Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222984 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

#105597 Nov 11, 2013
Mexican Hillbilly wrote:
My Portuguese is sucking right now!
Well it isn't totally gibberish. From Google Translate:

"Eta 'very strange with sataques of Portuguese or Portuguese language of Europe! The people of Brazil falvocem with respecta! and they sing the language. In Portugal people speak with equal drunks! They never use the word, "You" .."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105598 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Aluminium was just and example, I’ve travelled a lot of the US and I though that the UK had a problem with dialect. Actually it seems to be not so much dialect but the pronunciation that differs across the US
Charlie just has myriad misunderstandings,“ownership” of a language is just one of them. Our first argument was when he blamed bad parenting for cot death. At that time my friends had recently lost a child in that way and he accused them of murder. Even thought he eventually apologised though me to my friends the anguish his ignorance caused is something he can never be forgiven for.
Now you can't really blame the U.S. on the spelling and pronunciation of Aluminum. Which is just fine. By the way how do Brits spell and pronounce "Platinum"? If anything the problem with Aluminum can be blamed on Sir Humphrey Davy. He named the element. His name was based upon the mineral alumina, Al2O3, and he naturally called it "Alumium". He scratched his head over that a few years and changed it to "Aluminum". Still not pleased he eventually changed it to "Aluminium". In the U.S. the second version caught on. In England the third:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/alumin...

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105599 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it isn't totally gibberish. From Google Translate:
"Eta 'very strange with sataques of Portuguese or Portuguese language of Europe! The people of Brazil falvocem with respecta! and they sing the language. In Portugal people speak with equal drunks! They never use the word, "You" .."
He was comparing dialects between the native European Portuguese and Brazilian Portugese, where in Mr. Hillbilly's opinion, Brazil has a much clearer pronounciation than their Portuguese relatives, and have a better phonetic sound, compared to the Portuguese who "speak like they're drunk". He then added a comment that the Portuguese don't use 'Voce'(you - in fact they use the latin derivative Tu.'Voce' is a slang that comes from Voss). Bottom line, is that the difference between these dialects is very similar to the differences between British and North American English.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105600 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you can't really blame the U.S. on the spelling and pronunciation of Aluminum. Which is just fine. By the way how do Brits spell and pronounce "Platinum"? If anything the problem with Aluminum can be blamed on Sir Humphrey Davy. He named the element. His name was based upon the mineral alumina, Al2O3, and he naturally called it "Alumium". He scratched his head over that a few years and changed it to "Aluminum". Still not pleased he eventually changed it to "Aluminium". In the U.S. the second version caught on. In England the third:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/alumin...
we're such hipsters in the US. we were into aluminum before it was cool...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105601 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it isn't totally gibberish. From Google Translate:
"Eta 'very strange with sataques of Portuguese or Portuguese language of Europe! The people of Brazil falvocem with respecta! and they sing the language. In Portugal people speak with equal drunks! They never use the word, "You" .."
Random Portuguese Generator?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105602 Nov 11, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> All languages evolved from one or more sources, and later became independent, yes or no?
"Independent"? No.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105603 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Done the language thing with chuck before, it’s like banging your head against a wall, you show him facts and examples and evidence and he returns mythology and personal belief.
However - to the British/US differences, you have no idea how wrong you get “aluminium”
Or "Pyjamas" - which I think is an Indo-Urgaic word anyway.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105604 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Aluminium was just and example, I’ve travelled a lot of the US and I though that the UK had a problem with dialect. Actually it seems to be not so much dialect but the pronunciation that differs across the US
Charlie just has myriad misunderstandings,“ownership” of a language is just one of them. Our first argument was when he blamed bad parenting for cot death. At that time my friends had recently lost a child in that way and he accused them of murder. Even thought he eventually apologised though me to my friends the anguish his ignorance caused is something he can never be forgiven for.
Chuckie can't admit to even the slightest "oops" - not even in something as simple as choice of words.

Now he's locked on to his favourite obsession.

And he's still wrong.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105605 Nov 11, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Or "Pyjamas" - which I think is an Indo-Urgaic word anyway.
How do you pronounce it? When ever I see "Pyjamas" my brain reads it "Pie-jamas". Hmm, time to check the original pronunciation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105606 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you pronounce it? When ever I see "Pyjamas" my brain reads it "Pie-jamas". Hmm, time to check the original pronunciation.
Oh my, one of the earliest pronunciations very well may have been "pie-jamas":

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...

"1800, pai jamahs "loose trousers tied at the waist," worn by Muslims in India and adopted by Europeans there, especially for nightwear, from Hindi pajama, probably from Persian paejamah, literally "leg clothing," from pae "leg" (from PIE *ped- "foot," see foot (n.))+ jamah "clothing." Modern spelling (U.S.) is from 1845. British spelling tends toward pyjamas."

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105607 Nov 11, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage, most of this has nothing to do with what you are saying.
But then you are good at that...huh?
Then prove it, instead of waving your hand with simplistic responses because I will post it until you do.

You are likely another one that cannot separate data from the hypothesis made of it.

Subby you're still waving your hands in the breeze, I see, deluding yourself that smart butt cracks have some scientific merit.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105608 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you pronounce it? When ever I see "Pyjamas" my brain reads it "Pie-jamas". Hmm, time to check the original pronunciation.
Hehehe.

It's pronouced the same way, only with an English (or Irish) accent.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105609 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, one of the earliest pronunciations very well may have been "pie-jamas":
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...
"1800, pai jamahs "loose trousers tied at the waist," worn by Muslims in India and adopted by Europeans there, especially for nightwear, from Hindi pajama, probably from Persian paejamah, literally "leg clothing," from pae "leg" (from PIE *ped- "foot," see foot (n.))+ jamah "clothing." Modern spelling (U.S.) is from 1845. British spelling tends toward pyjamas."
Why, so it was.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105610 Nov 11, 2013
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...

Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105611 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
oh dear...ancient myths are not documentation at all.

if it were, there would be thousands of documented creation accounts, each one different.

the fact that you actually believe proven false myths really makes all your subsequent postings worthless.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#105612 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
And yet, and yet - it's demonstrably and observably not doing anything of the sort.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105613 Nov 11, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>oh dear...ancient myths are not documentation at all.
if it were, there would be thousands of documented creation accounts, each one different.
the fact that you actually believe proven false myths really makes all your subsequent postings worthless.
Another philosophical handwaver here above.

It apppears that the best penchant evolutionists can come up with is to hide behind creationist philosophy instead of scientifically demonstrating the genome can adapt without limits for billions of years. So you and your biologist pretenders can all revel in your spam and yet I know you are gobsmacked and will be taking the point as made, regardless of your handwaving.

The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.

Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...

Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...

As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.

http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...

In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition

http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...

Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#105614 Nov 11, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, and yet - it's demonstrably and observably not doing anything of the sort.
I'll ditto my post above.

Penchants are not an acceptable scientific reply.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105615 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another philosophical handwaver here above.
It apppears that the best penchant evolutionists can come up with is to hide behind creationist philosophy instead of scientifically demonstrating the genome can adapt without limits for billions of years. So you and your biologist pretenders can all revel in your spam and yet I know you are gobsmacked and will be taking the point as made, regardless of your handwaving.
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.
and what does any of that have to do with you spouting about some documented creation account that isn't there?

why is it you can never respond rationally when i show your posts to be pure bullshit?

i think it is time for you to run away, don't you think?

show me this credible creation account, please... and why it is more credible than any of the other proven false creation myths, which is what you have, a proven false creation myth, nothing more.

yeah, pretty sure it is time for you to run away, again...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#105616 Nov 11, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The data aligns with a documented creationist accoung better than an evolutionary paradigm.
Not only does mankind have differenct molecular machinery to apes, since the dawn of genetics evolutionists have had to waste their time overturning and hypothesising as to why evidence for creation and special earth is wrong.
Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/ ...
Some genetic phenomena originate as mutations that are initially advantageous but decline in fitness until they become distinctly deleterious. Here I give the condition for a mutation–selection balance to form and describe some of the properties of the resulting equilibrium population. A characterization is also given of the fixation probabilities for such mutations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3 ...
As a result, the human race is genetically mutating, according to Japanese geneticist Yusaku Nakabeppu of Kyushu University and his team, who released their findings Monday in the trade journal Genome Research.
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
In other words, random detrimental mutations build up in the gene pools of living things with a low reproductive rate far far faster than natural selection can get rid of them. This generally accepted fact of modern science strongly implies, therefore, that we have devolved, not evolved, from an originally superior state, as a species or collective gene pool, compared to our current rapidly degenerating condition
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john -...
Life is devolving as per a documented account. Sanford is a well credentialed and published researcher. Evolutionary scientists can only offer complicated hypothesis as to why all data supports a creationist pardigm and gives evolutionists headaches.

Sanford was refuted 28 days before his book was officially released to the public. The first ever incident of a
"scientific" thesis being refuted before it was proposed.

I see you are still spamming pseudoscientific crap culled from creotard sites.

Worthless.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 14 min Writes Itself 30,797
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 44 min Joi C 6,354
The Song Title Game (Jul '10) 44 min Rider on the Storm 16,010
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 45 min Princess Hey 3,202
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 46 min Princess Hey 150,556
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 49 min Naturally Wired 6,543
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 49 min Rider on the Storm 225,286
News Texas sheriff calls out truck's anti-Trump deca... 56 min youll shoot your ... 10
More from around the web