Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222225 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.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#101542 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
My ex-wife is a serpent.
One of the meanings of "serpent" is a sly or treacherous person.
Not all serpents are snakes, but all snakes are serpents.
Your ex was a three legged woman? Shame on you you naughty boy...lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#101543 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
zero bearing on the fact that air can be, and often is invisible.
I just got back from a week in Phoenix. the air there is very visible...but it's a dry smog...
Real BigT

Kingston, TN

#101544 Oct 19, 2013
my creations are always evolving

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101545 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
zero bearing on the fact that air can be, and often is invisible.
Uh-huh.

So because DNA is invisible to your eyes, it's invisible?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101546 Oct 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the problem with this is that creatards are misunderstanding what this finding tells us. It in no way threatens the theory of evolution. There may be fewer species of ancestors than we thought we had, but that is a big jump to take out of a few fossils found at one site.
Of course if you are a creationist grasping at straws is as close as they ever come to a victory.
It's a given that creationists are gonna jump all over this one and pretend it's something that it isn't. The specifics of 1.8 million years of evolution for one particular lineage is unclear while the other 3.4 billion years of evolution remains completely and utterly and totally unaffected by this discovery. Of course none of this helps Goddidit with magic in any way whatsoever, especially for Young-Earthers who predicted that none of this should even exist anyway since they think the universe wasn't even here then.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101547 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>any talking serpents in the real world?
Obama

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101548 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:

And what species was the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve?
Unknown. It's only called a serpent.

And ignorant people translate that to snake.

*shrugs*
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101549 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>any talking serpents in the real world?
Considering he allows the definitions to be mutable no matter the context, clearly the answer is yes.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#101550 Oct 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So all snakes are deep-voiced wind instruments?
I have six definitions of serpent and you assume only one of them?

I didn't take you for being stupid...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101551 Oct 19, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I just got back from a week in Phoenix. the air there is very visible...but it's a dry smog...
Oh, I'm aware that air can be visible, just as it can also be invisible. All depends on the physical conditions involved.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#101552 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-writing their books, their papers, their studies that they wrote based on evidence,even their evidence would have to be re-classified if this one shows that there were not as many different species as they claimed.
This doesn't SHOW any such thing. It is the opinion of a small group of researchers. They *might* be right but they could, just as easily, be completely wrong.

I've already pointed out two reasons that cast doubt on their claim.
replaytime wrote:
So yea I think that would kind of suck.
You tend to think everything sucks, so this is no big shocker.
replaytime wrote:
It would help in the long run of providing more understanding.
As I had said.
replaytime wrote:
Like I said science is an awesome tool but if they turn out to be wrong from their evidence that they classified those species off of one has to wonder how much they actually do understand. Not knocking science but to label species based on studied evidence, tell the world this is what it is, then have to change it, shows it is not facts but at best a guess of what they think until something can show it wrong.
You think science is a awesome tool yet you dismiss scientific theories as guesses. But you're not knocking science. Yeah, right!

What would you have science do? Not modify our understand based on new evidence? That would be a totally dumbass position to take now, wouldn't it?

BTW, facts are facts. They don't change. Theories may be modified or discarded in the light of new facts but facts remain facts. One of these days you might grasp the distinction between the two.

“It is what it is”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#101553 Oct 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the problem with this is that creatards are misunderstanding what this finding tells us. It in no way threatens the theory of evolution. There may be fewer species of ancestors than we thought we had, but that is a big jump to take out of a few fossils found at one site.
Of course if you are a creationist grasping at straws is as close as they ever come to a victory.
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101554 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh-huh.
So because DNA is invisible to your eyes, it's invisible?
This also still has zero bearing on the fact that air can be, and often is invisible.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#101555 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have six definitions of serpent and you assume only one of them?
I didn't take you for being stupid...
and here i didn't think you could make a bigger ass of yourself and then you surprise me...good job!

so no talking serpents in the real world? your stupid cult bible still an absolutely proven work of fiction?

cult members are funny!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#101556 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the way science goes. It proves itself wrong in what seems a daily basis.
There are so many 'science used to know' examples, it's hilarious.
Like science used to 'know' insects are made from rotting meat. And they taught that as 'fact'.
Then throw away your computer, your cell phone, your TV and never go to a doctor again.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Nowadays, science tells us that humans are 200,000 years old. Then they find a 2 million year old human fossil.
What science 'knows' is unreliable.
Obviously, what you know is unreliable. What species are you referring to? Or do you even know?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#101557 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
who cares what creationists think? they still buy into a proven false myth...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101558 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Unknown. It's only called a serpent.
And ignorant people translate that to snake.
*shrugs*
Not something I did. I referred to it as a lizard. You say the species was unknown. In that case do you know what type of animal it was after God cursed him and told him to crawl on his belly and eat dust for the rest of his days?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101559 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just the way science goes. It proves itself wrong in what seems a daily basis.
There are so many 'science used to know' examples, it's hilarious.
Like science used to 'know' insects are made from rotting meat. And they taught that as 'fact'.
Nowadays, science tells us that humans are 200,000 years old. Then they find a 2 million year old human fossil.
What science 'knows' is unreliable.
And yet like a good fundie hypocrite, here you are using a computer.

That's the difference between science and dogma - science takes new evidence into account. Fundies just invent new apologetics and play word games to say they were right all along.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101560 Oct 19, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I have six definitions of serpent and you assume only one of them?
I didn't take you for being stupid...
No, I did not assume at all. I was hinting that you needed to clarify your definitions as appropriate. But it appears when being applied to the Bible, clarifications are left deliberately vague on purpose. Handy.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#101561 Oct 19, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a creationist should not even acknowledge the find. It is a 1.8 million year old skull and it doesn't fit into their time line of a young earth. So it should be viewed as another blow to their story.
Only for Young Earth creationists. Old Earth creationists don't have a (theological) problem with deep time phenomena. Of course they DO have a problem with pretty much any real world phenomena which contradicts their ideas about creationism, but...(shrug)

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 Trump claims witch hunt, says he's most hounded... 2 min Chilli J 1,601
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Cheech the Conser... 1,581,823
News One dead after car plows into group of proteste... 2 min Mark 235
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min Sojurner D Truth 26,334
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Demoscum 287,440
News Pressure mounts for state senator to resign aft... 7 min Red Crosse 16
News The Military Coup Against Donald Trump of 2018,... 7 min EMMETT TILL 91
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 15 min Katrina 1,415
More from around the web