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 4,717)

Showing posts 94,321 - 94,340 of112,019
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99746
Sep 18, 2013
 
pgardner31 wrote:
The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs.'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible
There is no apparent discrepancy, there is actual discrepancy.

There is the babble account, based on the superstition and mythology of bronze age goat herders and escaped slaves as advocated by creationists. Or there is the scientific view that is validated in several different and irrefutable ways as recognised by everyone else

The two completely contradict each other to the extent that creationists have to include special pleading and employ apologists (to apologise?) and so the separate sides will never see eye to eye except in the rare circumstance when a babble follower suddenly realises:-

“Hey, this does not make sense, it is not logically or factually close to accurate, why the hell have I been suckered by all this BS for so many years”

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99747
Sep 18, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.
Insinuates??? That's quite a stretch. And it has been pointed out to you that there were half a dozen supercontinents prior to Pangaea. Pangaea was only the most recent.

While there has been a study that suggested that the majority of the earth may have been covered by water, there is no evidence that it was once *entirely* covered in water. So your authors suggestion that "dry land appeared" doesn't hold water - so to speak.
headlines

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99748
Sep 18, 2013
 
.

ISRAEL to give POPE "Custody" of Temple Mount--

http://youtu.be/Qt9kEQB4ti8

.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99749
Sep 18, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.
By the way, this was only ONE of your claims. How about the others?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99750
Sep 18, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?
I have researched it :-

The amount of water on earth is known, roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres. Around 1,260,000,000 cubic kilometres of water

The oceans average around 800 metres deep, approximately 0.36% is found underground and 0.035% is found in lakes, rivers, clouds etc.

In the past I have calculated how much water would be needed to cover the earth to a depth of 9 metres (approximately 20 cubits) above the highest mountain (Everest at 8.8km high) as specified in the Noah story,

You need approximately 5,655,678,336,000,000,000 cubic kilometres of water or 5,655,678,336,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 litres

I believe that is around 4,488,633,600 time more water than is actually available

Admittedly that does not take account of landmass, hills, mountains etc but even taking the worse scenario that all land mass is as high as Everest (which of course it isn’t) then you are still looking 3,000,000,000 more water than there is

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99751
Sep 18, 2013
 
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one link from a growing number of scientists in various fields that believe there is more water beneath the earth then there is on it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/06/23/...
So I asked him: "If you had to make a rough calculation, right now, and no one's going to hold you to it, how much water do you think we have on earth?" And he said a conservative (albeit blind) guess would be the earth today carries with it 3 global oceans of water, 1/3 on top, where we can swim in it, sail on it, drink it, get rained on by it, and 2/3rds down below where it sits silently with the minerals.
Interesting section to quote. How about this one?

"In the lower, bigger mantle, the calculations get more theoretical, and therefore chancy, but he guesses anywhere from one tenth to 1.8 global oceans."

"*GUESSES* anywhere from one tenth to 1.8 global oceans." 0.1 to 1.8 is quite a spread. But then, this is only a guess, right?

"Then, all the way down, in the earth's core, nobody knows. There's enough capacity to house 60 oceans. Or maybe 100. The core could be very, very rich in hydrogen (a water ingredient) or totally dry. We have no data. Which leaves us in the odd position of not knowing where most of the Earth's water is."

Love the last two sentences. Also note that hydrogen is not water.

While it is an interesting article and certainly some truth to it, it is far too vague to be taken seriously as an accurate estimate of the total amount of water on the planet.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99752
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Insinuates??? That's quite a stretch. And it has been pointed out to you that there were half a dozen supercontinents prior to Pangaea. Pangaea was only the most recent.
While there has been a study that suggested that the majority of the earth may have been covered by water, there is no evidence that it was once *entirely* covered in water. So your authors suggestion that "dry land appeared" doesn't hold water - so to speak.
REUNITE GONDWANALAND!!
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99753
Sep 18, 2013
 
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99754
Sep 18, 2013
 
forreal wrote:
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL
Stop spamming, jackass.

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

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99755
Sep 18, 2013
 
forreal wrote:
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL
Funnily enough the world as been here for over 4.5 billion years and it is now shown that evolutional change can occur on a generation by generation basis.

Just because you do not understand the reproductive cycle, genetic inheritance or time is no ones fault but your own. Try a little education, I understand that it can be quite beneficial in driving away deliberate ignorance
spOko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99756
Sep 18, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Dynamite comes in a small package.
The results are no less than "explosive".
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The notion that Rockets make space exploration possible is a pipedream and nothing short of a romantic notion.
forreal

Laguna Niguel, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99758
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Funnily enough the world as been here for over 4.5 billion years and it is now shown that evolutional change can occur on a generation by generation basis.
Just because you do not understand the reproductive cycle, genetic inheritance or time is no ones fault but your own. Try a little education, I understand that it can be quite beneficial in driving away deliberate ignorance
Reproductive cycle? LOLOLOL a Mayfly has only 15 mins to mate and you cant evolve after that, the only thing is that you will see it die!!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 24 hours that all.LOLOLOLOLOL who care about the eggs under the water streams they cant evolve or mate down there!LOLOLOLOLOLOL another jackass bites the floor!LOLOLOL

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99759
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey 'No surprise' thanks for reply.
I'm on here for just a few minutes because of the lateness in my time zone.
Two things I need to reply to quickly and will do more tomorrow.
Number one, there was no Adam and Eve as written in the Bible. This is pretty much accepted by the science community (and some theists) because of bone and DNA evidence.
Number two is that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and he may not have even existed. There was no Exodus lead by him...proven. Many scholars think the Pentateuch is a pious fraud perpetrated around the time of the Hebrew exile in Babylon 700-600+- BC. The supposed Moses was said to have lived around 1300 to 1200 BC
There's more of course
What doesn't have proof for an existence doesn't mean it didn't once exist. I could list a number of what once were long believed fairy tale stories of people and places that archaeology revealed actually existed.
Of Moses, you can't prove he didn't exist any more then you can prove a person called Jesus people elevated to the heights of a holy man didn't exist. You can't prove there was no exodus because you can't prove Israelites weren't taken as slaves by some Egyptian pharaoh. As a matter of fact there's a stella that actually states a certain pharaoh did in fact take captive Israelites. So by the record of that Egyptian stella if it's true, it's plausible evidence that Egyptians recorded they did take Israelites as captives and possibly more than once.
I have no want or need to prove/disprove the Bible. Others are *ell bent on doing that. What I am interested in are certain things said that the writer shouldn't have had a clue about, not even by guessing. So I wonder how they 'seemed' to have a best guess understanding of something not understood for a thousand or more years later.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99760
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting section to quote. How about this one?
"In the lower, bigger mantle, the calculations get more theoretical, and therefore chancy, but he guesses anywhere from one tenth to 1.8 global oceans."
"*GUESSES* anywhere from one tenth to 1.8 global oceans." 0.1 to 1.8 is quite a spread. But then, this is only a guess, right?
"Then, all the way down, in the earth's core, nobody knows. There's enough capacity to house 60 oceans. Or maybe 100. The core could be very, very rich in hydrogen (a water ingredient) or totally dry. We have no data. Which leaves us in the odd position of not knowing where most of the Earth's water is."
Love the last two sentences. Also note that hydrogen is not water.
While it is an interesting article and certainly some truth to it, it is far too vague to be taken seriously as an accurate estimate of the total amount of water on the planet.
Science has it's absolutes that can be directly connected to claims made in theism communities. And that's been the fault of science. Kind of like the child telling a parent their incorrect and the parent's first reaction (even if the child is correct)is to state they aren't wrong.
The issue should never have been an intelligent being caused global flooding with science. Science should have have without prejudice analyzed if the earth could in fact flood itself globally. It never did that. It just basically stated without any real research all the water is on the earth's surface and the earth can't possibly globally flood itself.
Well new research is slowly coming to light that there is 'possibly' more water in the earth then there is on it. And evidence of drop stones showing where ice sheets once existed where science thought they didn't exist is revealing larger amounts of water existing anciently topside then which exists at present. wiki has a good article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropstone
Point being this global flooding story doesn't have to be rooted in theism to be true or false. It could have actually happened with humans present that passed down stories of the event as it happened.
We don't know how far back our present human ancestry goes. But with each passing decade science pushes it back to an older and older date. So what humans have witnessed and passed down through stories the possibilities are endless at present. Just saying an open mind to possibilities is better than a shut mind closed to possibilities :)

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99761
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, this was only ONE of your claims. How about the others?
The following was actually an opinion of mine based on something written 2500 plus years ago. It wasn't something I was 'claiming'.
Now what about the 'others'? Care to be more specific?
"9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist."

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99762
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have researched it :-
The amount of water on earth is known, roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres. Around 1,260,000,000 cubic kilometres of water
The oceans average around 800 metres deep, approximately 0.36% is found underground and 0.035% is found in lakes, rivers, clouds etc.
In the past I have calculated how much water would be needed to cover the earth to a depth of 9 metres (approximately 20 cubits) above the highest mountain (Everest at 8.8km high) as specified in the Noah story,
You need approximately 5,655,678,336,000,000,000 cubic kilometres of water or 5,655,678,336,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 litres
I believe that is around 4,488,633,600 time more water than is actually available
Admittedly that does not take account of landmass, hills, mountains etc but even taking the worse scenario that all land mass is as high as Everest (which of course it isn’t) then you are still looking 3,000,000,000 more water than there is
There's a glitch in the story for pro and con. Both sides are 'assuming' that the earth at the time of the flood looked than geographically as it looks today topside and sea floor wise.
That the world just somehow flooded itself without any physical trauma as in volcanic action/earthquakes.
The writer actually describes something they should not have even been able to have guessed correctly that science has shown actually takes place on the sea floors today. "...all the fountains of the great deep broken up,.." The writer is actually describing water being pushed up by volcanic action through the crust of the earth through the sea/ocean/lake floors to add more water to what already exists topside.
The point shouldn't be whether an invisible being caused this to take place. The point to be wondered about is how the writer was able to describe volcanic activity that takes place miles to thousands of feet below ocean and sea water levels. A volcanic heated vent on the ocean floor large or small spills out vast quantities of heated water. Volcanic vents on land don't usually do this in the same manner as on the oceans floors that this writer would have been privy to have seen to have written about. So how did they make a best guess and guess it correctly?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99763
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What doesn't have proof for an existence doesn't mean it didn't once exist. I could list a number of what once were long believed fairy tale stories of people and places that archaeology revealed actually existed.
Of Moses, you can't prove he didn't exist any more then you can prove a person called Jesus people elevated to the heights of a holy man didn't exist. You can't prove there was no exodus because you can't prove Israelites weren't taken as slaves by some Egyptian pharaoh. As a matter of fact there's a stella that actually states a certain pharaoh did in fact take captive Israelites. So by the record of that Egyptian stella if it's true, it's plausible evidence that Egyptians recorded they did take Israelites as captives and possibly more than once.
I have no want or need to prove/disprove the Bible. Others are *ell bent on doing that. What I am interested in are certain things said that the writer shouldn't have had a clue about, not even by guessing. So I wonder how they 'seemed' to have a best guess understanding of something not understood for a thousand or more years later.
All of the things talked about are backed up by very solid circumstantial evidence.

You may not think circumstantial evidence is any good, but more then a few criminals were sent to prison or their deaths by it. Ask a cop....eyewitness testimony does not even compare to circumstantial evidence.

The most important assertion I made is that there was no Adam and Eve as written in the Bible. This has tremendous implication to current Christian dogma.

No Adam and Eve equals no 'original sin'. Also puts the lie to Jesus having mention them in the New Testament....one fictional character talking about 2 fictional characters from a Hebrew myth.

If there was no 'original sin', just exactly what was the mission of Jesus??

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99764
Sep 18, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I have researched it :-
The amount of water on earth is known, roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres. Around 1,260,000,000 cubic kilometres of water
The oceans average around 800 metres deep, approximately 0.36% is found underground and 0.035% is found in lakes, rivers, clouds etc.
In the past I have calculated how much water would be needed to cover the earth to a depth of 9 metres (approximately 20 cubits) above the highest mountain (Everest at 8.8km high) as specified in the Noah story,
You need approximately 5,655,678,336,000,000,000 cubic kilometres of water or 5,655,678,336,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 litres
I believe that is around 4,488,633,600 time more water than is actually available
Admittedly that does not take account of landmass, hills, mountains etc but even taking the worse scenario that all land mass is as high as Everest (which of course it isn’t) then you are still looking 3,000,000,000 more water than there is
We wont settle up for less than US gallons.
But if I had that much whiskey, we could float all your Majesty's Shops in it...:) heheheh

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99765
Sep 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

forreal wrote:
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL
You should do something about that stammering.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99766
Sep 18, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>REUNITE GONDWANALAND!!
Heck yeah! It ain't nothing but super continent party!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 94,321 - 94,340 of112,019
|
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
•••
•••