Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204996 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

#46055 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
In your dreams boy.
So you are admitting that you can't solve a physics problem that I could?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46056 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you post that?
You posted it as if there was a God.
Hmmmm look like when you get pissed your true believes come out.
Oh I know I'm not his His official personally-appointed mouthpiece.
I just know Gods word and he made it
Perfectly clear, you mess with the holy spirit and you'll never enter heaven.
God is very protective of the Holy Spirit.
If God is real and if the bible is Gods word Mike F will go to hell for eternity.
God will not for give blasphemy of the holy spirit.
Sorry bub, but you know jack. All you got is a huge ego.

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#46057 Sep 15, 2012
I fish wrote:
In addition to the idioms beginning with god, also see act of god; for god's sake; honest to god; lap of the gods; mills of gods grind slowly; my god; put the fear of god in; so help me (god); thank god; there but for the grace of god; tin god.
The words "aspect" and "consider" have their orgins in astrology.
Does that mean that anyone who uses those words believes in astrology?

The word "algebra" has its origins in the Moslem faith.
Does that man that anyone who uses that word believes in the Moslem faith?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#46058 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
MOP (Method of Procedure) differs from a SOP in that it contains specific directives for that particular activity, on that particular date, for that specific location or piece of equipment. In today's business model, wherein telecom providers can be both "provider" and "user", most "user" organizations require a MOP from the service provider whenever an activity has the potential to cause a traffic-affecting outage. The industry standard is <50ms of traffic interruption. If a "switch hit" or traffic interruption is 50 ms or less, it is "transparent" to the bit stream carrying the traffic, and is therefore considered "hitless" and non-traffic affecting.[1]
More cut and paste. And the evidence that you understand one sentence of that is?

KJV, you and your kind have been caught in so many lies it is pathetic. You would think that you would realize that the 9th commandment even applies to "lying for god". Your god does not need you to lie for him. If he did he is pretty pathetic. So by lying and using lying sources you are implying that your god is rather weak and pathetic. Not a good idea if you ask me.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46059 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
That and the bible and of course God.
That does make our team pretty strong.
If only it did. With all the fundies on here (and especially with God on your side) you should be able to form an unbeatable team striking down all us evo's with logic, rationality and scientific evidence!

As it is you're all dumb as housebricks.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46060 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
The statement is a lie.
The idea is a guess.
Of course this went over your head
Unable to understand the simplest things. Typical atheist.
Actually reading comprehension is your problem.

Especially as I've never made any positive case for atheism. It's simply not relevant.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46061 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No we give him no limits. You do, we don't. You get do confused sometimes of wait most of the time.
God cannot have used evolution, according to you fundies. No confusion on my part, you're the one who keeps contradicting yourself without even realizing it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46062 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
http://creation.mo bi/refuting-evolution-2-chapte r-8-argument-the-fossil-record -supports-evolution
"In spite of evolutionists’ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The ‘fountains of the great deep’(Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood."
Like you really thought you had a show stopper?
What a daft!
Bub, you CAN'T say evolution happened then say evolution most definitely DID happen!

You can't say science debunks science therefore Goddidit with magic.

You can't say all life died (including Noah and all his animals, along with all marine life too) and say that's why we're alive.

But that's what you just did.

You fundies are just a mass of contradictions.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46063 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a change consisting of turning on or off genes that were all ready there.
No biggie.
"The domesticated silver fox (marketed as the Siberian fox) is a domesticated form of the silver morph of the red fox. As a result of selective breeding, the new foxes became tamer and more dog-like.
The result of over 50 years of experiments in the Soviet Union and Russia, the breeding project was set up in 1959[1] by Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev. It continues today at The Institute of Cytology and Genetics at Novosibirsk, under the supervision of Lyudmila Trut."
This is proof against evolution. Not one breeding ever produced anything but a FOX.
Yes, artificial selection does tend to limit genetic variability. Duh. You're still light years away from falsifying evolution.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46064 Sep 15, 2012
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
In your dreams boy.
Not really. You just openly admitted that your alternative to reality is Goddidit with magic. So even IF you were capable of falsifying evolution in a scientific manner (which no fundie on the planet has come close to so far) then all we need do is claim magic saves evolution same as you claim magic saves all your baseless claims. You could never get better than a stalemate. You can't win.

And you're supposed to have GOD on your side.

You may as well go home.(shrug)
John

Davao City, Philippines

#46065 Sep 15, 2012
Creationists are just plain brain dead, and there is no point arguing or even trying to debate a brain dead nut..........I LMFAO, at Creationists. They just don't get it do they? As to any that respond to me, well here is my answer to you Pfffffffffffffft.

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#46066 Sep 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
ERV's have long been included in "junk DNA" terminology.
I just did a Google search and found that you're right:
ERV's are inclded in junk DNA terminology--
in Creationist Websites.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#46067 Sep 15, 2012
KJV, unless you openly say that you think the flood deposited the sedimentary rocks I will not make the jump and assume you that is what you think, even though you did an improper copy and paste (no working link to a source was provided). In other words I will assume that you have nothing. Don't worry, even if you pin your hopes on that creationist drivel you have nothing.

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#46068 Sep 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
It is amusing to listen to an evolutionist refer to "peer review." If you are so insistent on quality control within evolutionary biology, why have Ernst Haeckle's fraudulent drawings persisted in high school and college textbooks for well over a century?
They haven't.
Jonathan Wells made that story up.
DNAunion

Dothan, AL

#46069 Sep 15, 2012
Who said "junk DNA" is dead?
The recent findings were that 80% of DNA in the human genome appears to have one function or another. Even if we accept all of that 80% as being truly functional, that still leaves 20% without function.

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#46070 Sep 15, 2012
Besides, Haeckel's strongest critics have included Evolutionists.

One of his strongest critics has been none other than Stephen Jay Gould, who was renowned for his popular science writings and prized by the Creationists for his many quote mining nuggets.

Another of his strongest critics has been Michael Richardson, an embryologist who led a team in making a series of embryo photographs.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#46071 Sep 15, 2012
DNAunion wrote:
Who said "junk DNA" is dead?
The recent findings were that 80% of DNA in the human genome appears to have one function or another. Even if we accept all of that 80% as being truly functional, that still leaves 20% without function.
"Junk" DNA is a popular, not a scientific, name for DNA that at first glance. A more proper term is "Non coding DNA". Or DNA that does not participate in the formation of proteins. Creationists try to claim that the term is used by scientists. "Junk" DNA, though again not a scientific name, can be equated to the term UFO. From UFO's etymology you can see that any unidentified balloon, airplane, candle under a bag, etc. is technically a UFO until named. In the same way much of "Junk" DNA is not longer junk DNA since we know what it is. Though it drives the creationists nuts one of the first bits identified were ERV's. There are also many genes that have been "turned off", we have learned to turn quite a few of them back "on". Resulting in chickens that were developing teeth, dinosaur type tails, and scales.

Creationists love to misrepresent what current science says. They cannot deal with what it actually says.

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#46072 Sep 15, 2012
HTS wrote:
there is nothing in nature that disproves intelligent design.
I guess not.
God is more intelligent than we are,
so he might have a reason for the clumsy panda thumbs which we don't know about.
He might have a reason for the blind spot in our eyes which we don't know about.
He might have a reason for the devious route from the brain to the voice box which we don't know about.
He might have a reason for claws on ostrich wings which we don't know about.

Like we keep trying to tell you, science can't prove or disprove anything.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46073 Sep 15, 2012
DNAunion wrote:
Who said "junk DNA" is dead?
The recent findings were that 80% of DNA in the human genome appears to have one function or another. Even if we accept all of that 80% as being truly functional, that still leaves 20% without function.
Don't worry, HTS is utterly clueless on science as a whole, much less genetics in particular. He has also failed to consider the fact that non-functional DNA has a function in itself, one of redundancy. We're all born with over a hundred mutations, and although generally neutral, potentially any one of them could be harmful. But they would be rendered harmless if they occur in non-functioning DNA.

That's certainly something I'd do if I were some enigmatic "designer" tasked with designing humans, but this is at odds with HTS's claims that all 100% of it has function, because it just MUST do.

This also means he has a serious problem with explaining genetic drift.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#46074 Sep 15, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
"Junk" DNA is a popular, not a scientific, name for DNA that at first glance. A more proper term is "Non coding DNA". Or DNA that does not participate in the formation of proteins. Creationists try to claim that the term is used by scientists. "Junk" DNA, though again not a scientific name, can be equated to the term UFO. From UFO's etymology you can see that any unidentified balloon, airplane, candle under a bag, etc. is technically a UFO until named. In the same way much of "Junk" DNA is not longer junk DNA since we know what it is. Though it drives the creationists nuts one of the first bits identified were ERV's. There are also many genes that have been "turned off", we have learned to turn quite a few of them back "on". Resulting in chickens that were developing teeth, dinosaur type tails, and scales.
Creationists love to misrepresent what current science says. They cannot deal with what it actually says.
But but... the chickens and T-Rex's were all VEGETARIAN BEFORE TEH FLOOD!!!

>:-(

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 8 min lides 15,956
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 20 min HILLARY 2016 239,475
News GOP at war with itself 35 min Tn clm 1,705
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 46 min barry 1,052
News Trump on Chicago shooting: 'Just what I have be... 1 hr Ted Haggard s Gos... 1
News Gray calls for roads, technology to help coal r... 3 hr Nothing So Far 21
News News | Is Fung Eyeing Another Match Up with Rai... 5 hr mJazz 1
More from around the web