Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#69948 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
(never really read any poetry by Einstein)
Before God
I want to know God's thoughts;
the rest are details.
God does not play dice with the universe.
God is subtle, but not malicious;
clever, but not dishonest.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties.
He integrates empirically.
Albert Einstein
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69950 Jan 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
It's true that the states had laws against inter-racial marriage until that decision. That doesn't even begin to make you think about how the law really works, does it?
On the contrary, it tells me that society is slow to realize that some of their laws are nothing more than motivated by prejudice.

So your point is?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69951 Jan 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
Are you calling Einstein a dumb ass too?

Because he said this:

http://www.buddhism-and-the-american-dream.co...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#69952 Jan 4, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You would not believe in God even if there was indisputable scientific evidence...it's such a mute question...you would just call it bad science...so why do you even ask?
My thoughts:

First off...the term is "a *MOOT* question"...not "mute".
Secondly, as to your contention that we would not 'believe' despite "indisputable scientific evidence", I disagree.

The reactions to such an occurrance would include, but not be limited to:

1. MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution (ToE). As such, a very high percentage would probably cry "Hallelujah" (or whatever) as their faith would be confirmed by science.

2. Depending upon the nature of the evidence "God" presented, persons of OTHER faiths...there ARE "OTHER FAITHS", you know....would likely incorporate the evidence provided into their OWN faith, and proceed with their own (non-Christian) beliefs.

3. Those of us who are Agnostic may have a difficult time reconciling the new evidence with the previous belief parameters, and may go either with or against the evidence....or wait for further confirmation.

4. Yes, there might be atheists who -- in the face of all evidence to the contrary (in your scenario)-- would dispute the "indisputable scientific evidence".

How would SCIENCE react to such a development?

Again, depending upon the nature of the evidence presented, there would likely be a long period of skeptical investigation for this evidence. Should this evidence pass this research with any degree of success, there would be a MASSIVE, world-wide cultural renovation, FAR surpassing anything ever witnessed before in human history.

Do you have a time-line when this evidence might happen?
You've had several thousand years now....

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#69953 Jan 4, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
A monotheistic god would be neither male nor female. For it to be one requires that gods of the other gender also exist. Unless you are polytheistic...

Cybele wrote:
The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is obviously a male

The Christian Scientists call their god the Father-Mother God.
The founder of their church was a woman.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69954 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
My thoughts:
First off...the term is "a *MOOT* question"...not "mute".
Secondly, as to your contention that we would not 'believe' despite "indisputable scientific evidence", I disagree.
The reactions to such an occurrance would include, but not be limited to:
1. MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution (ToE). As such, a very high percentage would probably cry "Hallelujah" (or whatever) as their faith would be confirmed by science.
2. Depending upon the nature of the evidence "God" presented, persons of OTHER faiths...there ARE "OTHER FAITHS", you know....would likely incorporate the evidence provided into their OWN faith, and proceed with their own (non-Christian) beliefs.
3. Those of us who are Agnostic may have a difficult time reconciling the new evidence with the previous belief parameters, and may go either with or against the evidence....or wait for further confirmation.
4. Yes, there might be atheists who -- in the face of all evidence to the contrary (in your scenario)-- would dispute the "indisputable scientific evidence".
How would SCIENCE react to such a development?
Again, depending upon the nature of the evidence presented, there would likely be a long period of skeptical investigation for this evidence. Should this evidence pass this research with any degree of success, there would be a MASSIVE, world-wide cultural renovation, FAR surpassing anything ever witnessed before in human history.
Do you have a time-line when this evidence might happen?
You've had several thousand years now....
What kind of evidence are you looking for? Something that will appear in the sky?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#69955 Jan 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If a Creationist were to bring solid evidence here concerning intelligent design in nature, all we would get from the Evos would be the sound of crickets.

Here is some evidence which would cause me to stand up and take notice:

----the invention of an accurate radiometric device which can measure the oldest fossils known, and which indicates a world flood 4000 years ago and stops at 6000 years ago.

----the discovery of mammal, reptile, bird, and amphibian fossils in pre-Cambrian soil and all points in between.

----a confession from an embryologist that whale embryos donít really go through a stage resembling ungulates, and that the whole thing was a hoax.

----an explanation of how pandas are blessed with ideal paws.

----an explanation of why flightless birds need wings, why ostriches need claws on their wings, and why male mammals need boobies.

----an explanation of why there appears to be a smooth transition from reptiles to mammals.

----an explanation of how else it could appear that we inherited a brain from the reptiles, supplemented that with a brain inherited from early mammals, and developed a third for ourselves.

----an explanation of how the nested hierarchy revealed by biochemical research matches the nested hierarchy revealed by paleontological research, or a confession that the whole thing was a hoax.

----an explanation of the geographical distribution of species. Why arenít there any penguins in the Arctic or polar bears in the Antarctic? Why are there coyotes in the Colorado Desert but not in the Sahara Desert?

----an explanation of purported cases of speciation which have taken place in our own time.

----an explanation of body parts belonging to one species which could well belong to other species also. For example, why donít we have squid eyes?

----an explanation of why birds carry junk DNA whereby they can have teeth recreated in the laboratory.

----If God was intelligent enough to do the job right the first time, why did he have to wipe the slate clean and do the job a second time?

If you will dispense with the name-calling, if you will dispense with the Jesus-loves-me propaganda, and if you will dispense with the quote mining, maybe you will have more time and energy left to concentrate on the real issue at hand, you might convince some of us. That might win a few converts.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69956 Jan 4, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
neutral observer wrote:
A monotheistic god would be neither male nor female. For it to be one requires that gods of the other gender also exist. Unless you are polytheistic...
Cybele wrote:
The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is obviously a male
The Christian Scientists call their god the Father-Mother God.
The founder of their church was a woman.
interesting, I've seen women represent their church as a reverend or whatever they call them

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69957 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think there is something psychologically wrong with me based on my opinions I have stated here and my linguistic pattern, right? I call that creativity. I play the game of Life. But unlike you, I tend to be drawn to something larger than life. And life becomes great when you look at it that way. It opens up a whole new perspective.
Your sexuality is not the issue, it's your perspective.
You are such a projector it's rather interesting how much one person can project. It was not your opinions I based it on, it was your assertions and your linguistic patterns, as well as your particular words. When something is opinion, people readily admit it unless they are trying to be dishonest or insulting, or have actual evidence to support their assertion. You have not once said "in my opinion," you have only stated things as assertions. Now you are backtracking, attempting to weasel out of the responsibility for your assertions. It's clear that you have no intent on being honest or even learning anything. You'd rather think you know everything, than learn anything, and that's pretty easy to see. I hope for your sake I am wrong, but I highly doubt it at this point, this particular post just proves you are unwilling to learn anything, and that's just sad.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69958 Jan 4, 2013
Mother Mary wrote:
<quoted text>Freak? Aint pretending fun MS100? The internet sucks!!!!!!
Embrace the internet, it is our connection to the world, we have never had such before, and it's awesome. ;)

I recall getting less than 10% of all information, and most of that was filtered heavily by the news. This is the best era to live.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69959 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a projector it's rather interesting how much one person can project. It was not your opinions I based it on, it was your assertions and your linguistic patterns, as well as your particular words. When something is opinion, people readily admit it unless they are trying to be dishonest or insulting, or have actual evidence to support their assertion. You have not once said "in my opinion," you have only stated things as assertions. Now you are backtracking, attempting to weasel out of the responsibility for your assertions. It's clear that you have no intent on being honest or even learning anything. You'd rather think you know everything, than learn anything, and that's pretty easy to see. I hope for your sake I am wrong, but I highly doubt it at this point, this particular post just proves you are unwilling to learn anything, and that's just sad.
I've never made an assertion based on opinion alone. I based it on the fact that there was lacking in evidence. lol

There was no empirical evidence therefore I am skeptical about you. ;-)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69960 Jan 4, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
FREE SERVANT wrote:

If you will dispense with the name-calling, if you will dispense with the Jesus-loves-me propaganda, and if you will dispense with the quote mining, maybe you will have more time and energy left to concentrate on the real issue at hand, you might convince some of us. That might win a few converts.
I think I might be a metaphorical Wildcat. lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69961 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never made an assertion based on opinion alone. I based it on the fact that there was lacking in evidence. lol
There was no empirical evidence therefore I am skeptical about you. ;-)
Now you are mimicking me and not in a good way. All your assertions were based on you lacking any evidence. An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not. You are not skeptical, you are making assertions about me based on zero evidence, that makes you a liar.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69962 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are mimicking me and not in a good way. All your assertions were based on you lacking any evidence. An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not. You are not skeptical, you are making assertions about me based on zero evidence, that makes you a liar.
Please tell me what I am denying? I have yet to see your evidence of how you come to make that kind of assertion.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69963 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I understand...I believe the Quantum field might be outside natural laws.
Don't think so.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69964 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree. Someone takes a PCP to achieve a desired emotional or mental state. But because drugs can be toxic, it produces an undesirable side-effect just like any prescription drugs. Trauma doesn't trigger the same chemical response in the brain that drugs or alcohol do. Trauma actually is opposite of the effects of what drugs do to your brain. Trauma produces a negative effect such as pain or fear but because it triggers chemicals in the brain, the fight-or-flight response, it produces a good desired effect such as peace or positive sensation after reacting or responding to a crisis, it's why in NDE people actually survive death.
No.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69965 Jan 4, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have-time and time again, and that hasn't changed an iota.
I find the type of work being done at CERN, amazing.
Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69966 Jan 4, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No.
Do you have an explanation?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69967 Jan 5, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text> Some mothers are more connected to their children than others.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Shared cellular memory could be the reason.
Cellular memory isn't really a thing.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69968 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an explanation?
There's not really anything to respond to. The person you were conversing with made a good point- that nde states can be brought on by things other than near death. Your assertion that a "natural" nde state is somehow categorically different from a drug induced one is unsupported. How are they different? Is it because the chemicals involved are different? If so, why not ascribe a natural nde to the chemicals in the brain, and not some mystical "something." If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?

And your assertion that people avoid death by having a nde is... funny.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 8 min Ooogah Boogah 13,628
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 718
How would creationists explain... 10 hr Chimney1 439
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 12 hr DanFromSmithville 507
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web