Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199200 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 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107097 Nov 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>who ever said anything about saving the planet?!? i've always found that saying funny as the planet will always survive, it is the animal species on it that are variable...
Figure of speech.

Do you control the parts of the world most critical to species preservation? What are you going to tell indonesians and brazilians and africans about managing their resources? They want ranches and palm oil plantations and even sustenance farming. Their populations are growing fast. At least they are developing fast too and hopefully the economic griowth will put them in the slow pop growth curve before they kill everything. Its not under your control or mine or even our "rich" governments'.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107098 Nov 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But he never used the stand your ground law. His claim for that case was always self defense. And they had very good evidence for that.
And Treyvon could not claim "stand your ground" either. He ran away, had plenty of time to go home, and attacked Zimmerman. He was the instigator of the actual attack. Regretting running away in the first place is not valid grounds for attacking someone.
and self defense also doesn't include starting a fight and then pulling a gun when you lose that fight. if zimmerman had stayed in his car, we would not even know their names...

how do you know treyvon instigated the attack? Zim actually admitted to the 911 operator he was following the kid and was told to not continue, which he did. he clearly instigated the whole thing...then he started to lose and ran to his little gun to save his pathetic ass...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107099 Nov 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Figure of speech.
Do you control the parts of the world most critical to species preservation? What are you going to tell indonesians and brazilians and africans about managing their resources? They want ranches and palm oil plantations and even sustenance farming. Their populations are growing fast. At least they are developing fast too and hopefully the economic griowth will put them in the slow pop growth curve before they kill everything. Its not under your control or mine or even our "rich" governments'.
not clear on what that has to do with our discussion...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107100 Nov 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and self defense also doesn't include starting a fight and then pulling a gun when you lose that fight. if zimmerman had stayed in his car, we would not even know their names...
how do you know treyvon instigated the attack? Zim actually admitted to the 911 operator he was following the kid and was told to not continue, which he did. he clearly instigated the whole thing...then he started to lose and ran to his little gun to save his pathetic ass...
But he didn't start the fight. Following a suspicious person in your neighborhood is not starting a fight. Even if you have a right to be in that neighborhood it does not give you the right to attack someone.

The evidence supported Zimmerman that he was attacked by Trayvon.

Also the 911 operator did not tell him to follow Trayvon anymore. He said they did not need him to do so. Zimmerman's testimony was that he broke off following Trayvon since he lost him anyway and was then looking for a street address so the police could find him.

The evidence was fairly strong that Trayvon came back and attacked Zimmerman. Zim may be a fat, incompetent, cop wanna be, that does not mean he is fair game for attack. He did not pull his gun immediately, he was being beaten rather badly, according to a witness, when he did so.

Trayvon attacked the wrong man at the wrong time.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107101 Nov 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But he didn't start the fight. Following a suspicious person in your neighborhood is not starting a fight. Even if you have a right to be in that neighborhood it does not give you the right to attack someone.
The evidence supported Zimmerman that he was attacked by Trayvon.
Also the 911 operator did not tell him to follow Trayvon anymore. He said they did not need him to do so. Zimmerman's testimony was that he broke off following Trayvon since he lost him anyway and was then looking for a street address so the police could find him.
The evidence was fairly strong that Trayvon came back and attacked Zimmerman. Zim may be a fat, incompetent, cop wanna be, that does not mean he is fair game for attack. He did not pull his gun immediately, he was being beaten rather badly, according to a witness, when he did so.
Trayvon attacked the wrong man at the wrong time.
why was treyvon a suspicious person? what did he do that was suspicious? no it is only Zim'z testimony that suggests it was treyvon gthat cam e back to attack him, the logic and situation of the scene would suggest different, that it was the cop wanna be that sinstigated and treyvon that defended himself, as was his right.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107102 Nov 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why was treyvon a suspicious person? what did he do that was suspicious? no it is only Zim'z testimony that suggests it was treyvon gthat cam e back to attack him, the logic and situation of the scene would suggest different, that it was the cop wanna be that sinstigated and treyvon that defended himself, as was his right.
Because the neighborhood has several breakins lately by young people.

From the Wiki article on the case:

"Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[52] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood."

And Zimmerman's testimony matched the timeline of event.

Liars are usually caught out by changing stories or by stories not matching the facts. Zimmerman made a statement that changed very little on the night of the event. It matched the events that could be independently timed. If he lied, it was one heck of a lie that did not have to change very much at all.

Here are a couple of facts supported by even witnesses against Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a short contact with Trayvon and he ran away. There was enough time after that encounter for Trayvon to go home.

It is fairly obvious that chunky monkey Zimmerman could not have chased down slimmer, younger, taller, Martin. You could hear Zimmerman's voice change on the tape when he was advised not to follow. It is fairly obvious that Martin got away. For Martin to run across Zimmerman again he had to return to him. Check out the map.

You have to ask yourself, how did Martin run into Zimmerman again? He did not have to run away, but once he did he could not legally re-engage. Martin was a fighter. He had gotten in trouble for it before. The wounds on Zimmerman and Martin supported Zimmerman's story. The only injury, aside from the fatal gunshot wound on Martin were injuries to his hands. Zimmerman had not hand injuries.

I have done martial arts for years. In the good old days there were no fist protectors. If you hit someone in the face, by accident since it was against the rules, your hands would usually show some sort of damage. In fact I saw one tournament where a fighter had both fists cut to the bone by his opponents teeth. The teeth were fine, the fists, not so much. He had to go to the hospital to have them cleaned and sewn up.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#107103 Nov 27, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Because abiogenesis is not a doctrine to believe in. Pity you cannot get your head around this. Its a hypothesis, or really a series of hypotheses, to test. Can you see the difference?
No faith, no belief. Just science and hard work.
Noted - Creationists just think scientists believe something different than they do. What they don't get is that we don't believe in "believing in", the way they do. About anything.
Skepticism - the refusal to accept any claim not backed by evidence.
Skepticism - the ability to live with doubt where there is no defining evidence for or against a claim. That's it.
Wakey wakey bohart. We are not even working from the same playbook as you.
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.

" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:

The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley

"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"

British biologist Woodger

Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#107104 Nov 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It appeared to be quite appropriate, as the 'answer' was just as good.
<quoted text>
If one is satisfied that someone did something, somehow, somewhere at sometime then I suppose so.
<quoted text>
There doesn't have to be a conflict, as with religious beliefs you are free to believe in whatever you wish. There are even some scientists who accept evolution, and their religious beliefs are that God was resonsible for life and the universe. Science can't validate the religious side of things of course but if that's not a worry for you then that's okay.
On the other hand there are those whose religious beliefs are more important than reality itself. Science shows us one thing but they say it's like another because their god did it differently. Bohart for example rejects both evolution and abiogenesis because he places limits on an entity which creates universes as a hobby for fun. If such a being exists there is no reason it could not have used both chemical abiogenesis and evolution to get us where we are today.
But nay he say, life MUST have come about via magical poofing out of pile of dirt, spare rib and a talking snake - I mean, lizard. All because nothing must contradict his old religious book written by ancient goat-herders who thought the Earth was flat. If he wants to believe The Flinstones is a science documentary, that's fine. But as long as he doesn't teach it in public schools, as not only is it stupid, but also illegal. Whereas at least with evolution, contrary to his anti-reality claims, it can be scientifically demonstrated.
Oh Lord! you still haven't grasped the definition of abiogenesis have you? It means how life got here through purely natural means, no God allowed, and the evidence doesn't support it.

Your idea of evolution is merely adaptation without limits, and again the evidence shows there are limits. I know this will crash upon the rocks of your evolutionary dogmatism.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#107105 Nov 27, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.
" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:
The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"
British biologist Woodger
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"

This must be an old quote, because we have found that
"Unstable organic compounds"
Indeed do come from simple natural processes.

And

"It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"

Only applies to those who for 2,000 years the only answer is
"god did it".
But nice try you condescending moron of religious dogmatism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107106 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.
" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:
The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"
British biologist Woodger
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
I dont "believe in" anything.
I accept evolution because the evidence supports it. I think natural abiogenesis quite likely but not yet established although many of its components are including the natural formation of many of the organic chemicals now associated with life.
And if you think the only viable alternative to the theory of evolution is some logically inconsistent 3000 year old goat herder fable that not only has no supporting evidence but conflicts with the evidence we have then you are nuts.

“Get Extreme or Go Home. ”

Since: Nov 13

United States

#107107 Nov 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the neighborhood has several breakins lately by young people.
From the Wiki article on the case:
"Crimes committed at The Retreat in the year prior to Martin's death had included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[52] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood."
And Zimmerman's testimony matched the timeline of event.
Liars are usually caught out by changing stories or by stories not matching the facts. Zimmerman made a statement that changed very little on the night of the event. It matched the events that could be independently timed. If he lied, it was one heck of a lie that did not have to change very much at all.
Here are a couple of facts supported by even witnesses against Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a short contact with Trayvon and he ran away. There was enough time after that encounter for Trayvon to go home.
It is fairly obvious that chunky monkey Zimmerman could not have chased down slimmer, younger, taller, Martin. You could hear Zimmerman's voice change on the tape when he was advised not to follow. It is fairly obvious that Martin got away. For Martin to run across Zimmerman again he had to return to him. Check out the map.
You have to ask yourself, how did Martin run into Zimmerman again? He did not have to run away, but once he did he could not legally re-engage. Martin was a fighter. He had gotten in trouble for it before. The wounds on Zimmerman and Martin supported Zimmerman's story. The only injury, aside from the fatal gunshot wound on Martin were injuries to his hands. Zimmerman had not hand injuries.
I have done martial arts for years. In the good old days there were no fist protectors. If you hit someone in the face, by accident since it was against the rules, your hands would usually show some sort of damage. In fact I saw one tournament where a fighter had both fists cut to the bone by his opponents teeth. The teeth were fine, the fists, not so much. He had to go to the hospital to have them cleaned and sewn up.
1. Was Zimmerman a cop? NO
2. Was Zimmerman protecting his own property? NO
3. Was Zimmerman told by 911 not to follow? YES
4. Did Zimmerman listen to 911? NO
5. Was Zimmerman advised by 911 not to confront the person? YES
6. Did Trevon fight back? YES
7. Was Zimmerman in a fight he was told not to do? YES
8. Was Zimmerman getting his butt kicked? YES
9. Was Trevon armed? NO
10. Was Trevon breaking the law? NO
11. Did Zimmerman go against what he was told by 911? YES
12. Did Zimmerman panic because he was getting his butt kicked? YES
13. Did Zimmerman put himself in danger? YES
14. Did Trevon have the right to defend himself? YES
15. Should Zimmerman listened to what 911 told him? YES
16. Did Zimmerman panic while getting his butt kicked? YES
17. Did Zimmerman start it when confronting Trevon? Yes
18. Did Zimmerman have a choice of waiting for police? YES
19. Did Zimmerman wait for police? NO
20. Did Zimmerman shoot and kill Trevon? YES
21. Could it have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to 911? Yes
22. If Zimmerman would have done what he was told by 911 would Trevor have been killed? NO

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#107108 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What's terrible is you and many scientists DO believe in something with no proof whatsoever, and you and your ilk are so blinded by your ideology you can't even realize it.
" Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self operating chemical factory . The notion that he was a simple blob , the discovery of which chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation , turned out to be , at best , a monstrous caricature of the truth. With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle , science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of it's own:
The Immense Journey ,....by Loren Eiseley
"Unstable organic compounds and chlorophyll corpuscles do not persist or come into existence in nature on their own account at the present day, and consequently it is necessary to postulate that conditions were once such that this did happen although and in spite of the fact that our knowledge of nature does not give us any warrant for making such a supposition...It is simple dogmatism, asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen"
British biologist Woodger
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
Eiseley's little amoeba story is already a caricature of the truth. Even Darwin knew that cells were not just little blobs and he did microscopic research on them identifying chloroplasts etc. Not to mention that an amoeba is an advanced and complex eukaryotic cell, nothing like a bacterium and they already knew bacteria were far more than blobs too.

So Eiseley created a dumb strawman from the start. Its always like that with creatards. Pick a logical fallacy or a type of truth distortion and its sure to be there in their claims. The truth simply does not support your case which is why 99.9% of biologists simply ignore your destructive stupidity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107110 Nov 28, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
(continued)
21. Could it have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to 911? Yes
Wrong again. Zimmerman heeded 911. He stopped following. Martin came back and attacked. Do you want to go over the evidence?
22. If Zimmerman would have done what he was told by 911 would Trevor have been killed? NO
Again, wrong. This death had nothing to do with the 911 operators suggestions. Zimmerman heeded them. He stopped following Martin. You can hear it yourself in the transcript. It seems you have only this one argument in your arsenal. You should at least get it right.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107111 Nov 28, 2013
Hey Kong, do the inventors of things do have the right of ownership?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107112 Nov 28, 2013
If English originated in England like an inventor, they do have that right of ownership. All languages one way or the other are connected to each other, not only English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#107113 Nov 28, 2013
Therefore, ownership by origination is very correct.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#107114 Nov 28, 2013
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>But at what point did Theopods like maz first appear and are they not proof devolution?
Are we not men?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107115 Nov 28, 2013
bohart wrote:
Read that last line by Woodger again,....that's sums you and your ilk up quite nicely.
Their arguments from incredulity are irrelevant. Tell them to go get something peer-reviewed on the subject.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107116 Nov 28, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
Hey Kong, do the inventors of things do have the right of ownership?
Charles Idemi wrote:
If English originated in England like an inventor, they do have that right of ownership. All languages one way or the other are connected to each other, not only English.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Therefore, ownership by origination is very correct.
The invention is owned by the copyright or patent holder, only if the invention has been copyrighted or patented can the inventor claim ownership.

The law is clear in most countries but there can be problems with countries that are not signed up to the intellectual property alliance

So no, ownership by origination is not correct.

You may feel that it is morally correct that an inventor should own his invention, unfortunately the real world has different ideas.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107117 Nov 28, 2013
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't heard the six of nine saying before, maybe it's the same sort of thing. Not sure.
Six of Nine was a Star Trek character.
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>Of course it is. That was my point - it may be incorrect or imcomplete in that it doesn't offer any proof, but it is an answer.
Yes, I was agreeing that it can be a valid answer, but it depends on the question. In the context of Evolution vs. Creation, it is not.
Six_Of_One wrote:
<quoted text>I totally disagree, sorry! Real numbers are all rational and irrerational numbers combined - that includes the negative numbers.
I have never heard of anyone saying dates below 33 AD as being unreal - are you being sarcastic :-)?
My bad, I meant negatives are not natural numbers, and I didn't say 'dates' lower than 33 AD, I said EVENTS. Many of the accounts in the OT and NT are unreal - and no, that is not sarcasm.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 17 min Grace Nerissa 56,767
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 32 min _FLATLINE-------- 82,111
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 56 min Bezeer 13,550
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 1 hr Bezeer 11,510
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Bezeer 17,999
Word Association (Mar '10) 1 hr wichita-rick 20,391
2words into 2new words (May '12) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 2,178
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 192,750
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 3 hr Jack 7,418
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 7 hr razz58 7,192
More from around the web