Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199518 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

#117917 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That'll do pig.
and/or maybe it was shrek

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#117918 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You know God is going to get upset when he finds out what you have been touching with His hand.
Yeah but he touched his own head way too much.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117919 Jul 13, 2014
lol i am wrong on that one. shrek was the donkey not pig.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#117920 Jul 13, 2014
That would be Farmer Hoggett in the movie Babe from 1995. But the Replacements was hilarious.

I got you the ball.
You got me the ball.
I got you the ball.
You got me the ball.
I got you the ball.
Go sit down now, Danny.
Ok.

I think that guy is smoking on the field.

Hey wait a minute, I didn't know the Hand of God was in that movie.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#117921 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
That'll do pig.
Best line of the movie.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#117922 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Now I want to stop everyone right here and highlight this fine example of good Christian love and sharing of Christ's teaching. I commend bohart for his fine witnessing here on Topix.
Since when do you believe in Christ?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#117923 Jul 13, 2014
HMT 123 Observatory wrote:
YOU are FABULOUS! Where did you learn to Shakespear like that?
Actually you sound pre-suicidal or something. You need the meds
before you massacre a bunch of innocent people and get on the news.
Shakespear? what the hell is that ? something you hunt with in!

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#117924 Jul 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when do you believe in Christ?
Who said I didn't? This is a science forum, there is no reason for it to have to come up.

Still, I am not surprised at your poor behavior.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#117925 Jul 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Shakespear? what the hell is that ? something you hunt with in!
This kids, is why you need to stay in school. You may want to strike out on your own, but you don't want to end up like this. Stay in school.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#117926 Jul 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when do you believe in Christ?
whyouldn't anyone not believe in jesus, he was areal jew preaching to other jews to uphold the laws of moses even more, and that the kingdom of god was the twelve tribes of israel once again ruling over judea, once again ethnically cleansed of all but the jews.

why would anyone have trouble believing that? so many other messiahs at the time were recorded preaching the same thing...

history is fun!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#117927 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This kids, is why you need to stay in school. You may want to strike out on your own, but you don't want to end up like this. Stay in school.
the more you know...

*star shooting across screen....*
wondering

Morris, OK

#117928 Jul 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Shakespear? what the hell is that ? something you hunt with in!
so he left off an "e". shakespeare,,, he put.shakespear. you knew what he meant.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117929 Jul 13, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
so he left off an "e". shakespeare,,, he put.shakespear. you knew what he meant.
This site lacks the ability to edit posts. I know that I have mistyped entries many times. Half of the time I see the error right as I hit the post button. That can be very frustrating. Unless someone is very consistent with poor English I try not to mention it.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#117930 Jul 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when do you believe in Christ?
I am puzzled here. Based on your posts you claim to be a Christian, yet you seem derisive about the possibility of my being one. I would think a Christian would be happy to meet other Christians. You don't seem to be. Is it because your arguments, your anger, fear, hatred, and arrogance have nothing to do with Christ? I don't know whether to be sad for you or disgusted.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#117931 Jul 14, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the more you know...
*star shooting across screen....*
The more they have to deny. Or so it sometimes seems.

How you doing woodtick? Haven't seen you in a bit.

I still can't figure out what forum it was on, but some few years ago, I swear I ran into you before running into you again on these threads. Not important I guess, just a curiosity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117932 Jul 14, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The more they have to deny. Or so it sometimes seems.
How you doing woodtick? Haven't seen you in a bit.
I still can't figure out what forum it was on, but some few years ago, I swear I ran into you before running into you again on these threads. Not important I guess, just a curiosity.
You are not his "kind" of Christian. According to him that leaves you out in the cold.

And that is rather humorous. Hypocrites, like bohart, will be quick to claim that Christianity is the most popular religion in the world. Roughly one person out of three is a Christian. Yet bohart is quick to reject people that accept the theory of evolution as being Christians. Since more Christians than not accept the theory of evolution according to bohart's standards they are not true Christians. Of course what he does not realize is that by those standards Christianity is no longer number one in religions. In fact it probably drops to number four or even five. By chucking out over half of the Christians he makes his beliefs less popular than Islam, Hinduism, mainstream Christianity (those that accept evolution) and probably even atheism.

Denial of the facts can leave you very lonely in this big wide world that we live in.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117933 Jul 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay tuned to the discussion please.
We were talking here about LANGUAGE.
Again, it's doesn't seem to enter your troubled and farting mind, you always have to repeat the stuff 100 times in order to catch a rare bright moment:
- before 400 in Denmark and northern Germany were inhabited by several Germanic tribes, the most important for our story were the Angles, the Saxons and Jutes
- those people spoke Germanic dialects. Those dialects they took with them when they migrated to England after the collapse of the Roman empire
- these dialects are referred to as "Anglo-Saxon"
- arrived in England, the dialects were continued to be spoken
- basically, a person living in 900 could with some effort still understand the Anglo-Saxon spoken by the early emigrants and when he were to travel back to Denmark, also the Anglo-Saxon dialects spoken there
- because it were the Anglo-Saxon dialects spoken in England that gave rise to later English, these are also attested as "Old-English"
- but "Old-English" was highly mutually intelligible with the dialects of the Saxons, Jutes and Angles that didn't make the jump to England
- the big changes that gave rise to Middle-English (~1100-1500) and eventually modern English (>1500) were yet to come.
You are not able to distinguish between ethnicity and language.
You are not able to comprehend gradual change.
You are not able to recognize ancestry.
Yes, when tribes split up and one group is migrating away and the remainder stays at the same spot (or, in case of the Saxons, also migrate in another direction), they eventually will start to speak different languages, develop different habits and customs.
Because:
- the English went to England where Latin was spoken and Celtic languages
- most of the Celtic people started to speak Anglo-Saxon too but took their tongue with them
- after 70 Vikings raided England and founded a kingdom in the North-East, the Danelaw. They spoke Old-Norse which is close to Anglo-Saxon but nevertheless brought a bunch of new words
- in 1066 the Normans conquered England and brought Old-French with them. for long French was the language of the kings' Court, the jurisdiction and the aristocracy.
The Saxons that migrated to the east (nowadays German Sachsen or Saxony) underwent other influences. Similar to English, Old Low German is also attested as "Old Saxon". but the "Old Saxon" in Germany underwent infulences of other languages and gor mixed with other Germanic dialects, like Allemanic, Frankish.
The Old Saxon of Germany was mutual intelligible with Anglo-Saxon (or "Old-English") spoken in England after 400.
HENCE, the ones that migrated to England were, pertaining their language, NOT unlike others. When an "Englishman" of the 6th century were to travel back to northern Germany - maybe as a trader - he would be able with some effort to talk with the "Old Saxons" over there without much ado.
DO YOU GET THE PICTURE AT LAST?
Ask your self that. Without culture there is no language. English lik all languages were influenced by one or more languages.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117934 Jul 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay tuned to the discussion please.
We were talking here about LANGUAGE.
Again, it's doesn't seem to enter your troubled and farting mind, you always have to repeat the stuff 100 times in order to catch a rare bright moment:
- before 400 in Denmark and northern Germany were inhabited by several Germanic tribes, the most important for our story were the Angles, the Saxons and Jutes
- those people spoke Germanic dialects. Those dialects they took with them when they migrated to England after the collapse of the Roman empire
- these dialects are referred to as "Anglo-Saxon"
- arrived in England, the dialects were continued to be spoken
- basically, a person living in 900 could with some effort still understand the Anglo-Saxon spoken by the early emigrants and when he were to travel back to Denmark, also the Anglo-Saxon dialects spoken there
- because it were the Anglo-Saxon dialects spoken in England that gave rise to later English, these are also attested as "Old-English"
- but "Old-English" was highly mutually intelligible with the dialects of the Saxons, Jutes and Angles that didn't make the jump to England
- the big changes that gave rise to Middle-English (~1100-1500) and eventually modern English (>1500) were yet to come.
You are not able to distinguish between ethnicity and language.
You are not able to comprehend gradual change.
You are not able to recognize ancestry.
Yes, when tribes split up and one group is migrating away and the remainder stays at the same spot (or, in case of the Saxons, also migrate in another direction), they eventually will start to speak different languages, develop different habits and customs.
Because:
- the English went to England where Latin was spoken and Celtic languages
- most of the Celtic people started to speak Anglo-Saxon too but took their tongue with them
- after 70 Vikings raided England and founded a kingdom in the North-East, the Danelaw. They spoke Old-Norse which is close to Anglo-Saxon but nevertheless brought a bunch of new words
- in 1066 the Normans conquered England and brought Old-French with them. for long French was the language of the kings' Court, the jurisdiction and the aristocracy.
The Saxons that migrated to the east (nowadays German Sachsen or Saxony) underwent other influences. Similar to English, Old Low German is also attested as "Old Saxon". but the "Old Saxon" in Germany underwent infulences of other languages and gor mixed with other Germanic dialects, like Allemanic, Frankish.
The Old Saxon of Germany was mutual intelligible with Anglo-Saxon (or "Old-English") spoken in England after 400.
HENCE, the ones that migrated to England were, pertaining their language, NOT unlike others. When an "Englishman" of the 6th century were to travel back to northern Germany - maybe as a trader - he would be able with some effort to talk with the "Old Saxons" over there without much ado.
DO YOU GET THE PICTURE AT LAST?
And again, yes, there were influences, like in other world languages.
But those influences never changed the language completely, like as it is seen in most conquered lands.
So, going by that, your points, are just dust thrown in your own very eyes.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117935 Jul 14, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Stay tuned to the discussion please.
We were talking here about LANGUAGE.
Again, it's doesn't seem to enter your troubled and farting mind, you always have to repeat the stuff 100 times in order to catch a rare bright moment:
- before 400 in Denmark and northern Germany were inhabited by several Germanic tribes, the most important for our story were the Angles, the Saxons and Jutes
- those people spoke Germanic dialects. Those dialects they took with them when they migrated to England after the collapse of the Roman empire
- these dialects are referred to as "Anglo-Saxon"
- arrived in England, the dialects were continued to be spoken
- basically, a person living in 900 could with some effort still understand the Anglo-Saxon spoken by the early emigrants and when he were to travel back to Denmark, also the Anglo-Saxon dialects spoken there
- because it were the Anglo-Saxon dialects spoken in England that gave rise to later English, these are also attested as "Old-English"
- but "Old-English" was highly mutually intelligible with the dialects of the Saxons, Jutes and Angles that didn't make the jump to England
- the big changes that gave rise to Middle-English (~1100-1500) and eventually modern English (>1500) were yet to come.
You are not able to distinguish between ethnicity and language.
You are not able to comprehend gradual change.
You are not able to recognize ancestry.
Yes, when tribes split up and one group is migrating away and the remainder stays at the same spot (or, in case of the Saxons, also migrate in another direction), they eventually will start to speak different languages, develop different habits and customs.
Because:
- the English went to England where Latin was spoken and Celtic languages
- most of the Celtic people started to speak Anglo-Saxon too but took their tongue with them
- after 70 Vikings raided England and founded a kingdom in the North-East, the Danelaw. They spoke Old-Norse which is close to Anglo-Saxon but nevertheless brought a bunch of new words
- in 1066 the Normans conquered England and brought Old-French with them. for long French was the language of the kings' Court, the jurisdiction and the aristocracy.
The Saxons that migrated to the east (nowadays German Sachsen or Saxony) underwent other influences. Similar to English, Old Low German is also attested as "Old Saxon". but the "Old Saxon" in Germany underwent infulences of other languages and gor mixed with other Germanic dialects, like Allemanic, Frankish.
The Old Saxon of Germany was mutual intelligible with Anglo-Saxon (or "Old-English") spoken in England after 400.
HENCE, the ones that migrated to England were, pertaining their language, NOT unlike others. When an "Englishman" of the 6th century were to travel back to northern Germany - maybe as a trader - he would be able with some effort to talk with the "Old Saxons" over there without much ado.
DO YOU GET THE PICTURE AT LAST?
So in each successive conquest, the people would have been speaking the languages of their conquerors, but no. Except in the Norman era, and it later went back to the English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117936 Jul 14, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So you still have no evidence? Note make believe and dreams do not count as evidence
The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, did not start from Germany or Denmark, they were Barbarians who migrated to those and some later remained to become Germans, Dutch, Danish, with the local populations they met.
Others went to England to form the English race with the locals there.

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
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 4 min Judy 123 44,178
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 4 min Old Sam 3,499
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 4 min Princess Hey 11,551
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 4 min Old Sam 2,997
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 5 min SweLL GirL 145,496
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 7 min Princess Hey 3,239
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 8 min Lucy the First 7,390
2words into 2new words (May '12) 27 min Old Sam 2,340
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Jack 192,966
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 3 hr beatlesinthebog 35,244
More from around the web