Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216596 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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97859 Aug 17, 2013
Gillette wrote:
As a longtime Topix poster, a retired professional geologist named FossilBob used to say (about these Creationist "science websites"):
"They know that you don't know, and they know that you won't check."
And so the Christian lies, distortions, creative "omissions" etc., get passed on over and over again by sheeple like you guys.
FossilBob knows what he is talking about. Does he still post on here. I haven't seen him since last year.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#97860 Aug 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>In other words, you have nothing.
Why don't you just make some more shit up.
Hey Dan you need to lay off that devil in the bottle before you end up like this poor soul.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#97861 Aug 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>FossilBob knows what he is talking about. Does he still post on here. I haven't seen him since last year.
I talk to him on FB. I've not seen him on Topix lately, I think.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97862 Aug 17, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, looks like there is more to it than talkorigins is telling you.
http://www.ksl.com/...
http://www.ksl.com/...
Now look at this, we have a Monasaur with soft tissue and dinner in his mouth in the high basin of South Dakota,(buried in turbidites), Plesiosaurs found the high deserts(4000 ft+)level in Oregon and Montana,(buried in turbidites), all dated around 70-80 MY. But wait a minute, when we find Mastodons in the same condition,(buried in turbidites), excavated in the same manner, in the same condition, evolutionists date them recent. But why? Both have soft parts? But wait! we have the geologic column to help us here, lucky us, Mastodons can't be that old!, they were not even around waaaaayyy back then, or were they? And of course we have to stick to this line of Dogma for the Jurassic, or the Column would be dead wrong, and that would be a publicity nightmare. Fossils are doing evolution in.
Now tell us how to bury a Monasaur while he's alive having dinner, "here nice little monasaur, lay your little head down and go nighty while you hav din din, and we will through some nice mud on you to sleep under, just like what happened to all your little Plesiosaur playmates today." That are 50ft long, sure.
No, it was the same world-wide catastrophe that got them all. Its over 4000 ft up there and there are Plesiosaurs found world-wide buried the same way. This is telling a story.
Why is it so hard to believe that a MOSASAUR could die mid-meal? You act like that it is an impossibility or something. Does eating convey invulnerability to the eater? People have died mid-bite often enough. You like to pose ridiculous questions don't you. You just throw out several bales of straw and start typing. Just because the Matosaur was found with a meal doesn't mean that the initial steps on its way to becoming a fossil happened absolutely simultaneously. This madasaur could have killed its prey, died in turn and then subsequently sank and become buried. We don't really know the specific details of the death of animals whose remains become fossils including including this magosaur, but your hyperbolic chitter chatter doesn't alter the facts of evolution.

I have more on the mamosaur, matosaur, oh yeah, MOSASAUR. Don't fret I will get you straightened FOR SURE DUDE.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97863 Aug 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>there's a big problem with that story, and the one about Adam & Eve, there's not enough genetic diversity to start a population. but hey, one of the basic precepts of fundamentalism is the suspension of scientific knowledge..
LOL

Think for one minute. Evolution believes that all life came from one cell. What about that genetic diversity?

Adam and Eve had perfect DNA intelligently designed to populate the world.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97864 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Too late moron, I admitted that error about 12 hours ago.
Yes I say that after I posted this for the second time.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#97865 Aug 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I talk to him on FB. I've not seen him on Topix lately, I think.
He announced his quitting topix , seems like about 6 months ago but may have been a little longer.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97866 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>What a complete tard.

The meaning of names changes over time. At that time "races" was almost identical to today's "species".

If you would bother to have read it, or at the very least not used a creatard website for your info you might have known this.
"William Crawley | 07:04 UK time, Friday, 13 February 2009

It will come as a surprise to historians of science if it's shown that he was, since the great naturalist has recently been lauded as an abolitionist whose detestation of slavery is an under-acknowledged motivation for his scientific work. According to Henry McDonald's piece in yesterday's Guardian, an MLA has suggested that Darwin was a "racist".

Mervyn Storey argues that Darwin's language in The Descent of Man would earn disapproval today. This is undoubtedly the case. Darwin certainly referred to Aboriginal people as "savages". There is also the language of "favoured race" in Origin of Species. But that language would not have raised an eyebrow in the nineteenth century; as always with historically placed language, we must be careful about extending our contemporary sensitivites to the past. Some of the language of the Bible would appear deeply objectionable by our contemporary lights."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/was_cha...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97867 Aug 17, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, looks like there is more to it than talkorigins is telling you.
http://www.ksl.com/...
http://www.ksl.com/...
Now look at this, we have a Monasaur with soft tissue and dinner in his mouth in the high basin of South Dakota,(buried in turbidites), Plesiosaurs found the high deserts(4000 ft+)level in Oregon and Montana,(buried in turbidites), all dated around 70-80 MY. But wait a minute, when we find Mastodons in the same condition,(buried in turbidites), excavated in the same manner, in the same condition, evolutionists date them recent. But why? Both have soft parts? But wait! we have the geologic column to help us here, lucky us, Mastodons can't be that old!, they were not even around waaaaayyy back then, or were they? And of course we have to stick to this line of Dogma for the Jurassic, or the Column would be dead wrong, and that would be a publicity nightmare. Fossils are doing evolution in.
Now tell us how to bury a Monasaur while he's alive having dinner, "here nice little monasaur, lay your little head down and go nighty while you hav din din, and we will through some nice mud on you to sleep under, just like what happened to all your little Plesiosaur playmates today." That are 50ft long, sure.
No, it was the same world-wide catastrophe that got them all. Its over 4000 ft up there and there are Plesiosaurs found world-wide buried the same way. This is telling a story.
Here is an article to help you with your confusion about this MOSASAUR. I agree with the title so very much. It mentions the weak, imaginative claim of soft tissue but doesn't mention anything about a meal. I did find an article about a prehistoric fish fossil from Canada, that had the remains of a mosasaur in its jaws. No mention of finding mammoths in any of these reports.

Extraordinary Mosasaur Fossil Reveals Creationist Can't Read
http://theshipwreckoftime.blogspot.com/2010/1...

Finding soft tissue remains was at one time thought to be impossible, but evidence of soft tissue and small amounts of preserved remains of tissue (not fresh tissue) seem to be mounting as reasons to look and techniques to find it have become more widely available. New discoveries happen a lot in science and science has to take these in, evaluate them, and toss them or accumulate them on the merits of the evidence. If it turns out that this is a feature of some fossils previously overlooked, it will just be new useful information for us to examine. It does not change the age of the fossils and you have offered nothing to show that it does. You are clinging on a thread of speculation.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97868 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Think for one minute. Evolution believes that all life came from one cell. What about that genetic diversity?
Adam and Eve had perfect DNA intelligently designed to populate the world.
No it doesn't say that DUMMY. It says that the common ancestor of all life is single celled.

You have this so backward ass that it is pathetic to see you even try to offer counter arguments. I can see by your comment that you must think that the single celled organism had to have the entire genetic diversity of extant life within its genome. No one but a moron is claiming that and evolution never has.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97869 Aug 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>I would advise you to study something/someone before making a claim from a title.

Darwin did state the very obvious fact that races differ from each other physically. He also believed that they differed mentally, as in this quote from Descent of Man:

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."

"It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

Considering the time and societal norms when Darwin lived, he definitely shouldn't be considered a racist.

You see the thing with science is as the body of knowledge grows, theories can change, unlike religious dogma.

some of Darwin's writings on the subject:
http://m.youtube.com/watch...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97870 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"William Crawley | 07:04 UK time, Friday, 13 February 2009
It will come as a surprise to historians of science if it's shown that he was, since the great naturalist has recently been lauded as an abolitionist whose detestation of slavery is an under-acknowledged motivation for his scientific work. According to Henry McDonald's piece in yesterday's Guardian, an MLA has suggested that Darwin was a "racist".
Mervyn Storey argues that Darwin's language in The Descent of Man would earn disapproval today. This is undoubtedly the case. Darwin certainly referred to Aboriginal people as "savages". There is also the language of "favoured race" in Origin of Species. But that language would not have raised an eyebrow in the nineteenth century; as always with historically placed language, we must be careful about extending our contemporary sensitivites to the past. Some of the language of the Bible would appear deeply objectionable by our contemporary lights."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/02/was_cha...
Odd, you usually cut and paste the entirety when you find your opinion on the web. You left this one short. At first it looks like you might have found something of substance regarding Darwin's views on slavery, but on careful inspection you, as always, offer nothing.

Here is the rest from you source.

"The more serious question we should ask is whether Darwin, judged by the standards of his day, would have been considered a racist -- or, quite the opposite, as a campaigner, in his own way, for the abolition of slavery based on the conviction that all human beings have a common biological parentage.

That said, even if it were to be demonstrated that Darwin was -- even by the conventions of his day -- a racist, this conclusion may have consequences for our moral evaluation of Darwin as a man; it would contibute nothing to our evaluation of his work as science."

So it doesn't offer anything to refute the known view of Darwin except that he wrote in the manner of his time. Hardly unusual, but hardly a smoking gun showing racism.

Do you work as a fact checker for Fox News by any chance?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97871 Aug 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I talk to him on FB. I've not seen him on Topix lately, I think.
It is a loss to Topix if he has moved on. I found a lot of new information and lines of thought from his posts.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97872 Aug 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>I would advise you to study something/someone before making a claim from a title.

Darwin did state the very obvious fact that races differ from each other physically. He also believed that they differed mentally, as in this quote from Descent of Man:

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."

"It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

Considering the time and societal norms when Darwin lived, he definitely shouldn't be considered a racist.

You see the thing with science is as the body of knowledge grows, theories can change, unlike religious dogma.

some of Darwin's writings on the subject:
"Education, sir, is the development of that which _is_. Since the dawn of history the negro has owned the continent of Africa--rich beyond the dream of poet's fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet. Yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light. His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled. A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour. In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud. With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail! He lived as his fathers lived--stole his food, worked his wife, sold his children, ate his brother, content to drink, sing, dance, and sport as the ape!
"And this creature, half child, half animal, the sport of impulse, whim, and conceit,'pleased with a rattle, tickled with a straw,' a being who, left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions, once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger--they have set this thing to rule over the Southern people----"

Charles Darwin.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#97873 Aug 17, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> He announced his quitting topix , seems like about 6 months ago but may have been a little longer.
Sorry to hear that. Didn't see this when I answered Mac.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97874 Aug 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>I would advise you to study something/someone before making a claim from a title.

Darwin did state the very obvious fact that races differ from each other physically. He also believed that they differed mentally, as in this quote from Descent of Man:

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."

"It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

Considering the time and societal norms when Darwin lived, he definitely shouldn't be considered a racist.

You see the thing with science is as the body of knowledge grows, theories can change, unlike religious dogma.

some of Darwin's writings on the subject:
“Natural selection”—the death and genetic elimination and extermination of “inferior” individuals and races in the mad scramble for survival—is viewed by Darwin, the founder and proponent of this view, as a great good, not merely among fishes and ferns and ferrets, but among people. Naturally, and arrogantly, assuming the superiority of his own “Caucasian” race (and of course himself, especially), he views with mirth the absurdity of the fear the white Europeans had in the 15th century of being overwhelmed by the Muslim Turks, which he viewed as a decidedly inferior race of people. And notice, it was not merely white hegemony that Darwin gloried in, but victory in “the struggle for existence”
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97875 Aug 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>I would advise you to study something/someone before making a claim from a title.

Darwin did state the very obvious fact that races differ from each other physically. He also believed that they differed mentally, as in this quote from Descent of Man:

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."

"It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."

"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."

"I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

Considering the time and societal norms when Darwin lived, he definitely shouldn't be considered a racist.

You see the thing with science is as the body of knowledge grows, theories can change, unlike religious dogma.

some of Darwin's writings on the subject:
Darwin looked forward with eager anticipation “at no very distant date” when an “endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world”(emphasis added). It was not enough in his mind that the European powers through their colonial empires ruled over and dominated these inferior races, but it was his hope and anticipation that they would be actually eliminated—exterminated (can you say “genocide” or “holocaust”?) by the superior whites, and sooner rather than later. Darwinism is not merely in harmony with Arian supremacy, Nietzscheism, Nazism, eugenics, and genocide; it is their foundation and justification. Indeed, there are demonstrable philosophical and intellectual links between Darwin’s hypothesis of “natural selection” and “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life”(to quote the subtitle of The Origin of Species) with all of these evils, and more.
In another revealing moment, Darwin wrote about one species of ant enslaving another species:“I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are house, and not field n_____s) in their mouths!”(Darwin, p. 191; emphasis in original). Such was his condescending contempt for non-whites.
Darwin was a malignant racist and Darwinism is inherently racist. I wonder if all those non-Caucasian individuals now residing in England consider these things—or are even aware of them—when they spend their ten-pound notes, which sport a portrait of Darwin. And what do the tourists who view his grave in an honored place in Westminster Abbey think about these things? Likely nothing at all.

http://sharperiron.org/charles-darwin-racist
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97876 Aug 17, 2013
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>BTW What the heck is the "The United States Of America Central Intelligent Agency."?

Never heard of it? is it some christian fundamentalist kook agency?
You never heard of the CIA?

Figures.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97877 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
"And this creature, half child, half animal, the sport of impulse, whim, and conceit,'pleased with a rattle, tickled with a straw,' a being who, left to his will, roams at night and sleeps in the day, whose speech knows no word of love, whose passions, once aroused, are as the fury of the tiger--they have set this thing to rule over the Southern people----"
Charles Darwin.
That quote is from Thomas Dixon, Jr. I didn't bother to look up the rest of it but it is obvious that you are not above being dishonest.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97878 Aug 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Oh STFU. You lecturing us on evolution is the height of arrogance. You know damn little about the subject except what you read on your moronic fundie sites.

But thanks for solving my problem. You are pitiful.
http://m.youtube.com/watch...

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
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 3 min Aussie Kev 48,223
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 4 min SUG here 5,301
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 5 min Aussie Kev 15,254
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 7 min Aussie Kev 37,051
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 8 min Khiz Whalifa 66,957
Word Association (Jun '10) 9 min Mila Beaujolais 31,695
A six word game (Dec '08) 13 min Aussie Kev 20,646
Poll Do You Have A Topix Crush? (2014 Version) (Oct '14) 48 min Princess Hey 98
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 57 min Sharlene45 206,682
News Trump's bizarre claim that the Clinton email co... 2 hr Snowflake Nation 934
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 3 hr DMan 10,547
More from around the web