Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173819 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.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#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.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#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...

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#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?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#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.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#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...

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#97879 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
“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”
Where did you get your opinion from this time? The bottom line is that you have no evidence that Darwin was an egregious racist. Clearly he wasn't a fundamentalist. Even if he were, it does not invalidate the theory of evolution. It has long since moved on from Darwin.

So as a fundamentalist, you must be a Klansman. You must be in favor of slavery, because the Bible was. You don't eat meat and dairy together right.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#97880 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You never heard of the CIA?
Figures.
Do you think that they are the reason you wear the aluminum foil?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97881 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.
Evolutionary beliefs are constantly being reinforced by racist stereotypes published in news reports, on television and in our kids textbooks.

Look at the subliminal imagery that appeared once again with news reports about Homo floresiensis.3 Nicknamed the Hobbit, its bones were discovered in Indonesia in 2003, and it has been claimed to be a sub-human species.

Graphic images of this so-called pre-human hominid have been widely published on the web (just Google images of ‘The Hobbit’ and you will find plenty). Notice that these images all portray the Hobbit as … naked, primitive and black. Of course it’s black—it’s a pre-human.

http://creation.mo bi/evolution-is-inherently-rac ist
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97882 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://creation.mo bi/evolution-is-inherently-rac ist

Evolutionary images affect the way you think of other people, even if you find the idea of racism abhorrent. They subconsciously influence you to associate dark-skinned people with animals.

That is why folk are stunned by real-life pictures of real-life people like the two-tone twins, born in the UK in April 2005. These two beautiful girls are twins, but one is ‘white’ and the other ‘black’. Personally, I think ‘white’ and ‘black’ are misleading terms and should be scrapped. I prefer to use ‘dark’ and ‘fair’.

This simple, factual image blasts the evolutionary stereotype. No longer can we connect skin colour with ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced’. It’s simply a matter of genetics—not evolution.

Both girls are fully human—both are made in the image of God.

It’s about time evolution was recognized for what it is—a degrading, racist, philosophy that is not supported by the scientific evidence, but by clever artwork. Don’t let them subconsciously turn you into a racist with their subtle evolutionary icons.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97883 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.
CROSSROADS BIBLE COLLEGE, Ind.- Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist."
"He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.
"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."
Hosea Baxter directs reconciliation ministries at Crossroads Bible College. He says racism had always been around, but Darwin gave it an air of scientific legitimacy.
"Darwinism is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world today," Baxter claimed.
"Blacks and Native Americans would be portrayed as savages, ignorant or people who could not be civilized [and had] no hope of being civilized," he added.
Making Racism 'Popular'
Baxter works with Charles Ware. He and Ken Ham co-authored Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. They contend Darwin did more than anyone else to popularize racism.
On the last page of his book, Darwin expressed the opinion that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a "savage."
In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like "savage," "low" and "degraded" to describe Native Americans, pygmies and almost every ethnic group whose physical appearance and culture differed from his own. In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms."
One professor in the 1880s wrote, "I consider the negro to be a lower species of man and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother,' for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family."
"Since blacks were somewhere in the evolutionary scale between apes and men, they did not have souls," Ware explained. "And since they didn't have souls, some argued,'We don't even have to preach the gospel to them.'"

http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/February/Con...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97884 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.
Building a 'Better Breed'
Slavery and segregation kept the races apart, but maybe even more dangerous was how Darwin's theories led to active eugenics.
"[It's] the idea of trying to breed a better human being, often by trying to get the people considered defective not to be able to breed or have children," Baxter explained. "And this was a worldwide phenomenon but the U.S. really pressed it further than anyone else until Nazi Germany."
It led to the forced sterilization of 70,000 Americans, many of them blacks.
Then along came Margaret Sanger, founder of what would become Planned Parenthood.
"Margaret Sanger was very Darwinian and very much inspired by this overall idea," Ware said.
"Part of the impetus behind abortion was to annihilate the black race," Baxter added.
The 'Concern' of Interracial Marriage
There were also many laws to keep blacks from marrying whites. Baxter says lawmakers were made afraid by arguments in books like 1907's Race Mongrels.
"If we don't create this separation of the races, we're going to create this mongol race, this race of, say, retards," Baxter said of the book's content.
But Ware, the father of four interracial children, says that fear was ridiculous.
"People used to say interracial marriage is horrible.[That] it's going to destroy racial groups," he said. "It hasn't destroyed anything. We're still human beings."

http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/February/Con...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97885 Aug 17, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>If evolution does not happen, and a species cannot change, then where do different breeds of domestic animals come from? Did God make the chihuahua on the sixth day or is it a work of Man using the tool of selection?
Still confused on Kind I see.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97886 Aug 17, 2013
replaytime wrote:
This looks pretty cool.

If the Moon were replaced with some of our planets as close as the moon.

Day version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =usYC_Z36rHwXX

Night version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thanks

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min andet1987 13,345
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min Crazy Jae 169,485
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 13 min andet1987 32,881
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 18 min Lucy 29,735
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) 21 min andet1987 647
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 22 min wichita-rick 3,228
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... 25 min andet1987 18
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 42 min Bar Fly_ok 43,704
Words that annoy you? 3 hr 40ish 20
More from around the web