction to the completion of a circle, then end must meet the beginning therefor sound logic must determine it is round.
<quoted text>You can't? Well, I suppose you are not familiar with a condom but you have never stretched a balloon over a ball or another balloon and inflated it? Have you ever blew bubbles inside of bubbles as a kid? Either you are lieing through your teeth on this or you simply have not been around long enough to know what is possible. In either case, that would still make your assertions completely stupid. Oh yeah, I already went over how ignorant you are.
Wrong again. Do you want to go over the verses that apply to a flat Earth and not to a spherical Earth?

I am more than happy to do so.

One question, how did you do in geometry?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82469 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to describe a ball without using the word sphere? It is easy to do.
And yet you haven't.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#82470 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Do you want to go over the verses that apply to a flat Earth and not to a spherical Earth?
I am more than happy to do so.
One question, how did you do in geometry?
Sigh.. Again, where is the word flat used at that you insist is there?

You can misread everything in the world all day long for all I care. You have shown repeatedly that you do not know what you are talking about.

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
Write sentences with the first letter following... 3 min Hoosier Hillbilly 8
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 3 min Mr_FX 8,040
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 3 min Go Blue Forever 14,277
Answer a question with a question 4 min Mr_FX 150
News Doctor: Cabbage can cure erectile dysfunction (Jun '09) 4 min andet1987 306
If this wasn't so sad it'd be funny 5 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 7 min Selecia Jones- JA... 18,178
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min I Am No One_ 161,521
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 53 min DILF 119
News HuffPost Is In Deep, Weird Denial About Bruce J... 1 hr TerryE 24
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr DILF 152
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr -ThatsAllFolks- 28,884
More from around the web