Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
101,441 - 101,460 of 114,804 Comments Last updated 46 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107092
Nov 27, 2013
 
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Every state has it's own laws. In Florida it is ok to shoot someone if they are wearing a hoodie
I don't want to bring that case up again. I followed it pretty closely and it looked like the jury got the decision right.

I won't be able to dig it up but there was an almost identical case where a black man shot a white man. He got off too. And the family of the dead boy thought that a terrible injustice had been done in that case.

Moral of the story, don't beat up a crazy person whether cracker or a word that would set off the robomod here when you could avoid the confrontation.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107093
Nov 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm, I used to hunt but only did so for about five years at the most. And then I did not hunt too terribly much, most squirrel in Minnesota. I don't know if I very had an AD. One of the first times I went squirrel hunting it was with too many people and the first squirrel that we saw earned a salvo of shots from .22's to 12 gauge shot guns. It was almost straight over head. I think the little bugger just hugged the limb he was on for dear life. All that came down was leaves. After that I hunted alone and with a .22 and had fairly good success. It was not long before I could get enough squirrels for a meal for our family. It was not a regular diet, but my brothers and parents seemed to enjoy it.
I remember my best shot and my worst shot. The closest I had to an AD was when we were target shooting with some friends of my brother and he asked me if I would like to shoot his gun. It was an over/under .22/410 magnum. We were plinking away with .22's at the time and that is what I thought he handed me. He had switched it to the 410 magnum with a three inch shell in it. Now I have shot 12 gauge with no problem at all, of course I was ready for it. I was holding the gun as if it were a .22 and when it fired that magnum shell the kick startled me enough that I dropped the gun. Everyone laughed at me, but it was the other guys gun in the dirt.
That being said, once someone has hunted for at least one season there is no real good reason for an AD. Mistakes with firearms are too final.
Believe me, if you'd ever had an AD, you'd remember it. It's a life-altering event.

I hunted rabbit, squirrel and deer in Ireland, England and Pennsylvania - we won't mention the pheaasants or the slingshot...

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107094
Nov 27, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Believe me, if you'd ever had an AD, you'd remember it. It's a life-altering event.
I hunted rabbit, squirrel and deer in Ireland, England and Pennsylvania - we won't mention the pheaasants or the slingshot...
I have never had a firearm accidentally discharge either. I was once hunting with a friend and he wanted to try my 12ga. to see how it felt. It made the oddest sound when he fired it, so I stopped him and looked it over. He had fed in a 20ga. shell without even thinking about it and it fired in my shotgun and the case lodged about a third of the way up the barrel. It is fortunate I was paying close attention and recognized the unusual sounding shot.

Now my father always warned us about what he called "cook off". When you are shooting so frequently that heat building up in the gun will ignite the powder and cause a round to discharge, but I never experienced that.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107095
Nov 27, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to bring that case up again. I followed it pretty closely and it looked like the jury got the decision right.
I won't be able to dig it up but there was an almost identical case where a black man shot a white man. He got off too. And the family of the dead boy thought that a terrible injustice had been done in that case.
Moral of the story, don't beat up a crazy person whether cracker or a word that would set off the robomod here when you could avoid the confrontation.
yes, the jury did get it right, as they could not prove beyond doubt what happened.

chasing after someone to start a fight and then shooting them when you are losing that fight is not standing your ground...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107096
Nov 27, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, the jury did get it right, as they could not prove beyond doubt what happened.
chasing after someone to start a fight and then shooting them when you are losing that fight is not standing your ground...
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107098
Nov 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107100
Nov 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107103
Nov 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107104
Nov 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107105
Nov 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107106
Nov 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107107
Nov 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107108
Nov 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107111
Nov 28, 2013
 
Hey Kong, do the inventors of things do have the right of ownership?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••