Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221272 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103966 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Time is not affected? How? If going from the east( say Tehran) to the west( say New York), the day and the time will change. This is a fact.


I'll tell you what, bub. Get yourself a stopwatch and fly across the Pacific Ocean. Let me know if it jumps time.

No one is disputing that the local time or the calendar day will get adjusted as you cross time zones. But time ITSELF is not affected.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#103967 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> As long as there are no firm evidence of other planets sustaining lives, your statements are just mere speculations.
Yes they are.

But your claim that the earth is the only habitable planet is worse than speculation. Its a positive claim which you are in no position to make because you cannot know its true. Unless you think you are God of course.

However I have been too rude. I want you to stick around as you represent the pinnacle of all creationist arguments and I mean that sincerely.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103968 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Same as it is moronic to claim God does not exist.
Tell me what kind of test would science run to see if God does exist? How do you test what you can't see, explain or understand?
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

As long as there is no firm evidence of Yahweh...(and no, there isn't any.)
All you have are groundless guesses and projections.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103969 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is a crock. Science, even in sterile lab conditions cannot make life come from non-life.
They always say we are conducting these test in what we believe is the same conditions of early earth when life began and we think we are getting close. I LMAO at that. In a sterile lab that is like early earth?!?! Early earth just by common sense with life starting in a muddy soup would be anything but sterile.
Note 2B:

Full Definition of STERILE
1
a : failing to bear or incapable of producing fruit or spores
b : failing to produce or incapable of producing offspring <a sterile hybrid>
c : incapable of germinating <sterile spores>
d of a flower : neither perfect nor pistillate
2
a : unproductive of vegetation <a sterile arid region>
b : free from living organisms and especially microorganisms <a sterile syringe>
c : lacking in stimulating emotional or intellectual quality : lifeless <a sterile work of art>

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#103970 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ofcourse you know that you have indirectly applied the principles of faith. Well, to reality, planet earth is the only planet that can sustain lives.
That's as foolish as one ant saying to another ant that he is certain there are no other colonies because he has not seen another and cannot prove that other colonies exisit. Only difference is there are billions of billions more potential life-bearing planets in the universe than there are ant colonies on Earth. Open your eyes Mr. Idemi...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103971 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Same as it is moronic to claim God does not exist.
Tell me what kind of test would science run to see if God does exist? How do you test what you can't see, explain or understand?
Indeed. But it's not moronic to believe in something you can't see, explain or understand. You betcha.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103972 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like the life that lives in the deepest parts of the oceans. We can't see them, we can't hear them, we can't test for them, we don't know of them, we can't reach them and they are hid out of site but they are there huh.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
replaytime wrote:
But again tell me what kind of test would science run to see if God does exist? How do you test what you can't see, explain or understand?
Without any evidence there can be no test.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103973 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise. Now, i ask again, are all atheist scientist?
Asked and answered.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103974 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are the fool and i will tell you why, London( GMT) is 0 degrees, while New York is not.
Congratulation, Chuckles. You've just out stupided yourself.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#103975 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I seldom bother to discuss things with you is that you fail on even the most basic logic and comprehesion.
Do you even understand the difference between
habitable
And
Known to be inhabited ?
Say there is a house down your street. You dont know if its inhabited, but you do know its habitable.
We already know some discovered planets are habitable by life. We dont know if they are inhabited. As the discovered planets are a tiny tiny proportion of what we expect to exist in the universe we can already infer that billions of planets are likely to be habitable by life. Another phrase is "capable of supporting life".
As we do not yet have the means to explore them closely, most being many lightyears away, we may not know whether some are inhabited for a while to come. That does not make earth the only habitable planet.
I know you will respond inanely and i probably wont bother to answer.
It's pretty useless arguing with his as he goes into "LA LA LA LA LA" mode and ignores any argument that is not aligned with his belief.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103976 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "known" planet you ape-brained moron.
Way to insult apes worldwide!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103977 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am not here to convince, but to give my stand about this God.
But we don't care.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103978 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> As long as there are no firm evidence of other planets sustaining lives, your statements are just mere speculations.
Perhaps. But this...
Charles Idemi wrote:
Well, to reality, planet earth is the only planet that can sustain lives.
...is your dogmatic bullshit.

To say life may be possible on other planets is reasonable based on what we know. To say it is impossible is uneducated crap from a known fool.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103979 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Google "flagella 2013" and email all those authors your proud statement, may as well tell the world, "it's simple - time did it!!" Your mindless time God is pretty smart.
I notice you're stull avoiding everything that undermined your silly argument in favour of continuing your caricature.

When you want to stop lying for Jesus, let us know. Remember, God is watching...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103980 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the article, enjoyed it. French mathematician Emile Borel worked on some of the same lines. As he stated once the improbabilities become to vast and the specifications too tight, chance is eliminated and design is implicated . He proposed 10-50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded ..that is any specified event as improbable as the origin of life could not be attributed to chance. It's logical
Wow. Not only does your post have nothing to do with the linky he presented you got it totally wrong by not taking non-random factors into account.

In other words, you are a real live Intelligent Falling proponent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103981 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
You don't make any sense in your claims to me, big talk no substance and little understanding of the technological challenges involved here.
Irony meter go boom.
SBT wrote:
Your claim of bacteria changing is wrong.
Except for the fact that speciation in bacteria has long been observed. "But it's still a bacteria!" you cry. Forgetting that the term refers to an entire biological DOMAIN. Thus all your claims that follow rest only upon your own lies. Of course if you HAD the slightest clue about biology you would have known this already.
SBT wrote:
In 20 years and 40,000 generations studied here they failed at effecting change in e.coli and gave up, so where has anyone observed adding parts to bacteria, no more a complex proton powered engine! Many of these functions have not emerged until of late, not "decades ago" as you claim. More researchers are admitting how little they really know about how these motors work and millions are being committed to more study. Of late one team detected a motion feedback sensor in the stator coils that synchronizes the other motors in multi-flagella type bacteria, more and more complexity analogous to mans most complex machines or better. So who here is "seriously misinformed"?
You are, which is why you're going on a long rhetorical rant saying how complicated everything is therefore I'm wrong. I agree it's complicated.

That's why you haven't been able to address the info that Sub and I have presented in the meantime that totally undercuts your claims.
SBT wrote:
Go get a book on Faraday and take some elect. ed before you dig yourself any deeper on this subject. You seem to be parroting other ignorant sources that are more concerned with feeding the evo faithful fake gobbleygoop.
No faith is required. Nor apparently is any kind of elective course, which quite obviously YOU have not taken. Our sources are not ignorant because our sources are from scientific organisations. Your sources are ignorant because they are from creationist organisations. That is why the scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolution, and doesn't take creationism seriously.

And as usual you have still ignored the fact that your own position undermines your own claims - for if I accept (for the sake of argument) that there really is a magic Jew who is responsible for life, the universe and everything, what pray tell is it that prevents the Almighty from using evolution if it so wanted?

So far you have not been able to provide any rational answer.

To anything for that matter.

God is watching you lie.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103982 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU! I'm not talking to idiots tonight, I'll mock you tomorrow, no wait I'll start tonight,... relatively simple? a flagellum? what a fu-king no nothing idiot you are,trapped in the 1800's still believing that life is a simple puddle of goo! hence your faith!
puddle gooiest! all together now!
Blessed be the goo!
the goo that ye came through,
if it wasn't for the goo,
there'd be no me and you!
so all our voices raise,
to the goo we give our praise..!
and when in this life we die,
we'll return to primordial slime,
and waiting in the goo,
for the miracle of life anew!
First, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Second, you have been witness to all SBT's lies, and can obviously see that he has been woefully unable to address the points that refuted his claims. Therefore the only rational conclusion can be is that you're just another liar for Jesus just like he is.

When you wanna try to be something other than Nelson Muntz then let us know.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103983 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the 6 million $ man spoof or your Revell magic model instructions? The evos send you a few pics and your convinced its all so simple? Youre smarter than this. Institutions and people are spending millions and lifetimes unraveling the cell and things like this little motor; its not simple. The word evolution is showing up less and less the last few years in these papers, that's because these boys are seeing way to much convergent technology and information controlling it in the images and deep research. The backroom talk is getting to these guys.
You guys have been telling this joke for 150 years. 150 years later you'll still be saying it.

"Any day now!"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103984 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Abiogenesis is a crock. Science, even in sterile lab conditions cannot make life come from non-life.
It's a crock because they haven't accomplished in 30 years what happened 3.5 billion years ago which may have taken thousands or even millions in the first place? Just cuz you say so?

By all means if you have any helpful pointers to all the stupid people at Harvard then go knock on their door and tell 'em.

Either way this is not a problem for evolution.
replaytime wrote:
They always say we are conducting these test in what we believe is the same conditions of early earth when life began and we think we are getting close. I LMAO at that. In a sterile lab that is like early earth?!?! Early earth just by common sense with life starting in a muddy soup would be anything but sterile.
Then what will they be doing then? Yup, the will be recreating environments in self-contained areas which are NOT sterile.

All of this is moot of course, since quite obviously since life is here, abiogenesis happened. Even if it was started by Godmagic. Life is here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise the fundies need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#103985 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like the life that lives in the deepest parts of the oceans. We can't see them, we can't hear them, we can't test for them, we don't know of them, we can't reach them and they are hid out of site but they are there huh.
But again tell me what kind of test would science run to see if God does exist? How do you test what you can't see, explain or understand?
Tell it to the fundies.(shrug)

Since they claim it exists it's up to them to go test it. If you're looking for the fundamentalist atheist of your dreams who claims to have falsified God without performing a single scientific test then go seek Skippy the 'Skeptic'. Me, I'm content to point out that the concept simply isn't relevant to science.

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) 12 min On this Day 6,562
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min wichita-rick 215,425
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 27 min On this Day 7,576
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 41 min On this Day 46,440
News Chicago artist creates a mural of Michelle Obam... 57 min Princess Finny Ferry 16
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 23,614
What Is Your DREAM JOB? 1 hr Princess Finny Ferry 45
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr 8541 MARINE 74,322
A to Z songs by title or group! 5 hr liam cul8r 1,583
More from around the web