Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201124 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.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#36696 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Atlas12a wrote:
This is a reply to everyone
I know evolution is has been proven through nature "
Evolution has not been proven!
"The theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.
The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.
However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact, like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques."
You keep forgetting that Evolution says absolutely nothing about the beginning of life...so that part of your argument is forever gone to you...you may not use it again.

As far as whats left of your argument here...you are wrong and you know it. evolution is well proven and its tenets are useful and used in science everyday. You are flat out lying when you say otherwise.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#36697 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"The fossil record represents another crushing defeat for the theory of evolution. Among all the fossils discovered over the years, there is not one trace of the intermediate forms that would be necessary if living things were to have evolved stage by stage from simple species to more complex ones, as the theory of evolution claims. If such creatures had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. If these intermediate forms had ever really existed, their numbers would be even greater than the number of animal species we know today, and everywhere the world should be full of their fossil remains. Evolutionists look for these intermediate forms in all the feverish fossil research that has been carried out since the nineteenth century. However, there has been no trace of these intermediate forms, despite all the eager searching for the last 150 years."
We have plenty of intermediate fossils and the recent DNA/Neanderthal match-up with humans means we're pretty much not looking for the 'Missing Link' anymore...we now know we ARE descendants of the great apes. Also, with the DNA we now KNOW there was no Adam and Eve.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#36698 Aug 6, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
Now you are outright lying and you know it. Is that what your religion teaches you to do LIE?
The fact that most of KJV's posts are quoted frm AiG and the like suggests that he's not even bright enough to make up his own lies, but must borrow from groups that are experts at dishonesty.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#36699 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
"These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain"
I guess you missed that part.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#36700 Aug 6, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't quote Gould.
I quoted Mashia.
Where in any of that did you say that Mashia said it?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#36701 Aug 7, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that most of KJV's posts are quoted frm AiG and the like suggests that he's not even bright enough to make up his own lies, but must borrow from groups that are experts at dishonesty.
And he gets a lot of millage out of it, doesn't he? Like Dawkins said, You cannot argue Human Reproduction with proponents of Stork Theory.

OR

Richard Dawkins then asks if diversity of thinking includes "Intelligent Falling" versus the "Theory of Gravity" with formula and all: dx/dt= 1 Cor. 1:10

So, why argue with them? Unless, of course, they are trying to force their bullshit into our government or our schools.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36702 Aug 7, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed it does look at the vampires, werewolves and zombies.
Keep working at it, one day you might tell a joke instead of being one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36703 Aug 7, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text> thank you for the link it was helpful.
that is true there is never 100% proof. i do agree that evoltion is how human beings came about and i think religion is the soul reason it is not completely accepted.(sorry if i jumparound a lot or dont make sense it is hard for me to put my words into text lol) it is rediculous to believe that some supernatural being created the the earth 6000 yrs ago and put things here that are proven to be hundreds of million yrs old to "test our faith" i think religion (and ignnorance) is the one thing holding back the progression of mankind at its full potental. i also think to say that there is no god is or supernatural being is also kind of ignorant because there is no proof that there is or isnt.
Because science has nothing to say on the subject. It doesn't care about theism or atheism. There may or may not be a God. But until the concept becomes amenable to scientific investigation science doesn't care one way or the other.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36704 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolution DOES rely on life to be here. Life IS here. Therefore life evolves. Facts."
Wow with this kind of reasoning you should publish!
CSL
And since you cannot address this reasoning then we have established that the theory of evolution does not rely on explaining abiogenesis, for the same reason the theory of gravity doesn't rely on explaining the origin of mass.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36705 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect yet again!
Evidence of what?
Science can not disprove God
Science can not disprove that God did not create a mature universes and a mature Earth. He did created a mature man and a woman, and everything else on the planet was created fully mature.
Oh and the chicken came first!
Fully matured.
It's not incorrect. Evidence doesn't matter to you because it doesn't matter if we find evidence of something old or young, because your religion says it's young therefore it's young and that's that.

Like I said, evidence is irrelevant to you mooks.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36706 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Your side claims it has all the proof. Let's see it.
Like the singularity that existed before the big bang.
The facts are this singularity having gravity of unheard of strength could not just start expanding! It's Impossible. As soon as the laws of physics take hold like one billionth of a second after the big bang then gravity would have held or pulled this singularity back together and stopped time again.
Science deals with facts - them are the facts. and science is ignoring those facts.
Pre big bang singularity and then the big bang just could not have happened.
Common physic laws prove this.
Your science doesn't know if it's coming or going. Science needs to stick to the facts and not make up this crap that just could not have happened.
Never claimed to have "proof", we claimed to have evidence. And we have it. But evidence doesn't matter to you as we have well established. There's little real point in providing you more as you haven't been able to address it the first time with anything but religious apologetics.

Physics doesn't prove physics wrong, especially when your alternative is Goddidit with magic by ignoring all physics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36707 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot!
"Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how DIVINE or metaphysical matters are thought to work. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings."
Thanks, but you're not providing me with information. Yes, context is everything.

One of us understands context.

It ain't you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36708 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolution can and has been demonstrated. " CSL
"evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know?"
By testing it. I showed that it works.

You've had 6 months to demonstrate nothing except for how gutless you are, which is why it remains unaddressed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36709 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
But Einstein's THEORY of relativity has been proven false so why do you still call it a theory?
Except it hasn't been proven false, that's just you repeating a lie again. Relativity correctly predicts the motion of Mercury, hence relativity works.

Notice how the only way you can "disprove" science is by lying about it? God gave you a free pass to lie, eh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36710 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"species adapt to changing environments across evolutionary time"
This is not Evolution!
Evolution is one kind coming into existence from another kind. It has never been observed and there is no proof in the fossil record.
Another point Evolution claims as proof
Is the fused chromosome number 2 that only humans have. Somehow this by evolutionist is proof we are related to apes. Because they (Apes) don't have it and we do have it. Ya right!
HL&S.(Hook Line & Sinker)
Except I provided you with the relevant fossils in the fossil record. Chromosome 2 merely adds to the evidence, it's not the only evidence. If you noticed I provided over 20 independent lines of evidence without even needing to mention the fused chromosome.

But hey, maybe all those successful predictions were just lucky guesses cuz Goddidit with magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36711 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes the universe is from God speaking the word. That's all it took his spoken word. And you choose to ridicule him.
Once a soul is created it will always exist. God tells us there are only two places that exist for that soul to go to after death, one God created "Heaven" the other always existed "Hell".
All the rest of your lame post has been answered many time over.
All your posts have been answered many times over, doesn't stop you from spamming them all over again as if they've never been addressed.

Oh, and since you're a liar obviously you're going to burn in hell for all eternity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36712 Aug 7, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in any of that did you say that Mashia said it?
And who the heck is she anyway?(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36713 Aug 7, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah? Never tried to hide it surprise you're just catching on now. How long have I been doing that running gag?
Too long. And it's STILL not funny.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36714 Aug 7, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.
Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.
We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/...
DNA, dumbass.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36715 Aug 7, 2012
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>i do accept evolution and i do think humans are a part of all i was saying is that the "theoy of human evoltuion" is just that a theory. however the only reason it is just that is because of religion and the believe that a god all of a sudden said something and the universe was there all of a sudden 6000 yrs ago please read my post before this i dont wanna type it all again lol
I did read it and largely agree with you. However, I will point out that saying evolution is 'just a theory' is to invite criticism. It is a hallmark of a fundy.

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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Could NATO be the next alliance to unravel? 3 min Nu Wor Order 40
News Obama To Sign Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Thur... (Jan '09) 58 min Nephew of Sotomayor 24
News Democratic chief Wasserman Schultz quits amid S... 1 hr californio 7
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Injudgement 232,839
News Christie on Trumpa s plan to fire feds faster a... 1 hr NotSoDivineMsM 54
News a Very conservativea platform, Pence VP pick me... 2 hr Go Blue Forever 18
News DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not spe... 3 hr inbred Genius 17
More from around the web