Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163816 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#98300 Aug 20, 2013
“In the entire first Christian century Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or roman scholar, politician, philosopher or poet. His name never occurs in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references.”
Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

******

"Philo, a prolific Jewish writer who lived from 20 BCE to 50 CE, wrote extensively about the political and theological movements throughout the Mediterranean, and his views foreshadowed Christian theology, yet he never once wrote anything about Jesus. Not only this, but he actually wrote about political conflicts between the Jews and Pontius Pilate in Judea."

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98301 Aug 20, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, but it does not answer the question. I didn't know either until I read a story about a new lake that had no fish, until one day when suddenly they started to appear.
Well they don't just sprout out of dirt. Are you asking where the first ones came from , because then you are asking the mystery of life.
SEEK TRUTH

Spring, TX

#98302 Aug 21, 2013
12-318df
12-623df

WC !

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#98303 Aug 21, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You really are nuts. I don't believe you can read anything and come up with anything intelligent. That is no myth.
Do you really think plants evolved into herbivores (those are animals that eat plants, just so you know)? That is Be-Tzar.
Its probably correct. Since plants and animals share a eukaryote ancestor and that ancestor probably had chloroplasts and could photosynthesise then at least technically animals would have evolved from plants! But its not like a daffodil suddenly sprouted a mouth and legs.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98304 Aug 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its probably correct. Since plants and animals share a eukaryote ancestor and that ancestor probably had chloroplasts and could photosynthesise then at least technically animals would have evolved from plants! But its not like a daffodil suddenly sprouted a mouth and legs.
That analogy hold true as much as saying,
Bicycles have wheels with spokes, the space shuttle had wheels with spokes. The space shuttle evolved out of a bicycle.

The main flaw is that we don't know that plants evolved before animal life, and the evidence suggests that animal life came before plants. A type of seaweed may precede animal life , but seaweed isn't really a plant. It's better to say photosynthesis came before
cellular respiration. But for what we relate to as being plant and animal life most likely evolved somewhat together.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#98305 Aug 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That analogy hold true as much as saying,
Bicycles have wheels with spokes, the space shuttle had wheels with spokes. The space shuttle evolved out of a bicycle.
The main flaw is that we don't know that plants evolved before animal life, and the evidence suggests that animal life came before plants. A type of seaweed may precede animal life , but seaweed isn't really a plant. It's better to say photosynthesis came before
cellular respiration. But for what we relate to as being plant and animal life most likely evolved somewhat together.
Ok then we are at risk of arguing semantics and I dont want to start that.

You would agree that the first eukaryotic cell was most likely photosynthetic and that some eukaryotes lost that ability and that those retaining it gave rise to what we now know as plants while those losing it gave rise to animals?

Its even possible this split occurred after primitive multicellularity evolved and if thats the case you wiuld say that the animal evolved from the plant...

Either way I think we would agree that finding out the sequence is more important than issues of labelling. Perhaps my original comment was a bit pointless in that light.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#98306 Aug 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok then we are at risk of arguing semantics and I dont want to start that.
You would agree that the first eukaryotic cell was most likely photosynthetic and that some eukaryotes lost that ability and that those retaining it gave rise to what we now know as plants while those losing it gave rise to animals?
Its even possible this split occurred after primitive multicellularity evolved and if thats the case you wiuld say that the animal evolved from the plant...
Either way I think we would agree that finding out the sequence is more important than issues of labelling. Perhaps my original comment was a bit pointless in that light.
I think common ancestry holds true , but we don't know quite what the Ediacarans, were or how that fit, it would for all intents
appear they're between plant and animal, did they split upon extinction to give rise to both?
One clue is Ediacaria but we don't even know what it was.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#98307 Aug 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
See, you didn't pool your intelligence and you ended up with this drool.
Speaking of drool.
bohart wrote:
The reason you don't appreciate the sludge + goo comments is it shines a light on your comic unfounded belief system of how life began.
No, it because it's a stupid comment made by someone who has no idea of what the actual hypotheses are.
bohart wrote:
News flash! there is no evidence that a slime puddle came to life.


Perhaps. But there is certain evidence that something happened as once there was no life on Earth then there was. You seem to think it's some sort of blasphemy that science is investigating how it may have occurred.
bohart wrote:
I'm not trying to make points fool...
Glad you feel that way as you are not making any points.
bohart wrote:
...just pointing out your belief is faith based, not science based
Funny how the vast majority of scientists would be the first to call *YOU* a fool for that moronic statement. Why do you suppose that is?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#98309 Aug 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Sucking zone is right about one thing, to believe in these myths is idiocy
Sez the idiot who don't understand the first thing about the subject.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#98310 Aug 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Lord! you speak of the first two human beings as a myth and you believe that slime turned into worms then turned into fish that ate the worms!
Without question you guys will say and believe in anything to defend your beliefs.
"Without question you guys will say and believe in anything to defend your beliefs."

You intentionally contort and disfigure the ToE to include the Big Bang Theory, speculation on the origin of life, man from chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc. and a never ending dribble of other irrelevancies and falsehoods. When irrefutably corrected you lay low on that particular lie for a week or two and then do it all over again - all the while claiming some weird interpretation of God inspired moral superiority.

If the Bible said a pillow was stuffed with frog feathers you'd be swearing up and down that sometime in the last 6,000 years frogs grew feathers.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#98312 Aug 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Can I list a few myths that you guys seem to have permanently latched onto??
Of course I can.
The following are Biblical myths:
Creation 6,000+- years ago
Adam and Eve....this has repercussions for Jesus
Noah's flood
The Tower of Babel
Moses writing the Pentateuch
Moses
The Exodus, and all the attendant magik or 'miracles'
Abraham
Lot
Known Writers of the Gospel
This is fun. And it's from "AnswersinGenesis", even. Enjoy.

Hehehe.
They HATE this.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#98313 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98314 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Genesis never talks about skin color
Despite this they're mostly painted white anyway. Not that it matters though, as it's still racist no matter which you deem "perfect".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98315 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"The act of creation would need time also under your rules"
Incorrect. Time was created by God outside (because it didn't exist yet) our universe. God is not held to the law of Physics that he creates for the universe.
Yeah, that's what I said - you're a hypocrite.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98316 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!! Let me guess the paranoid Dan the stalker thinks I must be bohart too?
Nah, even you ain't that dim. You're just highly obnoxious.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#98317 Aug 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its probably correct. Since plants and animals share a eukaryote ancestor and that ancestor probably had chloroplasts and could photosynthesise then at least technically animals would have evolved from plants! But its not like a daffodil suddenly sprouted a mouth and legs.
I recognize your point, but it isn't his sequence of events that I doubt, but the number of steps missing that is implied in his version of the sequence. As you say, it wasn't one leap from daffodil to fish, or amphibian or even insect. I admit though that my post was lacking in detail along the lines you mention.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#98318 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not too much thought is needed.
Is it paranoia, when it is true?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98319 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
In physics, spacetime (also space–time, space time or space–time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum.Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Indeed, still an integral characteristic of spacetime.
replaytime wrote:
You think Jupiter is habitable?
Barring an unnoticed typo, that is the complete opposite of what I said.
replaytime wrote:
A gas planet with a toxic atmosphere. What do you think does or could inhabit it?
Currently there's no evidence anything does, and it would be unlikely. Although it, or other planets like it could potentially be habitable for certain forms of extremophiles.
replaytime wrote:
You don't think Jupiter is in outer space? Well then you must not be sane,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space
Yes, it's in space, where as you described it AS space. Typo on your part, I'm sure.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98320 Aug 21, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
That's Tater Salad to you bub.
"The evidence of marine animals that has been found could only be created by immense, recent, oceanic tidal waves. If the floods across North America were caused by ice-domed lakes, they would have washed away all evidence of these whale bones and other marine materials; none of the floods would reach Mexico or the Bahamas."
This is bad, it takes none of the actual flood events into account.
The fountains of the deep erupting.
The raising up the land and lowering the ocean floors.
We have taken that into account. The reason there is no evidence for the flood is either because it never happened or Goddidit with magic. Evidence is irrelevant to the latter position.

Which is yours.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#98322 Aug 21, 2013
RoSesz wrote:
<quoted text>
Far as I know there is no missing link ..oh wait ..that's yesterday's theory ..the new one is common ancestors.
There is no evidence of evolution ..between species ..
Man is man..always was man ..created by God as man ..
Plenty of evidence:

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

You guys haven't been able to address the theory for 150 years, no reason you should now.

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
News A head scratcher: 9 brains found next to train ... 10 min RingoStarr 8
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 21 min _FLATLINE-------- 3,491
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 22 min _FLATLINE-------- 79,134
In honor of ms Sweeter (Jul '14) 25 min Wolftracks 173
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 27 min _FLATLINE-------- 8,074
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 28 min RCAF 40,683
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 30 min _FLATLINE-------- 8,382
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 48 min Poop 162,835
*Sad music/sad themes Thread* 2 hr Wolftracks 175
Poll Middle East Solutions 3 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 26
More from around the web