Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218743 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117314 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at how your statement about not knowing what it means to conform to equality proves true:
If all power has one source, then it is naturally the source of EACH ONE of those powers which it (the source) has created.
Notice the key word 'if' in this statement. You have not established that assumption.
Therefore the remark:
"Even if all power has a source, you are making the illogical leap from the statement...";
Should never even have entered your mind as a reasonable individual ("reasonable" by any definition).
And why not? You make a claim, and then make an illogical leap from that claim and then claim that *I* am not being reasonable? Really?
The assumption that there is a source of all powers MUST immediately, directly, naturally and every -ally-ly implies that:'For each power, there is a source of that power'.
But the converse fails, and the converse is what you need for your conclusion.
If that conclusion was based on your sentiments above; it is meaningless (both the conclusion and the sentiment).
Now you are simply refusing to actually discuss because you know you haven't proven your case.
But logic demands that there be, and there must naturally be.
Prove it (that there must be a single source for all power).
That which is powerful by any definition of power, must possess one unique attribute (or set of attributes) which allows it to be identified as being powerful or having potential. And it is this attribute/s which is causes or generates the power by itself or from itself.
And you could say the same about 'light', but we know that light doesn't have a single, common source. You could say the same thing about mass, but we know that mass doesn't have a single common source (no, the Higg's particle doesn't do this). Why would you expect power to have a single, common source? Even if every individual type of power has a source, that doesn't imply that all power has a single source--a very basic logical mistake.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117315 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
<quoted text>
So since letters words and numbers are reinterpreted to fit reality no matter what reality is; is it absolutely useless when a scientist describes what he observes using a particular set of words?
Do words have any real meaning apart from what the speakers agree that they mean?
Do you know the agreements that influence the writing of the Bible and the way it interprets reality?
And besides; WHAT HAVE YOU TO DO WITH "TRUTH"?
The moment you speak of truth you enter the metaphysical, for the truth never changes and is therefore eternal; surpassing the physical in time...
Again with the neo-Platonic crap. No, truth is simply a description of how the universe actually is. It isn't a thing in itself, but a description of things. The truth is an idea in *our* minds that we use to help us understand the universe around us.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#117316 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR VERY STATEMENT SUGGESTS METAPHYSICS:
If the uncaused exists, it is eternal.
Again, simply false. There are *many* uncaused events in the universe. None of them are eternal.
And whatever is eternal exists beyond causes, as you rightly claimed.
Therefore to study causes within the context of the eternal is metaphysics itself; repackaged and labelled according to the perspective of Institution...
Therefore you only reject one metaphysics to embrace another...
Nope. I embrace physics, not metaphysics. Causality requires time and time is part of our universe. Because of that, it is meaningless to talk about the 'cause' of our universe. It is simply not a concept that applies to the referent.
If there is an equal chance that God exists or does not exist; the probability is 1/2 that either one could occur.
And why would you assume the chances are equal?
Now if I toss a coin in the air, the probability that it will land on either heads or tails is 1/2: so the cases are somewhat equivalent (and I am willing to bet, directly related).
Now if a coin is tossed and the probability of heads or tails being the result is 1/2 for both; WHAT WILL CAUSE A PERSON TO CHOOSE HEADS AS OPPOSED TO TAILS, EXCEPT PERSONAL INCLINATION?
Why is the person force to make a choice? Since the probabilities are equal, any choice is equally 'good', so any way they make the choice is equally valid.

On the other hand, that is NOT the case with your deity. None of your arguments have shown the existence, and that alone points to the unlikelihood of that existence. Furthermore, there are good reasons to think that the existence is false.

So, now I propose the alternative question: if a dice is weighted so that it shows sixes 99.99% of the time, what would induce a person to choose threes?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117317 Jul 8, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
HOG, the problem is that you do not have a working definition of kind.
But it's in the DICTIONARY!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117318 Jul 8, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The Sucking Bone!.........sung to the spiderman theme.
Sucking Bone , Sucking Bone,
Your friendly neighborhood Sucking Bone,
spins a web , full of lies,
lands on shit, just like flies , Look out!
Here comes the sucking bone!
Is he dumb? Holy hell!
His idiocy clangs like a bell,
Accusations he lets fly,
Without the truth he's forced to lie,
Lookout!
Here comes the Sucking Bone!
Tune in next week as our hero Sucking Bone attempts to recover from the brutal beating he was handed by Hand of God by explaining how the ancient primordial puddle of sludge spewed forth life with assumptions, suppositions, extrapolations and wild ass guesses supported by his nihilistic view of the universe, nothing else.
Same sucking time
same sucking channel.
Bo, since you're lying and you know it, you know your objections are worthless.

That's why you keep running away.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117319 Jul 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
sorry HOG. that post of mine was to subduction zone.
You were right the first time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117320 Jul 8, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
Oh platypus.
Interestingly, some scientists are studying how co-dependent species are harmed by forest fragmentation. Certain pants and animals are so dependent on each other, the loss or fragmentation of one or the other can cause extinction of the others. So, then I wonder which one developed first, or did lots of things develop or mutate simultaneously, and are so specialized and codependent that they would die out without the others? So many codependent relationships in nature, what is the mathematical chance of so many mutations happening in separate species at the same time, over and over again?
But then, unable to cope with changes, and blink out. Almost like their genetic potential was played out. No new genetic material added, only deletions? Like selective breeding, you can get a daschund by breeding for specific traits in wolves, but I am pretty sure you can't breed daschunds selectively until you get a wolf. Just sayin'
Don't worry about it. The chances are EXTREMELY high. And natural selection helps genetic diversity, while artificial selection is specifically about reducing genetic diversity. Your misunderstanding of those terms is where you're going wrong.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117321 Jul 8, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's in the DICTIONARY!!!
"Kind" generally means one kind of specific somethings and "Kind"specifically means another general kind of somethings, therefore the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Clear as mud.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#117322 Jul 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
your biggest problem is you being in today’s knowledge you seem think that is how the bible should have been written. you for some unforsaken reason can’t fathom they did not have today’s knowledge, words, tools, technology, etc etc. 4500+ years ago they didn’t have much at all compared to today.
now again I will give you a working definition of kind as used in the bible. the bible speaks of two "kinds of animals". 1) clean, 2) unclean. so technically there is your working definition for "kind" in the bible. they did not have clade. They did not have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or maybe not even species. What they spoke of, being they were not as knowledgeable as we are today, were two --"kinds"-- of animals as follows; animals of the same kind---"clean" and animals of the same kind---"unclean".
cud-chewing animals with split hooves such as cattle, sheep, goat, deer and gazelle, etc were of the same” kind”……-clean
salt and freshwater fish with fins and scales were of the same “kind”…..-clean
birds such as chickens, turkeys and pheasants were of the same” kind”……-clean
insects such as locusts, crickets and grasshoppers were of the same” kind”……-clean
all other insects were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
other birds and other flying creatures such as birds of prey, ostriches, storks, herons, bats, etc. were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
four-footed animals with paws such as cats, dogs, bears, lions, tigers, etc. were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
camels, rabbits and pigs were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
catfish, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, mussels, clams, etc were of the same “kind”…..-unclean
moles, mice and lizards were of the same “kind”--- unclean
you don’t have the faintest clue about science. you just regurgitate what has been said or what you read and most of the time you don’t understand either of what you read or hear. now shut up you idiot jack wagon. we are tired of you whining.
This is all well and good Wondering, but these seem like nothing more than random groupings. What criteria do they follow?.

I'd like to pose a further question regarding Kind - "His" Kind, and "Their" Kind, referring to Gen 1.25;

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,..."

How can their be a "Their" kind if "Their" have yet to be created?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117323 Jul 8, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am able to suggest a definition for "kind" as the context may be; and I am the one in the dark..?
Where you by any chance looking in a mirror when you attempted to suggest that I am an "ignorant idiot"; because that description best reflects what you are being right now?
Give the scientific definition of "kind" and lets examine it with the biblical use of "kind".
I anxiously eagerly look forward to your response... with a flash bag grenade, a pistol, a cigarette and a lighter.
Yada, yada. "Kind" as used in the Bible is simply sort, type, category, etc. It is nothing Earth shaking and certainly not Earth shaping. According to the ancient Hebrews, a bat was a kind of bird. Deal with it, ya liar for Jesus crybaby.
The old Bible does not describe anything in scientific terms, regardless of how you want to creatively interpret, reinvent and misapply snippets in modern English to suit your bias.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#117326 Jul 8, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Guy Gardiner is my bouncer!
Laffin.

Did you know that no less a personage than Larry Niven (!) was instrumental in cleaning that comic up?
HMT 123

Honolulu, HI

#117327 Jul 8, 2014
BullyDozers..... yikes.
10:30 AM pst
carry on 123

Honolulu, HI

#117328 Jul 8, 2014
<3 U All !
wondering

Morris, OK

#117329 Jul 8, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
This is all well and good Wondering, but these seem like nothing more than random groupings. What criteria do they follow?.
I'd like to pose a further question regarding Kind - "His" Kind, and "Their" Kind, referring to Gen 1.25;
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind,..."
How can their be a "Their" kind if "Their" have yet to be created?
JM he asked for a working definition of kind in the bible, he did not specify where, so i gave him one. now as the other ways kind is used, i don't follow the bible for i feel much of it is false but to try to answer your question the best i can after reading genesis 1, i would say it is man written so from their point of view maybe they are saying god made a cow for example and from then on he made more after its kind. we simply don’t know for much of the bible is written in ways that the words seem mixed up. what word should come first comes second or last. the bible is poorly written compared to today’s language but back in their day with their language it probably made perfect sense to them. the bible throughout the years i think has been poorly translated and if what it said was not understood, it was supplemented with what “they” thought it said.

anyways evolution with or without god is what has happened to life over the multitude of years. it is seen in the fossil record, the molecular biology, in all the evidence science has studied, repeatedly tested and put forth. hope this helps answer your question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117330 Jul 8, 2014
And so wondering proclaims his ignorance and idiocy to the world. In a debate between creationism and evolution he cannot figure out that the word "kind" that has not been defined is the word "kind" as used in the first chapter of Genesis.

Massive face palm.

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#117331 Jul 8, 2014
So, did hummingbirds get long curved beaks and long tongues and the ability to hover at the same time certain flowers came along that needed them to be pollenated and just happened to have high sugar nectar and the right color to attract them? How did either the flowers or birds survive the crossover changes? Some plants depend on birds digesting the fruit before it can germinate for the next generation, how did that start?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117332 Jul 8, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
So, did hummingbirds get long curved beaks and long tongues and the ability to hover at the same time certain flowers came along that needed them to be pollenated and just happened to have high sugar nectar and the right color to attract them? How did either the flowers or birds survive the crossover changes? Some plants depend on birds digesting the fruit before it can germinate for the next generation, how did that start?
Hummingbirds are insectivores. They sip nectar for "go juice'. They eat insects for protein. There is little to no protein in nectar. So a bird family that was already insectivorous picked up the habit of supplementing their diet with nectar. As they evolved they found that those that drank more nectar could fly faster and harvest more insects. So flowers and the precursors of hummingbirds evolved to some degree together.

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#117333 Jul 8, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hummingbirds are insectivores. They sip nectar for "go juice'. They eat insects for protein. There is little to no protein in nectar. So a bird family that was already insectivorous picked up the habit of supplementing their diet with nectar. As they evolved they found that those that drank more nectar could fly faster and harvest more insects. So flowers and the precursors of hummingbirds evolved to some degree together.
Interesting. So hummingbirds just became better hummingbirds, adapted. And the flowers adapted with them. But they did not change into pigs or dogs or boys?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117334 Jul 8, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting. So hummingbirds just became better hummingbirds, adapted. And the flowers adapted with them. But they did not change into pigs or dogs or boys?
Wow! No, a bird that was not a hummingbird learned how to use another food source and the two evolved together. The precursor to the hmmingbird would have been more like a swift than a hummingbird. of today.

You really have no clue about how evolution works. It seems that you are against the idea. You can't win a debate if you do not understand what you are debating.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#117335 Jul 8, 2014
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting. So hummingbirds just became better hummingbirds, adapted. And the flowers adapted with them. But they did not change into pigs or dogs or boys?
What are you stupid or something?

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
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 96
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min marksman11 157,428
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min 15th Dalai Lama 51,560
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Joe Momma 24,676
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 hr ChromiuMan 1,124
The Fossil Record Does Not Support The Theory O... 20 hr MADRONE 47
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... Tue Dogen 460
More from around the web