Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 195329 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.

messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118355 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am saying these are fabricated. Here's what you posted:
<quoted text>
You give no references, no evidence, no anything except your say-so.
You've made the claims. Where is YOUR evidence??????????
.
Just googleing can find many references to this phenomenon.
Here is one for you so you don't have to work so hard. It includes a specimen found in an aethist country.
.
You can also google Jason Martel, who has done documentaries on unusual finds for networks like the BBC.
.
The fact that you have determined they are fabricated BEFORE asking for evidence is evidence you are biased.
.
Here is another article:
http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/Strange%20Arti...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118356 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
This is dodging the question and not giving any evidence that the claims are false.
.
Blah, blah, blah. Just a bunch of gibberish. You have yet to provide even the slightest evidence to back up your ***OWN*** claims. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

There is no need to refute bullshit.
messianic114 wrote:
Secondly you say they avoid peer reviews and then out of the other side of your mouth you say the peer reviews they do have are biased.
When they set up their own "peer review" to avoid criticism then, yes, it is biased.
messianic114 wrote:
Isn't it up to you to produce evidence that these artefacts are not genuine?
.
NO! IT is up to you to provide evidence that they are genuine.
messianic114 wrote:
Thirdly you have to submit a paper to be accepted for peer review. I personally know a geologist you wanted to submit a paper on rock found in the grand Canyon which was refused because it contradicted assumptions about rock formation at the site. So you can't even say they avoid peer review when in fact they are being censored.
Sure you do. Who is it? What was the subject of the paper? Who was it submitted to? Why was it rejected? Specifics! Not your thoughts on the matter.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118357 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>Just googleing can find many references to this phenomenon.
Just as you can alien abduction. The number of Google hits proves nothing,
messianic114 wrote:
Here is one for you so you don't have to work so hard. It includes a specimen found in an aethist country.
So? What does atheism have to do with anything?
.
messianic114 wrote:
You can also google Jason Martel, who has done documentaries on unusual finds for networks like the BBC.
You mean the ancient alien guy? A founder of GodTube.com ? Yeah, very reputable..
messianic114 wrote:
The fact that you have determined they are fabricated BEFORE asking for evidence is evidence you are biased.
Wrong. First off, I have investigated many of these claims and secondly, not assuming them to be valid until evidence is provided is the proper approach.

By the way, where the hell is YOUR EVIDENCE???
messianic114 wrote:
http://chapmanresearch.org/about.html
The Chapman Research Group was established for the pursuit and documentation of Gospel Truths to this end we strive....
.
Not biased at all huh? Very scientific.

And Paluxy River? Seriously?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118360 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Just googleing can find many references to this phenomenon.
Here is one for you so you don't have to work so hard. It includes a specimen found in an aethist country.
.
You can also google Jason Martel, who has done documentaries on unusual finds for networks like the BBC.
.
The fact that you have determined they are fabricated BEFORE asking for evidence is evidence you are biased.
.
Here is another article:
http://chapmanresearch.org/PDF/Strange%20Arti...
No PRATT's please. The Paluxy river fossils have been shown to be either frauds or misinterpretations. Did you see the picture of a "fossil finger"? RFLMAO!! It is the only object where the flesh fossilized, all other fossils consist of hard body parts only. I guess it is not only a fossilized finger, it is Kal-el's fossilized finger!
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118361 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Blah, blah, blah. Just a bunch of gibberish. You have yet to provide even the slightest evidence to back up your ***OWN*** claims. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
There is no need to refute bullshit.
<quoted text>
When they set up their own "peer review" to avoid criticism then, yes, it is biased.
<quoted text>
.
NO! IT is up to you to provide evidence that they are genuine.
<quoted text>
Sure you do. Who is it? What was the subject of the paper? Who was it submitted to? Why was it rejected? Specifics! Not your thoughts on the matter.
.
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah. Just a bunch of gibberish. You have yet to provide even the slightest evidence to back up your ***OWN*** claims. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
.
Its not a lack of evidence, you don't want to test the evidence. I could say the same thing to you, show me evidence, and then you point me to scientific journals which have the tests in them to back up the conclusions and I just say "Just a bunch of gibberish".
.
Another difference is I am advocating faith in what has been passed down to us by our forefathers and the experiential evidence that G-d exists. You are the one claiming science proves whatever. I didn't come into this forum to make assertions, I limit my claims to things where I can point you to an article for you to read for yourself. If you have a problem with the conclusions we can discuss them. I have asked for why I should believe science but when we get to the part where I want to discuss, there is very little offered by those in here that can even give me confidence they know what they are talking about as they really don't understand the science themselves.
.
<quoted text>
When they set up their own "peer review" to avoid criticism then, yes, it is biased.
.
Setting up your own peer review does not exclude or protect one from criticism. Setting up your own peer review gets your papers published and discussed.
.
<quoted text>
Sure you do. Who is it? What was the subject of the paper? Who was it submitted to? Why was it rejected? Specifics! Not your thoughts on the matter.
.
I didn't give you my thoughts I told you what was related to me by the author.
Giving you the details of a rejected paper is going to do what. You can't test it to see if it was true. But I will try to get you a copy of the paper if you want to find a way for me to transfer it to you, like on Paltalk or email. Make the commitment to read the paper, and I will do my best to get it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118362 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No PRATT's please. The Paluxy river fossils have been shown to be either frauds or misinterpretations. Did you see the picture of a "fossil finger"? RFLMAO!! It is the only object where the flesh fossilized, all other fossils consist of hard body parts only. I guess it is not only a fossilized finger, it is Kal-el's fossilized finger!
.
Have you ever seen fossils in a museum. Most of the dinosaur is reconstructed. It is rare to fine an intact dinosaur. Again this shows the hypocrisy of science which constructs whole primates from a tooth (Piltdown Man) and then complains of a finger.
.
Can you provide an article which claims the fossils are a fraud and which gives the evidence they are, not someone's opinion?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118363 Jul 17, 2014

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118364 Jul 17, 2014
Once again, since reasons are given for why a paper was rejected an improperly rejected paper would make creationists very happy. They could prove their claims of bias. Yet none of them seem to do this.

Why is that? Could it be because they have nothing?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118365 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as you can alien abduction. The number of Google hits proves nothing,
<quoted text>
So? What does atheism have to do with anything?
.
<quoted text>
You mean the ancient alien guy? A founder of GodTube.com ? Yeah, very reputable..
<quoted text>
Wrong. First off, I have investigated many of these claims and secondly, not assuming them to be valid until evidence is provided is the proper approach.
By the way, where the hell is YOUR EVIDENCE???
<quoted text>
http://chapmanresearch.org/about.html
The Chapman Research Group was established for the pursuit and documentation of Gospel Truths to this end we strive....
.
Not biased at all huh? Very scientific.
And Paluxy River? Seriously?
.
<quoted text>
Just as you can alien abduction. The number of Google hits proves nothing,
.
But you can examine photographs and you can ask to see the original.
.
<quoted text>
You mean the ancient alien guy? A founder of GodTube.com ? Yeah, very reputable
.
Reputable enough to have his research on television. Do you claim to be more reputable? Do you even have a degree?
.
<quoted text>
Wrong. First off, I have investigated many of these claims and secondly, not assuming them to be valid until evidence is provided is the proper approach.
.
So have you been to the Creation Research Museum?
.
You didn't say I assume them to be invalid (which also is a lack of an open mind) but you said they were fakes. A reasonable approach, since we have fakes in science as well as by religious people is that no opinion should be formed until we see the evidence.
.
<quoted text>
So? What does atheism have to do with anything?
.
One would think that a nation which declared G-d a figment of man's imagination would not fabricate evidence casts doubt on evolution.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118366 Jul 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one that considers these things. Show us they are real.
.
OK who do you propose for me to do that. Please keep in mind I will not be open to me bearing the finacial burden to bring something to you and have it tested. So be fair.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118367 Jul 17, 2014
I meant how not who in my last post.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118368 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
Have you ever seen fossils in a museum. Most of the dinosaur is reconstructed.
It is rare to fine an intact dinosaur.
Why do you care? Most the Bible is made up.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
Again this shows the hypocrisy of science which constructs whole primates from a tooth (Piltdown Man) and then complains of a finger.
Man, you can't even get your fossils right. Piltdown Man wasn't the tooth.
messianic114 wrote:
Can you provide an article which claims the fossils are a fraud and which gives the evidence they are, not someone's opinion?
What do you want evidence for? Evidence is irrelevant to your position.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118369 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Have you ever seen fossils in a museum. Most of the dinosaur is reconstructed. It is rare to fine an intact dinosaur. Again this shows the hypocrisy of science which constructs whole primates from a tooth (Piltdown Man) and then complains of a finger.
.
Can you provide an article which claims the fossils are a fraud and which gives the evidence they are, not someone's opinion?
That is a fail on your part. I said no PRATT's please. Plus you are conflating an error, Nebraska Man, that never caught on at all, with a case of fraud, Piltdown Man, which had a small following. Neither of those had anything to do with how we thought evolution happened.

Meanwhile you bit on one of the most blatant frauds possible.

Try again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118370 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
Its not a lack of evidence, you don't want to test the evidence.
Can't be tested if you don't provide it. Which you keep dodging.
messianic114 wrote:
I could say the same thing to you, show me evidence, and then you point me to scientific journals which have the tests in them to back up the conclusions and I just say "Just a bunch of gibberish".
Not my fault if you can't understand them
.
messianic114 wrote:
Another difference is I am advocating faith in what has been passed down to us by our forefathers and the experiential evidence that G-d exists.
What experimental evidence?
messianic114 wrote:
You are the one claiming science proves whatever.
I've never claimed that science has proved anything. Science develops theories not proofs.
messianic114 wrote:
I didn't come into this forum to make assertions,
But that is EXACTLY what you're doing.
messianic114 wrote:
I limit my claims to things where I can point you to an article for you to read for yourself.
Insufficient.
messianic114 wrote:
If you have a problem with the conclusions we can discuss them.
Fine. Pick one.
messianic114 wrote:
I have asked for why I should believe science but when we get to the part where I want to discuss, there is very little offered by those in here that can even give me confidence they know what they are talking about as they really don't understand the science themselves.
Bullshit.
messianic114 wrote:
Setting up your own peer review does not exclude or protect one from criticism. Setting up your own peer review gets your papers published and discussed.
By your buddies who already agree with you from the outset.
messianic114 wrote:
I didn't give you my thoughts I told you what was related to me by the author.
Wasn't Eugene Shubert by any chance, was it?
messianic114 wrote:
Giving you the details of a rejected paper is going to do what. You can't test it to see if it was true. But I will try to get you a copy of the paper if you want to find a way for me to transfer it to you, like on Paltalk or email. Make the commitment to read the paper, and I will do my best to get it.
A link to it would be sufficient. Or to the research department. How about a title?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118371 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
Just as you can alien abduction. The number of Google hits proves nothing,
.
But you can examine photographs and you can ask to see the original.
.
<quoted text>
You mean the ancient alien guy? A founder of GodTube.com ? Yeah, very reputable
.
Reputable enough to have his research on television. Do you claim to be more reputable? Do you even have a degree?
.
<quoted text>
Wrong. First off, I have investigated many of these claims and secondly, not assuming them to be valid until evidence is provided is the proper approach.
.
So have you been to the Creation Research Museum?
.
You didn't say I assume them to be invalid (which also is a lack of an open mind) but you said they were fakes. A reasonable approach, since we have fakes in science as well as by religious people is that no opinion should be formed until we see the evidence.
.
<quoted text>
So? What does atheism have to do with anything?
.
One would think that a nation which declared G-d a figment of man's imagination would not fabricate evidence casts doubt on evolution.
Lindsey Lohan can get on TV. That doesn't make her pharmacological research valid.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118372 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Have you ever seen fossils in a museum. Most of the dinosaur is reconstructed. It is rare to fine an intact dinosaur. Again this shows the hypocrisy of science which constructs whole primates from a tooth (Piltdown Man) and then complains of a finger.
.
Can you provide an article which claims the fossils are a fraud and which gives the evidence they are, not someone's opinion?
Oh here we go. Piltdown Man! Funny. Tell me, who was that did this reconstruction? Bet you have no idea.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118373 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Are you saying these are fabricated? If so where is your evidence?
Since it's dishonest for creationists to ask for evidence at all, why do you desire to make your position look even MORE stupid than it already is?

Do you have evidence they aren't fabricated?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118374 Jul 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am saying these are fabricated. Here's what you posted:
<quoted text>
You give no references, no evidence, no anything except your say-so.
You've made the claims. Where is YOUR evidence??????????
He doesn't do homework.

That's his problem.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#118375 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
But you can examine photographs and you can ask to see the original.
Neither of which I'll bet you've done. Hook, line and sinker.
messianic114 wrote:
Reputable enough to have his research on television.
Jerry Springer was on television. So has Weird Al Yankovic. So was I for that matter.
messianic114 wrote:
Do you claim to be more reputable?[/QUOTE

I don't peddle bullshit for money.

[QUOTE who="messianic114"]D o you even have a degree?
I'm an engineer. So what?
messianic114 wrote:
So have you been to the Creation Research Museum?
No but I do have a complete collection of the Three Stooges movies.
messianic114 wrote:
You didn't say I assume them to be invalid (which also is a lack of an open mind) but you said they were fakes. A reasonable approach, since we have fakes in science as well as by religious people is that no opinion should be formed until we see the evidence.
Been there, done that.
messianic114 wrote:
One would think that a nation which declared G-d a figment of man's imagination would not fabricate evidence casts doubt on evolution.
And what nation was that?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#118376 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
This is dodging the question and not giving any evidence that the claims are false.
BONG!!!

Yup, there goes another irony meter. You've been dodging all of us since you got here. Well done, hypocrite.
messianic114 wrote:
Secondly you say they avoid peer reviews and then out of the other side of your mouth you say the peer reviews they do have are biased. Isn't it up to you to produce evidence that these artefacts are not genuine?
No, it's up to them to back up their own claims. Peer reviewing yourself is NOT peer review.
messianic114 wrote:
Thirdly you have to submit a paper to be accepted for peer review. I personally know a geologist you wanted to submit a paper on rock found in the grand Canyon which was refused because it contradicted assumptions about rock formation at the site. So you can't even say they avoid peer review when in fact they are being censored.
Can you back up this particular assertion and show that it wasn't refused because it was utter bullshite? It's really simple - just explain exactly what it was he found, tell us what he thinks this means, then tell us how his claim passes the scientific method via testing.

After all, I was able to show you how evolution passed the scientific method. So now, I think it's about time that it's your turn. Stop being a massive jessie-wuss wuss by trying to get us to do all your homework for you, and do your own for once. And just remember that if you don't that YOU are stopping your friend's amazing discovery from coming to light in the public world. YOU would be the one censoring him. Which would be deliciously ironic.

Because you know what usually happens with creationists? They often love to claim "peer-review bias", but the VAST majority of them never try to pass their shite through peer-review in the first place. It's almost as if they are afraid of critical scrutiny...

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
for those who are sick of devine poetry say I (Sep '12) 5 min KNIGHT DeVINE 35
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 7 min LBS 5,314
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 9 min KNIGHT DeVINE 17,097
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 15 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,746
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 27 min Dont_You_Dare 12,821
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 27 min SweLL GirL 6,996
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 39 min SweLL GirL 144,088
Transgender bathrooms .... thoughts? 47 min Bad Bex 43
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 50 min Princess Hey 189,197
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr 8541 MARINE 55,675
More from around the web