Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171904 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101675 Oct 19, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So your saying you believe some of the bible, but not all of it?
Sure, I am not a fanatic.

I don't believe in any of the nonsense of the Bible.

For example we all know that there is a city called Tyre. Which never was destroyed as predicted by Ezekiel. It was attacked by Nebuchadnezzar, but he never defeated it. Nor did he even come close to defeating Egypt.

And even if I did not believe one word of it the Bible could still be used as a weapon against Christians when they get their own holy book wrong.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#101676 Oct 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, I am not a fanatic.
I don't believe in any of the nonsense of the Bible.
For example we all know that there is a city called Tyre. Which never was destroyed as predicted by Ezekiel. It was attacked by Nebuchadnezzar, but he never defeated it. Nor did he even come close to defeating Egypt.
And even if I did not believe one word of it the Bible could still be used as a weapon against Christians when they get their own holy book wrong.
Actually I'm not trying to be contrary as it may seem...only trying to establish what parts of the bible you consider as true and the ones you consider not true for conversation sake.

Am I to take it that you believe all quotes by Jesus to be true since that was your point of reference?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101677 Oct 19, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I'm not trying to be contrary as it may seem...only trying to establish what parts of the bible you consider as true and the ones you consider not true for conversation sake.
Am I to take it that you believe all quotes by Jesus to be true since that was your point of reference?
Now you are being a fool.

How many times do I have to tell you that the Bible can be used against a Christian when he does not understand his own religion.

I have strong doubts about the veracity of the quotes of Jesus. Some of them may be true, some of them may be false. It does not matter.

Are you completely devoid of the ability to think logically?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101678 Oct 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm aware of that recent snowfall in 2011. Snowfall in the Atacama is not unheard of and usually occurs in January or February. The fact that this happens and is *KNOWN* to happen in no way discounts Dr. Dunai's research that some dry riverbeds he has studied have had no water running through them in 100,000+ years. Even if those same riverbed were flood to the top in 2011, it does not refute his research done six years earlier.
In mountainous areas which this desert sits, streams, rivers, lakes and ponds are fed by three sources of water. Underground springs, snow melt and glacial melt.
This scientist claims certain streams and river beds haven't had water flowing in them for a hundred thousand years and more.
What this scientist failed to mention, is much of Peru and this desert area and the higher elevated areas surrounding it have suffered a few glacial ages in the last 100,000 years.
A glacial age leaves glaciers. The glaciers and heavy snowfall on nearby higher elevated areas would have fed those rivers, streams, lakes and ponds for months to maybe years till the heavy snow melt was gone and the glaciers disappeared.
He doesn't address those facts. The ENTIRE desert was covered in deep thick snow and ALL rivers and stream beds flowed as this snow melted yet that fact matters not to him. To him CERTAIN river and stream beds have some invisible force field that has kept them dry as he states it for over 100,000 years while the rest of the desert was subjected to snow and glacier melt runoff.
I looked for his explanation of this. He gave none. To him when glaciers and deep snow on other elevated areas were slowly melting during the warming up period of the end of that glacial age, he insinuates water run off purposefully avoided certain rivers and streams on this desert for 100,000 years. Makes sense to those wanting to believe that I suppose.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#101679 Oct 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well at least Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =HZmHC75FDqQXX
I just noted that the singer of this song has the same last name as Bob Dylan had at first.
Thanks for posting that SZ. It is hilarious.

Haggard is completely heterosexual and Swaggart is way too heterosexual. Apparently there is a limit. No one ever told me.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#101680 Oct 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
In mountainous areas which this desert sits, streams, rivers, lakes and ponds are fed by three sources of water. Underground springs, snow melt and glacial melt.
This scientist claims certain streams and river beds haven't had water flowing in them for a hundred thousand years and more.
What this scientist failed to mention, is much of Peru and this desert area and the higher elevated areas surrounding it have suffered a few glacial ages in the last 100,000 years.
A glacial age leaves glaciers. The glaciers and heavy snowfall on nearby higher elevated areas would have fed those rivers, streams, lakes and ponds for months to maybe years till the heavy snow melt was gone and the glaciers disappeared.
He doesn't address those facts. The ENTIRE desert was covered in deep thick snow and ALL rivers and stream beds flowed as this snow melted yet that fact matters not to him. To him CERTAIN river and stream beds have some invisible force field that has kept them dry as he states it for over 100,000 years while the rest of the desert was subjected to snow and glacier melt runoff.
I looked for his explanation of this. He gave none. To him when glaciers and deep snow on other elevated areas were slowly melting during the warming up period of the end of that glacial age, he insinuates water run off purposefully avoided certain rivers and streams on this desert for 100,000 years. Makes sense to those wanting to believe that I suppose.
Where are you getting the information on snowfall and glaciation in the Atatama?

If the data that was found indicate that there was no water flowing in these river beds for as much as 100,000 years, why would there be need to address glaciation that isn't supplying water to the rivers? In other words, you are demanding DNA evidence when the killer confessed and there were eye witnesses and video footage. Not a perfect analogy but the point remains that if no evidence of water flow was found, why would you look for a source of water.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#101681 Oct 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are being a fool.
How many times do I have to tell you that the Bible can be used against a Christian when he does not understand his own religion.
I have strong doubts about the veracity of the quotes of Jesus. Some of them may be true, some of them may be false. It does not matter.
Are you completely devoid of the ability to think logically?
So basically your saying that you study the bible not to learn the truth, but you study to use it to attack Christians?

...interesting

ok then, I'm out of here.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101682 Oct 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You have certainly defended the possibility. No question of that.
So can you names these scientists or are you going to continue to run away.
No I didn't. I said the earth has the potential to globally flood itself. I never stated exactly when, how or why it would happen. You assumed from what I said I meant others things I never said. So that's on you :)

The theory that the earth has enough water in the crust to be forced up to flood this planet well above it's highest peaks is in it's infancy of thought. There are no facts. It's a theory that's growing in possibilities as more and more research is done about water in the earth's crust and how much may be there.
Consider this from the NG link about water in the crust and how much may 'possibly' be there that's not being accounted for.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...

A Look at Earth's Fate

The new study also reveals clues to Earth's long-term fate, says Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford University who was not involved in the project.

When the planet was young, steam came from the deep interior to the surface as volcanic gas and eventually produced today's oceans. But as Earth's interior ages and cools, it becomes easier for water to return below the surface.

"So, rather than degassing, now [Earth] may be losing water into the mantle," Sleep said.

This gradual suction of water back below the surface may be a good thing for Earth's geological stability, he notes.

Underground water acts as a kind of lubricant that allows plates in Earth's crust to keep shifting at their present rate, Sleep explains.

This helps keep the thickness and elevation of the continents relatively stable.

If things changed, he said, "we'd have Pike's Peak boat tours."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101683 Oct 19, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically your saying that you study the bible not to learn the truth, but you study to use it to attack Christians?
...interesting
ok then, I'm out of here.
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster, you are a complete moron.

There is no "truth" in the Bible to be found. I already have found that out. Yet foolish Christians still try to use it. Since Christians try to use the Bible as a weapon why can't I? Especially if Christians, such as you, are wrong about their own foolish beliefs.

Of course fools who do not realize that at the very least parts of the Bible are false will never understand how their beliefs are faulty. They will simply believe what they want to believe because it makes them feel good, not because that is what the Bible actually says.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#101684 Oct 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No I didn't. I said the earth has the potential to globally flood itself. I never stated exactly when, how or why it would happen. You assumed from what I said I meant others things I never said. So that's on you :)
The theory that the earth has enough water in the crust to be forced up to flood this planet well above it's highest peaks is in it's infancy of thought. There are no facts. It's a theory that's growing in possibilities as more and more research is done about water in the earth's crust and how much may be there.
Consider this from the NG link about water in the crust and how much may 'possibly' be there that's not being accounted for.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
A Look at Earth's Fate
The new study also reveals clues to Earth's long-term fate, says Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford University who was not involved in the project.
When the planet was young, steam came from the deep interior to the surface as volcanic gas and eventually produced today's oceans. But as Earth's interior ages and cools, it becomes easier for water to return below the surface.
"So, rather than degassing, now [Earth] may be losing water into the mantle," Sleep said.
This gradual suction of water back below the surface may be a good thing for Earth's geological stability, he notes.
Underground water acts as a kind of lubricant that allows plates in Earth's crust to keep shifting at their present rate, Sleep explains.
This helps keep the thickness and elevation of the continents relatively stable.
If things changed, he said, "we'd have Pike's Peak boat tours."
If there are no facts then it isn't a theory. It is just conjecture.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101685 Oct 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No I didn't. I said the earth has the potential to globally flood itself. I never stated exactly when, how or why it would happen. You assumed from what I said I meant others things I never said. So that's on you :)
The theory that the earth has enough water in the crust to be forced up to flood this planet well above it's highest peaks is in it's infancy of thought. There are no facts. It's a theory that's growing in possibilities as more and more research is done about water in the earth's crust and how much may be there.
Consider this from the NG link about water in the crust and how much may 'possibly' be there that's not being accounted for.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
A Look at Earth's Fate
The new study also reveals clues to Earth's long-term fate, says Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford University who was not involved in the project.
When the planet was young, steam came from the deep interior to the surface as volcanic gas and eventually produced today's oceans. But as Earth's interior ages and cools, it becomes easier for water to return below the surface.
"So, rather than degassing, now [Earth] may be losing water into the mantle," Sleep said.
This gradual suction of water back below the surface may be a good thing for Earth's geological stability, he notes.
Underground water acts as a kind of lubricant that allows plates in Earth's crust to keep shifting at their present rate, Sleep explains.
This helps keep the thickness and elevation of the continents relatively stable.
If things changed, he said, "we'd have Pike's Peak boat tours."
Water both leaves and reenters the mantle. You did not understand the article. It does not imply that the Earth could be flooded by water from the mantle. And the exchange of water is a very slow process. It cannot be used as a mechanism for a global flood. In fact the difference in sea level height is immeasurably small over a whole year from the exchange of water from the mantle to the oceans and back.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101686 Oct 19, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No, you twit.
The last glaciation the might have affected the Atacama occurred in the Pleistocene.
That started 2.5 million years ago.
No you twit. There's a difference between 'ice ages' and 'glacial ages' that you're unfamiliar with. I took the following from the web just so you can learn this difference. Your welcome :)

Glaciation is a single event occurring in an ice-age period. We are currently in an ice age in earth history, but not currently in a period of glaciation. An interglacial period of moderate temperatures. More glacial episodes are expected to occur in the future. Log on http://www.icecooltrailers.co.uk/

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101687 Oct 19, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No you twit. There's a difference between 'ice ages' and 'glacial ages' that you're unfamiliar with. I took the following from the web just so you can learn this difference. Your welcome :)
Glaciation is a single event occurring in an ice-age period. We are currently in an ice age in earth history, but not currently in a period of glaciation. An interglacial period of moderate temperatures. More glacial episodes are expected to occur in the future. Log on http://www.icecooltrailers.co.uk/
What makes you think there were glaciers up in the Andes above the Atacama? If you follow this link you will see that there were spots during the last glaciation where the Andes were bare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Last_glacia...

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101688 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you did, and still do. That's why you keep claiming the Earth can do anything, and keep claiming that just because we have no evidence of the flood doesn't mean it didn't happen. Meanwhile we've been pointing out the evidence against the possibility as the reasons why it didn't happen and you've been ignoring it. And now you're saying you never defended it in the first place.
I for one have no problem with the total lack of consistency of your own position.
No I didn't. You'll never show otherwise. I initially made a comment of a single sentence in Genesis concerning the flood, that was all. And I did claim the earth can do anything it will because it has and we have the geological history to prove it. And I did state because we have no evidence for a global flood that doesn't mean it never happened. Scientists at one time unanimously stated there was overwhelming evidence to show nothing was smaller than the atom, that there was overwhelming evidence to prove life couldn't exist without sunlight, that there was overwhelming evidence in just lab studies that nothing could live in boiling like temperatures of water, that there was overwhelming evidence that modern man didn't cross the line and have sexual relations with the neanderthal.
When I hear "There's overwhelming evidence..." science has taught me that statement comes from opinions based on "present known evidence" and not "undiscovered evidence" that actually existed all along.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#101689 Oct 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No I didn't. I said the earth has the potential to globally flood itself. I never stated exactly when, how or why it would happen. You assumed from what I said I meant others things I never said. So that's on you :)
The theory that the earth has enough water in the crust to be forced up to flood this planet well above it's highest peaks is in it's infancy of thought. There are no facts. It's a theory that's growing in possibilities as more and more research is done about water in the earth's crust and how much may be there.
Consider this from the NG link about water in the crust and how much may 'possibly' be there that's not being accounted for.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
A Look at Earth's Fate
The new study also reveals clues to Earth's long-term fate, says Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford University who was not involved in the project.
When the planet was young, steam came from the deep interior to the surface as volcanic gas and eventually produced today's oceans. But as Earth's interior ages and cools, it becomes easier for water to return below the surface.
"So, rather than degassing, now [Earth] may be losing water into the mantle," Sleep said.
This gradual suction of water back below the surface may be a good thing for Earth's geological stability, he notes.
Underground water acts as a kind of lubricant that allows plates in Earth's crust to keep shifting at their present rate, Sleep explains.
This helps keep the thickness and elevation of the continents relatively stable.
If things changed, he said, "we'd have Pike's Peak boat tours."
The fact still remain that water is only 0.2% of Earths mass, even if the surface were flat the water would be 2,686 metres deep.

That's 1.669 miles a mile and 5/8s.

Everest is 8,848 m that's 5.49789 miles.

So you see your flood is a physical impossibility.
You forget the water below china is displacing matter like a sponge. You cant squeeze a sponge out and expect it to be more water in a bowl. You could possibly have a local flood this way, but the sponge will soak the water back up.
Ukrules

UK

#101690 Oct 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The average person is around 4% Neanderthal by DNA
Oh and around 25% daffodil
That's not actually true - from the Neanderthal genome project :

According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical

are you lying for jesus?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#101691 Oct 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The singing bush and then summon the invisible swordsman?
Hehehe. Figured you'd get it.

"Farley, farley, farley..."

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#101692 Oct 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>infamous...it means MORE than famous....
Hehehe.

Fist time I saw that movie, I hated it.

Doesn't half grow on you, though. Now It's a favourite.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#101693 Oct 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
woodtick57 wrote:
the sun and moon were not made after the Earth...
<quoted text>
LMAO!
Good call.
Ole woody likes to make up 'facts' as he goes and pats himself on the back for his effort.
And the sun?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#101695 Oct 20, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know what bible you're talking about, but the Christian Bible doesn't say they were made "at the same time", as you've implied.
Genesis 1
"God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness."
It clearly says He made them. It does not say at the sane time.
Again it seems your cult has lied to you.
Yet it does say AFTER the plants.

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
Word Association (Mar '10) 3 min wichita-rick 17,672
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? (Nov '14) 7 min Scarbelly Bob 992
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min SLY WEST 167,208
Word association (Jun '07) 8 min Trunketeer 3,363
Word Association (Jun '10) 9 min wichita-rick 28,462
Dedicate a song (Jul '08) 30 min SLY WEST 16,054
I Like..... (Mar '14) 37 min Crazy Jae 1,258
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Trunketeer 12,723
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 1 hr andet1987 9,331
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Thigh High Bex 42,109
More from around the web