Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197388 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83474 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, I have a call into one of the RATE team members and am getting updated, thanks for taking the time to provide the link. Will be back with a brief response ASAP -
M
Oh joy. More lying from more liars for Jesus.(shrug) Do let us know when the scientific community gives a fig what these apologists think, eh?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83475 Mar 28, 2013
Markyh, if you are taking about finding megafauna fossils at Antarctica you need to remember a few facts. One we are in an ice age now. That was not always the case. Second Antarctica has moved along with the rest of the continents. It has not always been centered on the South Pole.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83476 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
A correction to the last paragraph, "macroevolution should be "microevolution".
Dumbest correction ever.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83477 Mar 28, 2013
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>Well if that floats your boat fine,I won't criticise anyone's belief..
I wouldn't worry about the silly beliefs of creationists if they weren't illegally pushing it into public schools. Ya know the nutjobs in the Middle East? They view that as a societal goal.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83478 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
You can attempt to answer every point to argue for your self-designed earth, moon, sun, geology, atmosphere, water and life if you wish. But each require convergence, convergence demands design, design demands a Designer.
No, that's merely your ignorant incredulity at work.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
But you claim it all comes by mindless accidents? that’s functional, beautiful, original, and operational? Never in human experience does such convergence come by accident.
Keep beating up those straw-men. That's why you have no traction in the scientific community AND keep losing in court.
Mark wrote:
The seas of earth would be a stagnate pond of sticky algae if it wasn’t for the moon being the perfect size and in the orbit it’s in. The tilt of the earth gives us seasons, the sun warmth and on and on.
Except the moon was closer in the past even when we still had life. Size is irrelevant. Seasons are what life adapted to, not the other way around. Not all life requires seasons. By the way, since algae is life then you're saying the moon doesn't matter.
Mark wrote:
Convergent Design!
Mechanisms? Evidence? Still waiting.
Mark wrote:
But with all the efforts of human "science", we can't even make a single human hair, we can't explain or replicate photosynthesis, nor make a single blade of grass in all the laboratories of the world!
So life is nothing like design therefore life was designed. Only you could make the same dumb argument 3 times in a row.
Mark wrote:
Yet we mock God while we enjoy all that allows us life, how sad, how foolish we are!
There's no evidence of a God to mock. Mocking your myths however, that's totally different.
Mark wrote:
The evolutionist side lives on isotope dating
Yeah, due to that time-travelling conspiracy, remember?
Mark wrote:
because some samples provide the ages they agree with. There are many, many contradictions however. Ones that starkly don’t fit the geologic column or the current dogma often get thrown out. Sometimes honest authors get them published hidden in the tables to escape the all -seeing eyes of the pro-evolutionist peer review teams. In truth, most uniform time measurements contradict long-age techniques, but guess who wins!
Ours, since oil companies and archaeologists use ours because they work. You get contradicting dates because you use the wrong methods in the wrong ways. Deliberately.
Mark wrote:
You will almost never see concordant isotope clocks agree with themselves nor uniform dates (based on fossils/strata) nor will you see them all published together. On our side, we have to often use a third party carrier to get samples through to a lab, why?, because they don’t want us to get the ammunition! We worked on this subject for 5 years and faced the facts straight out but the results were ignored.(Rate Project).
RATE project are liars for Jesus. So we're still left wondering why the frak you're pretending to talk about "evidence" when evidence is COMPLETELY superfluous to your position.

Goddidit with magic. Old Earth results? Goddidit. Young Earth results? Goddidit. One moon? No moon? Two moons? Doesn't matter. Goddidit.

Beginning to understand the problems you're having yet bub? Or you prefer to carry on lying for Jesus?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83479 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
They couldn't get it done in the lab so they just keep selling it in the articles, movies and textbooks. So we are all mutants? I will tell my wife that - couch time tonight!
Yes, you are a mutant. Now if you were a clone then maybe you'd have a point. But then I've already demonstrated common ancestry to you a couple of times now and you still haven't been able to address it.

Don't worry. No other fundie on the planet has yet either.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83480 Mar 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Curtis Threats! I'd almost forgotten about him. Wow, was he a character. Infinite Force, wasn't it?
That's him. Maybe he's finally succumbed to all that alien experimentation.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83481 Mar 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Always try to believe in the impossible. Anything can happen. You or any one else can never rule out the possibility of a first man and woman.
Already addressed. But it appears you didn't understand what was said. I suppose I was expecting too much since you make Bo look like a genius.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83482 Mar 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No!
But the writers of the bible that were wrong based on their level of education.
But they were not other wrong because the flood was devastating and large, making the people then, to think it was global or universal.
Good. So like others noted we have established that the Bible is in error.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are you again, 100 % error free?
No, but we don't have to be. We just have to be more accurate than the Bible. And its fundies.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83483 Mar 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No!
If truly the bible is false, as well the faith according to your assertions, the faith would have been long dead. But the reverse was the case.
I pointed out many things to Hog a day or two ago which were pseudo-scientific yet people still believed them. The thing you're not grasping is that faith does not REQUIRE evidence. That's why people can still have faith in concepts which either have no evidence, or just plain wrong (like young Earth creationism).

Faith does not stay when one has evidence. Faith DISAPPEARS with evidence. Evidence makes faith superfluous.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83484 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
I'm not religous and I don't support documented religious views. I do accept the non-religious concept of fixed species when it comes to the origin of species. Instead of descent with modification I see common desegn. I base this conclusion on the biological reproductive species term which states a species reproduce the same fertile off-spring species.
WOW!!! I-F! So how'd it work? Do we just have to say your name three times and the aliens drop you off? A bit like Beetlejuice?

How ya doin' me ol' crazy conman?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83485 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Your facts is based on contradictory un-observed data when when it comes to the biological reproductive species term. This is the only species term I accept in biology. A biological reproductive species is only able to reproduce fertile off-spring of the same species and this reproductive process is fixed which prevents the rise of a new biological species.
Geez man, we been through all this, remember? Ring species. Game over.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83486 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you found some old bones...the rest is mere speculation and conjecture...case dismissed.
Sorry, but the case has passed not only the courts but plenty of scientific testing. I would say that you SHOULD know this, since I've posted the linky demonstrating this for you many times now.

But then we both know you've never read it and couldn't understand it even if you did.(shrug)

That's why you just posted a linky which still supported evolution rather than putting it in doubt. Oh well.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83487 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
A biological species is able to reproduce fertile off spring. It is this species term alone that proves ALL species is fixed because inter species breeding does not produce fertile off-spring. This concludes that biological species are fixed.
<quoted text>
The off-spring would be a variation of the parents. This is called a constant variable within a bioogical reproductive species.
You're forgetting that "species" is an arbitrary concept. And in reality life DOES change over time. There is no genetic barrier preventing accumulative changes.

That's why so many fundies find YECism so attractive. Just one problem - it's a total denial of every single scientific field. In short, denial of reality itself.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83488 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Biological reproductive species is an observed phenomena in nature on how a species is created at birth. Your other man made species terms does not show how a species is created at birth in nature. Its just a concept made up by a man.
Ah, total misunderstanding of speciation. Evolution doesn't claim a brand new species at the birth of a new organism.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83489 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
A very sharp team was on that committee. Look into it. Evo's will never publish multiple dating systems in their lit., it gets too complicated for them to also explain the lack of concordant dating results, in addition to their theme. We are supposed to blindly accept the data which is often +/- mils/Y because we are suppose to trust peer review. The fox watching the hen-house issue. I am not saying they purposely lie, its dogma.
Projection.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83490 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I got A's and my 2 geo profs converted to catastrophism, one wanted to offered me time as a guest speaker. Don't you wish!
Of course you did.(pats head)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83491 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the recorded testimony of the leading Alaskan Athabaskan chief at the time, as taken by the district Judge Wickersham in about 1900 of their flood story, the "big canoe story" etc.. Its all in Wickershams autobiography
Same for the Shoshone, I can check with some other tribes here and Canada, but that whittles down North America some on your comment.
How come there are Redwood stumps 10ft in dia. in Antarctica and when we drill on the North slope (for oil) we hit a biomass layer down deep with huge warm climate ferns and other fauna/flora? What covered them 500ft+ down, a local flood? We have fossil mega fauna there also, shells 3ft in dia etc.? For sure we must agree that the world at some earlier date had a uniform pole to pole temp that was warm. They omitted that stuff in my college geo/ classes, doesn't fit well. Quite an ommission however!
I will take a shot and postulate from the Bible a moment - how about a "very good" earth? Does that evidence make me a crackpot, I think not, actually, It woke me up.
Any velociraptors mixed with humans in that layer? Thought not.

What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83492 Mar 28, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a zealot, I think outside of the box when it comes to the origin of species. I am not religious either. Just because I accept a creator(s) when it comes to the origin of species does not mean I am a religous zealot. I have yet determined the origin of species true origin on planet earth, but I have narrowed it down to two possible answers based on the biological species term. So my findings are based in the realms of science because my method of seeking for the truth is based on the evidence I observe in nature.
And which planet did the aliens take you to on your last trip? Must have been pretty far since you've been gone a while.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83493 Mar 28, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>How many is that now?
Not sure, but now I'm thinking Chuck owes me more than just that 500.

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
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 3 min Old Sam 11,258
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 4 min Old Sam 15,939
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 8 min Spotted Girl 366
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min Old Sam 8,427
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 10 min Old Sam 4,950
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 11 min Old Sam 31,440
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 11 min SweLL GirL 144,806
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 30 min Spotted Girl 2,350
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 55 min Ricky F 32,120
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 55 min Sublime1 190,792
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr streetglidehoney 56,075
More from around the web