Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201626 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.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83073 Mar 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
This is just a pile of nonsense. You aren't even intelligent enough to be properly sarcastic. LOL
It seems a terrible waste of higher functions...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/may/23...

...if true. "Under achiever" comes to mind. Sarcastic people prefer to waste time on being mean instead of saying something positive.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83074 Mar 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still trying to decide whether your unwillingness to self-examine your position means you're a sick f ck or just monumentally stupid.
Just so I feel better - you're not planning to run for President are you?
Why the concern? We Americans couldn't care less about UK politics.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83075 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is always readjusting itself to stay currant....it has to or it becomes irrelevant.
I like currant jam.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83076 Mar 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, it seems to have more to do with early indoctrination, as is the case with most successful cults...
Does it make you feel good to claim to know what goes on in homes you've never been to?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83077 Mar 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I like currant jam.
Sorry about that.

That is my signature mistake..:-)

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83078 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry about that.
That is my signature mistake..:-)
No apology is necessary. We all do it occasionally. I thought it was funny.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83079 Mar 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You keep bringing that, i have told you before, there is no way you can rule out the possibility of a first man and woman. Therefore, the bible was right about that. For the past centuries and millennium, what have you guys done to invalidate the bible? None!
Just noises. No one can stop what God has started, lets watch!
Charles, I'm sorry, but you ARE wrong. We know for a fact that Adam and Eve did NOT exist as written in the Bible. Your denial with no backup leaves you in a silly position.

All you do is assert, and never with any backup data. Genesis HAS been mostly proven to be parables and allegory. There is real repeatable science behind what I am telling you.

Of course you can deny it all you want, but that does NOT make it untrue. I have never lied to you.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83080 Mar 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are wrong. If truly what people like you have been saying about the biblical stories are true, then the religion based on the bible would have been in extinction.
But that is actually not the position.
Even as we 'speak' there are Christian Apologists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of Adam and Eve for their congregants.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83081 Mar 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
Who can battle with the Lord( God Almighty)? None!
So, why the assertions, rantings, slanderings, libelings and the likes?
May be they just need attention. Like i said, lets watch and see, who gets the baton.
I feel like I'm in a battle, but not with God....He doesn't exist.

I'm in a battle with people who will not explore something that is really important to them, and our world in general.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83082 Mar 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If it ain't scientific it ain't objective evidence.
That cant be right.

The objective would have to precede the scientific, in order for the scientific to be valued for its objectivity.

The tone of your expression suggests that your intellects is pathetic enough to seek refuge in a limited philosophy represented by so-called science.

How tragic.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83083 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles, I'm sorry, but you ARE wrong. We know for a fact that Adam and Eve did NOT exist as written in the Bible.
I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such.
thewordofme wrote:
All you do is assert, and never with any backup data.
Thats where science comes in.

Science help to search for evidence and data; give it time.
thewordofme wrote:
Genesis HAS been mostly proven to be parables and allegory...
But the parables and allegories effectively embody concepts which are embedded in the fabric of reality.

While the parables and allegories are effective in the purpose intended for them, you have nothing to talk about; for the function of language is to communicate meaning.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83084 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are Christian Apologists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of Adam and Eve for their congregants.
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.

*Shrug*
Mark

United States

#83085 Mar 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately for you, 3-year olds can almost understand science's point here, since we happened to have myriad examples in both the plant and animal kingdoms of light-sensitive patches, plants with the rudimentary ability to sense light, etc. In other words, the more complex eyes of mammals are on display in their earlier, proto forms in nature all around us.
Meanwhile, all the crackpot creationists can do is wring their hands and say, "But, Garsh, it's all so COMPLICATED it had to be done by Jesus!"
<quoted text>
It WOULDN'T you idiot. For the 20th time, natural selection is NOT a conscious, directed process. There is no GOAL to evolution Whatever is suited to its environment survives and thrives and spreads. Nothing has to be PERFECT, just good enough (cf. the human eye, with its crossed wiring and hinky design).
<quoted text>
Would you also give me that you dishonest Jesus Freaks will lie like crazy in the service of your Lord? Your Lady Hope was an inveterate liar, apparently.
<quoted text>
Not likely to see much evolution within a 150-year span in a large, complex creature like a bird. But you know that, don't you. LOL
<quoted text>
No, liar, the LONG passage of time allows the undirected process of evolution (gene mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination PLUS natural selection) to do its work -- no more, no less.
<quoted text>
You're an asshole and I'm wasting my time, I know but....on the off chance that someone intelligent is reading along...
From one generation to another, a dog always produces a dog. Science would agree with that.
However, that first offspring (call it Generation 1) is always slightly different from its parents, due to the combination of parental genes and to gene mutations.
Now if you followed Generation 1 to Generation 2, 3, 4, 5--- etc. all the way to Generation 1 MILLION, a million years later, you would probably find that the offspring called Generation 1,000,000 is SO different from Generation 1 that the two species would no longer be able to mate with one another and science would therefore classify it as a new and different species.
THIS is what science says happens in the Theory of Evolution -- not a fish coming out of a rock.
As above, you hold to the sensitive spot hypothesis leading to eye development. This is a tough sell on the geologic chart, where trilobites at the bottom sport eyes found to be very complex, can even correct for underwater aberrations. No transitionals' have been found supporting the magical concept of softspot to eyes. For your theory to be proved there should have been thousands and adaptive types as you claim, but there are none, and the cell's closed mechanism doesn't support it. Yes, if I repeatedly show pictures of such a tale to a trusting child they will eventually believe it. ThatÂ’s your brainwashing, and those who practice it will one day pay the price for it. Utter foolishness!

I think you have missed or ignored my point regarding the past study of fruit flys in attempting to generate positive mutations in the DNA. I repeat for you - after thousands of said generations (to speed up generational time)being observed in controlled tests, the concept of evolution failed to produce any such needed changes at all. So what is observed in the cell mechanism is what we get. You assert that that's not enough time, time, time the magical maker!

Variation in pure "Kind" gene pools is a different matter and is often interpreted or proposed as evolution, but is macroevolution. That doesn't provide the evolutionary leap of an opossum to a lemur that can reproduce,(which is exactly what current human evolution lineage drawings show). Evolutionist now claim this all happened quickly out if sight somehow, leaving no evidence. Wishful thinking.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83086 Mar 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
...He doesn't exist...
You are entitled to your views.

As a matter of fact, you can say whatever you want and be justified in this reality.

You can look at a rock and say that it doesnt exist; IF you can explain that its existence as a real object is dependent on so on and so on...

But it is undeniable that natural power exists: so there must be a Source which is The Almighty.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83087 Mar 26, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.
*Shrug*
I seriously doubt it.(shrug)

Creationists are consistently wrong.

Why is that I wonder.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83088 Mar 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You keep bringing that, i have told you before, there is no way you can rule out the possibility of a first man and woman. Therefore, the bible was right about that. For the past centuries and millennium, what have you guys done to invalidate the bible? None!
Just noises. No one can stop what God has started, lets watch!
Why do you think we can't disprove parts of the Bible??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83089 Mar 26, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You are entitled to your views.
As a matter of fact, you can say whatever you want and be justified in this reality.
You can look at a rock and say that it doesnt exist; IF you can explain that its existence as a real object is dependent on so on and so on...
But it is undeniable that natural power exists: so there must be a Source which is The Almighty.
I'm sorry HOG, I look at reality and easily recognize it. If there is a rock in front of me I can see its there and do not try to deny it.

The subject of God however is totally different. This is an unseen unknown creature that is a figment of imagination. There can be no proof the He exists and there is no way to prove Him, so the logical conclusion is He is a non-entity.

In our world there is no magik or supernatural....never was. If you think there is magik than you probably believe in angels, demons, spirits, hell and heaven, a Satan that controls our world and all that other crap....that's really creepy for a grown man/woman to buy into.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#83090 Mar 26, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such.
<quoted text>
Thats where science comes in.
Science help to search for evidence and data; give it time.
<quoted text>
But the parables and allegories effectively embody concepts which are embedded in the fabric of reality.
While the parables and allegories are effective in the purpose intended for them, you have nothing to talk about; for the function of language is to communicate meaning.
You say:
"I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such."

As much as anything can be proven or disproven...Adam and Eve have been thoroughly disproven...by at least 3 or 4 lines of evidence.

Homo-sapiens first appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and the DNA evidence concurs that we DID NOT arise from 1 couple living 6,000 years ago....or 4 couples 4350 years ago. It never happened.

You can believe anything you want HOG, but I think I will believe facts and the truth.
Aphelion

Satellite Beach, FL

#83091 Mar 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
At one point everyone did speak one language, then they branched off as populations became isolated and evolved into what we use today.
The English language, to the colonists from England, was native to them. Just as the French brought the French language here and the ... well, Spanish brought the Spanish here ... originally. But people in England still have to learn English, just like we do.
So your premise is that primal man in Africa spoke the same language as primal man in China. Your stupidity has no bounds and is only outdone by your unbelievable arrogance.

You should really get an education instead of proclaiming one, then there is a chance that you may not make such a fool of yourself, but not likely.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83092 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt it.(shrug)
Well you are seriously wrong.

"... all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final."
[http://www.psychologytoday.co m/blog/the-scientific-fundamen talist/200811/common-misconcep tions-about-science-i-scientif ic-proof]

So if scientists are not working to adjust the understanding of protons and neutrons and even God Himself; they are seriously wrong too.
thewordofme wrote:
Creationists are consistently wrong.
Why is that I wonder.
"Wrong" implies morality is associated; you are on your own with moral philosophy.

If by "wrong" you meant inaccurate; I will have to disagree, because as you said, the Bible is written in allegories etc.

Allegories and such can transcend context more often than not, and as such possess general accuracy when applied to compatible subjects.

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 Henry 1,405,502
News Democratic National Convention Takeaways: Obama... 3 min gwww 30
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Crow__ 233,454
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min freebird 391,530
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 10 min Born USA 5,661
News Poll: Trump supporters unfazed by reversal on s... 12 min okimar 286
News How Democratic VP Candidate Tim Kaine Evolved o... 12 min YourEx 15
News Trump bounces into the lead 2 hr reality 280
More from around the web