Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171825 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118347 Jul 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I have made no such claim about the judging icons. I don't recall anyone else making such statements either. There has only been one person that has consistently had issues with the judging icons and I haven't seen them on for a while.
It is trivial, but your statement regarding me is a lie.
I did agree with replaytime that the use of judgeits by anonymous people was rather pathetic. Of course that was rather ironic since replaytime has a whole drawerful of sockpuppets that he used at the drop of a hat.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#118348 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I did agree with replaytime that the use of judgeits by anonymous people was rather pathetic. Of course that was rather ironic since replaytime has a whole drawerful of sockpuppets that he used at the drop of a hat.
That is the person to whom I was referring that seemed to take special issue with the judging icons. I don't think it is pathetic to leave them, but I never made any statements about them to wondering or others that wondering is claiming. He conveniently makes things up in his attacks, but it is no surprise since that is all he has left after his arguments quickly collapse.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#118349 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I did agree with replaytime that the use of judgeits by anonymous people was rather pathetic. Of course that was rather ironic since replaytime has a whole drawerful of sockpuppets that he used at the drop of a hat.
Yes. It is ironic.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#118351 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Find us something from a creationist website that is not riddled with lies and errors.
Creationists avoid peer review like the plague. In fact some sites have gone so far as to create their own bogus "peer review".
.
This is dodging the question and not giving any evidence that the claims are false.
.
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?
.
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.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118352 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Are you saying these are fabricated? If so where is your evidence?
The evidence is in the creationist web sites themselves. They lie to you and you lie to yourself. Your mind is made up (or fabricated, as you prefer) and nothing anyone else says is going to be good enough or godly enough to sway you from that course.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118353 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is dodging the question and not giving any evidence that the claims are false.
.
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?
.
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.
Creation.com cites a 1920's spark plug with concretion around it as being "proof" the geological record is all wrong. Would you care to reveal just what your geologist friend was proposing? Something about the Tapeats and Redwall layers and a global flood, perhaps? Do you have any inkling why your (very probably creatard crackpot) geologist might not be taken seriously?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118354 Jul 17, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is dodging the question and not giving any evidence that the claims are false.
I also said bring up some claims, which means with links, and we will show how they are false. That is not dodging the question, that was an open challenge to you. At best it is you that has dodged the question.
.
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, I pointed out that creationists went so far as to create a false peer review. The creationist peer review is so pathetically bad that grade school students have falsified some of those articles. Real peer review points out the grossest of errors.
.
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.
Bullshit. Papers are rejected because of errors in the paper, not because they "contradict assumptions". Besides peer review is an open process. If a creationist had a paper that was rejected without proper reason they could publish the rejection and show that there was bias in the peer review system. Creationists never do that. Instead they lie about why their idiocy was rejected.
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.

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
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) (Jan '15) 3 min andet1987 515
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 7 min Grace Nerissa 2,564
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 9 min andet1987 10,176
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 11 min andet1987 79,795
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 13 min andet1987 9,321
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 15 min NotaGoth 141,172
Word Association (Mar '10) 17 min andet1987 17,659
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 19 min Sublime1 167,165
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 20 min cathouse cowboy 12,709
Dedicate a song (Jul '08) 2 hr Sublime1 16,039
News J.C. Penney Employee Sent Home For Wearing 'Rev... 4 hr Spotted Girl 35
More from around the web