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.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#98188 Aug 20, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, something is really wrong with you.
Time for your meds???
Help him out DOGEN!!!!
You are a great example of the basic fundamentalist on this thread.

1. You don't understand science. Not a clue.
2. You fear science.
3. You don't have knowledge or understanding of the Bible. No clue.
4. You don't have an opinion except what you have gleaned from some anti-science website.
5. You can't explain what you do post. You often are unaware that the arguments of others that you embrace are old, outdated and widely refuted.
6. An underlying political agenda that creeps out increasingly as you post.
7. Your posts often take the form of apologetic rants, laced with misunderstanding, arrogance and unfounded righteous superiority mixed with political conspiracy theories.

I'm sure I have missed some, but I think that covers some of the main observations.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98189 Aug 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The fossil record is evidence for evolution. Creation scientists cannot even get off of "Go" with the fossil record. All of their proposals are quickly debunked.

Before you even think about some moronic sorting mechanism here is one thing that would not be sorted that they cannot explain: microscopic index fossils. You should thank me since I just saved you from mentioning The Flud.
Five random questions on fossils.

1) Life’s Unexpected Explosion
Forty major animal groups appear out of nowhere at the bottom of the fossil record. Where did this “Cambrian Explosion” come from?

2) Those Not-So-Dry Bones
If dinosaurs died millions of years ago, how can their fossils still contain soft tissue?

3) Without a Leg to Stand On
Birds are vastly different from dinosaurs, even in the way they walk. How could one come from the other?

4) Amazingly Preserved Leaves
When leaves die, they shrivel up and crumble. So why is the fossil record full of well-preserved, flat leaves?

5) Tracks But No Trilobites
Why do we find lots of trilobite tracks in lower rock layers, but we don’t find any trilobite fossils until higher up?

Icr.org
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#98190 Aug 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The fossil record is evidence for evolution. Creation scientists cannot even get off of "Go" with the fossil record. All of their proposals are quickly debunked.

Before you even think about some moronic sorting mechanism here is one thing that would not be sorted that they cannot explain: microscopic index fossils. You should thank me since I just saved you from mentioning The Flud.
Geologists also have discovered polystrate animal fossils. Probably the most famous is the fossilized skeleton of a whale discovered in 1976 near Lompoc, California. The whale is covered in “diatomaceous [die-uh-toe-MAY-shus] earth.” Diatoms are microscopic algae. As diatoms die, their skeletons form deposits—a process that evolutionists say is extremely slow. But the whale (with a skull more than seven feet thick) is completely covered by the diatomaceous earth. There simply is no way a whale could have remained on its back for hundreds or thousands of years while diatoms covered it, because it would have decayed or been eaten by scavengers. It is clear from this extraordinary evidence that the long ages attached to the geologic column simply are not correct.

Trees, whales, fish, and the other organisms with which the fossil record abounds did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being turned into polystrate fossils. Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed quickly—not very long ago.

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

*Please keep in mind that Discovery articles are written for 3rd-6th graders.

This document may be copied,

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.asp...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98191 Aug 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Geologists also have discovered polystrate animal fossils. Probably the most famous is the fossilized skeleton of a whale discovered in 1976 near Lompoc, California. The whale is covered in “diatomaceous [die-uh-toe-MAY-shus] earth.” Diatoms are microscopic algae. As diatoms die, their skeletons form deposits—a process that evolutionists say is extremely slow. But the whale (with a skull more than seven feet thick) is completely covered by the diatomaceous earth. There simply is no way a whale could have remained on its back for hundreds or thousands of years while diatoms covered it, because it would have decayed or been eaten by scavengers. It is clear from this extraordinary evidence that the long ages attached to the geologic column simply are not correct.
Trees, whales, fish, and the other organisms with which the fossil record abounds did not die and lie around for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years while slowly being turned into polystrate fossils. Truth be told, polystrate fossils testify loudly to a young Earth whose layers formed quickly—not very long ago.
Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
*Please keep in mind that Discovery articles are written for 3rd-6th graders.
This document may be copied,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.asp...
No, so called "polystrate" fossils have been explained hundreds of times.

There is no whale "polystrate" fossil. That is a cretard lie.

Please. Show evidence for this. If you want to make me laugh link some creatard source. I know you cannot find a source that uses science to support this latest idiocy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98192 Aug 20, 2013

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98194 Aug 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply tried to bring to light the racist views of the father of evolution.
If you want to remain eyes wide shut go ahead.
Martin Luther,

On the Jews and Their Lies (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

In the treatise, Luther describes Jews as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".[3]

In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare against Christians and Christianity. Following this exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are

1.for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2.for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3.for their religious writings to be taken away;
4.for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5.for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
6.for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
7.for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave laborers.[4]

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

Note that this was about 300 years before Darwin.

I'm simply trying to bring to light the racist views of the father of the Protestant Church(s).

If you want to remain eyes wide shut go ahead.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98195 Aug 20, 2013
Okay, when I sign out I cannot see my latest posts since this site is hyper sensitive about insulting a certain minority. One more try. Click on the link. It will be a bad link. Go to the address bar and change the "Z" to a "q" and hit enter.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faZs/polystrate/wh...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98196 Aug 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, so called "polystrate" fossils have been explained hundreds of times.
There is no whale "polystrate" fossil. That is a cretard lie.
Please. Show evidence for this. If you want to make me laugh link some creatard source. I know you cannot find a source that uses science to support this latest idiocy.
...about the 'whale polystrate fossil':

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/wh...

Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982).

Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989).

The geology of these quarries is documented by publications of the California Division of Mines and Geology (Dibblee 1950, 1982) United States Geological Survey geological maps (Dibblee, 1988a, 1988b), graduate students at University of California, Los Angeles (Grivetti 1982), and field trip guidebooks (Isaacs 1981). The other whale skeletons which have been found in these quarries lie parallel to the bedding and owe their modern attitude to tectonics rather then some mythical catastrophe. The written documentation for the attitude of the whale skeletons is contained within field notes and locality records of the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#98197 Aug 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitler was christian manipulating christian ideals and christian belief to achieve his ends.
As for Obama, the reason he is currently in the lofty position he occupies is because the majority (MAJORITY) of US citizens believed he could do a better job than his opposition and voted for him in a free and popular vote - TWICE.
This voting for a majority candidate is called DEMOCRACY, if you want to live in a democratic country then this is the system you adhere too. Your alternative is somewhere that employs less democratic methods like North Korea for example.
Tell me, do you think that your vote at the presidential primary truly counts or do you think that the person with the most money and power backing them wins?

Do you believe that some states primary and caucus votes are manipulated?
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#98198 Aug 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitler was christian manipulating christian ideals and christian belief to achieve his ends.
As for Obama, the reason he is currently in the lofty position he occupies is because the majority (MAJORITY) of US citizens believed he could do a better job than his opposition and voted for him in a free and popular vote - TWICE.
This voting for a majority candidate is called DEMOCRACY, if you want to live in a democratic country then this is the system you adhere too. Your alternative is somewhere that employs less democratic methods like North Korea for example.
Do you think that when politicians RE-DISTRICT the state, that they are doing this for 'our' benefit or 'theirs'?

Do we get to vote on re-districting?
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#98199 Aug 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are a great example of the basic fundamentalist on this thread.
1. You don't understand science. Not a clue.
2. You fear science.
3. You don't have knowledge or understanding of the Bible. No clue.
4. You don't have an opinion except what you have gleaned from some anti-science website.
5. You can't explain what you do post. You often are unaware that the arguments of others that you embrace are old, outdated and widely refuted.
6. An underlying political agenda that creeps out increasingly as you post.
7. Your posts often take the form of apologetic rants, laced with misunderstanding, arrogance and unfounded righteous superiority mixed with political conspiracy theories.
I'm sure I have missed some, but I think that covers some of the main observations.
Blah, blah, blah

Hateful little winch

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98200 Aug 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
"We've done the paternity tests, we've traced back the genealogy, and we’re doing all kinds of in-depth testing of the human species. People are apes and the descendants of apes, who were the descendants of rat-like primates, who were the children of reptiles, who were the spawn of amphibians, who were the terrestrial progeny of fish, who came from worms, who were assembled from single-celled microorganisms, who were the products of chemistry. Your daddy was a film of chemical slime on a Hadean rock, and he didn't care about you—he was only obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
You are you not because of some grand design but because of chance, contingency, and selection.--P.Z. Myers
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/So-Alone.aspx
Finally , here is the puddle sludge faith described in all it's grandeur! You are a product of slime and random chance.

It's astonishing that a sentient being would believe this,...and it is a belief, totally backed by faith, nothing more.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Newport, OR

#98201 Aug 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitler was christian manipulating christian ideals and christian belief to achieve his ends.
As for Obama, the reason he is currently in the lofty position he occupies is because the majority (MAJORITY) of US citizens believed he could do a better job than his opposition and voted for him in a free and popular vote - TWICE.
This voting for a majority candidate is called DEMOCRACY, if you want to live in a democratic country then this is the system you adhere too. Your alternative is somewhere that employs less democratic methods like North Korea for example.
OK, defining what "Christians" are using Hitler as an example is getting really old to me.

Jesus defines what His followers are; "If you love me you will follow my commands" "My command is this, that you love one another." and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Do not judge". From the book of John. Murdering innocent millions = not a "Christian". Thank you.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#98202 Aug 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and all you need is that first teensy, weensy shred of evidence that might even possibly suggest that maybe some god, gods or goddesses, could have maybe, possibly have existed...
do you have that teensy weensy shred yet? cus no human in the history of mankind has found it yet...
until you get that shred, the discussion you started can go no further, rationally...
get back to us when you find it...
Hey Ticky,...all you need is the first teensy, weensy shred of evidence that might even possibly suggest that maybe life started on it's own on a warm rock.

Got any yet? Nope, cause no human in history has found it.

But that doesn't stop you from believing it does it? Because your's is a faith based belief. Faith, you know like Osama Bin Ladin's and Billy Graham's,..just like them you have faith in the unseen!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#98204 Aug 20, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally , here is the puddle sludge faith described in all it's grandeur! You are a product of slime and random chance.
It's astonishing that a sentient being would believe this,...and it is a belief, totally backed by faith, nothing more.
Much more. It is backed by evidence. It's astonishing that a sentient being is incapable of understanding this simple concept.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#98205 Aug 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Much more. It is backed by evidence. It's astonishing that a sentient being is incapable of understanding this simple concept.
Ah! There's your problem.

You are assuming that bohart is a sentient being.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98206 Aug 20, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and Hitler was bright and manipulative too. Doesn't make either one of them worthy of being a leader.
Hitler. Theist. Not atheist. Sorry.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98207 Aug 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup I know.
Time is a paradox in the Big Bang.
Nothing can exist without time
Nothing can change without time
Nothing can move without time
Time started with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
Time is required for time to pop into existence. Time cannot be uncaused because it has to have been the first thing to come into existence.
Time cannot exist using the Big Bang theory.
It's a paradox.
Time had to be created.
The act of creation would need time also under your rules, but you'll let that slide because your god is always allowed special exemptions from any rules you make.

Time is not required to exist before time starts as that would be a paradox - your claim.

Also science is fine with the existence of time before our universe, in which case time did not start with our universe. All depends on what occurred at the point of singularity. You say invisible wizard. Maybe.

It used evolution though.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98208 Aug 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I simply tried to bring to light the racist views of the father of evolution.
If you want to remain eyes wide shut go ahead.
Don't worry, I addressed them on page 1:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Of course you can pretend to ignore the HIGHLY racist position of Genesis though, where it started with one pair of "perfect" humans (mostly depicted as white, what, with being made in GODS IMAGE and all) and then it allegedly went all downhill from there.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#98209 Aug 20, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"What is your evidence that "macro evolution" is a bust."
The simple fact that it has never happened and never will.
And you're sure to get around to addressing it sometime in the next millenia.(shrug)

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
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 10 min -Papa-Smurf- 2,511
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 30 min Hoosier Hillbilly 11,681
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 35 min Foreplay Ferret 71,159
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 37 min oddie 20,923
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 51 min Goku---Black 211,403
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 1 hr SweLL GirL 10,051
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 1 hr whatimeisit 6,744
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr liam cul8r 981
Back In The Day ... for the third time! 1 hr liam cul8r 247
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 4 hr swampmudd 1,315
More from around the web