Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223194 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#118225 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The side that said the English language ‘developed’ in England from various sources (including Northern European, Latin, Greek and others)
As oppose to your side that said the English language ‘originated‘ in England.
Or are you now denying that you claimed, repeatedly, argumentatively, aggressively even threateningly for the last 2 years that English language originated in England?
BESIDES, the language that we call Old-English is a synonymy of Anglo-Saxon, they are just two words for the same thing. Anglo-Saxon ORIGINATED in the areas of nowadays Denmark and northern Germany. If modern English developed out of Anglo-Saxon, including all the various sources of the language development, it HENCE originates from Denmark and northern Germany as a logical consequence of the origin of Anglo-Saxon.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118226 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The side that said the English language ‘developed’ in England from
various sources (including Northern European, Latin, Greek and others)
As oppose to your side that said the English language ‘originated‘ in
England.
Or are you now denying that you claimed, repeatedly, argumentatively,
aggressively even threateningly for the last 2 years that English
language originated in England?
English started in England,Yes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118227 Jul 16, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
but then again what do i know. i see that a circle is one dimensional, i see the bible was poorly translated, i don't "believe" in evolution but i "support" evolution, i don't compare the knowledge of 5000 years ago to today's knowledge and call them wrong in what they were thinking at the time, i don't see creationists as stupid but i see them as naive and holding to their faith(fear of change), i see man/science does not know near as much as we think we do, i see that many times here in the forum/thread that shown points will be battled with a strawman argument just for the sake of arguing and finally making the person or people just say fck it and leave. we all see things differently and most of the regs here only see things one way, their way and that is that and the other regs will even back up a reg when he is clearly wrong.
i see much more but what is the point of saying what i see when it doesn't matter.
Yeah, exactly. Whaddya you know? It doesn't matter.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118228 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The side that said the English language ‘developed’ in England from
various sources (including Northern European, Latin, Greek and others)
As oppose to your side that said the English language ‘originated‘ in
England.
Or are you now denying that you claimed, repeatedly, argumentatively,
aggressively even threateningly for the last 2 years that English
language originated in England?
Yes, they do develop, but since they are now independent languages from the original, you can not ascribe the origin from the original, but to the newly established language.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118229 Jul 16, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a damn lie! you are a liar . I have never claimed to be a Christian . Its your assumption based on the fact I don't believe in a puddle of primordial goo springing to life. Its you that brought up Christ , not me! As you said , this is a science forum, so why are you the one to bring up Christ ?
Who cares what your beliefs are? They never mattered in the first place.(shrug)

But the fact of the matter is that you're quite obviously a theist with a reality denial complex, and any time you claim otherwise, that means you're a lying sack of crud. Just like any other fundie.

Otherwise you would have been able to refute us by now.

P.s. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118230 Jul 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
No new information.
No further argumentation.
Just repeating the same mantra.
You are found wrong on this.
You didn't address that.
Hence move on, don't waste our time OR provide some RELEVANT and SUBSTANTIAL arguments.
Anglo-Saxon DID NOT start in England, it started in Denmark and northern Germany. PERIOD.
Total crap!
Anglo Saxons are also known as the English. There was nothing like England, before the English or the Anglo Saxons came. Until you understand that. Keep on ranting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118231 Jul 16, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dummy, its a joke!
Indeed you are.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You too can return to the anal cavity from whence you were spewed.
Don't like us? Go away then. We don't FORCE you to come here. Put up or shut up. Alternatively you are free to refute me at any time you like.

Take your time.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#118232 Jul 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Let me remind you, your Norhern European trash, have you forgotten that?
Say what?

Your wet dreams are you own problem, you consider northern Europeans to be trash then that is down to your own bigoted racism. And we know you are a racist moron by the way you have attacked my ancestry.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#118233 Jul 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
BESIDES, the language that we call Old-English is a synonymy of Anglo-Saxon, they are just two words for the same thing. Anglo-Saxon ORIGINATED in the areas of nowadays Denmark and northern Germany. If modern English developed out of Anglo-Saxon, including all the various sources of the language development, it HENCE originates from Denmark and northern Germany as a logical consequence of the origin of Anglo-Saxon.
Of course, as the great god Charlie Idiot has so much difficulty in understanding

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#118234 Jul 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> English started in England,Yes.
Round and round we go

Back to the beginning...

No it started in northern Europe, it developed in the British Isles

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118235 Jul 16, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
BESIDES, the language that we call Old-English is a synonymy of
Anglo-Saxon, they are just two words for the same thing. Anglo-Saxon
ORIGINATED in the areas of nowadays Denmark and northern Germany. If
modern English developed out of Anglo-Saxon, including all the various
sources of the language development, it HENCE originates from Denmark
and northern Germany as a logical consequence of the origin of
Anglo-Saxon.
Nope.
The same people mixing with the locals they met, founded the German, English, and Danish language. Until you understand that, keep on trolling.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118236 Jul 16, 2014
bohart wrote:
My poor behavior? Ahh Dan! the example of social grace and manners for us all , for the record I do believe in Jesus Christ , the son of God . I just love to drop in from time to time and poke you fools with a stick and watch the tizzy. You puddle people with your praetorian guard defenders are very funny and predictable. Why? because the truth stands forever, lies need to be defended and constantly guarded.Now its back to the real world, you guys keep up the guard and watch out for any blasphemers who dare defy the secret of the life giving goo!
Ah, good. So you were LYING when you called him a liar, because he was correct in the first place. Because you ARE a typical creationist liar for Jesus.
bohart wrote:
P.S.
Don't forget to comfort one another with the rhetoric used to attack all blasphemers:

uneducated
unscientific
ignorant
liars
stupid
morons
Actually it's not rhetoric when we merely describe you correctly.
bohart wrote:
These shall be the comforters that insulates you and the lie from the harsh truth. Cuddle with them.
The harsh truth is that you're a reality denying fruitcake. That's WHY you can't refute us.

We know that education is not important to you. But it's important to others. But you fundies want to spoil the water for everybody. Why? American Taliban, that's why.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#118237 Jul 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you got selective eyesight. Now gimme another irony meter.
Very selective and imaginative.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#118238 Jul 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, they do develop, but since they are now independent languages from the original, you can not ascribe the origin from the original, but to the newly established language.
Who has been filling your head with crap? The modern language has common ancestors, this is the way language develops. English did not “ORIGINATE” in England it became English with usage of those ancestor languages.

It really does not matter how you ,move the goalposts – new – old ,newly established, original – whatever - English did not “ORIGINATE” in England.

I realise that by moving your goalpost you just want someone to agree with you so you can say ‘told you so’. However you are never going to get anyone to agree with your original premise that English originated in England because it did not. End of story.

You can throw in whatever obfuscation makes you feel better about being a loser, it will make no difference to facts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118239 Jul 16, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes. Though a non Christian may say the reverse.
Probably because the whole flood story was a myth.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#118240 Jul 16, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, exactly. Whaddya you know? It doesn't matter.
He finally touched on a subject that all can agree on.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118241 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what?
Your wet dreams are you own problem, you consider northern Europeans to
be trash then that is down to your own bigoted racism. And we know you
are a racist moron by the way you have attacked my ancestry.
Sorry for that use of language. The same people that left mainland Europe for Britain, now England, are also known as the English, therefore, it started in England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118242 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, as the great god Charlie Idiot has so much difficulty in understanding
Don't be stupid.
English started in England, that is why its inhabitants are known as the English.
Denmark and Germany are Danish and Germans.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#118243 Jul 16, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Round and round we go
Back to the beginning...
No it started in northern Europe, it developed in the British Isles
And Northern European language came from where?
Using British Isles other than England is wrong. It began and developed further in England, before spreading to other parts of the world.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118244 Jul 16, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>So every living thing that seemingly experienced speciation, had separation? That is a lot of separating and a lot of mutating. Were humans deported and the monkeys stayed? Where are the remnant populations of intermediate species, or at leat their remains? The charts showing the "in betweens" that have no evidence or the ones based off one partial skeleton are funny to me. What if the one skeleton they find is the one freak of the tribe with a defect or genetic disease etc? Or a chimpanzee skull mixed with human bones...

First, you're not an expert in comparative anatomy. So people who know the subject can tell the shape of the bones and how they compare to other skeletons. They also know about diseases that can affect the bones and therefore what the tell-tale characteristics are (such as rickett's disease which can make the leg bones bend outward to the sides). On the other hand there may be the occasional query, such as Flores man, which may have been a subspecies of short hominids, or simply a member of a human-like species which was affected with dwarfism. However fossils like those would be the exception and not the rule. The other thing you utterly ignore (for theological convenience) is that there's a clear evolutionary progression in the fossil record, AND in comparative anatomy which can be seen in organisms today. So evolution is the clear and obvious explanation, and that's BEFORE we've even touched genetic evidence (which of course we've all already demonstrataed right here).

It's not that our position has no evidence. It's just that you're not interested in evidence.

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) 30 min Trouser Cough 47,898
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 32 min Goku Black 32,516
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 33 min Trouser Cough 62,422
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 35 min Trouser Cough 38,904
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 2 hr Brandiiiiiiii 1,065
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 2 hr Brandiiiiiiii 5,994
Word Association (Mar '10) 2 hr -Papa-Smurf- 22,776
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr wichita-rick 226,122
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 hr Brandiiiiiiii 6,767
More from around the web