Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220719 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#55508 Oct 29, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Did Darwin?
No.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#55509 Oct 29, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The funny thing is, you actually think that you can use the language well. You are yet another example of the dunning-krueger effect.
"A candid advice?" Do I need to explain to you why that is grammatically wrong, and why it further reflects your stupidity? Do I need to explain why putting sincere in parentheses to define a simple word makes you look even dumber? You define the word you just used as if your a high school student who just pulled a vocab word off his SAT practice sheet and feels that it's so rare that it warrants an explanation.

I would tolerate his butchering the English language if he just had a little humility about his lack of skill.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#55510 Oct 29, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Did Darwin?

No.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55511 Oct 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the biggest challenge is that every brain is unique, and not just unique in it's experiences, the entire layout of the neurons is unique. So coming up with a method of communication that would work for all brains would be the biggest challenge, then there's the biological rejection problem. We would have to merge biological technology with digital technology in a way that's just not yet possible. The cells of the body will reject anything it doesn't recognize, it's like puzzle pieces, if the object doesn't fit in with the cells it's viewed as a hostile and surrounded by cells that do nothing more than surround hostile things.
But to achieve the level of control it would have to be direct neural interface, simple sensors wouldn't work for much more than point and click interactions. It is still fun to dream of such things, coding at the speed of thought. Oh, and the implant would take years to learn how to actually use anyway, the brain is experienced based.
Actually, I figure that the most difficult part would be the insertion of a "net" that would be in sync with the organic uniqueness, then training both the mind and the machine part to recognize the responses coming from the machine.

Generally, I'd imagine inserting fibers with electro-chemical sensors positioned a regular intervals along the x,y,z axis' of the neural arrays in the frontal lobes, and similar arrays in the desired sensory regions where the machine would send responses back to the brain.

Finally, there would be a very long time tuning the machine by sending diagnostic patterns into the sensory regions, watching the responses in the frontal lobes and linking the data to information provided by the subject that gives meaning to mental images observed in the host's cerebrum.

The host would probably have to spend years reading and reciting words out of a book in order for the machine to be able to understand the synaptic traces, and would need to spend just as much time sending data into the vision or hearing centers in order to tune its input into acceptable language that the mind can understand.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Jinan, China

#55512 Oct 29, 2012
I wrote:
“Free Servant, how is Evolution a get rich scheme.
I've been in it for some time and I haven't gotten rich yet.”
Free Servant wrote:
“Did Darwin?”

If he did, he certainly didn’t get rich quick.
After returning from the Beagle voyage,
he mulled over the subject for a full twenty years before publishing Origin of Species.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55513 Oct 29, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> But this is exactly where AI in remote control for prosthesis limbs is going, but it is non evasive and works entirely on brain waves and thought.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1725799/darpas-min...
Well, there are two elements here. There's motor control and sensory awareness. The motor control part does not bother me as much as the sensory part. Once you start running wires into the brain stem, you're bypassing the conscious mind's ability to control the machine.

I'm a complete cynic in that respect. If you create a device that can be used to control you, sooner or later, someone WILL use that device to control you.

Here's another simple question. Why has no form of telepathic communication ever been discovered? Most likely because no creature would voluntarily invite another into their thoughts. Natural competition would annihilate one's ability to let one's subconscious to proceed unmolested. You'd have to have a "hive mind" and genetic system before such things can happen.
phaines

Big Bear Lake, CA

#55514 Oct 29, 2012
people wont read your posts if they are too long..especaly me..lol
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55515 Oct 29, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
“Free Servant, how is Evolution a get rich scheme.
I've been in it for some time and I haven't gotten rich yet.”
Free Servant wrote:
“Did Darwin?”
If he did, he certainly didn’t get rich quick.
After returning from the Beagle voyage,
he mulled over the subject for a full twenty years before publishing Origin of Species.
Free Servant appears to be of the standard Creationist profile, wrapped up in a twisted version of the Puritan work ethic where God rewards the devout with money.

Money! Money! Money!

These guys are all twisted up inside. I'm quite glad to leave them on the other side of the Internet. They're all looking for an angle to get rich by preying on the weak minded.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55516 Oct 29, 2012
phaines wrote:
people wont read your posts if they are too long..especaly me..lol
Next time, I'll make sure to practice my WWF choreography a bit more! ;)

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#55517 Oct 29, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Next time, I'll make sure to practice my WWF choreography a bit more! ;)
Is that the one where they save the animals, or big men throwing each other around?
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55518 Oct 29, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that the one where they save the animals, or big men throwing each other around?
It's probably the one where they throw animals around. Got to keep the kids entertained, eh?

“First it steals your mind..”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#55519 Oct 29, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
It's probably the one where they throw animals around. Got to keep the kids entertained, eh?
I'll be the first to admit - I have huge admiration for those athletes. They are tough as nails. I saw their training. It will reduce you and me to tears. Staged? Yes. Fake? Heavens, no.

Also, any man that is willing to forfeit his privacy , yet go and perform solely for the fans is worthy of my respect.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55520 Oct 29, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be the first to admit - I have huge admiration for those athletes. They are tough as nails. I saw their training. It will reduce you and me to tears. Staged? Yes. Fake? Heavens, no.
Also, any man that is willing to forfeit his privacy , yet go and perform solely for the fans is worthy of my respect.
Sort of like "I don't know art, but I know what I like!"

I suppose that it's OK but it's kind of an obvious Hulk bullying fantasy. I suppose we all have them every now and then.

...Definitely better than a "Harry Potter, waving his twig at you" fantasy.`

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#55521 Oct 29, 2012
greymouser wrote:
Is this the replacement for Irreducible Complexity as a key foundation of ID since IC got trashed?
No, it's just this one guy who uses various sockpuppet names and can't get any traction for his looney ideas.(So he keeps using anonymous names to push it.)

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#55522 Oct 29, 2012
Dogen wrote:
I would tolerate his butchering the English language if he just had a little humility about his lack of skill.
And if he apologized for being wrong when he made such obviously false claims as "everyone, when they die, is buried 6 feet underground".

But Charles doesn't believe in admitting to his errors of fact.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#55523 Oct 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And if he apologized for being wrong when he made such obviously false claims as "everyone, when they die, is buried 6 feet underground".
But Charles doesn't believe in admitting to his errors of fact.
All the world's a stage, and Charles plays every part.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#55524 Oct 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And when I go to that site (unlike you, I don't dismiss a site out of hand), I see that they are making points that have already been refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.h...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.h...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD004.h...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.h...
We Have Covered This...Talk Origins Puposely Deletes Opposing Veiws....

Please Dont Ever Use Them As Authoritative Again, Your Only Fooling Yourself.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#55525 Oct 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I project arrogance, not snobbishness. The two are very different.
Also no, no one is having hard times. Sheesh, you're like the end of the world people, even the least of us today live as kings did 1000 years ago, we still live better than we did 50 years ago, I remember a time when computers were so rare you had to be rich to own one, or build it yourself. My first computers were all scraps that I rebuilt myself even, now, I need a new computer, I run to the store and plop down $100 and bam, got something that works well.
Food, shipped to our doors now. Everything we need at the touch of a button, and that's the poor people who can do that. So no, there are no hard times, we're living it up, living in the future. Right now I am forcing myself to take a day off, it's not easy, I keep thinking about code even when I'm watching movies, just thought of a whole new object class for Java while watching Evolution, I am still restructuring the methods in my head as I type this. You think you know tech, but there is no way you can know tech until you build an IBM using nothing but transistors.
Oh Yeah, GEeks Are Us...LOL

Take Your Arrogance And Your Psuedo-Intellect And Make A Decent Living...LOL

Without Common Sense, Your Just A Underpaid Robot For The Elite.

I Cant Believe You Guys Actually Believe Dating To Be Correct.....Well, I Guess Believings One Thing, Prove Is Another.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#55526 Oct 29, 2012
Flaws in dating the earth as ancient
by Alexander R. Williams
In 1986 the world’s leading science journal, Nature, announced that the most ancient rock crystals on earth, according to isotope dating methods, are 4.3 billion years old and come from Jack Hills in Western Australia.
W. Compston and R.T. Pidgeon (Nature 321:766–769, 1986) obtained 140 zircon crystals from a single rock unit and subjected them to uranium/uranium concordia (U/U)1 and uranium/thorium concordia (U/Th)2 dating methods. One crystal showed a U/U date of 4.3 billion years, and the authors therefore claimed it to be the oldest rock crystal yet discovered.
A serious problem here is that all 140 crystals from the same rock unit gave statistically valid information about that rock unit.3 No statistician could ever condone a method which selected one value and discarded all the other 139. In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data.
A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. An unbiased observer would be forced to admit that this contradiction prevents any conclusion as to the age of the crystal. But these authors reached their conclusion by ignoring the contradictory data! If a scientist in any other field did this he would never be allowed to publish it. Yet here we have it condoned by the top scientific journal in the world.
This is not an isolated case. I selected it because it was identified by the journal editors as a significant advance in knowledge. Another example is the work of F.A. Podosek, J. Pier, O. Nitoh, S. Zashu, and M. Ozima (Nature334:607–609, 1988). They found what might have been the world’s oldest rock crystals, but unfortunately they were too old!
They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. So Podosek and friends decided they must be wrong. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.
This clearly shows two fundamental flaws in long-age isotope dating.
First, the dates are readily discarded if they do not fit the preconceived notions of the experimenter. Such a practice is not acceptable in any other field of science because it destroys the objectivity upon which science has built its reputation. Isotope dating is therefore not the objective, absolute dating method it is often claimed to be.
Second, it is impossible to tell, from the isotope information alone, when the dates are right and when they are wrong.
When I presented this and similar criticisms of isotope dating to a gathering of the Lucas Heights Scientific Society (Sydney, Australia) in 1989, the only response that came from the chief of the division responsible for isotope dating at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization was the question,‘Do you have a better dating method?’
I said ‘No’, and he appeared to be satisfied that if there are no better methods of dating, then these are good enough. But can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine? Of course not. In the same way it is absurd to argue that an inadequate method is adequate because nothing better is available.4
References and notes
1. Uranium/uranium concordia—this method involves graphically comparing the 238U/206Pb ratio with the 235U/207Pb ratio. Return to text.
2. Uranium/thorium concordia—in this method the 238U/206Pb ratio is graphically compared with the 232Th/203Pb ratio. Return to text.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#55527 Oct 29, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
We Have Covered This...Talk Origins Puposely Deletes Opposing Veiws....
Oh REALLY? And how is it YOU have been made known of this?
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>Please Dont Ever Use Them As Authoritative Again, Your Only Fooling Yourself.
Blow it out your fundie ass. It is a VERY good source for real science. Complete with references to outside sources.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Awnold 73,432
A to Z songs by title or group! 3 min andet1987 1,256
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 9 min positronium 21,483
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 12 min andet1987 5,164
The letter E (Jun '13) 14 min andet1987 1,562
2words into 2new words (May '12) 19 min andet1987 7,835
News Teens wearing leggings barred from United fligh... 39 min Protoham 12
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 42 min Laura B S 6,901
Memorable Movie Scenes. 1 hr lightbeamrider 86
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sharlene45 213,276
More from around the web