Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.....

#82462 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It? It? wow are you that desperate to cling onto your worldview that you not only ignore what is in the bible that directly contradicts your statements but you ignore the other examples that were outside the bible but in the time of it?
You are seriously showing how deeply vested you are in this mythical reality you have built for yourself. It's like you don't care about what is real as long as you can imagine it somehow.
There is lots of stuff in the Bible that is directly contradicted by modern day science....also by modern day morals. The Bible is not keeping up my friend.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#82463 Mar 23, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this the only example where radioisotope dating has failed to give correct dates for rocks of known age? Certainly not! Dalrymple2 gives the following potassium-argon ages for historic lava flows (Figure 3):
Historic Lava Flow
Potassium-Argon "age"
(in millions of years)
Hualalai basalt (Hawaii, AD 1800-1801) 1.6 ± 0.16
Mt. Etna basalt (Sicily, AD 1792) 1.41 ± 0.08
Mt. Lassen plagioclase (California, AD 1915) 0.11 ± 0.3
Sunset Crater basalt (Arizona, AD 1064-1065) 0.27 ± 0.09
0.25 ± 0.15
Figure 3. Potassium-argon "ages" in millions of years for historic lava flows.
Another example is found at the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The bottom layers of the canyon are widely held to be about one billion years old, according to evolutionary chronology. One of these layers is the Cardenas Basalt, an igneous rock amenable to radioisotope technology. When dated by the rubidium-strontium isochron method the Cardenas Basalt yielded an "age" of 1.07 billion years, which is in agreement with the evolutionary chronology.3
However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating.(Numerous other radioisotope "ages" are also given.)
You know I think that 'problem' with the age of rocks top and bottom was resolved pretty quickly, by geologists, after creationists brought it up
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82464 Mar 23, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There is lots of stuff in the Bible that is directly contradicted by modern day science....also by modern day morals. The Bible is not keeping up my friend.
There is not much that is contradicted by science. You will find that there are more stuff in the bible that can be scientifically explained then there is that is contradicted.

As for morals, I don't really care about them. If it is your concern, I suggest you find someone who does.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82465 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Balls are spheres, with very few exceptions. Heck, find a ball before the year 1,000 that is not a sphere and I will acknowledge defeat.
We know that the ancient Hebrews could have likened the Earth to a ball if they thought it was spherical. Instead they used the word for a circle that is inscribed with a compass.
The article that once again proves you wrong:
http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...
You see, could have done something is not proof that something wasn't done. This is very unscientific of you to assert. I also see you refuse to describe a ball without using the word Sphere. I know that you realize you cannot do it and are clinging onto whatever resemblance of faith you still have so you won't do it.

The article proves no one wrong. It just shows how desperate you are.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82466 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How did the Bible contradict my statements?
The concordance translation does not. The original wording does not.
You have yet to show any evidence that my claim that the Bible teaches that the world is flat is wrong.
You have failed to show any evidence that the bible teaches the world is flat. All you have done is say "nuh uh, because I said so" and "what about a ball, they could have said the world was a ball". None of that is proof that the bible teaches anything you say, it's just proof at how gullible you are.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>The verses that describe the Earth use a word that properly means a flat circle.
Where are you getting this flat from? Seriously, I have ask you this already and you have failed to bring anything to my attention. NO definition I can find says a "flat" circle. It's all circular but never flat. Why are you imposing this quality that no one else ever does and insisting on it being true when no one else seems to consider it unless they are attempting to mischaracterize passages in the bible in order to boost their worldview's worth to themselves?

You see, if you remove what you claim to be in the definition of the word and stick to what is actually there and supported by literature, then you get round. If you draw a circle starting at any point in the world and go in any direction to the completion of a circle, then end must meet the beginning therefor sound logic must determine it is round.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>It CAN be used for a sphere, but that is not proper use of the original word.
But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. They might mean that the Earth is spherical and not a flat round circle. If you read the verses in context what do the imply. Oops, in context they say that the Earth is flat. You cannot stretch the heavens "like a tent" over a spherical Earth in any meaningful way.
You can't? Well, I suppose you are not familiar with a condom but you have never stretched a balloon over a ball or another balloon and inflated it? Have you ever blew bubbles inside of bubbles as a kid? Either you are lieing through your teeth on this or you simply have not been around long enough to know what is possible. In either case, that would still make your assertions completely stupid. Oh yeah, I already went over how ignorant you are.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82467 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You see, could have done something is not proof that something wasn't done. This is very unscientific of you to assert. I also see you refuse to describe a ball without using the word Sphere. I know that you realize you cannot do it and are clinging onto whatever resemblance of faith you still have so you won't do it.
The article proves no one wrong. It just shows how desperate you are.
You might want to try to rewrite your first sentence. It makes no sense as written.

Do you want me to describe a ball without using the word sphere? It is easy to do.

By the way, did you read my article? I bet you didn't. It points out how the word Hebrew word for ball has been used in the old testament.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82468 Mar 23, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You have failed to show any evidence that the bible teaches the world is flat. All you have done is say "nuh uh, because I said so" and "what about a ball, they could have said the world was a ball". None of that is proof that the bible teaches anything you say, it's just proof at how gullible you are.
<quoted text>Where are you getting this flat from? Seriously, I have ask you this already and you have failed to bring anything to my attention. NO definition I can find says a "flat" circle. It's all circular but never flat. Why are you imposing this quality that no one else ever does and insisting on it being true when no one else seems to consider it unless they are attempting to mischaracterize passages in the bible in order to boost their worldview's worth to themselves?
You see, if you remove what you claim to be in the definition of the word and stick to what is actually there and supported by literature, then you get round. If you draw a circle starting at any point in the world and go in any direction to the completion of a circle, then end must meet the beginning therefor sound logic must determine it is round.
<quoted text>You can't? Well, I suppose you are not familiar with a condom but you have never stretched a balloon over a ball or another balloon and inflated it? Have you ever blew bubbles inside of bubbles as a kid? Either you are lieing through your teeth on this or you simply have not been around long enough to know what is possible. In either case, that would still make your assertions completely stupid. Oh yeah, I already went over how ignorant you are.
Wrong again. Do you want to go over the verses that apply to a flat Earth and not to a spherical Earth?

I am more than happy to do so.

One question, how did you do in geometry?
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82469 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to describe a ball without using the word sphere? It is easy to do.
And yet you haven't.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82470 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Do you want to go over the verses that apply to a flat Earth and not to a spherical Earth?
I am more than happy to do so.
One question, how did you do in geometry?
Sigh.. Again, where is the word flat used at that you insist is there?

You can misread everything in the world all day long for all I care. You have shown repeatedly that you do not know what you are talking about.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82471 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Sigh.. Again, where is the word flat used at that you insist is there?
You can misread everything in the world all day long for all I care. You have shown repeatedly that you do not know what you are talking about.
Here are three verses that all can only happen on a flat Earth:

Daniel 4 10-11. Matthew 4:8. And Revelation 1:7.

Try to explain those with a spherical Earth.

This is just a start.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82472 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>And yet you haven't.
And you have yet to ask.

What a tard.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82473 Mar 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Dang, but that's complete gibberish!
Dang, in your imagination.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82474 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
These immortals would imply that there is an alternate reality or universe. That our world and universe is not purely natural.
What evidence do you have for your belief?
What made you even think of this possibility of immortals?
The universe, its elements and other planetary bodies tells me so. These are never a man or mortal made things, but immortal(s).

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82475 Mar 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
How did the universe come into form? That's completely unanswerable. The scope of the question is completely unanswerable. The details of the question are completely unanswerable. My assumption is that the more you DO know, the more you just DON'T know.
What every atheist out there is asking is: "Who the heck are you to assume that you know anything about ANYthing regarding creation?" All you have is whacko-doodle voices in your head....And those voices exhibit a toxic prejudice that reveals far more about you than god.
You're in WAY above your head, and pure force of will doesn't mean doo-doo in this scenario.
Then if you are ready for debate come back.
For now, the door please!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82476 Mar 24, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you ask a provocative question here but it really does not have bearing on creation.
Women often evoke child bearing as an act of creation. It is a process that is completely out of the control of their cognitive understanding....but they often play on the mysticism of the process to claim that their part is more than to spread their legs and take the thrust.
Charles, are you doing something similar?
Ask yourself that clueless question.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82477 Mar 24, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so you think that intelligence and education is bad.
Are Atheist the only educated in the universe( earth)?
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82478 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are three verses that all can only happen on a flat Earth:
Daniel 4 10-11. Matthew 4:8. And Revelation 1:7.
Try to explain those with a spherical Earth.
This is just a start.
You have lost it man. First you cannot count and you listed 4 verses, but those verses are not what you think they are. No where does it mention a flat earth or any situation that could happen only on a flat earth.

I'm sure you are going to dream up another concocted reason to why you think you are right. I hope this time it isn't as silly as posing that two supernatural beings must be bound by the laws of physics and whatever whim you have concealed for them.

What you need to do is actually read something that isn't a comic book or the leaflets left behind by people in public restrooms. When you educate yourself a bit, you will understand literary style, hyperbole, exaggerations for effect and so on.

It seems that you put more stock into the bible then most Christians I know do. Go figure.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82479 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have yet to ask.
What a tard.
Deflection again.. Amazing..lol. Give it up idiot. No one is buying what you are saying for any more then knowing it is your way to cope with your failing worldview. You don't even have science to fall back on now as you are completely unscientific and have been for the last dozen posts or so.

How does it feel to be such a loser and likely not know it?
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#82480 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are Atheist the only educated in the universe( earth)?
If you are calling yourself an atheist, then you should already know that's not true. The post I'm replying to demonstrates that you at least need more education.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82481 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are Atheist the only educated in the universe( earth)?
No, but everyone who is educated and intelligent disagrees with you.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Julia 1,616,989
News Trump returns favor by campaigning for an early... 2 min Evilgelicalling 11
News Women Shouldn't Have the Right to Vote, Says - ... 3 min inbred Genius 25
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min oneear69 35,959
News GOP health bill all but dead; McCain again deal... 4 min Sheriff Joe 529 473
News The Latest: Coroner: Stanford to study body of ... 4 min they are lying 7
News Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Of Bake... 5 min Frankie Rizzo 275
News Pence leaves NFL game after players kneel durin... 19 min Evilgelicalling 556
News Trump to halt subsidies to health insurers 32 min youll shoot your ... 190
News Bannon on GOP insurgency: 'Nobody can run and h... 2 hr CodeTalker 42
News Trump gets Obamacare reform started 5 hr CodeTalker 48
More from around the web