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
96,021 - 96,040 of 114,618 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101552
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101555
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101556
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101559
Oct 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101567
Oct 19, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I don't argue with them at all, i just point out the facts that show they are members of a proven false cult. they try to argue they are not, but they fail...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101568
Oct 19, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sure, it means something could have been wrong. Being wrong does not invalidate science. It's called the potential for falsification. It's what makes science scientific. Ideas are formed and are tested against evidence. If they pass those tests then they are TENTATIVELY accepted as correct. If not then we know they are incorrect, and our original ideas have to be modified, or in rarer cases, perhaps discarded completely. And this is how scientific knowledge progresses.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101569
Oct 19, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Of we care. But only because they push their ignorance in public schools. At least flat-Earthers are under no illusions that they may get their BS taught in public schools any time soon, so you may notice they don't often take as much flak here as your average creationists do.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101570
Oct 19, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of we care. But only because they push their ignorance in public schools. At least flat-Earthers are under no illusions that they may get their BS taught in public schools any time soon, so you may notice they don't often take as much flak here as your average creationists do.
Dude you just won't admit you care what they say for the sake of mere argument. The last 17 threads that have recently been commented on, you are the last one to comment in 12 of them. You just run around to them all trying to pick at someone. LOL

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101571
Oct 19, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
God cursed it to be a snake.

What sense would it make to curse a snake to be a snake?

Why do you assume the Serpent was a lizard?

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.

•••