Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222984 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.

wondering

Morris, OK

#117624 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>I also pointed out that you are wrong.
You need an attitude adjustment. You have to at least pretend that you are willing to learn.
i have said what i think it is. you said i was wrong. so correct me, that is the challenge. put up or shut up. you got nothing jerk jack wagon

6th fail for you
wondering

Morris, OK

#117625 Jul 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Oh you poor thing. You don't have a clue do you. If you have said it then you shouldn't have trouble repeating it to me, since I have not seen it. Since you won't, I can only conclude you have no idea.
Is ranting, belligerent and ignorant all you want to be known for on here? I might add drunk or equally impaired as you seem to be all over the place.
Since you aren't going to answer my questions, I will go ahead and provide you with what you don't know. Scientific evidence is empirical evidence or evidence found from either experiment or observation. It must generally adhere to the scientific method and support or refute hypotheses or theories. It can be in the form of actual specimens, test results, quantities, counts, charts, graphs, tables, photos, drawings, readouts, and measurements. It is often analyzed with varying statistical methods appropriate to the experiment so the evidence can be statistical estimates of all the relevant data.
I know, I know, but I couldn't wait for you to go through a series of posts blathering on about how others are less than you and never actually providing an answer to my request. Your silly games just slow things down, confuse the issues and your general animosity is unnecessary and further impedes discussion. You should consider counseling. I'm serious about that.
nothing but the long version of what i said. note "scientific method" in the response i gave.

science evidence is what qualifies as evidence. rigorously tested, repeatedly tested evidence with the scientific method.

so again; how many of those ways have been used on or for testing god? that little idiot jack wagon is the question. name at least two. i bet you can't?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117626 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
it is called computer science. you should learn it some day. it is very useful. you are of course north of highlandville, you should come south to branson some time. i can get you in many of shows free. my family owns 1/4 of the strip and much more around town.. back to the point/ you say i am wrong about scientific evidence so correct me and tell what it is.
Wow. You have a vivid imagination and are a consistent if not skilled liar. Computer science hasn't provided you with any information that would tell you where I am in relation to you. If you had the requisite skill to do that, I don't think you would be such a wretch. The very fact that you are here on Topix ranting like a lunatic surely belies your stated position as the scion of Branson wealth. In any case, if I wanted to watch people put on a show molesting farm animals, I would drive through West Plains on a Saturday night. I could even visit my friend Bucky.

I have never said you were wrong about it, I said you probably don't understand what it means. This is based on the fact that you don't provide anything to support your position, you have avoided answering my requests to provide your definitions, your questions were repetitive, juvenile and indicative of one unfamiliar with science.

I leave you to continue your lies, word games, and general angry nonsense. I can only guess that you will continue using whatever you are on and continue posting till you pass out.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117627 Jul 10, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant to our discussion.
Try another straw to grasp.
Tell that to yourself. English originated in England just like German, Dutch and Danish , all Germanic languages from the tribes, I have atleast educated you a bit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117628 Jul 10, 2014
And on more important point on scientific evidence, since Dan let the cat out of the bag. It is evidence that support or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If you don't have at the very least a scientific hypothesis then you do not have any scientific evidence that supports your idea.

Creationist scientists, and there are a few scientists that do support creationism, have been shown to be wrong so many times that they are now gunshy. They will not openly support a hypothesis of creationism.

Now we don't have to know how God made everything to have a theory of creationism. No, the bar is far lower than that. All they have to do is to explain the diversity of life in the light of what the Bible teaches.

Between the two of us now you have what scientific evidence is in a nutshell.

If evidence supports a theory it is by definition positive scientific evidence for that theory. It does not matter if you do not like the evidence. It supports the theory. Now since every fossil ever found supports the theory of evolution, and there is always the possibility of finding fossils that do not support the theory of evolution. And since creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been debunked. Therefore all fossil evidence supports evolution and evolution only. We have literally mountains of fossils. In fact there are mountains made of purely of fossiliferous limestone and all of those fossils support evolution. Therefore we have literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117629 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i have said what i think it is. you said i was wrong. so correct me, that is the challenge. put up or shut up. you got nothing jerk jack wagon
6th fail for you
I have never failed you moron. I have tried to withhold thinking that is clearly above your paygrade. In fact I wanted to raised you intelligence. You are too easy to beat right now. Your prejudice makes you a moron.

And of course you give yourself far too much credit. A thousand of you idiots could not scare Dan away.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117630 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i think i may have have scared your buddy off. he did not know his location is not safe even if he has it hidden. which is why he has it hidden so he can be a jerk and a jackass to everyone and feel safe.
I haven't gone anywhere yet. My location is still safe. It is becoming clearer why you might have a general idea of where it is. I doubt you could find your ass with a funnel, so I have nothing to worry about.

I have only been a jerk and a jackass to people who are first jerks and jackasses. Just as you have been. You came on this forum like that and now you just cry, whine, piss and moan because the mean ole people give it back to you. What a sniveling little pissant.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117631 Jul 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Wow. You have a vivid imagination and are a consistent if not skilled liar. Computer science hasn't provided you with any information that would tell you where I am in relation to you. If you had the requisite skill to do that, I don't think you would be such a wretch. The very fact that you are here on Topix ranting like a lunatic surely belies your stated position as the scion of Branson wealth. In any case, if I wanted to watch people put on a show molesting farm animals, I would drive through West Plains on a Saturday night. I could even visit my friend Bucky.
I have never said you were wrong about it, I said you probably don't understand what it means. This is based on the fact that you don't provide anything to support your position, you have avoided answering my requests to provide your definitions, your questions were repetitive, juvenile and indicative of one unfamiliar with science.
I leave you to continue your lies, word games, and general angry nonsense. I can only guess that you will continue using whatever you are on and continue posting till you pass out.
yes just like many claim to hold PhD's on here. why would someone with a PhD waste their time on topix. let that sink in and think about it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117632 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
nothing but the long version of what i said. note "scientific method" in the response i gave.
science evidence is what qualifies as evidence. rigorously tested, repeatedly tested evidence with the scientific method.
so again; how many of those ways have been used on or for testing god? that little idiot jack wagon is the question. name at least two. i bet you can't?
No one has made any claims about testing for god except for you, you shit eating moron.

And no, your short version was woefully inadequate. Again, you forgot what the evidence is supposed to support or oppose.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117633 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
And on more important point on scientific evidence, since Dan let the cat out of the bag. It is evidence that support or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If you don't have at the very least a scientific hypothesis then you do not have any scientific evidence that supports your idea.
Creationist scientists, and there are a few scientists that do support creationism, have been shown to be wrong so many times that they are now gunshy. They will not openly support a hypothesis of creationism.
Now we don't have to know how God made everything to have a theory of creationism. No, the bar is far lower than that. All they have to do is to explain the diversity of life in the light of what the Bible teaches.
Between the two of us now you have what scientific evidence is in a nutshell.
If evidence supports a theory it is by definition positive scientific evidence for that theory. It does not matter if you do not like the evidence. It supports the theory. Now since every fossil ever found supports the theory of evolution, and there is always the possibility of finding fossils that do not support the theory of evolution. And since creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been debunked. Therefore all fossil evidence supports evolution and evolution only. We have literally mountains of fossils. In fact there are mountains made of purely of fossiliferous limestone and all of those fossils support evolution. Therefore we have literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution.
duh!!! what is the scientific method as i said in my explanation? hello!!! there ya go idiot jack wagon!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117634 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
And on more important point on scientific evidence, since Dan let the cat out of the bag. It is evidence that support or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. If you don't have at the very least a scientific hypothesis then you do not have any scientific evidence that supports your idea.
Creationist scientists, and there are a few scientists that do support creationism, have been shown to be wrong so many times that they are now gunshy. They will not openly support a hypothesis of creationism.
Now we don't have to know how God made everything to have a theory of creationism. No, the bar is far lower than that. All they have to do is to explain the diversity of life in the light of what the Bible teaches.
Between the two of us now you have what scientific evidence is in a nutshell.
If evidence supports a theory it is by definition positive scientific evidence for that theory. It does not matter if you do not like the evidence. It supports the theory. Now since every fossil ever found supports the theory of evolution, and there is always the possibility of finding fossils that do not support the theory of evolution. And since creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been debunked. Therefore all fossil evidence supports evolution and evolution only. We have literally mountains of fossils. In fact there are mountains made of purely of fossiliferous limestone and all of those fossils support evolution. Therefore we have literally mountains of evidence supporting evolution.
Sorry. I don't expect this loser to provide anything. He is just going in circles and I got impatient. On a related question, is he his own pivot man?

I just figure we might as well come out an state it rather than wait for that sniveling coward to wonder around like a blind rat in a shithouse.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117635 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i have said what i think it is. you and your buttt buddy said i was wrong. so correct me, that is the challenge. put up or shut up. you got nothing jerk jack wagon
5th fail on your part
What an utter moron, I see between your so called 5th and 6th fail there was a time period of only two minutes. This is an extremely slow site when it comes to uploading new posts. I did not see this post until after I had seen where you falsely claimed I failed 6 times.

What a Maroon! What a complete ignoranimus!!
wondering

Morris, OK

#117637 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has made any claims about testing for god except for you, you shit eating moron.
And no, your short version was woefully inadequate. Again, you forgot what the evidence is supposed to support or oppose.
I have never claimed about testing for god. you demand scientific evidence for god. so do tell what test science has that would test for god? how does science test for god. what would science test for? where would science test at for god?

if you tell them what test you want science to do, then maybe you could get them to show you that scientific evidence you want for god.

but as i said you and i know there is no scientific test for god. science does not know where to test, what to test, how to test or even have a test at their disposal to use to test for god. so it is a bogus demand when you ask for scientific evidence for god. if science doesn't know how and point blank can't test for god then there will be no scientific evidence for god. let that think in while you think about that.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117638 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What an utter moron, I see between your so called 5th and 6th fail there was a time period of only two minutes. This is an extremely slow site when it comes to uploading new posts. I did not see this post until after I had seen where you falsely claimed I failed 6 times.
What a Maroon! What a complete ignoranimus!!
so how is topix's fault that you saw the later post before the prior one? even if it is slow the 5th did post before the 6th correct?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117639 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
yes just like many claim to hold PhD's on here. why would someone with a PhD waste their time on topix. let that sink in and think about it.
Perhaps because we like making fun of butt lickers like you.

I can pretty much tell the level of science education a person has had from what they post. You should be just about ready for your fifth year of fourth grade by my reckoning. That is if you don't have to quite because your sister is pregnant with your 3rd child.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117640 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
duh!!! what is the scientific method as i said in my explanation? hello!!! there ya go idiot jack wagon!
Again you moron you forgot the most important part. What the evidence is applied to.

But then you have shown yourself to be an utter fool time after time.

You don't seem to realize how important that this evidence must be applied to a theory or a hypothesis. You probably have taken the false dichotomy that either it is evolution or Biblical creationism. If evolution is wrong, and that is about the biggest if in the world, there are a myriad of possibilities. In fact we know that Biblical creationism is not the answer since it has been shown to be wrong.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117641 Jul 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry. I don't expect this loser to provide anything. He is just going in circles and I got impatient. On a related question, is he his own pivot man?
I just figure we might as well come out an state it rather than wait for that sniveling coward to wonder around like a blind rat in a shithouse.
duh!!! what is the "scientific method" as i said in my explanation? hello!!! there ya go idiot jack wagon! you took the long way i cut it short. who is the idiot. yep that would be you.

again i said "science evidence is what qualifies as evidence. rigorously tested, repeatedly tested evidence with the scientific method."
wondering

Morris, OK

#117642 Jul 10, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you moron you forgot the most important part. What the evidence is applied to.
But then you have shown yourself to be an utter fool time after time.
You don't seem to realize how important that this evidence must be applied to a theory or a hypothesis. You probably have taken the false dichotomy that either it is evolution or Biblical creationism. If evolution is wrong, and that is about the biggest if in the world, there are a myriad of possibilities. In fact we know that Biblical creationism is not the answer since it has been shown to be wrong.
again; what is the scientific method? it is not a hard question
wondering

Morris, OK

#117643 Jul 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps because we like making fun of butt lickers like you.
I can pretty much tell the level of science education a person has had from what they post. You should be just about ready for your fifth year of fourth grade by my reckoning. That is if you don't have to quite because your sister is pregnant with your 3rd child.
maybe i like making fun of idiot jack wagons like you. let that sink in. well damn maybe we are here for the same reason

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117644 Jul 10, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never claimed about testing for god. you demand scientific evidence for god. so do tell what test science has that would test for god? how does science test for god. what would science test for? where would science test at for god?[/quote]

No I didn't. I said we can test for the Biblical God. That is not a test for god in general.

You are really whiffing every time you take a swing today. Testing for the God of the Bible is not testing for god.

Here, let's look at a simple analogy. Let's say we have an unknown animal. Luckily we have a test on hand to see whether it is a cat or not. It fails the cat test. We have shown that that animal is not a cat. We have not shown that the animal is not a mammal. Proving that one specific god does not exist is not proving that all gods do not exist. Proving that an animal is not a cat is not proving that that animal is not a mammal.

QUOTE]
if you tell them what test you want science to do, then maybe you could get them to show you that scientific evidence you want for god.
Again, I never made any claims about testing for god, You are the only idiot who has even brought up the idea of a general test for god.
but as i said you and i know there is no scientific test for god. science does not know where to test, what to test, how to test or even have a test at their disposal to use to test for god. so it is a bogus demand when you ask for scientific evidence for god. if science doesn't know how and point blank can't test for god then there will be no scientific evidence for god. let that think in while you think about that.
Nice strawman you have there. I see that you are not willing to let it go.

Isn't it amazing that you can win a debate when you are arguing against what no one claimed?

Again you are tipping your hand and showing that you are a fundamentalist creatard. A test for your God is not a test for all gods.

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 Oh $!&@: Roadside defecation ends in disaster 10 min Rick Perry s Closet 11
News George Will: All eyes turn to Illinois for an i... 13 min Rick Perry s Closet 1
Why Do Losers Insist On Related Everything To T... 14 min Faith 1
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 27 min UStalker 150,581
Two rhyming words! (Jun '12) 42 min DumbDrumpft 370
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. (Oct '16) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 3,984
News Your Life Story In 6 Words (Feb '08) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 10,309
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Whatevs 30,835
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 hr -feelingSOblue- 225,301
More from around the web