Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171601 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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51079 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess, this is a "scientific mathematical term" which "evidences" some erroneous point you're attempting to make without the use of logic or substance.
Right?
LOL
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
I was wondering why you made that foolish statement about "the sock drawer" being thrown open.

What did you mean by that Starky?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51080 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no evidence produced.
No missing link.
Nothing.
To be fair, I have already stated my beliefs but you're looking for a specific religion to attack.
LOL
Faith is not a religion.
Evolution is a religion.
One is an action word (Faith)
One is a belief (Darwinism)
There is more proof of biblical events and actual people named in the Bible than there is of a fossilized missing link.
What you fail to understand is that God is the authority on all science. He is the ultimate scientist.
The only evolution came right after he put everything in motion.
Now, whether he used the exact words "Let there be light" or whether he said Hey everybody, check out this big bang I'm about to create, We may never know.
Ah. I see your scientific education is at least 100 years out of date.

As for God being the ultimate authority on all things science, well, maybe. But since God Himself cannot be scientifically demonstrated such a claim is without merit. At the very least, if such a thing exists, it could quite easily be nothing like how you imagine it to be.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51081 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
You have none.
You have bones with no proof that they are human ancestors.
No DNA.
Nothing.
Actually we have quite a bit. So much in fact that the fundies prefer to whine about atheism rather than deal with the evidence.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51082 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but unlike you and your socks,,I mean cohorts,cough,cough,, we don't go back and whine about your misspellings,oops, I mean "typos"
LOL
:)
Actually you do. And that was clearly a typo since I caught it immediately. Nice try but a clear failure on your part.

Trust me, I have no sock puppets on this site. I am too busy to even participate myself, much less try and enter for socks at the same time. Dogen clearly has a different posting method than I do. I tend to fly off the handle a bit and he takes his time. Of course he has been here a LOT longer than I have. I am off and on here. Sometimes I am quite active, sometimes I am not. Since it is a political year it is important to be active.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#51083 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but unlike you and your socks,,I mean cohorts,cough,cough,, we don't go back and whine about your misspellings,oops, I mean "typos"
LOL
:)
I am not anyone's alter-ego. Believe it or don't. I doubt you want to reconsider your perception of reality anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51084 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn!
As I said Even your ignorance will be used for Gods glory.
LOL
Lucky him.

I doubt the ignorance of creationists will be used for God's glory though. He'll probably say "Okay, we'll chalk those up as just another little whoopsie!"

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51085 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, it is like pulling teeth to get you to post a proper quote. And to show that even Michael Ruse does not really agree with the quote you posted, from the article you linked:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And some very weak support for you:
<quoted text>
Yes, he did make that quote. Was he serious, not really. Some people make evolution their religion, but then some people make religion out of anything. I know that I would drop evolution if evidence was found that showed it to be wrong and so would every other poster here. I personally do not know of any atheists who take evolution as a religion.
What you did was quote mining. A form of lying. When you posted the complete article it bit you in the butt.
"Finally"?
You said you couldn't find the statement and like the crybaby you are, called me a liar for posting it.
I found many links but purposely gave you the most liberal,leftist rag link so that you would click on it.

"Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion -- call it a secular religion, if you like -- out of their science. At the time of Darwin himself, his great defender Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous Huxley) set out consciously to make of Darwinism a phenomenon that not only substituted for religion but that gave the same emotional satisfactions of religion. Like those who were to follow, Huxley did not see the world (as would I and Dawkins) as blind and meaningless, but rather as something with a direction -- a direction upwards as evolution led progressively to our species. As the Christian sees the world made for humans, so Huxley saw the world preparing for humans, and as the Christian sees moral action centered on humans so likewise Huxley saw moral action centered on humans.

Evolution= Religion....
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51086 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
This is about the time when I should tell you to GFY or to stick it where the sun don't shine. Also to point out what an ignorant,intolerant POS lying SOB you truly are.
However, Topix TOS requires that my posts be polite in nature so I'm not going to say those things.
In fact, I simply refuse to use that type of language.
"Stuff's gettin better"
I see you did not address his post directly and went straight for ad-hom. How does the hypocrisy of creationists tie up with the 9th Commandment? Or is it a simple get out of jail free card reserved for important people?

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51087 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way Starky, you asked for evidence of hominid evolution and I posted it for you. Did you look it over? Did you find anything that you can debunk?
And in another vein, evolution is a scientific theory. As part of the theory it makes several models. If those models do not match reality then there is something wrong with the theory. Creationism has no theory. One of the main reasons is that they cannot make models that match reality. There is no creationism model of the fossil record that matches the real fossil record. The evolutionary model has no problem with reality. Evolution has a model of how DNA would appear in different animals. Creationism has no model that matches observed DNA. The discovery of ERV's agrees with the evolutionary model, it does not agree with any known creation models.
I could go on and on.
Not true.
I asked for proof that Man evolved from apes.
You provided nothing.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51088 Oct 8, 2012
And Starky, the errors that woofy makes are not "typos". His posts are train wrecks. At least every other word capitalized, poor spelling, misuse of punctuation and hard to parse at times. Do you seriously think that he graduated from high school, much less from college with two degrees?

And he saw Bigfoot and could have shot him. At best he would have hit a bear, at worst another hunter. People like woofy are what makes hunting a risky sport.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51089 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I was wondering why you made that foolish statement about "the sock drawer" being thrown open.
What did you mean by that Starky?
LOL
You tell me.
It seems to have struck some kind of nerve.
But really, lets not make this personal.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51090 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did life originate?
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, for the same reasons the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass, and the germ theory of disease not rely on the origin of germs.
President Starky wrote:
Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted,“Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said,“we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form.
Do you have a scientific citation? Or just another Young Earth fundie site?
President Starky wrote:
So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
How did it originate WITH intelligent design? What makes it a better idea?

Since no evidence has ever been provided, or for that matter even any mechanisms been proposed, it fails at all levels.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51091 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
"Finally"?
You said you couldn't find the statement and like the crybaby you are, called me a liar for posting it.
I found many links but purposely gave you the most liberal,leftist rag link so that you would click on it.
"Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion -- call it a secular religion, if you like -- out of their science. At the time of Darwin himself, his great defender Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous Huxley) set out consciously to make of Darwinism a phenomenon that not only substituted for religion but that gave the same emotional satisfactions of religion. Like those who were to follow, Huxley did not see the world (as would I and Dawkins) as blind and meaningless, but rather as something with a direction -- a direction upwards as evolution led progressively to our species. As the Christian sees the world made for humans, so Huxley saw the world preparing for humans, and as the Christian sees moral action centered on humans so likewise Huxley saw moral action centered on humans.
Evolution= Religion....
No, I demanded that you supply your link. I did not look very hard for it. I merely looked up Michael Ruse and saw what sort of person he was. He did not seem likely to have written that piece. And I was correct in a sense since you quoted it out of context. And yes, he said for SOME people it is a religion. That does not mean it is a religion. For some people watching Oprah was a religion, that does not make the Oprah show a religious show or her an icon of any religion.

I know, you have trouble with logical thought and merely pick and choose what looks like it might support your foolish claims. If you read the whole article it is clear that he did not.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51092 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you do. And that was clearly a typo since I caught it immediately. Nice try but a clear failure on your part.
Trust me, I have no sock puppets on this site. I am too busy to even participate myself, much less try and enter for socks at the same time. Dogen clearly has a different posting method than I do. I tend to fly off the handle a bit and he takes his time. Of course he has been here a LOT longer than I have. I am off and on here. Sometimes I am quite active, sometimes I am not. Since it is a political year it is important to be active.
Why are you whining?
I didn't notice nor care about a typo.
I was simply teasing you for going back and correcting yourself.
LOL
Does your religion/evolution prohibit you from humor?

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#51093 Oct 8, 2012
http://creation.com/15-questions
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13
Quote Mine......

Popper continued:

"...— a possible framework for testable scientific theories. And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work."

He also noted that theism, presented as explaining adaptation, "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution,“It’s not science”.
And Michael Ruse is a Philosopher who *SPECIALIZES* in the philosophy of biology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse
As much as he is entitled to his opinion, it is NOT the general concensus of the multitude of individuals who accept the Theory of Evolution, including the VAST MAJORITY of persons of Christians, and those of other faiths.

...and Ruse accepts the Theory of Evolution as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/hu...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51094 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
You tell me.
It seems to have struck some kind of nerve.
But really, lets not make this personal.
No, no nerve struck. I am just wondering why you think people would need sock puppets to attack your nonsense?

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51095 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction.
Tell the grey socks (Whomever they belong to) that I am not only not responding to non registered posters, but I scroll quickly by them without reading them.

If they want to post to me and get a response, they will need to register, or log in to their already existing account.

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#51096 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you whining?
I didn't notice nor care about a typo.
I was simply teasing you for going back and correcting yourself.
LOL
Does your religion/evolution prohibit you from humor?
"Stuff's gettin better"
2012
Clearly you have no idea what whining is. I was not whining. I do hate to make mistakes in English. Especially obvious ones involving to, too, and two.

Also it irks me when I am a victim of Muphry's Law.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#51097 Oct 8, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system
False. All else after fails.

The ONLY genetic "code" is the one that was invented by humans, which we then ascribed to DNA, as our way to help describe it. The "code" is an analogy. Fundies take the analogy one step too far and think it therefore IS a code.

In which case I'd very much like them to tell us exactly what this "code" is, how the intelligent agent didit, and how this was determined in an objective manner via the scientific method.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#51098 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Starky, the errors that woofy makes are not "typos". His posts are train wrecks. At least every other word capitalized, poor spelling, misuse of punctuation and hard to parse at times. Do you seriously think that he graduated from high school, much less from college with two degrees?
And he saw Bigfoot and could have shot him. At best he would have hit a bear, at worst another hunter. People like woofy are what makes hunting a risky sport.
So I should hate this person woofy because of your opinion?
Let me put that on the bucket list of things I haven't done.
1)smoke massive amounts of dope until I believe in the religion of evolution.

2)Hate woofy because he misspelled some words on topix.

3)

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min sonicfilter 1,262,105
News Billionaire brothers give Cruz super PAC $15M 1 min Synque 55
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 min Coffee Party 336,248
News Walker calls for respect on same-sex marriage 1 min kuda 119
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 min Truth is might 310,313
News Clinton won't answer Keystone pipeline question 1 min Synque 6
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 min CDC 52,053
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 36 min Le Duped 189,802
More from around the web