Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 219595 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

#104130 Nov 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
And how about the whole of paleo-biologists/botansits agree that the atmosphere and oceans had a completely different makeup in the past, and some "event" changed them - wow, talkorigins - our trusted source for the latest in peer reviewed evolutionary thinking...!
Well yes, an atmosphere of free oxygen when previously there was none would shake things up around here. Keep in mind that this is recorded in the rocks.

But then none of this is relevant to you because to you evidence is not relevant.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#104131 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the evidence several times. I explained it to you several times.
Do you really think you will get it if I do so again?
It's the typical fundie douche-bag tactic (actually, it's their only tactic). Go round and round and round with the same crap... ignoring everything you post only to start the cycle again. The day you throw your hands up in disgust because you've been "down that road repeatedly" and stop responding (because you're tired of endlessly repeating yourself) is the day they knock over all the chess pieces, crap all over the board and claim victory.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104133 Nov 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
Amazing how when one escapes from reality that reason a logic fly off with it.
Indeed, but as a creationist you can't help it.
SBT wrote:
You folks have bought unto the evo pyridine hook line and sinker.
Well perhaps if you were better at science and less good at lying. Wait, you suck at lying too since you always get caught.
SBT wrote:
So you think you have the right to judge me and truth? you are wrong.
Of course I have the right. Our hosts don't judge and you are refuted by facts. Ergo YOU are wrong. Twice.
SBT wrote:
Your mindless, self-making, unplanned accidental nothingness is exactly that, its a delusion, a lie, untrue and a deception.
I agree. That is because that's the straw-man you have created in order to avoid dealing with reality.
SBT wrote:
I apply the rules of reason and logic in technology and create real equipment that mankind uses everyday across the planet.
Except for the part where you already admitted your position is invisible Jewmagic. Remember? It was only a couple of weeks ago, recorded on this very thread.
SBT wrote:
What my friend do you or any of your group here really do?, except to mock, judge and put people down?
And correct your constant lies, you forgot that.
SBT wrote:
Good at that for sure!
Yes we are.
SBT wrote:
That's a reality test my friend and the analogy is the same as applied to the biological world, including that little tiny proton powered motor that you can't describe nor understand
Actually we described it better than you did. That's why you've been whining about how mean we are to you rather than address our posts that eviscerated your claims. Fact is you know zip about science. Especially biology.
SBT wrote:
yet you arrogantly mock in ignorance
Except it's not us who are ignorant, is it? That's why you're so easy to debunk. And the only thing we mock is you, and your lies. And your pathetic martyr complex that pops up every time you get caught lying and you're upset you can't get away with it.
SBT wrote:
but in truth when you call it evolved you are actually mocking Almighty God
Actually your claim here is the very height of hubris. If such a being exists the likelihood it is anything like you think it is is EXCEEDINGLY slim. Plus since reality supports OUR position, if such a being exists, you are actually mocking God. Since God used evolution.

Or God is a liar. And is mocking both of us.
SBT wrote:
and I am not so foolish.
On the contrary, you are astoundingly foolish - you claim reality isn't real because Jews are magic. Then you lie. Then you cry about it like a big jessie-wuss wuss when you get caught. Then you keep lying again.

Fool is not only your first, middle and last names, but apparently written in your personal genome.

Now would you like Bohart to give you a hug?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104134 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You say people believe in abiogenesis and have evidence to support that. You have said many times there is evidence to support that. You have been asked many times to show said evidence. Why is it you have never produce evidence of abiogenesis?
Is abiogenesis as elusive as God is?
If we have never produced evidence of abiogenesis then why is it we've produced evidence of abiogenesis and you never bother to address it?

Seriously, do you WANT to be in the same league as SBT and Bo? Exceedingly dumb and exceedingly dishonest?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104135 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Knew you would be an astronomical luck proponent.
Again, no mechanisms , or hypotheses of how it happened, just give it enough time and anything can happen.
If you wish to defend your faith , fine. just don't call it science. that's magic.
There is no evidence magic is needed. 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago we have early life. Before that we don't. Ergo science says there was no life, then there was life.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104136 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the evidence several times. I explained it to you several times.
Do you really think you will get it if I do so again?
You mean these links were your other evidence?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go tard, some peer reviewed science just for you:
http://scholar.google.com/citations...
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
You will like the last one. All 20 amino acids used by life have been found.
And of course when creatards try to lie about how past research was wrong we can always rely on TalkOrigins to clear it up:
http://tinyurl.com/3cna2r4
So this is your evidence?

The first one talks about amino acids and meteorites but not about producing them in a lab of early earth like conditions.

The seconds one discusses amino acids/proteins but not about producing them in a lab of early earth like conditions.

The third one is just talking about the errors of Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution.

You say I will like the third one because "All 20 amino acids used by life have been found." I never once said they hadn't. So what is your point?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104137 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If we have never produced evidence of abiogenesis then why is it we've produced evidence of abiogenesis and you never bother to address it?
Seriously, do you WANT to be in the same league as SBT and Bo? Exceedingly dumb and exceedingly dishonest?
Get caught up sunshine

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104138 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
You will like the last one. All 20 amino acids used by life have been found.
Sure we have. You want the names of them all? Here you go.

Here are the 20 we use/need for life; Alanine, Arginine, Asparagine, Aspartic acid. Cysteine, Glutamic acid, Glutamine, Glycine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Proline, Serine. Threonine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Valine.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104139 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Get caught up sunshine
I have. The evidence has been there for 3.5 billion years. Before then there was no life. Ergo abiogenesis. Pointing out that scientists haven't figured out the riddle of abiogenesis yet is NOT a refutation of abiogenesis. Far from it in fact.

When you want to start being honest do let us know.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104140 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I have. The evidence has been there for 3.5 billion years. Before then there was no life. Ergo abiogenesis. Pointing out that scientists haven't figured out the riddle of abiogenesis yet is NOT a refutation of abiogenesis. Far from it in fact.
When you want to start being honest do let us know.
It's simple then. All you have to do is show evidence. But all you ever do is flap your gums running from one thread to another, to another, another..... That is a definition of a troll, or in your case, a dude.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104141 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
It's simple then. All you have to do is show evidence. But all you ever do is flap your gums running from one thread to another, to another, another..... That is a definition of a troll, or in your case, a dude.
There is a difference between trolling and participating in multiple threads. But if you want evidence, here you go:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Now your turn. Go find evidence that life does not exist or that the Earth is not finite and always had life. I don't mind which. And since I'm providing you with TWO opportunities don't say I'm not generous.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104142 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between trolling and participating in multiple threads. But if you want evidence, here you go:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Now your turn. Go find evidence that life does not exist or that the Earth is not finite and always had life. I don't mind which. And since I'm providing you with TWO opportunities don't say I'm not generous.
WOW!!! A link to the thread I am already on. Brilliant!! Absolutely Brilliant!!!

Nope sorry dud. The burden of prove is always on the one that claims a positive.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104143 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference between trolling and participating in multiple threads. But if you want evidence, here you go:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Now your turn. Go find evidence that life does not exist or that the Earth is not finite and always had life. I don't mind which. And since I'm providing you with TWO opportunities don't say I'm not generous.
You come to this thread and argue about what ever then you run over to other threads and argue with skeptic about the opposites. So yes troll fits you very well.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104144 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You do not understand. TalkOrigins bases its articles upon peer reviewed scientific articles. Your sites don't.
You could not understand the articles that TalkOrigins uses, they dumb it down enough so that the average person can understand what was being discussed. But if you want to double check on them links to most of the articles are included.
A site that uses peer reviewed science tops a site that does not. TalkOrigins tops your moronic site.
Hey Sub while you are at it. Provide some evidence that talkorigins is a peer reviewed site. After a little research all I could find is that moderators, same as here allow what is on there and what isn't.

Now I did find "There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal." But that is just an expectation, not a fact.

The group was originally created as the unmoderated newsgroup net.origins as a 'dumping ground' for all the various flame threads 'polluting' other newsgroups, then renamed to talk.origins as part of the Great Renaming. Subsequently, after discussion on the newsgroup, the group was voted to be moderated in 1997 by the normal USENET RFD/CFV process, in which only spam and excessive crossposting are censored.

No where could I find that they only post peer reviewed scientific articles. If you would be so kind and show where they only post peer reviewed scientific articles, that would be great.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104145 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Sub while you are at it. Provide some evidence that talkorigins is a peer reviewed site. After a little research all I could find is that moderators, same as here allow what is on there and what isn't.
Now I did find "There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal." But that is just an expectation, not a fact.
The group was originally created as the unmoderated newsgroup net.origins as a 'dumping ground' for all the various flame threads 'polluting' other newsgroups, then renamed to talk.origins as part of the Great Renaming. Subsequently, after discussion on the newsgroup, the group was voted to be moderated in 1997 by the normal USENET RFD/CFV process, in which only spam and excessive crossposting are censored.
No where could I find that they only post peer reviewed scientific articles. If you would be so kind and show where they only post peer reviewed scientific articles, that would be great.
that site clearly stated it is not peer reviewed, didn't it? but the articles on it would say if they are in any peer reviewed publications or processes, and should be judged individually accordingly...

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104147 Nov 1, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The birth of the biosphere changed the Earth, starting with
stromatolites. The more we find out about the chemicals needed for life , the more it appears they're everywhere. The Earth itself pumps them out, they fall out the heavens and land on Earth and they are made in space in vast quantity.
The only thing left is to find the exact recipe that starts it. You creationists just can't wrap your heads around the fact, there may not have ever had to be any creator. Because everything life needs is produced naturally. What it certainly looks like is it takes some unnatural circumstances or highly specific circumstances to start.
But that doesn't say there has to be a designer, but it could be it is all in the universes own evolution that caused it to be.
Some unnatural circumstances?...
highly specific circumstances?..

Oh! this is where the astronomical luck theory comes into play.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104149 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Sub while you are at it. Provide some evidence that talkorigins is a peer reviewed site. After a little research all I could find is that moderators, same as here allow what is on there and what isn't.
Now I did find "There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal." But that is just an expectation, not a fact.
The group was originally created as the unmoderated newsgroup net.origins as a 'dumping ground' for all the various flame threads 'polluting' other newsgroups, then renamed to talk.origins as part of the Great Renaming. Subsequently, after discussion on the newsgroup, the group was voted to be moderated in 1997 by the normal USENET RFD/CFV process, in which only spam and excessive crossposting are censored.
No where could I find that they only post peer reviewed scientific articles. If you would be so kind and show where they only post peer reviewed scientific articles, that would be great.
You poor poor moron.

I never claimed that TalkOrigins is a "peer reviewed site". My claim, and you can check this simple fact for yourself, is that they used peer reviewed science that they base their articles on. You can check this by looking at the references provided for every article in TalkOrigins. You will find a list of the peer reviewed journals that they got their facts from.

Creatards do not use those sort of articles. Look at the so called reference of creatard articles. At best you will see a reference to another creatard article or an article from the popular press. Ask any scientist and he will tell you that the popular press always gets new science wrong.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104150 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence magic is needed. 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago we have early life. Before that we don't. Ergo science says there was no life, then there was life.
You are either a cosmic level idiot or just a liar.

Pool your intelligence with 10 of your puddle gooist friends so that it might be doubled.

That there once was no life, then life appeared , is NOT EVIDENCE THAT INANMIATE MATTER SELF ORGANIZED AND SPRANG TO LIFE! It's every bit as much evidence for creation starting it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104151 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW!!! A link to the thread I am already on. Brilliant!! Absolutely Brilliant!!!
Nope sorry dud. The burden of prove is always on the one that claims a positive.
Wrong, that is not the case. The burden of proof is always upon the person who makes a claim. So if I was foolish enough to say "There is no God." It would be up to me to prove that negative statements. I don't claim that. I claim without evidence there is no logical reason to believe in God and use the Null Hypothesis to support me. If you made a negative claim the burden of proof is upon you to defend it. If you made a positive claim the burden of proof is upon you to defend it. Claims like "I don't believe you" do not need to be defended.

So if you positively state something as either a fact or not a fact it is up to you to defend it. A thinking person can always request evidence in regards to anyone's claim on anything.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-pr...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104152 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either a cosmic level idiot or just a liar.
Pool your intelligence with 10 of your puddle gooist friends so that it might be doubled.
That there once was no life, then life appeared , is NOT EVIDENCE THAT INANMIATE MATTER SELF ORGANIZED AND SPRANG TO LIFE! It's every bit as much evidence for creation starting it.
And bohart shows that he is another poor fool that is lost without a dictionary.

bohart, here is a clue, try to analyze the etymology of "abiogenesis".

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
Back In The Day ... for the third time! 1 min liam cul8r 245
A Five Letter Word (Jan '12) 2 min Brandiiiiiiii 2,405
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 2 min Brandiiiiiiii 5,007
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 3 min Brandiiiiiiii 3,210
Poll Do You Have A Topix Crush? (2014 Version) (Oct '14) 4 min Enzo49 321
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 5 min swampmudd 1,226
Word Association. (Nov '10) 6 min Brandiiiiiiii 20,090
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 7 min Enzo49 71,343
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 24 min honeymylove 211,375
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 57 min positronium 20,919
A to Z songs by title or group! 2 hr visitor 965
More from around the web