Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 4,626)

Showing posts 92,501 - 92,520 of111,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Just wondering

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97852
Aug 17, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, that Kanned Ham. I thought he meant Hormel.
In either case - the Ham appears to be half cooked ...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97853
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssss...... Gillette
Science got the date [of the "Cambrian Explosion] wrong too.
And even more shockingly, the only people who know this are a handful of American Protestant fundamentalist Christians who know nothing about science! Praise Cheeses! It's a miracle!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97854
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.
The Talkorigins link is discussing the same find as the one you link to.

The tissue was only "soft" after it was chemically rehydrated.

It's interesting that neither Mary Schweitzer nor any other scientist or scientific organization thinks the so-called "soft tissue findings" in ANY WAY refute the long history of evolution.

As Talkorigins says so pointedly, if you Jesus Freaks are right, then virtually EVERY fossil find would have flesh and blood dangling on it, etc. yet it's been found once out of many millions of fossil finds.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97855
Aug 17, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go sucking zone! notice how your fellow idiot says exactly what you denied, quadrillions of shit coming together at the same time ,ha,ha,ha,. You damn fools will believe in anything
You hillbilly MORON...

Your claim was that only one single cell gave birth to all life on earth.

My response is that, in all likelihood, when life came together chemically in the oceans of the early earth, it was in countless trillions of different molecules at the same time.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97856
Aug 17, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!1 What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!
The lies come thinck and fast form you Jesus Freaks, don't they?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.h...

Creationsit Claim CC211:

No fossils have been found transitional between invertebrates and vertebrates.

Response:

1. There are Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate:
• Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
• Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
• Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
• Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
• Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
• Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).

2. There are living invertebrate chordates (Branchiostoma [Amphioxus], urochordates [tunicates]) and living basal near-vertebrates (hagfish, lampreys) that show plausible intermediate forms.

Links:

Monastersky, Richard, 1999. Waking up to the dawn of vertebrates. Science News 156: 292. http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/11_6_99/f...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97857
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97858
Aug 17, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Your overreactions are glaring, changing the subject isn't working.
In other words, you have nothing.

Why don't you just make some more shit up.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97860
Aug 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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...

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 92,501 - 92,520 of111,533
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••