Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 3,328)

Showing posts 66,541 - 66,560 of111,925
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70765
Jan 13, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
A battery does not have life. A car engine does not have life.
Unless you want to redefine life in a way that makes our current definitions utterly useless.
In that case, all you are doing is replacing the word "life" with the word "stuff."
Sure...batteries have stuff. Engines have stuff, just like turtles have stuff. So do eggs and ipods and tables. All these things...lots of stuff.
See? Suddenly you've made the word life as useless as the word stuff. Now we can't do anything with it.
When you play these silly word games, you remove the ability of science to understand the universe around us. Biology ceases to have meaning. That's why we call these kind of logical games "sophistry" or "pedantry." They result in an inability to understand the phenomena around us - they reduce our ability to produce new knowledge and are therefore damaging.
Build knowledge, don't attack it.
No I'm not attacking knowledge. I was actually trying to get at something here. Let me give you an example.

Atoms contain sub-particles that has kinetic energy. This energy is what holds the sub-atomic particles together. An atom of a tree builds up when its atoms binds with other atoms and form molecules that synthesizes. The tree life begins as it starts to grow. We cut the trunks to make wood. Did we kill the tree and ended its life? Yes and no. A wood doesn't have life but it once did before we utilized it for something else. But the wood still has the same properties and physical make up - the same molecules and atoms. It's just in another form. Everything in the universe is recycled.

If we define life beyond what we know in biology, we will understand how life came from non-life. The fact that energy has always existed, that is seeded in particles (the nucleus of an atom has nuclear energy), is proof that life started from the simplest form of matter.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70766
Jan 13, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm not attacking knowledge. I was actually trying to get at something here. Let me give you an example.
Atoms contain sub-particles that has kinetic energy. This energy is what holds the sub-atomic particles together. An atom of a tree builds up when its atoms binds with other atoms and form molecules that synthesizes. The tree life begins as it starts to grow. We cut the trunks to make wood. Did we kill the tree and ended its life? Yes and no. A wood doesn't have life but it once did before we utilized it for something else. But the wood still has the same properties and physical make up - the same molecules and atoms. It's just in another form. Everything in the universe is recycled.
If we define life beyond what we know in biology, we will understand how life came from non-life. The fact that energy has always existed, that is seeded in particles (the nucleus of an atom has nuclear energy), is proof that life started from the simplest form of matter.
1. Please look up the definition of kinetic energy. You aren't using it correctly.

2. You are redefining life without acknowledging that you are doing so. If you want to be a coherent philosopher, be explicit in how you are defining your concepts.

3. I kind of see where you're going with the energy idea and I agree with you. I suggest you incorporate the second law of thermodynamics in and be more specific with "energy" and what "energy" does to molecules - why do molecules arrange themselves to be more complex? What are the consequences of molecules doing so?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70767
Jan 13, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
We seriously have to take him away from that horrible priest fellow...
What!? And make the priest search for someone else? Have you no heart?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70768
Jan 13, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The gay agenda? Is that like the negro agenda of the 60's? Those damn uppity negroes, with all their talk about
"equality" and "rights." Just like the gays.
The "Negros" had an agenda as a political group. Why wouldn't they? But this isn't about equality or rights, it's about special privilege. Already been there, but if you want to go through the list of rhetorical sound bites again, have at it.

* Marriage - not a right, not even mentioned in the Constitution. Best described as a privileged group given funding and special protection at the state level, mostly as an effort to protect the raising of children. Could be interpreted as a means of the State and Capitalists to financially encumber citizens beyond their means to make free political choices.

* Homosexuality - at best, described as a medical condition, but if it IS considered a lifestyle choice, that makes it political and not a protected condition. There would be great debate as to whether or not homosexuals are capable of assuming proper parental roles, but in the current state of debate, liberals would generate bogus statistics anyway.

* Political wedge issue - absolutely, just as abortion is with conservatives, homosexuality is with liberals. In both cases, these are litmus test issues where those disloyal to a party are forced into a financially punitive lifestyle, either by raising children they can't afford, or by heaping further financial burdens on the unmarried through unfairly taxing the minority to the benefit of the majority.

See, it really isn't about your stereotype idea that I'm a conservative zealot. But you're going to go through your spiel anyway. So.... DO it! You WILL go through EVERY single piece of your rhetoric ANYWAY! You'll probably even try to ask offensively personal questions in an attempt to dominate the discussion.

But you WILL DO IT! Obey your master! DO IT!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70769
Jan 13, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Please look up the definition of kinetic energy. You aren't using it correctly.
2. You are redefining life without acknowledging that you are doing so. If you want to be a coherent philosopher, be explicit in how you are defining your concepts.
3. I kind of see where you're going with the energy idea and I agree with you. I suggest you incorporate the second law of thermodynamics in and be more specific with "energy" and what "energy" does to molecules - why do molecules arrange themselves to be more complex? What are the consequences of molecules doing so?
1. Sorry, I meant to say that atoms have both kinetic and potential energy. I was thinking of rocks which has kinetic energy.

2. I agree. I would have to expand this concept a bit more. But I'm just giving you the gist of it.

3. I will get to that when I can.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70770
Jan 13, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Homie, I think that you are projecting a wee bit.
Now, you've struck your pose. It's nice to see that you're slumming with the ghetto folk and showing some soul! I hope that doesn't translate into something you've casually written off concerning minorities.

Now! Tell me how I'm projecting. What am I projecting other than a quite candid disrespect for the what I quite explicitly regard a prejudicial treatment against unmarried people? Do you think I'm black and that my politics are all part of your tidy world view?

Well, maybe there's a bit of that in the family tree, but as every real black would remind me, I don't look it so I'm not black like them. Besides, the psychological impact of black personality traits on a mixed race person are not as obvious as with others in our Western culture. You'd probably have a harder time detecting a part-Asian in Eastern Europe too, but that's not the Liberal political line, so run with it! You WILL run with it. Obey your master!

I CAN think of one or two political types who like to play into that "soul" thing, but usually that's just an offensive stereotype that whites have of blacks as reckless and promiscuous.

Hmmmm. We haven't explored that nasty side of White liberalism on Topix yet. Wanna act that one out for everyone? Be a sport! You can call me "boy" if I can call you "boi" and we can all call Bill Clinton "bubba". Whoo hoo!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70771
Jan 13, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>We have a regular super genius over here, manipulating the poor plebes to do his bidding.
AND it's YOUR turn!!

I'll tell you my first angle! Here it is: Are you Gay?

About 1 out of 2 posters on an Evolution forum who take the Evolution point of view are playing the gay angle. They don't want to SAY they're gay, but the love to ask offensive questions and make people uncomfortable. Some don't want to admit they're gay, some aren't but like to get all "downtown" with the bros. When it comes down to it, it's an inevitable "you're either with us or against us" political tactic and NOW you'll have to pay the price!

OK,the clock is ticking. Post #1 and all I'm asking for is a simple YES or NO response. No secret codes, innuendo or gang signs. Just answer the question.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70772
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> For men(man) to men(man) marrying each other, there can never be procreation.
...and you stay out of my discussions! I won't have you co-opting my logic or distracting weasels from putting their image where their mouth is.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70773
Jan 13, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm not attacking knowledge. I was actually trying to get at something here. Let me give you an example.
Atoms contain sub-particles that has kinetic energy. This energy is what holds the sub-atomic particles together. An atom of a tree builds up when its atoms binds with other atoms and form molecules that synthesizes. The tree life begins as it starts to grow. We cut the trunks to make wood. Did we kill the tree and ended its life? Yes and no. A wood doesn't have life but it once did before we utilized it for something else. But the wood still has the same properties and physical make up - the same molecules and atoms. It's just in another form. Everything in the universe is recycled.
If we define life beyond what we know in biology, we will understand how life came from non-life. The fact that energy has always existed, that is seeded in particles (the nucleus of an atom has nuclear energy), is proof that life started from the simplest form of matter.
Trees have also came in variety from the beginning and they are among the oldest living things.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70774
Jan 13, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Darwin cult would like to call every person who believes in the God of the Bible crazy. The truth will prevail.
Really? You can say this because you know what is in my mind and what is in the mind of others? You LIE! Lying is a sin.

Four of my best friends growing up were the sons of ministers. Three of them were the sons of the minister of the church I went to. Those friendships have endured and I don't think they are crazy. You on the other hand are a convert and I have my doubts about you. But I don't take either case and then build a lie by making sweeping statements about a whold group of people. Based on some of the posters on here that claim Christianity, it would be easy to do too.

The only truth that seems to prevail is that you and many of your fellow Christian posters don't know much about science, have what appears to be a lot of hate, want to force others to believe the way you do and don't seem to be very nice people.

By the way, what is up with your fascination with sex and what others are doing in bed?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70775
Jan 13, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Trees have also came in variety from the beginning and they are among the oldest living things.
What is your point and why does the longevity of trees play into it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70776
Jan 13, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Trees have also came in variety from the beginning and they are among the oldest living things.
Instead of making repeatedly idiotic statements why don't you try to debate the facts sometime?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70777
Jan 13, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Systems created reproduction after the kind in living things. Living things are patterned after their own kind. Repeating cyclic mechanisms such as pumping elements are responsible for maintaining life. All living things have pumps. Life unfolds following seedlike patterns of former things. Life did not branch out and become a varity from a common thing, it began in varity and then reproduced after certain kinds. Systems which cycle following patterns, is the way life works and the timing and pace of these systems was in the self adjusting patterned arrangement from the beginning and Creation of life on earth.
I wrote something on my journal that is similar to what you're describing. I'm describing it as an artist's point of view:

The Art of Being

It was the beginning and the point of an isolated beam. It became a mark that spawned an imagination for life. It traveled and grew to become a vast area capable of sustaining the most fragile of nature yet palpable by design. An extension of illuminated beings. The bud of life began to unravel its core - the mind that is created in synchronized rhythm that which is life, and made known. An existence once more.

The Art of Structure

Seedlings began to sprout extended like strings that attached to one another, making all possible combinations. It became the blueprint for a system as the attachments were made firm and intact. Multiple systems replicated and adjoined in harmony creating each of its vibrations.

The Art Form

The vibrations of life filled the space in free and orderly movements. And each system was given a form, and the form had function. Tapping once, twice, and many more until the form created a pattern. The patterns became a cycle in a system. Thus, the cycle of life.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70778
Jan 13, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Really? You can say this because you know what is in my mind and what is in the mind of others? You LIE! Lying is a sin.
Four of my best friends growing up were the sons of ministers. Three of them were the sons of the minister of the church I went to. Those friendships have endured and I don't think they are crazy. You on the other hand are a convert and I have my doubts about you. But I don't take either case and then build a lie by making sweeping statements about a whold group of people. Based on some of the posters on here that claim Christianity, it would be easy to do too.
The only truth that seems to prevail is that you and many of your fellow Christian posters don't know much about science, have what appears to be a lot of hate, want to force others to believe the way you do and don't seem to be very nice people.
By the way, what is up with your fascination with sex and what others are doing in bed?
People are free to do as they will and I am not the judge in the end, but I know who is and his word on this subject can be found in the Holy Bible.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70779
Jan 13, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
So we can't discuss the evolution of cosmos and particles?
What does that have to do with the modern evolutionary synthesis?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70780
Jan 13, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
What should concern Science is HOW God did it.
No, what should concern science is what explanations are capable of explaining the observable facts.

It has nothing to do with any "gods".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70781
Jan 13, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
what makes no sense is how we existed without an external agent.
How does the "external agent" exist?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70782
Jan 13, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
What kind of evidence do you need?
For a god? How about something objective and unambiguous?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70783
Jan 13, 2013
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
bwahahahahahahhaha!!!
oh, god, that was funny. take it on the road, man!
What?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70784
Jan 13, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
For men(man) to men(man) marrying each other, there can never be procreation.
Some opposite-sex couples cannot produce children, or they choose not to. Does that mean that they are engaged in perversion?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 66,541 - 66,560 of111,925
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••