Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201180 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

#117295 Jul 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
your biggest problem is you being in today’s knowledge you seem think that is how the bible should have been written. you for some unforsaken reason can’t fathom they did not have today’s knowledge, words, tools, technology, etc etc. 4500+ years ago they didn’t have much at all compared to today.
Only if you are foolish enough to claim that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". A claim that not even the Bible supports. If someone wants to make a reasonable use of the Bible I have no objections. But to say idiotic things like "The Bible predicts the Big Bang" or other such nonsense that comes only from reinterpreting it in the light of today's knowledge I have to call bullshit on that too.
now again I will give you a working definition of kind as used in the bible. the bible speaks of two "kinds of animals". 1) clean, 2) unclean. so technically there is your working definition for "kind" in the bible. they did not have clade. They did not have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or maybe not even species. What they spoke of, being they were not as knowledgeable as we are today, were two --"kinds"-- of animals as follows; animals of the same kind---"clean" and animals of the same kind---"unclean".
cud-chewing animals with split hooves such as cattle, sheep, goat, deer and gazelle, etc were of the same” kind”……-clean
salt and freshwater fish with fins and scales were of the same “kind”…..-clean
birds such as chickens, turkeys and pheasants were of the same” kind”……-clean
insects such as locusts, crickets and grasshoppers were of the same” kind”……-clean
all other insects were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
other birds and other flying creatures such as birds of prey, ostriches, storks, herons, bats, etc. were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
four-footed animals with paws such as cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers, etc. were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
camels, rabbits and pigs were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
catfish, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, mussels, clams, etc were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
moles, mice and lizards were of the same “kind”--- unclean
you don’t have the faintest clue about science. you just regurgitate what has been said or what you read and most of the time you don’t understand either of what you read or hear. now shut up you idiot jack wagon. we are tired of you whining.
No, you failed monumentally. The Bible uses the word "kind" in several different ways and it was obvious from context (here is a hint look at the title of this thread) that you were using the wrong version of kind.

Try again you idiot jack wagon.

And you are the only ass-hat that is whining hear, but it is music to my ears.

Try again moron.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117296 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit!
The only undeniable evidence you will ever have for a thing or event is to experience the thing or event directly, physically.
And we hold that God is eternal.
So even if God were present and doing all kinds of "supernatural" things and allowed you to slice and poke him with your scientific instruments; YOU STILL WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE BY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT HE IS GOD.
WHY?
Because in order to know if the thing you are studying is eternal, you would have to be eternal and you are not.
SO THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE A SHADOW OF DOUBT.
only by logic can you know God; and you are as dumb a... person who cant speak.
Come on. Please don't be an idiot. If there is any evidence for God I would like to hear it. No metaphysical bullshit please.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#117297 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
An another fool pops up from the woodowrk.
Sorry bohart, you too are still a fool. All that HOG has shown is that he is of questionable mental status at best.
Perhaps you can answer the challenge he ran away from. Can you devise a working definition of "kind"? If you can't it is simply a nonsense term at best.
The Sucking Bone!.........sung to the spiderman theme.

Sucking Bone , Sucking Bone,
Your friendly neighborhood Sucking Bone,
spins a web , full of lies,
lands on shit, just like flies , Look out!
Here comes the sucking bone!

Is he dumb? Holy hell!
His idiocy clangs like a bell,
Accusations he lets fly,
Without the truth he's forced to lie,
Lookout!
Here comes the Sucking Bone!

Tune in next week as our hero Sucking Bone attempts to recover from the brutal beating he was handed by Hand of God by explaining how the ancient primordial puddle of sludge spewed forth life with assumptions, suppositions, extrapolations and wild ass guesses supported by his nihilistic view of the universe, nothing else.

Same sucking time
same sucking channel.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117298 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am able to suggest a definition for "kind" as the context may be; and I am the one in the dark..?
Where you by any chance looking in a mirror when you attempted to suggest that I am an "ignorant idiot"; because that description best reflects what you are being right now?
Give the scientific definition of "kind" and lets examine it with the biblical use of "kind".
I anxiously eagerly look forward to your response... with a flash bag grenade, a pistol, a cigarette and a lighter.
Yes, your definition of kind is worthless. All you did was to mumble some garbage and expect us to lap it up.

And no, you showed that you were an ignorant idiot from the start here. Why don't you ask for help instead of continually posting idiocy?

I don't care if you believe in a god or not, That is not really the topic here, The topic is evolution. If people are stupid enough to refer to the Bible I gladly explain to them why that is a bogus thing to do. My pointing out the failed use of kind for example.

But keep trying. You at least have not shown yourself to be a lying incompetent fool in the way that wondering has.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117299 Jul 7, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The Sucking Bone!.........sung to the spiderman theme.
Sucking Bone , Sucking Bone,
Your friendly neighborhood Sucking Bone,
spins a web , full of lies,
lands on shit, just like flies , Look out!
Here comes the sucking bone!
Is he dumb? Holy hell!
His idiocy clangs like a bell,
Accusations he lets fly,
Without the truth he's forced to lie,
Lookout!
Here comes the Sucking Bone!
Tune in next week as our hero Sucking Bone attempts to recover from the brutal beating he was handed by Hand of God by explaining how the ancient primordial puddle of sludge spewed forth life with assumptions, suppositions, extrapolations and wild ass guesses supported by his nihilistic view of the universe, nothing else.
Same sucking time
same sucking channel.
And we see that bohart's doggerel is as bad as his science.

Or should I say blowfart. That is a much more apt description of his posts.

It is nice to see that you too are afraid to take up my challenge.

So far we have to losers that have failed. The failure of wondering was much more hilarious than that of HOG's. It was a full face fail. But then we expect nothing less from him.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117300 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if you are foolish enough to claim that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God". A claim that not even the Bible supports. If someone wants to make a reasonable use of the Bible I have no objections. But to say idiotic things like "The Bible predicts the Big Bang" or other such nonsense that comes only from reinterpreting it in the light of today's knowledge I have to call bullshit on that too.
<quoted text>
No, you failed monumentally. The Bible uses the word "kind" in several different ways and it was obvious from context (here is a hint look at the title of this thread) that you were using the wrong version of kind.
Try again you idiot jack wagon.
And you are the only ass-hat that is whining hear, but it is music to my ears.
Try again moron.
you wanted a working definition of “kind” in the bible and i gave you one. it is not my problem you are too much of an idiot to know that one did exist. it may be used in various other ways as well but you got what you asked for which was a working definition of kind in the bible.

whining hear you say. do you mean here? say what you mean idiot.

music to your ears you say. can you hear me type? no you can’t idiot

just like when you asked me what I believe which was poorly worded by the way. It should have been what do i support. when I gave a more than acceptable answer you whine some more saying I was lying. you are just an idiot jack wagon.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117302 Jul 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you wanted a working definition of “kind” in the bible and i gave you one. it is not my problem you are too much of an idiot to know that one did exist. it may be used in various other ways as well but you got what you asked for which was a working definition of kind in the bible.
whining hear you say. do you mean here? say what you mean idiot.
music to your ears you say. can you hear me type? no you can’t idiot
just like when you asked me what I believe which was poorly worded by the way. It should have been what do i support. when I gave a more than acceptable answer you whine some more saying I was lying. you are just an idiot jack wagon.
No, I wanted one as used in Genesis 1. Any honest person would have realized that. But then we all know that you are a lying piece of shit.

And once again we know who the real "jack wagon" is here don't we.

Why are all creatards such failing frriggging idiots?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117303 Jul 7, 2014
Oh wait, foolish question on my part. Creationists smart enough to learn are not creationists for very long at all.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117307 Jul 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What soul? Just like immortality, you have never provided any evidence for a soul
I don’t really care about your delusions and wet dreams, I do care about evidence and facts
The body after death will rot away, but the soul never dies, because that is the immortal being in us. Open your eyes and see.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117308 Jul 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Garbage
In most cases and most religions/faiths throughout history the woman has been the head of the family, the matriarch.
Only in abrahamic religions and even then only is 2 of the 3 are males dominant and then only publicly. Even today in the most misogynistic society of Islam, the family man will bow to the wishes of the woman.
The history of public male dominance can be traced through societies fairly accurately. Even in truly male dominated societies in history, Greece, Rome etc, it was the case that in the home, the woman was head, and consulted for advice on even the most profound political matters.
It started with religion and jealousy of the female.
Crap!
You can never bend or change the truth with your wet dreams sentiment.
The men are the heads of every families.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117309 Jul 8, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Crap!
You can never bend or change the truth with your wet dreams sentiment.
The men are the heads of every families.
Total bollocks, you are imposing your personal will and wet dreams on civilisations and societies that you cannot even dream about.

So given your claim why is there a dictionary definition to prove you wrong?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matriarch

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117310 Jul 8, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The body after death will rot away, but the soul never dies, because that is the immortal being in us. Open your eyes and see.
Despite my repeated requests you have not yet provided any academic evidence of either immortality or soul.

What you have done is the usual great god Charlie idiot routine of stomping your foot and putting on the incredulous “I am right because I said so and the facts are wrong “

We can only assume this is because you have no evidence and have no hope of obtaining any evince but are too cowardly to admit it in case you lose face. Honey, you have little face to lose so don’t worry about it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117311 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
EQUALITY:
". equivalency, parity, correspondence, SAMENESS; justice,***FAIRNESS***, impartiality. " [http://dictionary.reference.c om/browse/equality]
CONFORM:
" TO BE SIMILAR TO OR THE SAME AS something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/conform]
<quoted text>
Let the world witness the implications of those words.
Sorry, but your definitions were of no help. Once again, I see no way that 'conforming' can modify the word 'equality'. Two things are either equal or they are not. If they are equal, I would say they 'conform to equality' and if they are not equal, I would say that they do not 'conform to equality'. That is clearly NOT what you are meaning, but I cannot find any actual meaning in your words.
I will not judge you; but the word that you have spoken, it testifieth of you that you are... what it implies you are.
Which is what?
Equality is a natural phenomena: if a plank is placed on a pivot and the weight on both sides of it are equal, it will become "balanced", entering a state of equlity.
And if you put twice the weight at half the distance, it will also balance. Once again, how is this 'conforming to equality'?
Equality is a natural drive of all things: energy will continue to flow until it is equal at all points (law of thermodynamics)... a particle will continue to move at the SAME speed (equal speeds) in the SAME (equal direction) unless interrupted by another force.
You even have the laws of thermodynamics wrong. No, energy will not always flow until it is 'equal at all points'(do you mean energy density at all points?). Equilibrium can have a non-uniform distribution of energy and/or matter. It depends on the specifics of the forces involved.

You are also using the Newtonian viewpoint here rather than the more modern and better fitting relativistic viewpoint. How a particle will move will depend on the local curvature of spacetime, which is not considered a 'force' in the technical sense.
Equality is the the rule of engagement for the Christian; "do unto others as you will have them do unto you."
Not only a Christian moral guide, I would point out.
It actually means that the two things conform to equality.
For in order for them to exist in the same space (in any frame of reference), they must have at least one thing in common even if that common attribute is the space itself.
So what? How, in detail, is that 'conforming to equality'? Are you simply saying that any two things will have *some* aspects of similarity? OK, all things in the universe are in the universe. Done.
It is counterproductive to reason with you, if I can call what you do "reasoning".
Sorry if I adhere to logic (propositional and quantifier logic, not the Aristotelian mash-up).
Because "it is by reasoning that we arrive at truth", and truth embodies equality; and you dont know what it is to conform to equality (not even in thought, as your remark is rather general) neither do you believe IN truth.
Of course I believe there is truth. I have devoted my life to finding and understanding it. But what you say is non-sense elevated to the level of a philosophical position.
So how do you arrive at reason?
By using logic and observation.
And what are you doing with it, i.e. reason?
Learning how the real world works. I'm sorry if that is a concept that is beyond you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117312 Jul 8, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
AND IF THE BIBLE CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MATCH ANY KNOWN FACTS; THEN IT IS INDISPENSABLE, FOR WE CAN USE IT TO LEARN THE NATURE OF ALL FACTS.
<quoted text> Somebody needs to tell these jerks, you fooled your way for a millennia, but you will fool us no more, fool.
That may have been the most ridiculous sentence I've ever read. It even out does Jim Ryan.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117313 Jul 8, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I know what you are equal too.
Yup.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117314 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at how your statement about not knowing what it means to conform to equality proves true:
If all power has one source, then it is naturally the source of EACH ONE of those powers which it (the source) has created.
Notice the key word 'if' in this statement. You have not established that assumption.
Therefore the remark:
"Even if all power has a source, you are making the illogical leap from the statement...";
Should never even have entered your mind as a reasonable individual ("reasonable" by any definition).
And why not? You make a claim, and then make an illogical leap from that claim and then claim that *I* am not being reasonable? Really?
The assumption that there is a source of all powers MUST immediately, directly, naturally and every -ally-ly implies that:'For each power, there is a source of that power'.
But the converse fails, and the converse is what you need for your conclusion.
If that conclusion was based on your sentiments above; it is meaningless (both the conclusion and the sentiment).
Now you are simply refusing to actually discuss because you know you haven't proven your case.
But logic demands that there be, and there must naturally be.
Prove it (that there must be a single source for all power).
That which is powerful by any definition of power, must possess one unique attribute (or set of attributes) which allows it to be identified as being powerful or having potential. And it is this attribute/s which is causes or generates the power by itself or from itself.
And you could say the same about 'light', but we know that light doesn't have a single, common source. You could say the same thing about mass, but we know that mass doesn't have a single common source (no, the Higg's particle doesn't do this). Why would you expect power to have a single, common source? Even if every individual type of power has a source, that doesn't imply that all power has a single source--a very basic logical mistake.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117315 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
<quoted text>
So since letters words and numbers are reinterpreted to fit reality no matter what reality is; is it absolutely useless when a scientist describes what he observes using a particular set of words?
Do words have any real meaning apart from what the speakers agree that they mean?
Do you know the agreements that influence the writing of the Bible and the way it interprets reality?
And besides; WHAT HAVE YOU TO DO WITH "TRUTH"?
The moment you speak of truth you enter the metaphysical, for the truth never changes and is therefore eternal; surpassing the physical in time...
Again with the neo-Platonic crap. No, truth is simply a description of how the universe actually is. It isn't a thing in itself, but a description of things. The truth is an idea in *our* minds that we use to help us understand the universe around us.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117316 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR VERY STATEMENT SUGGESTS METAPHYSICS:
If the uncaused exists, it is eternal.
Again, simply false. There are *many* uncaused events in the universe. None of them are eternal.
And whatever is eternal exists beyond causes, as you rightly claimed.
Therefore to study causes within the context of the eternal is metaphysics itself; repackaged and labelled according to the perspective of Institution...
Therefore you only reject one metaphysics to embrace another...
Nope. I embrace physics, not metaphysics. Causality requires time and time is part of our universe. Because of that, it is meaningless to talk about the 'cause' of our universe. It is simply not a concept that applies to the referent.
If there is an equal chance that God exists or does not exist; the probability is 1/2 that either one could occur.
And why would you assume the chances are equal?
Now if I toss a coin in the air, the probability that it will land on either heads or tails is 1/2: so the cases are somewhat equivalent (and I am willing to bet, directly related).
Now if a coin is tossed and the probability of heads or tails being the result is 1/2 for both; WHAT WILL CAUSE A PERSON TO CHOOSE HEADS AS OPPOSED TO TAILS, EXCEPT PERSONAL INCLINATION?
Why is the person force to make a choice? Since the probabilities are equal, any choice is equally 'good', so any way they make the choice is equally valid.

On the other hand, that is NOT the case with your deity. None of your arguments have shown the existence, and that alone points to the unlikelihood of that existence. Furthermore, there are good reasons to think that the existence is false.

So, now I propose the alternative question: if a dice is weighted so that it shows sixes 99.99% of the time, what would induce a person to choose threes?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117317 Jul 8, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
HOG, the problem is that you do not have a working definition of kind.
But it's in the DICTIONARY!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117318 Jul 8, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The Sucking Bone!.........sung to the spiderman theme.
Sucking Bone , Sucking Bone,
Your friendly neighborhood Sucking Bone,
spins a web , full of lies,
lands on shit, just like flies , Look out!
Here comes the sucking bone!
Is he dumb? Holy hell!
His idiocy clangs like a bell,
Accusations he lets fly,
Without the truth he's forced to lie,
Lookout!
Here comes the Sucking Bone!
Tune in next week as our hero Sucking Bone attempts to recover from the brutal beating he was handed by Hand of God by explaining how the ancient primordial puddle of sludge spewed forth life with assumptions, suppositions, extrapolations and wild ass guesses supported by his nihilistic view of the universe, nothing else.
Same sucking time
same sucking channel.
Bo, since you're lying and you know it, you know your objections are worthless.

That's why you keep running away.

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
News Cops: 81-year-old veteran held hostage in motel... 2 min Mitts Gold Plated... 10
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 9 min Princess Hey 10,315
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 10 min Princess Hey 13,449
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 11 min Princess Hey 82,325
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 11 min Dont_You_Dare 18,397
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 12 min Princess Hey 3,465
News Trump's Newest Ad Is So Frickin' WeirdBy Olivia... 28 min Go Blue Forever 38
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 39 min avon5735 194,220
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 1 hr Crystal_Clear722 8,480
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Denny CranesPlace 58,060
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 2 hr andet1987 7,799
More from around the web