Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220498 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.

bohart

White Pine, TN

#83507 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hey Dude! quick, your syphillis monkey is on the keyboard again, he keeps repeating the same old shit,...or is that just you? Its so hard to tell the difference.

“Trippin' the Riff...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#83508 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, they'd just fund science that you don't like for centuries without getting any scientific results from it just for the sake of the big massive evil worldwide atheist Darwinist evolutionist time-travelling conspiracy. Your final sentence there is particularly ironic.
Yea I know, and Columbus discovered America.lol
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83509 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, another propagated science mis-conception.
So is your computer. Oh wait, you're a hypocrite.(shrug)

Typical fundie.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#83510 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, another propagated science mis-conception. No mention of continental drift?
"Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large southern land mass known as Gondwana (the southern part of the supercontinent called Pangea). After this time, Gondwana slowly split apart to create Antarctica as a separate continent, and Antarctica has gradually moved away from the other southern continents towards its present polar position."
"Political" science at it's finest. lol
Yes. The posited connection of South America, Antarctica, India, and Australia, was a political ploy connived in conjunction with scientists and the UN by the Secret One World Government.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83511 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, another propagated science mis-conception. No mention of continental drift?
"Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large southern land mass known as Gondwana (the southern part of the supercontinent called Pangea). After this time, Gondwana slowly split apart to create Antarctica as a separate continent, and Antarctica has gradually moved away from the other southern continents towards its present polar position."
"Political" science at it's finest. lol
i would imagine they thought anyone past the thrid grade understood that...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83512 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, another propagated science mis-conception. No mention of continental drift?
"Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large southern land mass known as Gondwana (the southern part of the supercontinent called Pangea). After this time, Gondwana slowly split apart to create Antarctica as a separate continent, and Antarctica has gradually moved away from the other southern continents towards its present polar position."
"Political" science at it's finest. lol
WTF are you babbling about?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83513 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
And again, another propagated science mis-conception. No mention of continental drift?
"Some 200 million years ago, Antarctic continental crust was joined with South American, African, Indian, and Australian continental crust making up a large southern land mass known as Gondwana (the southern part of the supercontinent called Pangea). After this time, Gondwana slowly split apart to create Antarctica as a separate continent, and Antarctica has gradually moved away from the other southern continents towards its present polar position."
"Political" science at it's finest. lol
how is that "political"?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83514 Mar 28, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>WTF are you babbling about?
She has no idea.

“Trippin' the Riff...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#83515 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So is your computer. Oh wait, you're a hypocrite.(shrug)
Typical fundie.
Back too poop slinging again? lol

“Trippin' the Riff...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#83516 Mar 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i would imagine they thought anyone past the thrid grade understood that...
Oh, I guess I should have should toned it down for you guys a little. I kinda forgot who I was talking to.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83517 Mar 28, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I guess I should have should toned it down for you guys a little. I kinda forgot who I was talking to.
actually, it would be apparant that they should have toned it down for YOU. maybe you shouldn't read articles where the pictures don't pop up...
Mark

Salem, OR

#83518 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's merely your ignorant incredulity at work.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Keep beating up those straw-men. That's why you have no traction in the scientific community AND keep losing in court.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Mechanisms? Evidence? Still waiting.
<quoted text>
So life is nothing like design therefore life was designed. Only you could make the same dumb argument 3 times in a row.
<quoted text>
There's no evidence of a God to mock. Mocking your myths however, that's totally different.
<quoted text>
Yeah, due to that time-travelling conspiracy, remember?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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?
At the core, I can see that the word "Design" doesn't work for you. When it's pointed out that basics like moon gravity, distance and mass are vital and you say it doesn’t matter because -"Size is irrelevant". A few more feet of tide and most of our crop bearing soil would be gone. That's simple geography but to you it's "irrelevant"!

Have worked with a number of oil companies (still do) and never saw one worried about isotope dating. They use seismic equipment and well logs. Never heard of an archaeologist using long age nuc dating as they deal with the existence of man, which is way inside the usable range of isotope dating, they use C14. So you're not making any sense to me, other then showing me how little you know about the stuff you are posting about.

You can blame Jesus all you want. The fact that you refer to scientists you have never met as "liars" is also telling. I know these guys personally and there are no "liars for Jesus" among them. They all have made a real living in the real world with their brains and hard work outside the creation effort, so you may want to spare me your unfounded comments. Thats harsh but true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology#Relative...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_exploration

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83519 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
She has no idea.
Oh, good.

For a minute there, I thought it might've been me.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83520 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, total misunderstanding of speciation. Evolution doesn't claim a brand new species at the birth of a new organism.
My statement was not to expain speciation, it was to show you that the biological species concept is fixed.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#83521 Mar 28, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
At the core, I can see that the word "Design" doesn't work for you. When it's pointed out that basics like moon gravity, distance and mass are vital and you say it doesn’t matter because -"Size is irrelevant". A few more feet of tide and most of our crop bearing soil would be gone. That's simple geography but to you it's "irrelevant"!
Have worked with a number of oil companies (still do) and never saw one worried about isotope dating. They use seismic equipment and well logs. Never heard of an archaeologist using long age nuc dating as they deal with the existence of man, which is way inside the usable range of isotope dating, they use C14. So you're not making any sense to me, other then showing me how little you know about the stuff you are posting about.
You can blame Jesus all you want. The fact that you reSee, Marfer to scientists you have never met as "liars" is also telling. I know these guys personally and there are no "liars for Jesus" among them. They all have made a real living in the real world with their brains and hard work outside the creation effort, so you may want to spare me your unfounded comments. Thats harsh but true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology#Relative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_exploration
see, mark, where you go wrong is assuming that there must be human life on earth..

if those things were not the way they are , then human life on earth just might not be here. big whoop...

see, you cant start with a false premise like humans were suppowsed to be on Earth..again, if you had really gone to university you would know this stuff...(at least a good university...)

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83522 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
LOL! I'm doing fine, I see you haven't lost your sense of humor. How you been doing?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83523 Mar 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez man, we been through all this, remember? Ring species. Game over.
Ring secies does not disprove the biological species term. We just have conflicting views of what a species is.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83524 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>There are no "atheist rules" on rock dating.

You may be trying to apply creatard rules to it, after I showed you how false your creatard rules are.
Why sure there is a atheist age rock dating rule.

A rock must be billions of years old.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83525 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Right, no word for "sphere". They did have a word for ball. What shape are balls, with the exception of balls that first appeared in the 19th century?

And if the Earth is a sphere you cannot be "above" it. You can be above a flat circle. This verse in context describes a circle. You are reinterpreting it with the knowledge that the Earth is spherical.

[QUOTE]
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).
"Paths of the sea" Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He was bed-ridden during a serious illness and asked his son to read a portion of the Bible to him. While listening, he noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalms 8:8. Upon his recovery, Maury took God at his word and went looking for these paths. We are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents."

So he took inspiration from some vague verse. That is not evidence of oceanic currents.

[QUOTE]
2. The Bible described the Hydrologic Cycle:
Revealed in the Bible: Job 36:27-28 The water cycle was not fully understood until about 30 B.C. by a Roman engineer named Marcus Vitruvius. Yet every aspect of the water cycle was fully revealed to mankind in 1600 B.C.! The Bible's description is in perfect harmony with modern science. Eccl 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6. Vitruvius was 1600 years too late!
In various passages, the Bible describes a hydrologic cycle, the process by which clouds are formed, rain is produced and ground water is replenished. Science made the same discovery in the 1600s, long after the Bible passages were written. Here are the related Bible verses:
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (Job 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind" (Job 36:27-28, NIV).
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV)."

Actually it didn't. It merely stated the obvious. It did not explain why water rises.

Speaking of which, why do you think that water rises Langy?

You have provided one verse that definitely refers to a flat Earth. Actually two, I almost missed the verse from Job. With a spherical Earth there is no up or down in space. The verses you quote only make sense with a flat Earth where down is always in the same direction.

Care to try again?
I see so you're telling me your warped understanding of the word is more correct then the real meaning of the original text.

"Speaking of which, why do you think that water rises Langy?"

Back at you, why is evaporation down 20% over the last 50 years world wide?

World wide temperature is up yet 20% less evaporation. What's up with that?

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#83526 Mar 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And correct rock dating gives us that. So do astronomy, sedimentology, the rate of evolution recorded in our DNA, and various other sources.

Did you know that you have to go so far as to reject even Newtonian physics if you want to believe in a young earth?
That would incorrect dating gives you what you need most.

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
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 1 min SweLL GirL 7,156
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 2 min SweLL GirL 10,316
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 min Scarbelly Bob 73,297
First Word That Comes To Mind ....... (Apr '10) 13 min Rider on the Storm 13,018
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 14 min The Political Whi... 21,393
True False Game (Jun '11) 15 min SweLL GirL 14,310
News Grieving father: 'I don't play Trump songs anym... 16 min Christians In Na... 2
Icon Discussion 43 min Scarbelly Bob 103
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Jammin and Hummin 212,987
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 hr honeymylove 3,546
More from around the web