Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 219597 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88258 Apr 28, 2013
Oh my, another Fundy shoots himself in the foot. From this site:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_o...

" The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining.[1] Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs.[2][3]"

More dishonesty from KJV. From his first article let's look at the complete paragraph, rather than the quote mine:

"
It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[180] A Hindu atheist would declare oneself as a Hindu, although also being an atheist at the same time.[181] A 2010 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 9.6% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.0%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[182] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.[183]"

And let's look at the next paragraph while we are at it:

"
A November–December 2006 poll published in the Financial Times gives rates for the United States and five European countries. The lowest rates of atheism were in the United States at only 4%, while the rates of atheism in the European countries surveyed were considerably higher: Italy (7%), Spain (11%), Great Britain (17%), Germany (20%), and France (32%).[25] The European figures are similar to those of an official European Union survey, which reported that 18% of the EU population do not believe in a god.[184] Other studies have placed the estimated percentage of atheists, agnostics, and other nonbelievers in a personal god as low as single digits in Poland, Romania, Cyprus, and some other European countries,[185] and up to 85% in Sweden, 80% in Denmark, 72% in Norway, and 60% in Finland.[23] According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 22% of Australians have "no religion", a category that includes atheists.[186] Between 64% and 65%[23] of Japanese and up to 81%[187] of Vietnamese are atheists, agnostics, or do not believe in a god. A 2012 Gallup survey reported that 13% of people surveyed worldwide self-report to be atheists.[188] In the United States, there was a 1% to 5% increase in self-reported atheism from 2005 to 2012, and a larger drop in those who self-identified as "religious", down by 13%, from 73% to 60%"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#sectio...

It looks like KJV has been less than honest even with his own sites.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#88259 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
Published in a 1915 newsletter - you might want to read this.
.
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/d...
Unceremoniously rebutted as a LIE by your very own allies at Answers in Genesis!

What Really Happened?

Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin’s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death.5 He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible.

On the Down House property, there was a small summerhouse, but it was too small to accommodate 30 people. There is nothing in his writings to indicate that Darwin ever asked anyone to speak about “Christ Jesus.”

Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope’s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian. The story, even if true, merely claims the Darwin was reading the Bible and made a statement about Christ. Nowhere is there a claim of a saving relationship with the Savior.

As soon as this story became public, the denials from Darwin’s family began (as they did after every supposed “conversion story” became known). In a letter to James Howe, Darwin’s son Francis wrote in 1915:“He [Darwin] could not have become openly and enthusiastically Christian without the knowledge of his family, and no such change occurred.”6

In a letter dated May 28, 1918, Francis again writes:“Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but I have not seen any reply.”3
Darwin’s daughter Henrietta wrote in 1922:“I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness.... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”7

Conclusion

Beyond these denials, if the tale were true, why did Darwin’s wife Emma not rejoice in this? She was always troubled by what she perceived as the godless nature of his views. If he indeed repented, why did she not make this known? Also, if the story were credible, why did Lady Hope wait 33 years before relating it, and even then, relating it in a country across the ocean?

Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution.
As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.

Editors’ note: this article was originally published March 31, 2009, and has been republished under the Arguments Christians Should Not Use web series.

[GILLETTE AGAIN] Apparently Lady Hope was a liar. Isn't; that against one of your Jesus' main commandments?

Gee, may you should heed the advice of these "Christians" and make this an "Argument Christians Should Not Use."
LOL!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88260 Apr 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I know I have something.
I know, but the free clinic can treat you for it, if you are lucky. Remember; herpes is forever.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Zhengzhou, China

#88261 Apr 28, 2013
Now for a discussion on the genetic fallacy:

Would you buy a hair restoration program from me?
You shouldn't, because I am capillarily challenged.
Would you buy a diet and exercise program from me?
You shouldn't, because I am a man of considerable adiposity.

So why do you expect us to buy a program which purports to make better people, if that program shows no evidence of making better people?

I am reminded of Father Divine, a cult leader who provided a commune for his followers in Philadelphia in the 1920's.
He claimed that he and his followers were immortal.
One time, however, a woman in his commune died. He left the follower's dead body lying in place.
He argued that it wasn't his resposibility, because she couldn't have been a true follower of his or she wouldn't have died.
After two weeks, the city of Philadelphia finally gave in and removed the body.
From then on, the city was quick to act upon any further fatalities.
Finally, Father Divine himself died.
A few of his followers remained, arguing that his spirit was living on, but they were fooling no one but themselves.

If you ask me, Father Divine was wrong in claiming immortality for himself and his followers.

So what's the diff?
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88262 Apr 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The deathbed conversion lie has long ago been debunked. Even Answers in Genesis knows that this is a base lie:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009...
By the way, when you quote lying sites people will tend to call you a liar.
.
No - it hasn't been "debunked" - it has been "denied" by atheists, that's all.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#88263 Apr 28, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a Christian is not a club that you can belong to while living a sinful life.
You must turn your life over to God
Something Hitler did not do.
how would you know? since you openly lie without regret, and do so repeatedly so you have no thought to stop this action, you certainly don't fall into that christian category you claim.

in fact, didn't you claim to not follow any religion? another lie? a lie about your own faith?

is anything you say true at all? even one thing?
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88264 Apr 28, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Unceremoniously rebutted as a LIE by your very own allies at Answers in Genesis!
What Really Happened?
Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin’s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death.5 He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible.
On the Down House property, there was a small summerhouse, but it was too small to accommodate 30 people. There is nothing in his writings to indicate that Darwin ever asked anyone to speak about “Christ Jesus.”
Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope’s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian. The story, even if true, merely claims the Darwin was reading the Bible and made a statement about Christ. Nowhere is there a claim of a saving relationship with the Savior.
As soon as this story became public, the denials from Darwin’s family began (as they did after every supposed “conversion story” became known). In a letter to James Howe, Darwin’s son Francis wrote in 1915:“He [Darwin] could not have become openly and enthusiastically Christian without the knowledge of his family, and no such change occurred.”6
In a letter dated May 28, 1918, Francis again writes:“Lady Hope’s account of my father’s views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but I have not seen any reply.”3
Darwin’s daughter Henrietta wrote in 1922:“I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness.... He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”7
Conclusion
Beyond these denials, if the tale were true, why did Darwin’s wife Emma not rejoice in this? She was always troubled by what she perceived as the godless nature of his views. If he indeed repented, why did she not make this known? Also, if the story were credible, why did Lady Hope wait 33 years before relating it, and even then, relating it in a country across the ocean?
Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution.
As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.
Editors’ note: this article was originally published March 31, 2009, and has been republished under the Arguments Christians Should Not Use web series.
[GILLETTE AGAIN] Apparently Lady Hope was a liar. Isn't; that against one of your Jesus' main commandments?
Gee, may you should heed the advice of these "Christians" and make this an "Argument Christians Should Not Use."
LOL!
.
Just because *you* say it's a lie doesn't make it a lie.

You give yourself too much credit, Gillette.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#88265 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
No - it hasn't been "debunked" - it has been "denied" by atheists, that's all.
no, debunked. proven to not be true. much like all the other lies you put out as posts...

why is it so many of these 'christian' sites you get crap from are so full of proven lies? oh yeah, your whole cult is based on proven lies.
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88266 Apr 28, 2013
"It's a lie"
.
"It's been debunked"
.
"Prove it"
.
"There's no proof"
.
"You're lying"
.
"It's a myth"
.
"It's a made up fable"
.
"You're an idiot"
.
"You're a creatard"
.
"You're a parrot"
.
etc.
.
.
.
.
.
These comments are not defenses.
They also prove nothing except that
you guys seem to thrive on arguing.
.
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88267 Apr 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>how would you know? since you openly lie without regret, and do so repeatedly so you have no thought to stop this action, you certainly don't fall into that christian category you claim.
in fact, didn't you claim to not follow any religion? another lie? a lie about your own faith?
is anything you say true at all? even one thing?
.
Again - God is not a "religion".

What part of that aren't you understanding,
Woodtick.
ViaDolorosa

Columbus, GA

#88268 Apr 28, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no, debunked. proven to not be true. much like all the other lies you put out as posts...
why is it so many of these 'christian' sites you get crap from are so full of proven lies? oh yeah, your whole cult is based on proven lies.
.
Not "debunked" nor "unproven" - just denied, that's all.
.
.
Fortunately, you guys won't have to wait too much longer for all the proof you will need to know who the one true Creator, and Saviour, of this world, truly is.
.
Unfortunately, some of you may have to find out the hard way.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#88269 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
Sigh.....
.
This doesn’t prove evolution at all. This would be yet another interpretation of what you see under a microscope when it comes to genetics. You still need for example to actuallysee it take place as they claim. What do we continue to see in captivity with all the animals we have in the world at zoos? Dogs give birth to dogs, and not a freak show animal. And evolutionist contend that they don’t claim animals give rise to a half dog half sheep (this is only an example b/c evolutionist tend to take what is said to an extreme). Bottom line is if you ask them, the common ancestor between apes and humans what was the % of that animal? Was it 50% human and 50% ape and gave birth to a human being that was 90% human and 10% ape? Did it give birthtoo twins an ape and a human where the ape was 90% ape and 10% human and the human had 90% human and 10% ape? Do you see where I”m going with this? The question remains, how and what did the common ancestor look like? What did it give birth to? You can’t continue to say well it takes millions of years, well bottom line if there is a common ancestor btwapes and humans then that ape like creature or human like creature is giving birth and rise to a half ape/human like creature and no matter how much you talk about it, eventually you get us 100% human or are we according to evolutionist.
ERV’sprove nothing at all unless you can produce the common ancestor, how it gave rise or have the question answered that did it give birth to twin creatures a ape and a human like animal, or what. You just can’t show us an evolutionary tree and show common ancestry unless you are willing to say that the common ancestor had to give birth to some pretty odd offspring that kept branching to you get humans, apes, whales, bats, whatever, there should be a fossil record full of strange transitional, but you see fossils that look like modern day creatures which is not consistent with what we see in evolutionary where there is suppose to be this common ancestry. If it takes millions of years of slow change then you should have that in the record but you have animals that look like what you can find on earth with argues against slow change.
.
For more information from the above excerpt, please click here:
http://egoeimi3.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/ervs...
Did you write this? It's such incoherent CRAP it made me laugh out aloud all the way through.

What bizarre nonsense!

If I thought you were the least bit interested in actually discussing the evidence for evolution and maybe LEARNING SOMETHING about science in the process, I would take this apart sentence by sentence and discuss it with you.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Zhengzhou, China

#88270 Apr 28, 2013
KJV wrote, "The Scripture records that Adam's animal names stuck, which may indicate the names were more than titles in that they accurately described the animals."

They stuck? Where?
My pocket dictionary says that the Korean word for dog is "gae," the Chinese word is "gou," and the Japanese word is "inu."
If I recall correctly from foreign language class, the French word is "chien," the Spanish word is "perro," and the Italian word is "cane."
Which one of those words, if any, is the name which Adam applied?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#88271 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Just because *you* say it's a lie doesn't make it a lie.
You give yourself too much credit, Gillette.
The "Christian" organization Answers in Genesis is saying it's a lie, you MORON.

READ their passage about it!

Christ, you are really REALLY stupid, aren't you? LOL

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Zhengzhou, China

#88272 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote, "you guys seem to thrive on arguing."

And you don't?
What are you doing here, then?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#88273 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, some of you may have to find out the hard way.
Ah yes, the Fear Card. It's really all you have, isn't it? THREATS?

Your sick psycho Jesus will burn and torture us with out stopping for all eternity for not acknowledging him as Lord and Savior, etc.

Yuck, what a scumbag religion you push at us. And yes, it's a RELIGION.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88274 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
No - it hasn't been "debunked" - it has been "denied" by atheists, that's all.
No, seriously, it has been debunked. Even the creatard site Answers in Genesis admits that this story is the purest of bullshit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#88275 Apr 28, 2013
ViaDolorosa wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Again - God is not a "religion".
What part of that aren't you understanding,
Woodtick.
But believing in God is a religious belief. You may not follow any organized Christian sect, your religion still is Christianity.

I think it will be safe to assume that you are a creatard. You are disingenuous, you quote lies, you have no clue about what science is or how science is done and yet you want to argue against a scientific concept.

Do you see a problem with this?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Zhengzhou, China

#88276 Apr 28, 2013
>>>See, Gillette, and other present atheists-

You talk about us using epithets like "creotard."
How about you lumping us all together as "atheists"?

>>>But, belief in God cannot be proven by science, nor any other manmade platform. God is supernatural - and if you guys are actually interested, which I don't think you are, but IF you are, then there are hundreds of youtube videos, as well as even more recounts of people who have witnessed and experienced unexplainable miracles and other divine presence.

I've heard similar testimonies from Moonies, Baha'is, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nicherenshoshu Buddists, and members of many other religions.
What is so special about the testimonies for your brand?

>>>it appears the only reason you guys want Christian response or participation in this forum is to use us for target practice.

At least I'm honest about it.
That's because evolution has instilled us with a fighting instinct.
That's why the Evolutionists are on this forum, and that's why the Creationists are on this forum.
It's funny how Creationists keep right on demonstrating Evolutionary theory while continuing to deny Evolutionary theory.

I dropped out of this forum for a while because we seem to have lost Charles Idemi.
But you're as much fun as Charles Idemi.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Zhengzhou, China

#88277 Apr 28, 2013
I wrote:
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu, I'm scared!

KJV wrote:
"I don't believe you. You're far too arrogant to believe you could be wrong."

You're not supposed to believe me.
I was being sarcastic.

>>>Pride one of the seven deadly sins.

You must be Catholic.
As I recall, the Bible doesn't talk about the seven deadly sins.

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
The one item I don't want to be without....... 26 min Enzo49 47
News 'Weird Al' still armed with wit - and an accordion 58 min Spot On 7
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 211,456
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Enzo49 3,231
2words into 2new words (May '12) 2 hr Camilla 7,734
Word association (Jun '07) 2 hr Taanvi 6,312
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 hr whatimeisit 32,526
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 3 hr JMO 1,347
Back In The Day ... for the third time! 5 hr T Bone 251
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 hr Missing inAction 71,186
More from around the web