Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201361 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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114631 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"pow·er [pou-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
"ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."
potential:
"capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety."
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potent...
NOW:
1. Does power or potential exist?
2. Is it rational to assume that power or potential has a source?
3. Is it rational to describe the SOURCE of power or potential as "Almighty"?
If you want.(shrug)

But your definitions are vague to say the least, and what you're offering also sounds like the idea that the universe itself is "God", or perhaps the universe itself is allegedly intelligent - essentially forms of deism. Which is again, useless metaphorical non-explanatory philosophical twaddle. But hey, if that's what does it for ya.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114632 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So do information technology scientists.
Sure.

They can make babies. Like most other people.

But actual artificial intelligence I dispute has ever really been achieved.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
No.
Something IS here, so there must be a beginning or starting point. You've tried that already and failed miserably.
No, I have not failed at all. You've failed since the start as all you can do is rehash philosophical bollox that goes back literally centuries to millenia. Our universe apparently had a starting point. We do not yet know whether anything stretched on into infinity "before" that. Your position is everything "must" have a cause, except for your "God". Because of course fundies always require exceptions for their position. I accept the possibility of a "God", but propose that the definition is too ill defined for objective investigation.

So what I'm saying here is that while it MAY be possible that your "God" does not require a cause, and MAYBE could be infinite (as most fundies claim) it is ALSO possible that:

1 - it doesn't exist.

2 - Something like it exists but also required a cause. Leading to something else that is NOT God that didn't require a cause, or there was an infinite string of causes meaning there never was "ONE true God".

But simple fact of the matter is that it's still no more valid than Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy..." [wikipedia.com]
"Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS[4](28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British[5] philosopher and professor ... He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science... Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification" [wikipedia]
So we agree that Popper, in later life, didn't quite stand with you on your position.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Ok, so the philosophical nature of an argument automatically renders the argument invalid?
If it can't be changed into something empirical? YES.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114633 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
YOu do realize of course that your remarks are absolutely contrary to the people who "invented" science (for want of a better word)?
Your idea of science is as far removed from actual, credible science as religion is removed from... grade school.
STOP TALKING TO ME, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Somebody wanna remind Hogwarts of Poly's actual credentials again?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114634 Jun 18, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural forces? I take it you have evidence for this.. I'm all ears. Please explain & with empirical evidence, not stories - which natural forces (gravity?) and how. A pathway from non-intelligence to intelligence would be nice. This is going going to be just great. Make my day.
Well yeah, every single life form on the entire planet is the result of natural forces. And this is observed EVERY FRIKKING DAY.

But by all means, go ahead and provide us with evidence of just ONE lifeform that was magically poofed into existence by a magical Jew wizard.

Take your time.

As usual.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#114635 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a native speaker you idiot.
It's sad if a German native speaker is writing "Ihr seit" instead of "Ihr seid" but it isn't bad if a non-native Speaker is writing this.

Actually you aren't even worth consideration, so feel privileged.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114636 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Which demonstrates a presupposition that religion WILL NEVER have anything relevant to science.
Meanwhile falsification is an effective method of verification; therefore by disproving religious assumptions you can learn fact.
And they are what?
Trying to "keep those things out of science"?
LOL!!!!!
It is interesting that you mention "philosophy of your choice"; because you must admit in honesty that you espouse philosophies in science too: Realism and Determinism...
May I point out to you that THERE IS A THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
Philosophy is to science is what ornithology is to birds.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Did you know that one of the main individuals advocating that scientific claims should be falsifiable was a philosopher of science?
" Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the PURPOSE of science." [wikipedia.com]
<quoted text>
So whats your point exactly?
I do not need evolution theory to fail for God to work!!!!
We do not need God for the theory of evolution to work.

That doesn't mean, necessarily, that no God exists. It just means that we can demonstrate how evolution works. And so far, you can't do that for "God".

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#114637 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
Besides I never said that I am a genius. I am not a genius. I am a genius compared to non-Germans. That's a difference.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114638 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
He he he he he.
Great.
Now:
Does an X who creates an artificially intelligent system show signs of being intelligent?
Notice how you automatically assume a "who". This assumption is unwarranted. If intelligence is necessary to create intelligence then BY that argument, an intelligence was necessary to create your intelligent God. And another. And another. And another.

But, you may recall that I already conceded the POSSIBILITY that a "God" exists that did NOT require a prior intelligence to create it. Okay, fine.

But the PROBLEM is then that you're using the wrong argument to demonstrate such a God, because your own argument violates its own premise - intelligence requiring an intelligence to make it. And so far you have not been able to clamber your way out of this fallacy of infinite regression.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114639 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So the universe creates an intelligent being, yet the universe is not intelligent.
This is entirely possible.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
But then an intelligent being that the unintelligent universe created demonstrates intelligence by creating intelligence...
My oh my, you seem to be right.
An intelligent universe would have no part of you.
You win!!!
*puffs cigarette and smirks*
That did not even come close to being a coherent rational argument.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114640 Jun 18, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Evolution or all of science?hanistic, naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that fit the available evidence?
In his case, all of it. He wants to pretend ancient philosophical BS is science even when it doesn't pass the scientific method.
wondering

Morris, OK

#114641 Jun 18, 2014
since this seems to be the hottest thread going I will ask here -

i was asked the other day that what i thought was a simple question by an 11 year old and when i started to answer i found the question was not as simple as i thought. the question was; “if light goes on forever then why is there darkness, does not the suns light keep shining forever? i answered with well yes light does go on forever but it fades with time and distance and the universe is so vast etc etc. but i never really came up with an answer i was satisfied with. any thoughts people? maybe i am having a brain fart.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#114642 Jun 18, 2014
wondering wrote:
since this seems to be the hottest thread going I will ask here -
i was asked the other day that what i thought was a simple question by an 11 year old and when i started to answer i found the question was not as simple as i thought. the question was; “if light goes on forever then why is there darkness, does not the suns light keep shining forever? i answered with well yes light does go on forever but it fades with time and distance and the universe is so vast etc etc. but i never really came up with an answer i was satisfied with. any thoughts people? maybe i am having a brain fart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_l...

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#114643 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the difference between 'smart' and 'intelligent'
And no I am not smart. I am a genious for non-Germans but for Germans I am just average.
I'll assume you meant genius, genius.
wondering

Morris, OK

#114644 Jun 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
i am not a scientific person. all i read is blah blah blah blah. thanks for the link. care to explain that to me?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#114645 Jun 18, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A Whack-a-Mole. He's not much more than that.
No Mike, he's a 'genious'.
wondering

Morris, OK

#114646 Jun 18, 2014
aura mytha, keep in mind i have to explain that to an 11 year old. so keep it simple if you can

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#114647 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
When you speak of evidence, WE ALL KNOW that the nature of the evidence is of vital importance; because things of different natures will have different types and levels of effect...
So when I claim that "God" is (that which is) Almighty...
Sorry Hog, your psudo-logic's not gonna cut it.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So when I claim that "God" is (that which is) Almighty.
OR
God = Almighty
OR
Let X = Almighty
The rational questions are:
1. What is the meaning of "Almighty"?
Um... What?
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
2. What type of evidence would you look for if you wanted to observe the influence of X?
Isn't that up to you to produce?
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Only by logic can you know God
Oh, right - because X = God = Almighty. How sciency of you.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Only with logic can one investigate God, because the attributes of God do not allow direct contact involved, examination of God.
*trying to keep a straight face* OK Hog, we'll end it at that. Kudos.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114648 Jun 18, 2014
wondering wrote:
since this seems to be the hottest thread going I will ask here -
i was asked the other day that what i thought was a simple question by an 11 year old and when i started to answer i found the question was not as simple as i thought. the question was; “if light goes on forever then why is there darkness, does not the suns light keep shining forever? i answered with well yes light does go on forever but it fades with time and distance and the universe is so vast etc etc. but i never really came up with an answer i was satisfied with. any thoughts people? maybe i am having a brain fart.
Light has to reach out eyes before we see it. If light is not traveling in the direction to reach our eyes, we will not see it. That is about as simple as I can put it.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#114649 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>

...STOP TALKING TO ME, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Again, perfect example of when a creationist gets slammed with intelligence:
*Fingers in ears - LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA ...*

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114650 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
When you speak of evidence, WE ALL KNOW that the nature of the evidence is of vital importance; because things of different natures will have different types and levels of effect...
So when I claim that "God" is (that which is) Almighty.
OR
God = Almighty
OR
Let X = Almighty
The rational questions are:
1. What is the meaning of "Almighty"?
2. What type of evidence would you look for if you wanted to observe the influence of X?
My claim regarding "God" does not require more than that and it must be necessarily so.
Only by logic can you know God, because the fact is that you cannot directly experience the fullness of any Almighty and live.
Simply put:
Only with logic can one investigate God, because the attributes of God do not allow direct contact involved, examination of God.
And I know that that method of investigation is valid:
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
<quoted text>
Yes, but by what means?
By blinding your eyes to the other n% of reality that you dont know of?
By simply saying "We cant detect it so it does not exist"; instead of applying logic, and logic embodies the essence of knowledge and the foundation of scientific method?
Like I said you do not know the nature of evidence. When it comes to science the only evidence used is objective evidence. That is evidence that can be observed by anyone, or at the very least anyone that has the same access to the methods of observation, be that by eye, telescope, mass spectrometer etc..

Scientific evidence is evidence that supports or negates a scientific hypothesis or theory. All scientific evidence supports evolution and only evolution. I do not know of any evidence that supports creationism. Please note that the evidence must support a scientific theory or hypothesis to support a scientific idea and creationists are too chicken shitted cowardly to make a testable hypothesis.

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
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Chimney1 40,641
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 min NightSerf 16,117
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr Joncy David 155
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr _Susan_ 151,418
LUCA and more REAL science 19 hr MIDutch 1
Dinosaurs and the Catholic Church 19 hr MIDutch 1
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 20 hr MIDutch 12
More from around the web