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
96,001 - 96,020 of 115,118 Comments Last updated 56 min ago

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101547 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>any talking serpents in the real world?
Obama

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101548 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:

And what species was the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve?
Unknown. It's only called a serpent.

And ignorant people translate that to snake.

*shrugs*
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101549 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>any talking serpents in the real world?
Considering he allows the definitions to be mutable no matter the context, clearly the answer is yes.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101550 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So all snakes are deep-voiced wind instruments?
I have six definitions of serpent and you assume only one of them?

I didn't take you for being stupid...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101551 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I just got back from a week in Phoenix. the air there is very visible...but it's a dry smog...
Oh, I'm aware that air can be visible, just as it can also be invisible. All depends on the physical conditions involved.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#101552 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-writing their books, their papers, their studies that they wrote based on evidence,even their evidence would have to be re-classified if this one shows that there were not as many different species as they claimed.
This doesn't SHOW any such thing. It is the opinion of a small group of researchers. They *might* be right but they could, just as easily, be completely wrong.

I've already pointed out two reasons that cast doubt on their claim.
replaytime wrote:
So yea I think that would kind of suck.
You tend to think everything sucks, so this is no big shocker.
replaytime wrote:
It would help in the long run of providing more understanding.
As I had said.
replaytime wrote:
Like I said science is an awesome tool but if they turn out to be wrong from their evidence that they classified those species off of one has to wonder how much they actually do understand. Not knocking science but to label species based on studied evidence, tell the world this is what it is, then have to change it, shows it is not facts but at best a guess of what they think until something can show it wrong.
You think science is a awesome tool yet you dismiss scientific theories as guesses. But you're not knocking science. Yeah, right!

What would you have science do? Not modify our understand based on new evidence? That would be a totally dumbass position to take now, wouldn't it?

BTW, facts are facts. They don't change. Theories may be modified or discarded in the light of new facts but facts remain facts. One of these days you might grasp the distinction between the two.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#101553 Oct 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the problem with this is that creatards are misunderstanding what this finding tells us. It in no way threatens the theory of evolution. There may be fewer species of ancestors than we thought we had, but that is a big jump to take out of a few fossils found at one site.
Of course if you are a creationist grasping at straws is as close as they ever come to a victory.
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101554 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh.
So because DNA is invisible to your eyes, it's invisible?
This also still has zero bearing on the fact that air can be, and often is invisible.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#101555 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have six definitions of serpent and you assume only one of them?
I didn't take you for being stupid...
and here i didn't think you could make a bigger ass of yourself and then you surprise me...good job!

so no talking serpents in the real world? your stupid cult bible still an absolutely proven work of fiction?

cult members are funny!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#101556 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the way science goes. It proves itself wrong in what seems a daily basis.
There are so many 'science used to know' examples, it's hilarious.
Like science used to 'know' insects are made from rotting meat. And they taught that as 'fact'.
Then throw away your computer, your cell phone, your TV and never go to a doctor again.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nowadays, science tells us that humans are 200,000 years old. Then they find a 2 million year old human fossil.
What science 'knows' is unreliable.
Obviously, what you know is unreliable. What species are you referring to? Or do you even know?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#101557 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
who cares what creationists think? they still buy into a proven false myth...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101558 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Unknown. It's only called a serpent.
And ignorant people translate that to snake.
*shrugs*
Not something I did. I referred to it as a lizard. You say the species was unknown. In that case do you know what type of animal it was after God cursed him and told him to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101559 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the way science goes. It proves itself wrong in what seems a daily basis.
There are so many 'science used to know' examples, it's hilarious.
Like science used to 'know' insects are made from rotting meat. And they taught that as 'fact'.
Nowadays, science tells us that humans are 200,000 years old. Then they find a 2 million year old human fossil.
What science 'knows' is unreliable.
And yet like a good fundie hypocrite, here you are using a computer.

That's the difference between science and dogma - science takes new evidence into account. Fundies just invent new apologetics and play word games to say they were right all along.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101560 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have six definitions of serpent and you assume only one of them?
I didn't take you for being stupid...
No, I did not assume at all. I was hinting that you needed to clarify your definitions as appropriate. But it appears when being applied to the Bible, clarifications are left deliberately vague on purpose. Handy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101561 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
Only for Young Earth creationists. Old Earth creationists don't have a (theological) problem with deep time phenomena. Of course they DO have a problem with pretty much any real world phenomena which contradicts their ideas about creationism, but...(shrug)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101562 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the way science goes. It proves itself wrong in what seems a daily basis.
There are so many 'science used to know' examples, it's hilarious.
Like science used to 'know' insects are made from rotting meat. And they taught that as 'fact'.
Nowadays, science tells us that humans are 200,000 years old. Then they find a 2 million year old human fossil.
What science 'knows' is unreliable.
Like I said, the creatards are grasping at straws.

Science has not "proved itself wrong".

This article was not about modern humans, which are only 200,000 years ago. It was about Homo erectus and some of our other forerunners. You did not understand the article. You should not be getting so excited.

And what science does is to get more and more correct every day. Was Newton "wrong" about gravity? Technically you could claim that. But he was right enough to get us to the Moon and back. He was not right enough for GPS systems. All this find does is to possibly clear up our understanding of our ancestors a bit more.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#101563 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
Perhaps our understanding of the past should be as diverse as our understanding of today's world. We tend to write off how populations get mixed up today, thinking it was not so in ancient history.
We however could find things haven't changed so much in this respect after all. LQQK V

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#101564 Oct 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>

BTW, facts are facts. They don't change. Theories may be modified or discarded in the light of new facts but facts remain facts.
Is that a fact? lol

Here are some facts for you. I never have said evolution did/does not happen. I never said earth is young. I never said science is bad. What I have said is science can be and has been wrong.

I don't swallow ever pill science throws out there unlike you. There may be less species of man than they claimed, from evidence there were. If you want to call it modifying a theory instead of being wrong have at it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101565 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
That is true, but it still won't keep them from hoping against hope that some evidence will go their way some day.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#101566 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who cares what creationists think? they still buy into a proven false myth...
Evidently you and many others on here care what they think or you would just ignore them instead of arguing with them all the time. But you keep on telling yourself the myth of you don't care.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
A six word game (Dec '08) 16 min Trouser Cough 17,454
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min CJ Rocker 145,081
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 28 min Mister_ E 28,474
white... 46 min wichita-rick 179
Describe how you are feeling in just ONE word... (Feb '09) 50 min Just TLC 6,802
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 1 hr Just TLC 6,528
Strange & Unusual - Man Finds Wreckage of UFO P... (Oct '07) 1 hr greymouser 17
What's your tip for the day? 1 hr Emerald 792
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 1 hr Bill 221
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr -Lea- 18,456
Fergson Police Dept. 5 hr Digital Etiquette 307
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••