Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220729 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 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106825 Nov 24, 2013
Here we go Dan, I'll start. Let's talk about the Copernican principle, seeing as you're no good at talking about science.

There is a credible model that requires 'special earth' and earth being at or near the centre of the universe. This model does not require dark energy and matter.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasi...

Cosmologists are freaked out because they have to rely on a mystery while the other model does not require it.

Here is the latest refute to the geocentric model provided.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/...

Take a look at what scientific question is asked to refute the obvious...

"Essentially, we held a mirror up to the universe and asked if the reflection was special,"

Now look at this from NASA...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/...

Here is another reference to emperical research that challenges the after glow being the result of big bang radiation...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...

Clearly, the biased research offered to refute a much simpler model in laughable, don't you agree? Why not just accept what is observed, other galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, as if we are at the centre?

How can there not be a centre to a ball even if the location is a point in space? It is a nonsense.

These scientists appear quite ridiculous in an attempt to maintain the Copernican principle despite all observed evidence against it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106826 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>How many days did it take for the creation? 6? I hope it was during the summer because I would hate to thing God started man off bare ass in the snow. Are you still going with men are a hunk of mud but women are a hank of hair and a piece of bone. I'm just a hunk, a hunk, a hunk of burning mudd. Swampmudd ~~~~~~^^^^"< Tell about the creation why don't you.
I do have to say that Maz and I had a thing a while back. She is on the rebound from me. I can't be sure she is over me yet. She is use to them Australian crocks and I bet she is ready to explore American alligator morphology. Get her to talk about your evolutionary mechanism.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106827 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Pull your head in you stupid woman. You can't call on your science to respond to exposure of evolutionary stupidity so asking stupid questions must be next best thing to spam.
Now you're expecting science to not only explain how to boil a jug but that I simply put the jug on to make a cup of coffee as well. That being the metaphysical realm to which science is unqualified to explain at present.
Go back to bed Aura, and take you fake credentials with you.
Okay my little self licking ice cream cone head, I'm not a woman evolution is a school topic and has college level courses.
Boiling water is achieved by heating it to 212+ degrees or over 100C , these were explained by drum roll..........science.
Now if you want to know what boiling water does to the entropy of water of how the entropy falls as your coffee cools ask chimney , he is been practicing explaining micro-states to morons. I think you more than qualify, you may even qualify for the evolution for special ed needs children class. Other than that you're a swell creatard and are a shining example of goofyness. So over and out and 10-4 good buddy.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106828 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
Here we go Dan, I'll start. Let's talk about the Copernican principle, seeing as you're no good at talking about science.
There is a credible model that requires 'special earth' and earth being at or near the centre of the universe. This model does not require dark energy and matter.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasi...
Cosmologists are freaked out because they have to rely on a mystery while the other model does not require it.
Here is the latest refute to the geocentric model provided.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/...
Take a look at what scientific question is asked to refute the obvious...
"Essentially, we held a mirror up to the universe and asked if the reflection was special,"
Now look at this from NASA...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/...
Here is another reference to emperical research that challenges the after glow being the result of big bang radiation...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
Clearly, the biased research offered to refute a much simpler model in laughable, don't you agree? Why not just accept what is observed, other galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, as if we are at the centre?
How can there not be a centre to a ball even if the location is a point in space? It is a nonsense.
These scientists appear quite ridiculous in an attempt to maintain the Copernican principle despite all observed evidence against it.
Yep. Here we go again. I post about whales and sharks and you start dumping some irrelevant claptrap in answer.

I told you it is over between us. You have to move on.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106829 Nov 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The bull shark is a fish. The whale is a mammal. You think they whale and the shark are related in the same sense that the whale is related to a hippo? Aren't you the madcap. Show some more detail on this assertion. Evolution of mammalian whales from mammalian terrestrial ancestors is widely known. The only evolutionary connection between whales and bull sharks would be at the last common ancestor between fish and tetrapods.
The basic traits that separate mammals and fish exist between whales and bull sharks. Just because bull sharks have developed analagous reproduction to mammals doesn't throw evolution off kilter. It isn't surprising that fish having been around as long as they have, evolved numerous different strategies that help them survive. That these can be similar to mechanisms displayed by other organisms is not surprising. What would be surprising is that some whales evolved from sharks and some from land mammals. That would refute evolution.
You really need to pace yourself and work within your limitations. You have a tendency to pick outlandish and extraordinary examples that result in you face being covered in egg.
Now, I don't expect you to provide a civil, intelligent, or logical response to this.
The term 'Mammal' is arbitrarily assumptive of evolution, when you have a warm blooded bull shark that meets the same criteria, regardless of a shark not using its fake legs for penile erection.eg the excuse of convergent evolution.

Even when you try, you waffle. You need to start talking to Aura who also never has anything intelligent to say while sucking ice cream. That is why we are better off talking about something else, because I told you, you all have lost the first round.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106830 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing a creationist can present as their support could be worse than the flawed and non plausible rubbish evos have to present, even when they can be bothered to do so, unlike you.
What rubbish that a man is closer either genetically or morphologically to a chimp than any other fur laden, non obligate biped that are all incapable of sophisticated speech, is too each other. It is all genetic distancing rubbish and I defy to deny it.
You are all equal spammers that want to run off down any other road or defer to the bluster of the incompetent majority.
I defiantly deny it. Now are you happy? I double dog dare you to tell us how you think man happened. Did God really take a hunk of mudd, shaped it into a man and blow it. If that is true I sure hope that God is a women.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106831 Nov 24, 2013
Or is God a man and that why we are called homo,, sapiens

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106832 Nov 24, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem, sweetheart, is that the definition of "functional" that they used is not the same thing as you are assuming it to mean. As they have explained.
Now you can write your garbage in CAPSLOCK or in Chinese and it makes no difference. Most of the "function" identified is essentially useless.
Oh, and in case you missed it the first 20 times, junk DNA is neither a core nor a necessary prediction of evolution. Never was.
And unless you can show why junk DNA is essential to the evolutionary paradigm, it never will be.
But its there, and your problem is, evolution does not require it but at least can explain it, but ID cannot.
Now continue with your trash talk. Perhaps it makes you feel big, but 99% of biologists don't give a stuff about little idiots like you who misinterpret their work. You are not even in the conversation.
No the problem is around YOUR definition of 'functional'. You don't get to define a creationist prediction. The point being if God created, there will be no need for junk. I don't think you lot have any idea what you are saying about non coding dna. You make it up as you go along and then claim you predicted it. TOE is a theory in evolution itself and has the predictive ability of a crystal ball.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106833 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>I defiantly deny it. Now are you happy? I double dog dare you to tell us how you think man happened. Did God really take a hunk of mudd, shaped it into a man and blow it. If that is true I sure hope that God is a women.
Listen you hypocrite, you are to used to talking to the uneducated. Your stupid ploys will get you nowhere with me.

You freaken bag of excrement, if you can demonstrate abiogenesis I sure don't have to reproduce how God turned his energy into matter, greater than a molecule.

You're a pathetic weasel.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106834 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
Or is God a man and that why we are called homo,, sapiens
Go shove your head back in its bag...

We are special. It is only idiot atheists and sucked in theist evos that could possibly think otherwise. Where are your intelligent aliens or a bacteria for that matter? In the story books of Copernican science iis where you'll find them.

There is a credible model that requires 'special earth' and earth being at or near the centre of the universe. This model does not require dark energy and matter.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasi...

Cosmologists are freaked out because they have to rely on a mystery while the other model does not require it.

Here is the latest refute to the geocentric model provided.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/...

Take a look at what scientific question is asked to refute the obvious...

"Essentially, we held a mirror up to the universe and asked if the reflection was special,"

Now look at this from NASA...

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/...

Here is another reference to emperical research that challenges the after glow being the result of big bang radiation...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...

Clearly, the biased research offered to refute a much simpler model in laughable, don't you agree? Why not just accept what is observed, other galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, as if we are at the centre?

How can there not be a centre to a ball even if the location is a point in space? It is a nonsense.

These scientists appear quite ridiculous in an attempt to maintain the Copernican principle despite all observed evidence against it.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106835 Nov 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I do have to say that Maz and I had a thing a while back. She is on the rebound from me. I can't be sure she is over me yet. She is use to them Australian crocks and I bet she is ready to explore American alligator morphology. Get her to talk about your evolutionary mechanism.
Please don't remind her that us gators and cousin crocks are evolutionarily challenged. She will want to know why we didn't evolve. and claim that as proof it doesn't exist. All I got to say to all those high and mighty monkeys who arrogantly think they are Gods only inhabitant in this world is, take a swim in the swamp and I will show you why God put me here.~~~~~^^^^"<\O/ help that swamp thing is going to eat me like a can of spam. I never should have swung out of the trees.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106836 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The term 'Mammal' is arbitrarily assumptive of evolution, when you have a warm blooded bull shark that meets the same criteria, regardless of a shark not using its fake legs for penile erection.eg the excuse of convergent evolution.
Even when you try, you waffle. You need to start talking to Aura who also never has anything intelligent to say while sucking ice cream. That is why we are better off talking about something else, because I told you, you all have lost the first round.
After having to drag a response out of you, I was hoping it would be coherent than this. You don't address what I posted. You just throw out another threadbare blanket.

So you are claiming that a fish is now a mammal. Gotcha. So no real explanation will be forthcoming.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106837 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't remind her that us gators and cousin crocks are evolutionarily challenged. She will want to know why we didn't evolve. and claim that as proof it doesn't exist. All I got to say to all those high and mighty monkeys who arrogantly think they are Gods only inhabitant in this world is, take a swim in the swamp and I will show you why God put me here.~~~~~^^^^"<\O/ help that swamp thing is going to eat me like a can of spam. I never should have swung out of the trees.
Maz probably thinks that like bull sharks you gators are related to whales. Maybe that is because she heard whales have 10 foot long...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#106838 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen you hypocrite, you are to used to talking to the uneducated. Your stupid ploys will get you nowhere with me.
You freaken bag of excrement, if you can demonstrate abiogenesis I sure don't have to reproduce how God turned his energy into matter, greater than a molecule.
You're a pathetic weasel.
We are talking to the uneducated now.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106839 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Go shove your head back in its bag...
We are special. It is only idiot atheists and sucked in theist evos that could possibly think otherwise. Where are your intelligent aliens or a bacteria for that matter? In the story books of Copernican science iis where you'll find them.
There is a credible model that requires 'special earth' and earth being at or near the centre of the universe. This model does not require dark energy and matter.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasi...
Cosmologists are freaked out because they have to rely on a mystery while the other model does not require it.
Here is the latest refute to the geocentric model provided.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/...
Take a look at what scientific question is asked to refute the obvious...
"Essentially, we held a mirror up to the universe and asked if the reflection was special,"
Now look at this from NASA...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/...
Here is another reference to emperical research that challenges the after glow being the result of big bang radiation...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
Clearly, the biased research offered to refute a much simpler model in laughable, don't you agree? Why not just accept what is observed, other galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, as if we are at the centre?
How can there not be a centre to a ball even if the location is a point in space? It is a nonsense.
These scientists appear quite ridiculous in an attempt to maintain the Copernican principle despite all observed evidence against it.
GO AHEAD. Make alligator bag jokes. The only thing your thin skin could ever be used for is making lamp shades and that is about as bright as you will ever get. aaaangh Other galaxy's are not moving away from us as if we are the center. The milky way and other galaxy's do seem to all be moving away from a common point and we are nowhere near that common point. You also arrogantly assume that the ball of expanding galaxy's you are speaking of is all there is to the universe. How do you know there are not other balls of expanding galaxy's so far away we just can't detect them. The universe is suppose to be with out end. So I ask you, can something without finite limits have a center?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106840 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Go shove your head back in its bag...
We are special. It is only idiot atheists and sucked in theist evos that could possibly think otherwise. Where are your intelligent aliens or a bacteria for that matter? In the story books of Copernican science iis where you'll find them.
There is a credible model that requires 'special earth' and earth being at or near the centre of the universe. This model does not require dark energy and matter.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasi...
Cosmologists are freaked out because they have to rely on a mystery while the other model does not require it.
Here is the latest refute to the geocentric model provided.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/...
Take a look at what scientific question is asked to refute the obvious...
"Essentially, we held a mirror up to the universe and asked if the reflection was special,"
Now look at this from NASA...
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/...
Here is another reference to emperical research that challenges the after glow being the result of big bang radiation...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
Clearly, the biased research offered to refute a much simpler model in laughable, don't you agree? Why not just accept what is observed, other galaxies moving away from the Milky Way, as if we are at the centre?
How can there not be a centre to a ball even if the location is a point in space? It is a nonsense.
These scientists appear quite ridiculous in an attempt to maintain the Copernican principle despite all observed evidence against it.
This above is not a joke and if it were a joke, the joke would be on Copernicus and his blind supporters.

Neither are these fool researchers looking for evidence of evolution and consistently obtaining results that are not expected, let alone predicted, a joke. It is very serious matter because basically the public has been fooled into thinking these changing flavours of the month support TOE better than a creationist paradigm.

What is a joke is you being a researchless evolutionist, flapping your jaw trying to save face on forum.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#106841 Nov 24, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The term 'Mammal' is arbitrarily assumptive of evolution, when you have a warm blooded bull shark that meets the same criteria, regardless of a shark not using its fake legs for penile erection.eg the excuse of convergent evolution.
Even when you try, you waffle. You need to start talking to Aura who also never has anything intelligent to say while sucking ice cream. That is why we are better off talking about something else, because I told you, you all have lost the first round.

Lost what? Pigeon chess with you? Bull sharks don't have bones or lungs, they are still cartilage fishes. They also don't have ears, how even a ice cream cone head could mistake one for a mammal is a mystery of science. Ah but you blind us SO with NOT SCIENCE!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106842 Nov 24, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't remind her that us gators and cousin crocks are evolutionarily challenged. She will want to know why we didn't evolve. and claim that as proof it doesn't exist. All I got to say to all those high and mighty monkeys who arrogantly think they are Gods only inhabitant in this world is, take a swim in the swamp and I will show you why God put me here.~~~~~^^^^"<\O/ help that swamp thing is going to eat me like a can of spam. I never should have swung out of the trees.
Kind of like evos arrogantly thinking their spam is good science!

Earth is the only world where life exists. That is what the facts say. Your assumptions and faith is all the evidence you have to offer of swamp goo that now evolved in the sea and no where else.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#106843 Nov 24, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Maz probably thinks that like bull sharks you gators are related to whales. Maybe that is because she heard whales have 10 foot long...
Us gators have been around a lot longer then any whale. please remind her that some of us gators have 3 ft tongues. That definitely helps creating both the big bang and the after glow she believes does not exist. What she can't seen to understand is just because it does not exist for her does not mean it does not exist. Maybe if she was not made of spam and covered with a layer of jellied fat she would have better luck with that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Gulgong, Australia

#106845 Nov 24, 2013
Here is something else you evos have lost..all higher functioning reasoning ability....

Despite your ability to hit the keyboard what evos are saying is that TOE is unable to make a prediction around non coding DNA and its functionality. All evo rubbish about 'junk dna' being proof of TOE was just that, rubbish. Creationists can and have made a prediction around non coding dna, that is being validated as we speak. BOO HOO for you!

How does negative epistasis, majority deleterious mutations and a degenerating genome support TOE, you spam artist?. This data does support the creo prediction of limits to adapatability.

How can a chimp have more percentage dna or morphology in common with man than a gorilla or orang in side by side comparisons?

Why is a whale genetically or morphologically closer to a hippo than a bull shark, that is warm blooded, displays hair proteins and is fully aquatic? Mammals is an arbitrary distinction based on evolutionary assumptions and excuses.

Why does presenting biased reconstructions based on a few bones mean something like a deer or seal must be a whale ancestor, instead of a deer or seal?

No answers? Keep spamming because that says it all about you evos and your '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
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 10 min Parden Pard 5,259
News Religious TV station in Senegal accidentally ai... 14 min Gov Corbutt of th... 5
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 16 min _Susan_ 21,494
News NYC Mayor: 'Fearless Girl' statue can stay thro... 18 min Gov Corbutt of th... 10
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 24 min DarkSoul___ 213,280
News Teens wearing leggings barred from United fligh... 37 min Gov Corbutt of th... 13
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 38 min SweLL GirL 32,731
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 49 min Chilli J 6,902
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr DMan 73,436
Memorable Movie Scenes. 2 hr Emerald 91
More from around the web