Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201089 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

#119028 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Right moron. No excuses. I pointed out some obvious flaws in your post.
One of the reason that everyone knows that you are a moron is that you cannot take even the slightest of criticism. You goad people into pointing out the obvious fact that you are an idiot.
a three legged dog, though with a limp can still run.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119029 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And though that bush picture looks rather large there is nothing there that identifies it as a mustard plant.
how did i miss this stupid comment. lets try this again. now also look at the web address. see how the address ends with "mustard-plant.gif". that might be a clue for you lol. what a idot jack wagon as usual.

http://adventchristmasepiphany.files.wordpres...
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119030 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I know LYING and DECEIT is the best of creationists. You are no exception:

leviticus 13:32
which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."
http://adventchristmasepiphany.files.wordpres...
as you can see by the picture it becomes the size of a small tree and is big enough for the birds to lodge in.

It is no tree. Only bronze age dessert dwellers produce the wrong phylogeny.
Not to blame the bronze age dessert dwellers but the many Christians in 21st century who read this crap and say that the bible has to be taken literally.

leviticus 11:20
new living translation
"you must not eat winged insects that walk along the ground; they are detestable to you.
notice it does not mention “four legs”

Well, nice NITPICKING, here we have some more bible interpretations: http://biblehub.com/leviticus/11-20.htm . MOST of them mention FOUR. That's the very next problem with the bible: you NEVER know what you deal with. 1 million believers, 1 million versions. I stick to the majority of the translations if you don't mind. I think that they represent the original Hebrew text best. The KJB is most favourite among YEC. HENCE I'll stick to that one particularly. It mentions four.
Also the International Standard Version you use below: "and any winged insect that crawls on FOUR legs".

leviticus 11:13-19
international standard version
"these are detestable things for you among winged creatures that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey………
notice it does not mention “birds or fowl”

YET the very next translation version? You are jumping to and fro like a flea.
AND you are lying and deceiving here:
http://biblehub.com/leviticus/.htm (20 versions):
Leviticus 11:16: "the owl", "the owl", "the owl" etc. 12 times.
Leviticus 11:17: "the owl", "the owl", "the owl" etc. 19 times.
BTW, Leviticus 11:17, INTERNATIONAL STANDARD VERSION: "OWLS, cormorants, the ibis". As usual you did a lousy job not only by jumping to the version that suits you but also by not reading the whole lines in the one you choose.

No birds? the white owl, the desert owl, the Egyptian vulture, the carrion vulture, the pelican, the osprey, the swan, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, the lapwing, the charadrion, the cormorant, the ibis, the gannet, the gull, any kind of hawk, the cuckow, the ostrich, the falcon, the larus, the seamew, ravens, crows, the kite, the cormorant, the buzzard, and, starting the riddle in Levitius 11:13 "These are the BIRDS you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean:.... <list>" according to 12 versions.
SURE, "no" birds mentioned.

The bat is NOT a bird, it's a mammal. It doesn't belong in that list, even irrespective of the list beginning with the word "bird".

revelation 8:10
according to the genesis creation myth, the earth was formed before the sun. this is wrong. it does not match the current scientific theories of solar system forming but also the gravity laws of newton.

"you expect science and religion to agree?"

IRRELEVANT. We were not talking here about the level of agreement between religion and science but the bible been incorrect.

I have enough of this tattles.

Up to the next one.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119031 Jul 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The New Living Translation dropped the four legs that was in the original. The translators knew it was an error. And though that bush picture looks rather large there is nothing there that identifies it as a mustard plant. In fact if you look up sources on white mustard, which is the Middle East variety you will find it only gets to be about five foot tall:
http://www.maltawildplants.com/CRUC/Sinapis_a...
Hardly a "tree". And if you check I do believe that you can find smaller seeds. Most orchids for example have smaller seeds than the mustard plant.
I already assumed that there had been much tinkering in the biblical translations to wipe out such errors. You can smell it. Hence it is deceit. It is just papering over mistakes. But I couldn't prove it and didn't like to look it up. Thanks for endorsing my presentiment.

It explains the weird KJV translation: "And these are they which you shall hold in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the osprey, etc.". But "fowl" is another word for birds/poultry, isn't it. WELL, a bat is not among the fowls. It is a mammal.

STILL WRONG.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119032 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
piddle piddle, rattle tattle. nothing but excuses to try to back what is said.
as i said "there are science nuts and religious nuts that actually cause more harm to their side than good because they will go to no ends trying to show they are right by mis-interpreting, deceitfulness, prejudice, spitefulness, hatefulness, and stupidness to name a few. these forums and threads are full of both." you are a very good example of this.
No IT IS VERY RELEVANT.
It tells about bible translation versions that are papered over.
For instance to cover up the mistake of the four legs of insects and the word "birds", that were unmistakably present in the original texts of the OT.

Which is DECEIT.
And also questioning the word of God.
they end up in hell if they don't pay attention.
RIDICULOUSNESS.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119033 Jul 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know LYING and DECEIT is the best of creationists. You are no exception:
Well, nice NITPICKING
You nitpicking is what got this started.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>"these are detestable things for you among winged creatures that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey………
notice it does not mention “birds or fowl”
YET the very next translation version? You are jumping to and fro like a flea.
AND you are lying and deceiving here:
Leviticus 11:16: "the owl", "the owl", "the owl" etc. 12 times.
Leviticus 11:17: "the owl", "the owl", "the owl" etc. 19 times.
another foolish statement from your failure of reading comprehension..
"these are detestable things for you among winged creatures that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey… NOTICE "winged creatures" which would be creatures with wings, you know birds, bats, ect. it does not specifically say "bird" like the one you used in your nitpicking.
wondering

Morris, OK

#119034 Jul 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already assumed that there had been much tinkering in the biblical translations to wipe out such errors. You can smell it. Hence it is deceit. It is just papering over mistakes. But I couldn't prove it and didn't like to look it up. Thanks for endorsing my presentiment.
It explains the weird KJV translation: "And these are they which you shall hold in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the osprey, etc.". But "fowl" is another word for birds/poultry, isn't it. WELL, a bat is not among the fowls. It is a mammal.
STILL WRONG.
fact is no one here, including myself, know what the first original bible says. until one of us know, we are arguing on biased stances. you claiming the bible says something by various translations to try to prove it wrong and stupid for evolutions sake and me doing the same thing but producing a different translation that says it differently showing how it can be mis-interpreted. i think much of the translated bible i have read are a bunch of bs but i am not going to lie to make it seem that way since i have no clue of what the original writings say.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119035 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
how did i miss this stupid comment. lets try this again. now also look at the web address. see how the address ends with "mustard-plant.gif". that might be a clue for you lol. what a idot jack wagon as usual.
http://adventchristmasepiphany.files.wordpres...
That is extremely weak evidence that that is a mustard plant. Especially since various sources all say that they only grow to five feet tall. Yes, that is a big bush. You had no source for it. Someone claims that it is a mustard plant but we do not know if that person can tell a mustard plant from a hole in the ground.

Your Bible verses are still failing and you are still the idiot jack wagon, this time for using bogus sources.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119036 Jul 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I already assumed that there had been much tinkering in the biblical translations to wipe out such errors. You can smell it. Hence it is deceit. It is just papering over mistakes. But I couldn't prove it and didn't like to look it up. Thanks for endorsing my presentiment.
It explains the weird KJV translation: "And these are they which you shall hold in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the osprey, etc.". But "fowl" is another word for birds/poultry, isn't it. WELL, a bat is not among the fowls. It is a mammal.
STILL WRONG.
Yes, wondering seems to be a creatard in disguise. He pretends to accept evolution but when shown errors in the Bible or told of them his gut reaction paints him as a fundamentalist. And though creationists claim to follow the Ten Commandments they all think it is okay to lie as long as you are lying for Jesus.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119037 Jul 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
fact is no one here, including myself, know what the first original bible says. until one of us know, we are arguing on biased stances. you claiming the bible says something by various translations to try to prove it wrong and stupid for evolutions sake and me doing the same thing but producing a different translation that says it differently showing how it can be mis-interpreted. i think much of the translated bible i have read are a bunch of bs but i am not going to lie to make it seem that way since i have no clue of what the original writings say.
There was no "original Bible". That is creationist thinking. The Bible grew with the telling. That can be seen from the Dead Sea scrolls. Many of them are older versions of the stories that are found in the Bible. One thing that happens with legends is that they grow with the telling, even if they are based upon a factual event. Look at the David and Goliath myth. In the Bible his height translates to 9'9". An impossibly tall height. Instead of being a mighty warrior he would have been a bed ridden freak at that height. The same story has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and is thought to be older and there Goliath is only 6'9". Still a giant in that age where the height was probably close to 5' due to poorer nutrition and overall health.

wondering you keep exposing yourself by your statements. There was no original Bible handed down by God. That is the claim of certain fundies and they believe even certain translations were guided by God. Why do you think a so called original would be any more accurate?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119038 Jul 29, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
fact is no one here, including myself, know what the first original bible says. until one of us know, we are arguing on biased stances. you claiming the bible says something by various translations to try to prove it wrong and stupid for evolutions sake and me doing the same thing but producing a different translation that says it differently showing how it can be mis-interpreted. i think much of the translated bible i have read are a bunch of bs but i am not going to lie to make it seem that way since i have no clue of what the original writings say.
In which case the Bible is utterly irrelevant, and anyone who claims that Biblical claims have any bearing on reality are talking bollox. Which is what I've always said all along. Glad we cleared that up.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119039 Jul 29, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evolution is magic. A magic cannot have any science. The phrase " Science of God" that you claim not possible was merely figurative.
<quoted text>
I know, evotards don't know the difference between figurative and literal and that is part of the reason that they are evotards in the first place
Problem is, Porky, is that you have absolutely no idea which parts of the Bible should be taken literally and which shouldn't either. You're not the world's greatest Biblical scholar. You're just another fundie amongst a throng of fundies with baseless religious opinions. And your baseless religious opinions aren't any better than anyone else's religious opinions. And that's why we don't take you seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119040 Jul 29, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
We can demonstrate the logic behind the idea of God. That is why it is accepted by... rational people and why everything evolution describes except "natural selection" is not accepted by the critical thinker.
Uhuh. Still waiting for that to happen, Porky.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119041 Jul 29, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
most people try to stay on the subject. the subject was rules of the room. i guess you missed that didn't you jack wagon
Why are you throwing a hissy fit over a rule prohibiting messing with peoples' personal lives? If you do, stop. If you don't, don't start. If you have, don't do it again.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119042 Jul 29, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is random?
Since when?
Oh wait - Messy's just beating up his straw-man again.(yawn)
.
Can you give an example of how the genome changes which is not random. Please be careful to give an example where the DNA of the species has changed. This means no genetic drift as the genes in question have not changed only their frequency within the population.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#119043 Jul 29, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Can you give an example of how the genome changes which is not random. Please be careful to give an example where the DNA of the species has changed. This means no genetic drift as the genes in question have not changed only their frequency within the population.
Insecticide resistance in insects.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119044 Jul 29, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Insecticide resistance in insects.
.
How are you showing this is not random?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#119045 Jul 29, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Insecticide resistance in insects.
.
How are you showing this is not genetic drift?
.
How are you showing a change in the genome has occurred?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119046 Jul 29, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
How are you showing this is not random?
Seriously? Bedbugs just randomly developed resistance to common pesticides because... umm...uhh... it doesn't mention any such thing happening in the Bible. So there!

???

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#119048 Jul 29, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
How are you showing this is not random?

Resistance is advanced by a random process, of minute mutations, though the advance is a clear progression toward survival. This is the same with antibiotic resistant bacteria, that's why it's important to rake the full course of the drug. Killing the bacteria that have developed some resistance to it. If you fail to do that a generation of a strain with some resistance is allowed to live. This is the way evolution works.

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
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 1 min Mega Monster 4,718
News 110-year-old lobster saved from dinner menu 1 min Lawrence Wolf 15
News Police Find Package of Marijuana 3 min Jack 17
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 5 min Hi Greg 8,472
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 12 min Jack 7,792
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 13 min -Prince- 145,976
News Woman uses dummy passenger with briefcase in ca... 16 min Jack 2
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 52 min Jack 194,184
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 2 hr Family man 146
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Denny CranesPlace 58,055
More from around the web