Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#46906 Sep 20, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Buzz Aldrin is my hero....if for no other reason than *this*:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =1wcrkxOgzhUXX&feature=rel ated
I had never seen or heard of that before. Thanks.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#46907 Sep 20, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what you believe in.

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogene...
You cite a creationist link to disprove science? And to boot, one that twists the context of science?

What a hoot you are! How gullible.
1 post removed

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#46909 Sep 20, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>You cite a creationist link to disprove science? And to boot, one that twists the context of science?
What a hoot you are! How gullible.
The Myth of Abiogenesis:

An Impossible Evolutionist Claim

That's when I knew to stop reading.
FREE SERVANT
#46910 Sep 20, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Many of us have ... many times. That's why many of us think it SUCKS as a scientific of historical reference.
The Bible states that there was a beginning and it also states that this old heaven and earth will pass away. What do you find wrong with this according to your vast scientific understanding?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#46911 Sep 20, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Bible states that there was a beginning and it also states that this old heaven and earth will pass away. What do you find wrong with this according to your vast scientific understanding?
The more specific the Bible is when it comes to anything based on science the more wrong it is. What is really disgusting about creatards is that they will try to find any scrap of support they can from science and then reject the rest of science. It does not work that way. It is not all or nothing, but neither is it a pick and choose operation as all creationists do when it comes to their own Bible.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#46912 Sep 20, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Good post!
But to date, no concrete evidence, confirming human from non human evolution.
So I challenge you I stop trying to prove evolution in order trying get you to talk, so I am not the only one trying to prove his side, and you give me red herrings sorry but I'm allergic to fish especially of the fallacy kind, do I have any challengers serious competition... I guess not unless you are willing to prove me wrong.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#46913 Sep 20, 2012
Try not trying

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#46914 Sep 20, 2012
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Divine Messiah predicted in the Old Testament
Isaiah 7:14:“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”1
“Immanuel” literally means:“God with us.” See also Matthew 1:23; Jesus was “God with us.”
This Messiah would be born a human son, but have a higher nature
Isaiah 9:6:“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
This was a radical statement coming from a monotheistic Jewish prophet -- especially calling a human being “Mighty God”; but one that God fulfilled centuries later in Christ.
A couple hundred years later, but still more than half a millennium before Jesus walked the earth, more was predicted about the Messiah’s divine nature
Daniel 7:13-14:“There before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven ... He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
“Son of Man”[...](Mark 14:62). His listeners got the point, refused to believe it, and added it to their reasons to try to kill Him."
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-is-g... [/QUOTE]
Son of man shows exactly the opposite, plus it takes an entirely different philosophy to read the Garden-literature as containing the invention of 'Sin', which it in Judaean philosophy and the proper translation does not.
Mark 14:62 coming from the clouds of heaven.(By the way kudos for having a dip in textual critizism, as to placing Mark first. But then you would also see that ony three gospel are not theology, thus marcus, matthew and lucas.)
Let me ask you in what religion of the time does a statement of coming from heaven make sense?
And mind he was killed by Romans, if an actual person at all, and it beggars believe that he is not seen as one that stands for all the suffering of the people of his generation but that his suffering is seen as worse as the 200,000 that were also cricified in that area.(Apropos the ankelbone with the nail through it, found and DNA tested only showed female DNA. So add to the horror.)

Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 has happened, just as all prediction in the hebrew book have allready come true, otherwise they would not be included.
Furthermore it is a matter of grammar and the revolving vav.
So no part of the Tanakh (entire hebrew book) has got any baring whatsoever of 4th c. CE christianity.
Nor can G-d ever have a son.
Nor is there a concept of heaven (or hell) as christian and islam have it.
The NT stands all by itself. And you should rather wonder why untill the 6th century prayer included giving thanks to the SUN.
Matthew 1:23 just because in aramaic Iesous (first ever mention of anything looking like the name in 5thc or later christian writing in greek. Hail Zeus thus) or Yeshua (feminin pronoun, actually ish+ uin= man son, so a play of words on his name, in aramaic/greek.) if containing a theophoric alluding to yah, does at most mean that if we read his name it should bring the old laws in mind and the obligation to follow those. As in stepping in the same path.
But he abolished all, or atleast the entire content of the socalled- with reason- new testament does, as well as the church-father discussions, that would have Judaism abolished.
So no matter how you reason, the NT jesus has got nothing what soever to do with the hebrew faith but to vilify and abolish it. Rather with the new god-emperor and his son also becoming god, or with Tammmuz another one slain and still having to be reborn, or even Mithra and several others that fit crucifixion and honouring ancestors.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#46915 Sep 20, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
A poster can make a contribution in any number of ways
[1] Information - a poster can bring useful and/or interesting information, whether technical or about the culture at large
[2] Insight - a poster might be analytical, and see trends others hadn't noticed
[3] Wit - a poster might be clever, humorous, fun or creative
[4] Charm - a poster might be classy, or just plain likeable, and make a contribution that way.
Maybe there are more.
"It doesn't seem right that some people have multiple personalities when there are so many that didn't get even the one."
I know you think you're clever or you wouldn't re-post your past comments so often. Why don't you try harder to come up with something new, and unique instead of using the same tired, old retorts? Yours have all been duds, so far.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#46916 Sep 20, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Good thing that the Theory of Evolution has a VAST amount of logic, reason, observations, experiments, research and empirical evidence (or, in the common vernacular ... proof)in support then, isn't it?
experiments? Empirical evidence? Proof? The entire theory of evolution is useless to science.
The German zoologist Dr. Albert Fleischmann of the University of Erlangen wrote,
I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.1

*Acworth, Captain Bernard,Darwin and Natural Selection, Evolution Protest Pamphlet, London, 1960, p. 6.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#46917 Sep 20, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Word of God created the heaven and the earth which includes all things in the universe. The Word has been compared to a very very small seed in the beginning then it became great and branched out. Read the Bible both old and new, and learn something.
The bible... don't you mean the collection of loosely related myths regarding an ancient jewish civilization? Yeah, surely, the answers the the universe must be there.
FREE SERVANT
#46918 Sep 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The more specific the Bible is when it comes to anything based on science the more wrong it is. What is really disgusting about creatards is that they will try to find any scrap of support they can from science and then reject the rest of science. It does not work that way. It is not all or nothing, but neither is it a pick and choose operation as all creationists do when it comes to their own Bible.
Is name calling and degrading insults all you guys have?

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#46919 Sep 20, 2012
ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you assume something immaterial is created?
Creationist say something cant come out of nothing....SO NO CREATOR COULD JUST BE...If you use creationist stone age BS line.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#46920 Sep 20, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I know you think you're clever or you wouldn't re-post your past comments so often. Why don't you try harder to come up with something new, and unique instead of using the same tired, old retorts? Yours have all been duds, so far.
Duds?

Granted, we've all been piling on about creationists lacking evidence, or presenting poor evidence but IANS hasn't been leaving the discussion stalled with irrational claims.

Is this a rational discussion, or is it just dogmatic speech making?

Or some sort of voodoo dance?

Or trying to make people feel bad by claiming to be wealthy?

The biggest problem is that the irrational claims have been coming in such bunches that most people don't take the time to dismiss them all. What? Do we need to kill the Hydra? Dismiss one creationist claim through rational logic and creationism itself becomes questionable.

People just need to put more into their arguments.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#46921 Sep 20, 2012
Heaven as in Astarte.
Mary (by the catholic church) was declared herself coming from virgin birth and conception, and following in that line also conceived without blemish as well as giving birth without pain and blemsih.
Neat trick.
We have various accounts of either Joseph (In sumerian IA SEPI=god-dick) or Mary naming him man-son.
On advise of Gabriel.
So not the son of immaculate reception, nor of the goddess of heaven, but given Gabriel a son created from divine inspiration. Which we all know simply means litterature that is created to praise god(s).
So an imaginary character.
The speculatio went on, starting with the first theology in the 'gospel of john'. And continues throughout. With later sources stating the only Lucas and Paul are actual christianity.
In any case that 'son ogf man'thing had to be explained, so we get Melektsedeq (and nisreading that little tale) and thus claims to Abram and through him we end up with Adam and Eve.
A clay-figurine made by god, so ergo god can have a son. And Abrahamic so first rights to claim the religion, and MelekTsedeq so as to claim the priesthood.
All i read is replacement theology and shoddy at best.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#46922 Sep 20, 2012
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Son of man shows exactly the opposite, plus it takes an entirely different philosophy to read the Garden-literature as containing the invention of 'Sin', which it in Judaean philosophy and the proper translation does not.
Mark 14:62 coming from the clouds of heaven.(By the way kudos for having a dip in textual critizism, as to placing Mark first. But then you would also see that ony three gospel are not theology, thus marcus, matthew and lucas.)
Let me ask you in what religion of the time does a statement of coming from heaven make sense?
And mind he was killed by Romans, if an actual person at all, and it beggars believe that he is not seen as one that stands for all the suffering of the people of his generation but that his suffering is seen as worse as the 200,000 that were also cricified in that area.(Apropos the ankelbone with the nail through it, found and DNA tested only showed female DNA. So add to the horror.)
Isaiah 7:14, 9:6 has happened, just as all prediction in the hebrew book have allready come true, otherwise they would not be included.
Furthermore it is a matter of grammar and the revolving vav.
So no part of the Tanakh (entire hebrew book) has got any baring whatsoever of 4th c. CE christianity.
Nor can G-d ever have a son.
Nor is there a concept of heaven (or hell) as christian and islam have it.
The NT stands all by itself. And you should rather wonder why untill the 6th century prayer included giving thanks to the SUN.
Matthew 1:23 just because in aramaic Iesous (first ever mention of anything looking like the name in 5thc or later christian writing in greek. Hail Zeus thus) or Yeshua (feminin pronoun, actually ish+ uin= man son, so a play of words on his name, in aramaic/greek.) if containing a theophoric alluding to yah, does at most mean that if we read his name it should bring the old laws in mind and the obligation to follow those. As in stepping in the same path.
But he abolished all, or atleast the entire content of the socalled- with reason- new testament does, as well as the church-father discussions, that would have Judaism abolished.
So no matter how you reason, the NT jesus has got nothing what soever to do with the hebrew faith but to vilify and abolish it. Rather with the new god-emperor and his son also becoming god, or with Tammmuz another one slain and still having to be reborn, or even Mithra and several others that fit crucifixion and honouring ancestors.
My feet smell a bit today.

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#46923 Sep 20, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Is name calling and degrading insults all you guys have?
I don't like it either when people do that... But I'll bet he has more than "The bible says so".
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#46924 Sep 20, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Is name calling and degrading insults all you guys have?
Is the Bible all "you guys" have?
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#46925 Sep 20, 2012
MAAT wrote:
Heaven as in Astarte.
Mary (by the catholic church) was declared herself coming from virgin birth and conception, and following in that line also conceived without blemish as well as giving birth without pain and blemsih.
Neat trick.
We have various accounts of either Joseph (In sumerian IA SEPI=god-dick) or Mary naming him man-son.
On advise of Gabriel.
So not the son of immaculate reception, nor of the goddess of heaven, but given Gabriel a son created from divine inspiration. Which we all know simply means litterature that is created to praise god(s).
So an imaginary character.
The speculatio went on, starting with the first theology in the 'gospel of john'. And continues throughout. With later sources stating the only Lucas and Paul are actual christianity.
In any case that 'son ogf man'thing had to be explained, so we get Melektsedeq (and nisreading that little tale) and thus claims to Abram and through him we end up with Adam and Eve.
A clay-figurine made by god, so ergo god can have a son. And Abrahamic so first rights to claim the religion, and MelekTsedeq so as to claim the priesthood.
All i read is replacement theology and shoddy at best.
Sometimes, I pick little fuzzy things out of my mattress.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#46926 Sep 20, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> experiments? Empirical evidence? Proof? The entire theory of evolution is useless to science.
The German zoologist Dr. Albert Fleischmann of the University of Erlangen wrote,
I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.1
*Acworth, Captain Bernard,Darwin and Natural Selection, Evolution Protest Pamphlet, London, 1960, p. 6.
HEY! Look at that! You found an actual (quasi)scientist!
Score ONE for HTS.

So, I guess we're keeping score as to how many scientists are on each side of this debate?

Meanwhile, on our side:

American Association of University Professors is an organization of professors and other academics in the United States. AAUP membership is about 47,000, with over 500 local campus chapters and 39 state organizations.[4] "deplores efforts in local communities and by some state legislators to require teachers in public schools to treat evolution as merely a hypothesis or speculation, untested and unsubstantiated by the methods of science, and to require them to make students aware of an "intelligent-design hypothesis" to account for the origins of life. These initiatives not only violate the academic freedom of public school teachers, but can deny students an understanding of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution."[5]

The National Center for Science Education (4000 members) itself opposes the teaching of intelligent design, acting as a clearinghouse for information regarding efforts to force creationism (including intelligent design) into the classroom. The NCSE describes intelligent design as "a successor to the "creation science" movement, which dates back to the 1960s...The term "intelligent design" was adopted as a replacement for "creation science," which was ruled to represent a particular religious belief in the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. IDC proponents usually avoid explicit references to God, attempting to present a veneer of secular scientific inquiry. IDC proponents introduced some new phrases into anti-evolution rhetoric...but the basic principles behind these phrases have long histories in creationist attacks on evolution. Underlying both of these concepts, and foundational to IDC itself, is an early 19th century British theological view, the 'argument from design.'"[20] The NCSE also maintains lists of organizations from around the world that oppose the teaching of creationism, including intelligent design, listing 71 scientific organizations,[21] 23 religious organizations,[22] 43 educational organizations,[23] and 10 civil liberties organizations.[24]

<<plus many, many more organizations, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of science and education professionals>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientif...

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 Rep. Maxine Waters takes impeachment campaign t... 1 min californio 20
News Clinton: Trump's budget shows "unimaginable lev... 2 min positronium 56
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Grey Ghostmoron 1,535,805
News Obama given rock star welcome in Berlin 2 min CodeTalker 75
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 270,164
News James Comey fired as FBI director 2 min INFIDEL 2,742
News Fact check: Medicaid a target for cuts despite ... 3 min Retribution 75
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 3 min Tm Cln 2,572
News Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 7 min Drumpf Disaster 399
More from around the web