Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199525 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102347 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If you call these opinions of yours "evidence against God", you're nuts.
Evidence against God is unnecessary. And impossible.

Just like the Cosmic Sheep.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102348 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a reputable site.
I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.
I'm not biased like y'all are.
Wrong, it is not a reputable site.

You lying fundamental moron. The very first claim was debunked over a hundred years ago. A reputable site does not use arguments that are over a hundred years dead.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102349 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, you did give the answer. You just didn't read your own post very well.
The Bible says it was a talking serpent, not a snake. You own post of Genesis confirmed that.
You DO know that serpent doesn't always and only mean snake, right?
Then what does it mean exactly? Apparently you are unable to narrow down the precise definition as it is supposed to apply to the Bible.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102350 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a reputable site.
I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.
I'm not biased like y'all are.

Ah good, then we both agree that your site is not scientific. Then it appears we have reached a fundamental impass. We are only interested in scientific evidence. You, along with your non-scientific site is only interested apologetics which you personally find to be 'reputable'. Further discussion appears non-constructive.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102351 Oct 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Which forum are you guys on?
He was referring to the other day (my brief take over had disappeared now), but I post from the evolution forum. Threads are often cross-referenced across different forums, for instance this thread could be in the atheism forum.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102352 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Neato.
Look at the "phylogenetic tree of life" chart.
Where's it lead to at the bottom?
Nowhere.....
Thanks for your help in demonstrating that there is no evidence for the common ancestor.
What a Maroon!!

Need I say any more? Another lying idiot for Jesus who has no idea what evidence is.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102353 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are amazingly irrational, you buy into a theory with absolutely no evidence , then berate others for what you say is the same thing!
You are operating from a philosophically religious viewpoint, so please you and your ilk should stop hiding behind science. It doesn't support your beliefs with evidence
Oh hey Bo. Which theory are you referring to?

Remember there is no argument you have used that I have not refuted. Do you have something different to add or you still playing the Nelson Muntz routine and showing everyone how ignorant you are?

Since: Jul 10

United States

#102354 Oct 21, 2013
I have not waded through the 97000 posts to make sure, but, I don't see many references to actual Creationist Research.

Sure there are lots of opinion pieces on the ToE, but sadly nothing on Creationist research.

Is that because they do none?

Also, the ToE could be falsified tomorrow, but that would not make any flavor of creationism a viable alternate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102355 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He was referring to the other day (my brief take over had disappeared now), but I post from the evolution forum. Threads are often cross-referenced across different forums, for instance this thread could be in the atheism forum.
And in the Offbeat Forum.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102356 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a reputable site.
Sure it is, bucko. Have you ever read any of the articles beside the one you mentioned? Ever examine any of the links on the site?

That you think this reputable speaks volumes about you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.
I'm not biased like y'all are.
Of course! Why would you want to use science to support your position. Much better to use your so-called 'reputable sites', huh?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102357 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Neat.
The theory [common ancestor] specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa.
A theory postulating is not a fact.
Try again.
Where's your evidence of the, THE, common ancestor. You know, the first life where all other life came from.
It's not necessary. DNA alone demonstrates common ancestry (although there's plenty of other evidence besides). In order to argue against this your position requires you to claim that DNA works exactly how it's observed but at some undefined point in the past it stopped doing so due to the interference of a magic Jew. Given this fact it is highly disingenuous of you to be asking for evidence considering that evidence simply does not matter to your position one way in the slightest.

But then considering you've been dancing for 30+ pages over the definition of "serpent" your disingenuousness would certainly justify putting you under that same label.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102358 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Neato.
Look at the "phylogenetic tree of life" chart.
Where's it lead to at the bottom?
Nowhere.....
Thanks for your help in demonstrating that there is no evidence for the common ancestor.
I demonstrated nothing other than you inability to understand a very simple concept. Do you have to have everything explained to you like a 3rd grader? The bottom of the tree represent the emergence of life. Which is a scientifically unsettled question. Duh!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102359 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe in creation through evolution.
All the evidence we have today suggests that life cannot create itself, therefore a creator is necessary.
Actually that's not the case. Go look at plants.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102360 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
You members of the Liars R us club will believe in anything no matter how stupid.
Can you leave the irony meters alone please Bo?
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#102361 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, atheists sure do spend a LOT of time on Jesus and Christianity...
lol
Check the title of the thread, christian. Do you expect atheists to discuss home improvement here? It gets a little derailed, but....

I won't presume to speak for all atheists, but I find christianity interesting . How intelligent, educated adults can believe in god is mind boggling. 2013 and people are still being fleeced by preachers who are no smarter, and in some cases not as smart, as they are. Generation after generation of parents have embedded this crap into the minds of their children and it goes on and on.

It's time to pull your head out of the sand and put this fairy tale where it belongs, with Santa, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Grow the fcuk up. There is no god. Preachers should be ashamed of themselves, they know the truth. Otherwise they would be too afraid of hell to pass on this shit.

1000 foot jesus my ass.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102362 Oct 21, 2013
NDaBoonies wrote:
I have not waded through the 97000 posts to make sure, but, I don't see many references to actual Creationist Research.
Sure there are lots of opinion pieces on the ToE, but sadly nothing on Creationist research.
Is that because they do none?
Also, the ToE could be falsified tomorrow, but that would not make any flavor of creationism a viable alternate.
Hey!!

No fair using logic!

There is no true peer reviewed creation research. Creationists have invented their own "peer review". Stick around, sooner or later some creatard will link one of those hilarious articles.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#102363 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what does it mean exactly? Apparently you are unable to narrow down the precise definition as it is supposed to apply to the Bible.
Its' the bible, dude. It could mean naked neighbor wife. It works, nothing else makes any sense either.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#102364 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He was referring to the other day (my brief take over had disappeared now), but I post from the evolution forum. Threads are often cross-referenced across different forums, for instance this thread could be in the atheism forum.
yes, i pretty much stick to the US politics forum...political junkie..i'm seeking help for that...

i just wondered which forum you were talking about...

Since: Jul 10

United States

#102365 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey!!
No fair using logic!
There is no true peer reviewed creation research. Creationists have invented their own "peer review". Stick around, sooner or later some creatard will link one of those hilarious articles.
Bad habit of mine. But you can bet the link will neither make sense nor will it avoid the topic of Evolution. If it weren't for the topic of Evolution most cretinists would be struck dumb(er)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#102366 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
Here we go again with the magnificently stupid Dud!
Give me one example science has of life coming from a source other than existing life? We'll wait..........
Abiogenesis.

It's right there recorded in the rocks. 3.5-3.8 billion years ago we have the earliest forms of life. Preceding that we have none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

No evidence at all whatsoever of life existing before this time. NO evidence at all whatsoever that your magic Jew even exists.

And remember you ALREADY violate your own rules by invoking your God in the first place -

1 - God is a living being. But we all have to be DEAD to get to be spirits like Him.

2 - God did NOT produce life via a natural process, but an ARTIFICIAL experiment which had NOTHING to do with life developing as it always does naturally from a pre-existing lifeform "after its kind". Same goes for every single species God ever created.

3 - God is eternal and immortal and therefore did NOT come from a previous lifeform. Therefore life does NOT ALWAYS require a previous lifeform.

You violate your OWN rules THREE TIMES.(or billions if you want to address each and every species individually)

WE violate your rules ONCE.

But uh, frankly we couldn't give a flying f ck about your rules. Neither does reality.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
and you still spout the same old lies about non living compounds being converted into life...Hey Fool! what is converting those compounds?.....that's right,..living beings. Not goo magic!
And what are living beings? That's right, a collection of chemical reactions. NOT magic. Magic is not my claim. I've never invoked it. You claim chemical reactions can create life all the time every day but 3.5 billion years ago Jewish magic was necessary for the first one. YOU claim Godmagic made life, the universe and everything. All I do is point out that there is no reason to presume that your magic wizard was even necessary, and if it is, the same premise breaks your own rules. Multiple times over.
bohart wrote:
Keep up the lying, it's all you have.
But unlike you I haven't had to lie here, have I?

Just because I broke "BOHART'S COMMANDMENT" doesn't mean I have lied. It means YOU have because you broke it three times. AND you never address my posts directly and deal with the problems of your own arguments.

Your willful ignorance is not our problem.

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
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 5 min Princess Hey 3,248
News Weird 8 mins ago 6:12 p.m.Naked man jumps from ... 6 min Fundies R Mentall... 3
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 17 min andet1987 35,252
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 21 min SUG here 3,001
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 26 min A Noisy Bar In Av... 7,402
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 30 min wichita-rick 192,983
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 32 min andet1987 7,706
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr Princess Hey 145,500
human sexuality topic ? 1 hr GGG 3
More from around the web