Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 173390 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36843 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The modern definition of species (this new term was introduced to help explain evolution) before the term was "kind"
And there is no evidence of one kind ever evolving into another kind.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Spe...
"This basic taxonomic unit is remarkably stable. Species tend to remain the same throughout their geological history. As noted by eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the macroevolutionary patterns of species are typically ones of morphological stability during their existence, a phenomena known as "stasis." In presenting the theory of punctuated equilibria, Niles Eldridge and Gould noted: "Most species, during their geological history, either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction." Once a species appears, the fossil record does not change much during its existence, which may be several million years. This view accords well with the view of creationism, which references a clear-cut boundary between species, as well as stability during their existence."
The reverend Moon is a liar and a complete fruitcake. Because of this your info is flawed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36844 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Science!
No, it is not a scientific theory if it fails a test. I don't say this science does.
It's no longer a theory it's just an equation. one that works well with large items but fails with tiny items.
Misrepresentation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36845 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
Yes a God other then then one in the bible could have created through evolution.
Then if there's a God it is nowhere near as limited as the petty little wizard you believe in. Evolution works. Fact.
KJV wrote:
But we would really need to see something changing from one kind to another.
Demonstrated.
KJV wrote:
Nature simply does not build it destroys
It does both.
KJV wrote:
Using nature as a builder to take one speck of life that either a God created or self started life that speck grew into all life that ever existed? Nature can't do that.
Incorrect.
KJV wrote:
An F16 is very simple next to a human yet nature never built one or anything close to it in billions and billions of years not one jet aircraft.
(Ridicules? Yes maybe but it makes the point)
No it doesn't. Apart from only being an analogy the analogy itself is flawed. Planes are not naturally self-replicating organisms, like life is.
KJV wrote:
Nature erodes, burns, hurricanes, tornados, earth quacks, meteor impacts,
Rain, winds, hail, snow, freezing and thawing, ice ages and on and on.
And all these create. Storm causes wind and rain and floods, causes plants and weeds to grow in areas which previously didn't have them.
KJV wrote:
And volcanos don't build they move lava and spew out clouds of dust. Land may form from the lava but some ocean was lost.
Ocean is not lost, it is displaced. It is also replenished by rain. Notice that things cycle as long as there is energy, for energy creates.
KJV wrote:
Building from one speck of frail life to all that we see today is beyond nature.
Your claim is baseless and you offer Godmagic as an alternative as if it's adequate. It's not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36846 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep drinking the Koolaid.
You're repeating fallacies which we addressed months ago. The only rational conclusion can be is that you're just another dishonest fundie liar for Jesus who finds reality theologically inconvenient. Not ad-hom, merely an observation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36847 Aug 8, 2012
Rogue Angel wrote:
<quoted text>
You choose to frown.
Knowledge is to be feared. There's a whole world of it out there which KJV must protect himself from.

Oh, and spoilt it for everyone else too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36848 Aug 8, 2012
JBH wrote:
As of August August 7, 2012, medals results for London Olympics are as follows
If we gave a crud we'd be in the olympics forum. We're not.

Why do you hate kittens?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36849 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA is not a road map.
It blue prints.
Many blue prints look a like to the untrained eye.
If your claiming that all geneticists are untrained, then you're even stupider then I first thought. If that's possible.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36850 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The word Theory was used correctly.
And for the real idiots I'll point out again that there is a difference between scientific theory and a theory.
I'm sure the fundies here appreciate your clarification.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36851 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike
You should write a book!
You could call it "How I flushed my soul away in one easy step"
Can't flush away what doesn't exist.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36852 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike
Your responding with "Lier lier"
And adding no proof is really childish don't you think? Oh never mind. I forgot you don't think.
You made a claim about science which I challenged. Rather than respond to that challenge, you post this bullshit.

Since you refuse to back up your accusation of science, I am left to assume you were lying. Again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36853 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You appear to not knowing the definition of religious. But again that's no surprise.
I don't have a problem with the definition but you certainly seem to.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36854 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
What? Did you just figure this out?
We've know it for some time.
KJV wrote:
That the two can't both be correct.
Yes. And we know which one is incorrect.
KJV wrote:
Molasses is slow in January because it's cold. What's your excuse?
Really at the top of your game, kjv. First it was "liar, liar" now this. I suggest stamping your feet next.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#36855 Aug 8, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We've know it for some time.
<quoted text>
Yes. And we know which one is incorrect.
<quoted text>
Really at the top of your game, kjv. First it was "liar, liar" now this. I suggest stamping your feet next.
&fe ature=related

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#36856 Aug 8, 2012
forreal wrote:
There is nothing on Mars but Gods creation! The planet has no life but fools with toys who still want to prove God wrong.
Spam, clueless, and nuts--that's how someone else has rated your post.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by first asking some questions:

What's the point of your first sentence?
Who ever said that Mars was inhabited?
If Mars is uninhabited, what does that prove about Creationism?
And who is trying to prove God wrong?

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#36857 Aug 8, 2012
First we're told that Evolutionary theory implies that babies grew inside coconuts.
Now we're told that sunburn is an example of Evolution.

That's quite a straw man factory you got there, KJV!
1 post removed

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#36859 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
I can't read Gods mind so I can't tell you why he did something if he didn't tell us.
My sentiments exactly!
God never told me which set of myths and superstitions--excuse me, which religion--to subscribe to, so I am afraid to subscribe to any of them.

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#36860 Aug 8, 2012
Oh, I think I understand you now:
you are confusing current-day Evolutionism with Lamarckianism.
Lamarck believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited.
As an example, he said that the harder a giraffe stretches its neck to reach the leaves on a tree, the longer its offsprings' necks will be.
Lamarck might also say that the better suntan a person gets in Africa, the darker will be his or her offspring.

This is no longer the concensus of opinion among Evolutionists.
Rather, Evolutionists believe that a giraffe born with a long neck has a better chance of survival until reproductive age, and therefore more likely to leave offspring to inherit its long neck genes.

Likewise, a dark-skinned person in Africa is more likely to survive until child-bearing age, and therefore more likely to leave offspring to inherit his or her dark skin genes.

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#36861 Aug 8, 2012
KJV wrote:
creationism ... references a clear-cut boundary between species, as well as stability during their existence."
Creationists don't know about species rings, then.
Biologists have found cases in which species A can mate with species B, species B can mate with species C, and so on, but the species at the end of the chain cannot mate with species A.

Nor do Creationists know about the progression from reptile to mammal.
Biologists agree to refer to the earlier of such animals as "mammal-like reptiles" and the later of such animals as "reptile-like mammals," but the progression is so smooth that they cannot decide where to draw the line.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#36862 Aug 8, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists don't know about species rings, then.
Biologists have found cases in which species A can mate with species B, species B can mate with species C, and so on, but the species at the end of the chain cannot mate with species A.
Nor do Creationists know about the progression from reptile to mammal.
Biologists agree to refer to the earlier of such animals as "mammal-like reptiles" and the later of such animals as "reptile-like mammals," but the progression is so smooth that they cannot decide where to draw the line.
You need to explain this to Marksman11 who insists there is a line between prehuman and human.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36863 Aug 8, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If your claiming that all geneticists are untrained, then you're even stupider then I first thought. If that's possible.
Yes, geneticists are untrained and KJV is trained despite the fact he's never so much looked through a microscope.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Palin interviews Trump -- and little happens 3 min Le Jimbo 4
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 min thetruth 12,501
How Should the US Government Respond to ISIS? (Sep '14) 5 min mjjcpa 4,148
News Clinton campaign denies 'boxcar' a Holocaust re... 5 min Le Jimbo 4
News Obama: US-Israel ties will improve after Iran d... 7 min Le Jimbo 3
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min USAsince1680 1,275,074
Time to go? 10 min ZCs 3,240
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr LeDuped 193,554
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 hr positronium 340,745
News As Biden weighs 2016 bid, donors so far stick b... 2 hr Denny CranesPlace 53
News Donald Trump proves his hair is real 3 hr FlatbushSam 53
More from around the web