Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199348 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117469 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Those tribes( Jutes, Angles, and Saxons) gave births to the modern day Germans, Danes, English, Dutch, etc. They are not Germans or Danes, as you or him claimed.
I did not claim, you did, I repeated what you said and commented on it so don’t try back sliding your own ignorance on me.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117470 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So funny how godbots always assume they are correct and that everyone else in the whole wide world agrees with them, except the people they are arguing with and of course the facts, no matter the evidence that shows them to be wrong.
Must be all that battering around the head with the babble while you were younger that effected your personality
True Englishness has been bred out over 2000 years of invasion by Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans. There are now very few true English, light blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, fair skin and freckles. And the wode stains have completely gone. There are more people with the British (you call it English) gene in Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England because those ancient invaders never really got a grip in those areas.
And don’t be asking for evidence, I have been providing evidence for the last 2 years and you completely ignore it and go back into the same circles of BS and lies.
Bullshit and Batshit crazy.
ENGLAND remains the dominant force in Britain and the UK.
Don't cry about that. I am not here to bring in politics, but to speak the truth.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117471 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> crap. Those tribes are not Danish or Germans, they are migrants who gave births to the English, Danish and Germans, etc. Get that. If that is clear , you will truly know where English began.
Your CRAP is getting worse ANY next post you produce.
I did not say that the tribes were Danish or Germans. Straw man fallacy.
They were Angles, Saxons and Jutes.
They spoke highly mutually intelligible Germanic dialects, called "Anglo-Saxon".
They migrated to nowadays England.
They spoke Anglo-Saxon dialects when they still were living in nowadays Denmark and northern Germany and STILL spoke them when they migrated to nowadays England. The language they spoke, when they eventually arrived in England, was still Anglo-Saxon. and they continued to do so until ~1090.
A person living in 800 in England would, with some effort, understand the language spoken by those early emigrants.
The same applies to a person living in 1100 in England.
Only after 1100 there was rapid change in Anglo-Saxon. In 1100 is still was a highly inflected, both in case system and verb conjugation. The very most of its vocabulary was of Germanic origin.
In 1200, the case system was almost completely dropped, verbs lost most of their conjugation and 60% of the vocabulary was of Latin origin (via the French of the Norman conquerors). Middle-English emerged. The great vowel shift even still had to come.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117472 Jul 10, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
LESSON 101 in history.
1) in the year 400 there were no Germanic tribes in nowadays England.
2) the land was inhabited by Celtic speaking people, and the Roman occupiers. The elite and the Roman inhabitants spoke Latin. Nobody spoke ANY Germanic dialect.
3) In the 5th century the first Germanic tribes crossed the North Sea due to the fall of the Roman Empire. These were the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. They originated and migrated from Denmark and Northern Germany. They spoke highly mutually intelligible Germanic dialects, generally referred to as the Anglo-Saxon dialects. From 500 on we refer to the "Anglo-Saxon language". AKA "Old-English".
4) Hence, the Anglo-Saxon language was brought to England by those Germanic tribes, who originally were NATIVE to Denmark and northern parts of Germany.
It is even ridiculous to speak of "Danes" and "Germans" because these designations did not even exist in those days. There was no "Denmark" and "Germany" in those days, not as a nation, nor in the ethnic meaning of the words. And not as languages for that matter.
Can't get any clearer, isn't it, TATTLER?
And one thing you need to learn from history, no race or culture is truly pure but mixed. We are all one people, divided by culture and politics.
The English are being seen as invaders of Britain. What about the Romans, Celts, etc?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117473 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And yes, Northern Europe, did they left that Northern Europe? Yes or no?
Don't argue blindly, they left in great numbers and came to Britain, and they brought their Language which was old English and over the centuries, it became modern ENGLISH, all that, did not take place outside England. But in England.
“No” they stayed in Northern Europe, Britain is classed as Northern Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe

Wrong again, Northern Britain, when the Saxons etc invaded was sparsely populated and the reason they had such success (no opposition). They came in fairly small numbers, the average ship would uncomfortably hold up to 100 to 150 people, warriors, wives, children, livestock and equipment. The few warriors would invade and settle one area. Just a few such ships were all that was needed to settle northern England, Scotland and much of Ireland.

And yes they brought there language (Thank you – at last) that developed into (with lots of side roads) into the language of today. As I have been telling you for 2 years and moving your goalposts makes no difference.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117474 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So funny how godbots always assume they are correct and that everyone else in the whole wide world agrees with them, except the people they are arguing with and of course the facts, no matter the evidence that shows them to be wrong.
Must be all that battering around the head with the babble while you were younger that effected your personality
True Englishness has been bred out over 2000 years of invasion by Romans, Anglo Saxons, Normans. There are now very few true English, light blonde/red hair, blue/green eyes, fair skin and freckles. And the wode stains have completely gone. There are more people with the British (you call it English) gene in Ireland, Scotland and Wales than in England because those ancient invaders never really got a grip in those areas.
And don’t be asking for evidence, I have been providing evidence for the last 2 years and you completely ignore it and go back into the same circles of BS and lies.
Wrong.
We are all one way or the other mixed with one another.
Don't exempt the Scots, and Irish as the only true Brits.
More than half of the populations of Scotland, Ireland are in England, why?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117475 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am glad you have said that. Germany and Denmark, are not, good. It was the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that did that.
If you don't know, they were the ancestors of the German people, English people, and the Dutch, etc, so who is the tattler? You!
"I am glad you said that...".
I said that from the beginning, correcting YOU.

The Angles, Saxons and Jutes were only partly the ancestors of the Germans, English and the Dutch. There also were the Vandals, the Franks, the Burgundiones, Allemanni, Frisians, Langobards, Suebians and about some tens of more tribes.

And the modern English descended from:
1) Angles
2) Saxons
3) Jutes
4) Frisian
5) Norse (after 700)
6) Vikings (later Scandinavians after 700)
7) Brittons (original Celtic tribes of Britain)
8) Romans who remained after the retreat of the Roman army in 406
9) Normans (after 1066)

Hence, modern English language has substrates of:
- Celtic language
- Latin
- early French
- old Norse
- old Danish
- Anglo-Saxon
- Frisian

Yes I know that the Jutes, Saxons and Angles were among the ancestors of modern English.
I explained that for the last 5 posts.

You are a TERRIBLE TATTLER.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117476 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And one thing you need to learn from history, no race or culture is truly pure but mixed. We are all one people, divided by culture and politics.
The English are being seen as invaders of Britain. What about the Romans, Celts, etc?
Irrelevant to our discussion.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117477 Jul 10, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
To be precise: in those days there were no "Germans" or "Danes", these nations didn't exist, the languages not spoken and those ethnic entities did not exist. They are of later origin.
In what we nowadays designate as "Denmark" and northern "Germany" a mix of closely related Germanic tribes were living: Jutes, Saxons and Angles were the main. These people spoke highly mutually intelligible Germanic dialects. After the fall of the Roman empire, it were these tribes that migrated to Britain (the word "Angel-land" did not exist yet, it was first coined by the monk Bede ~710).
Yes he is terribly lost.
Each time you confront any creationist with facts, it ends up in terrible tattles.
Lost in your delusion. Lol
You have said, it is ridiculous to ascribe Denmark or Germany to English, it is impossible. Instead one would say, the tribes( Angles, Jutes and Saxons). They are the ancestors of the Germans, Danish, and the English. Why the seperation?
You have to use your senses, tattler.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117478 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Bullshit and Batshit crazy.
ENGLAND remains the dominant force in Britain and the UK.
Don't cry about that. I am not here to bring in politics, but to speak the truth.
Say what – are you off you skull or what? Too much brennivín can effect you like that

Honey, I don’t cry for blithering idiots of little intelligence, I consider they are responsible for their own stupidity

You would not know the truth about the history of Briton (and England) if it dropped on your face and farted

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117479 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong.
We are all one way or the other mixed with one another.
Don't exempt the Scots, and Irish as the only true Brits.
More than half of the populations of Scotland, Ireland are in England, why?
Yup - so what does this make any difference to the fact that English language developed from earlier northern European languages with some southern European influence and a more modern bits from elsewhere around the world?

No it does not. You are rambling and obfuscating because you have nothing else and are a loser

BTW, please provide your data that shows more than half the population of Scotland and (Northern) Ireland are in England – your oxymoron is noted but no doubt you will pretend otherwise
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#117480 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Lost in your delusion. Lol
You have said, it is ridiculous to ascribe Denmark or Germany to English, it is impossible.
Instead one would say, the tribes( Angles, Jutes and Saxons). They are the ancestors of the Germans, Danish, and the English. Why the seperation?
You have to use your senses, tattler.
Irrelevant to our discussion.
Try another straw to grasp.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117481 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
You know as well as I do, that evolution requires a change from one kind to another. I will give you an example of kind. A feline will not produce a canine, or a marsupial.
And nor should they. That would be a violation of nested hierarchies. That kind of change would FALSIFY evolution.

But since evolution hasn't been falsified yet then obviously it's continuing on as it should, just as evolution predicts.
messianic114 wrote:
At some point a structural change has to occur. This requires a change in the genetic code.
And you were born with 125 to 175 mutations. That's a change in your genome. The same happened with your parents and their parents, and the same will happen with your offspring and their offspring. These changes accumulate. So unless the lineage falls to extinction, evolution is inevitable.
messianic114 wrote:
So far no one has given an example which we have observed where a structural change has taken place (like dogs evolving retractable claws)
So nylonase not good enough for ya? No? How about cecal valves in Podarcus sicula of Pod Mrcaru? Of course not. And why is that?

It's not because we can't provide what is necessary (we can), it's just that you're not interested. So when we can provide you with all that's needed you will merely move the goaposts to cat giving birth to a dog. Even though we can't provide you with that because that's not what would happen under evolution.

And why do you act like this?

Because you're not only dishonest, but also utterly ignorant of the concept you're attempting to criticize.
messianic114 wrote:
It seems to me evolutionists hide behind a tapestry of time where nothing is ever observed because it takes too much time to happen. It would seem to me that if a mammal was to evolve retractable claws this would not happen gradually like partially retractable claws. Not only that the structures involved are complex and many different parts have to work together.
Except we DO observe evolution. And evolution makes scientific predictions based on those observations. I've already shown you how. You ignored it. The least you should do is provide an alternative that can do the same thing but better.

You can't.
messianic114 wrote:
This is like saying I am going to evolve my car from drum brakes to disc brakes but I am not going to evolve the hydraulics, rotor, or caliper. All these things must happen simultaneously or we are going to have an accident.
Your analogy fails because machines are not self-replicating biological lifeforms. Also it's worth pointing out that an animal with retractable claws did not start out with retractable claws. They developed gradually. So if that can happen via natural means over just a few years, there's no reason why evolution couldn't do that over millions.
messianic114 wrote:
Are you going to produce a test where evolution has been tested or not? Are you going to give an example of an observed change in one kind to another or not.
Pick any DNA test you like.(shrug)

Then tell me why orthology of human and chimp genomes are consistent with mutation rates, genetic drift and nested hierarchies, just as evolution predicted.

Remember I gave you all this info two days ago. For YEARS now this has never been addressed. Wll you be the first? For until you can refute it you have no argument.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117482 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What question? And why do you expect me to answer it when you have never answered a single question I have posed and there is google for you to play with rather than bothering me with your inanity
The irony meter is reading again.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117483 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, in that time northern Europe consisted of tribal areas, I am pretty well up on the history of Europe and have been having this same discussion with the great god Charlie idiot for more than 2 years.
To be honest I am tired of his ignorant incredulity (as are many others and that’s what he aims for), despite the facts that have been presented to him on numerous occasions he plays the archetypal fundy, blocks his ears with sh|t, sticks his hand over his eyes his feet in his mouth and sings “la, la, la, la I can’t see or hear your evidence so I am right”.
Unfortunately for him, I am tenacious, patient, have a long memory and will usually only give one chance. And as long as he can live comfortably in denial of facts I and happy to disillusion.
Gibberish!
The truth and the evidence are very clear for all to see. Turkanaboy and you, are bunch of tattlers. Go home and stop pissing.
It began in England. Just like Germany( Germans), Netherlands( Dutch), Denmark( Danish).
Are you both anglophobic?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117484 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I told myself that you really are a deliberately ignorant moron some time ago.
In your so called wet dreams.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117485 Jul 10, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
Then it should be easy for you to cut and paste the answer again, or have you forgotten it?
I am under no obligation to provide you with what you missed the first time, especially when just going back a couple of pages on your browser would have got you there. But since I'm nice, here it is again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
messianic114 wrote:
Even if I concede that I cannot comprehend the test
Your personal concession is irrelevant. Your opinions are irrelevant. Simple fact is that biological reality doesn't go away simply because you personally don't believe in it. You are under the erroneous impression that your posts are somehow important.
messianic114 wrote:
you would still have the integrity to have actually shown a test.
You are neglecting to understand that we had already done so, whether you recognised it or not. Plus if you can't understand it, you have no basis from which to make demands.
messianic114 wrote:
As it stands right now, this seems like a ploy to not give an example which can be criticised, and remain in a position of making assertions.
Only to the ignorant. Which is what you are.
messianic114 wrote:
Can you reference a post where I have lied?
In every single post you have shown dishonesty. If you understood evolution at all in the slightest you wouldn't have demanded we provide you with evidence of a violation of nested hiererachies. But since you did, the only rational conclusion is that you are either lying, or utterly ignorant of the subject. In which case you would still be being dishonest by making baseless assertions of evolution's alleged falsity.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117486 Jul 10, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not claim, you did, I repeated what you said and commented on it so don’t try back sliding your own ignorance on me.
Educate yourselves, you Anglophobic idiots, English began in England. The English are the ancestors of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.
Those tribes also gave births to the Germans, Dutch, and Danes.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117487 Jul 10, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The irony meter is reading again.
At least you still got yours, you broke mine years ago

So you are saying that you have answered any of my questions to you? Wow I wish I had dreams like yours.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117488 Jul 10, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wahhhh!, wahhhh,Ha,Ha,Ha
Cybercrying!
Oh hey there, Bo. I see you still haven't managed to refute me yet. How many years has it been now?

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 4 min KellyP_Onuandher 35,204
News new Are Disney Princesses hurting your kid's se... 5 min Holy Guacamole 14
News Man arrested after 'putting his PENIS on superm... 5 min cashier 30
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 11 min paul 15,852
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 15 min Mega Monster 5,221
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 18 min Mega Monster 16,183
News This is reason why there's a hole in the middle... 25 min Spotted Girl 3
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 26 min Harley Pillion 7,204
2words into 2new words (May '12) 38 min andet1987 2,252
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 40 min 8541 MARINE 56,834
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sublime1 192,857
More from around the web