• Sections
Evolution vs. Creation

# Evolution vs. Creation

There are 213320 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

Macclesfield, UK

#63377 Dec 5, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Hugh Ross is an old earth creationist...
Thanks. Always good to show the inconsistency of the creationist position.

Since: Nov 12

#63378 Dec 5, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry - lol
I only know of historical analogue computers but I imagine the technology is now available (or soon will be with adequate noise reduction) to take the analogue computer into the future. I suppose it would be a completely different concept of and usage of computing power.
Even bits in a computer are analogue, but the intermediate states are wasted so as to minimize the chances of error. BTW a lot of logic is tri-state, even in digital electronics. Early computers I worked with were decimal or bi-quinary. Digital computers could use other bases than binary.

A lot of communications technology uses 4, 8 or even larger number bases. That's how advances in modem technology were made. I remember the confusion over what could be the maximum channel capacity of a band limited phone line. Teletypes started off using 75 or 110 bits per second, and them modems going 300, 1200 or 2400 were used on phone lines. First it was said that there was an absolute limit of 2400 baud, and then modem manufactures started putting out modems with 4800, 9600 and higher bit rates. Well actually it WAS limited to 2400 baud, but one baud is a state change and for a while people were so caught up in the idea that binary=digital that they didn't take to heart the fact that a state change can contain more information than simply on or off. As soon as that unnecessary constraint was lifted communications started using non-binary states and modem speeds took off again.

There is some theory that estimates that the most economic base for a computer should be that integer number that is closest to the base of the natural logarithms which is around 2.7. In that case the most economical computers should be base 3.

Still I haven't seen any technological developments that indicate that analogue computing is headed for a comeback except in special cases.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63379 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The link is useless and does not identify what it has dated.
As I said the land form is over 290myo
BOOM! Whoops, sorry there Mazzy. But ya can't go around using science you reject for theological reasons to claim science you reject for theological reasons is wrong for scientific reasons. That would be dumb and EXCEEEEEEEEEEEDINGLY dishonest.

But that's what you are.(shrug)
barefoot2662
#63380 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what designer?
Hewlett Packard
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63381 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No the problem is yours and the fact that you will not accept work from your very own reseachers.
Actually we do, we just don't accept your twisted conclusions which ignore the actual science involved. Because in the end, no matter what - GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC.(without evolution cuz Mazzy's god is a big jesse-wuss wuss)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63382 Dec 5, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but there are many things the human brain can do that computers can't.
Name some of them.

There has been a lot of advances in artificial intelligence, many you use every day. Google itself employs an artificial intelligence system to generate search results. Voice to text is to the point that it can even spell things correctly now, the old stuff was rather hilarious, and that is another form of artificial intelligence. Computers can produce very elaborate paintings, even some are produced by the computer itself without any input from people, though they look different and you can certainly tell the difference, they are paintings and very artistic. Our visual/image processing has reached virtually human capabilities, facial recognition is employed by Google's Hangouts now, for fun effects of course but it's the same logic system our brain uses, just using a more efficient method. I think music is about the only thing we haven't gotten computers to develop on their own, without a lot of input from humans.

Computers even design, yes, complete design, other computers now. Your smartphones, if you have one, are all computer designed computers, based on organic algorithms even. We really have given them everything except personality, they are almost human, just better.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#63383 Dec 5, 2012
barefoot2662 wrote:
<quoted text>Hewlett Packard
Pft, mine's a Dell.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63384 Dec 5, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotta give her some props though she doesn't talk about faith just data and theory.
Really? Then why does Maz lie? Why does she misrepresent genuine research? Why does she claim science she has already admitted to rejecting proves science wrong? Why claim she has an interest in science when her alternative is magic?

In short, why is she a typical fundie lying for Jesus hypocrite?

Since: Nov 12

#63385 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
She was asking to prove a point, she knows more than you about tech, a lot more, which was the point. You don't know how your machine works, you use it every day, but you don't know how it works because you haven't studied them. Would you be capable of attempting to disprove how the transistor works? If you think you can, then all is lost for you. All creationists are like that with evolution, they know as much about evolution as you do your computer, yet they attempt to disprove how mechanisms in it work. That's not smart, it's the exact opposite of smart.
And yet we evos claim that Darwin was capable of making great insights despite total ignorance of the mechanism of genes and DNA.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63386 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oops, Maz ran away for the day again.
Has anyone else noticed that she posts several long prepared rants at the start of each stay?
Yup. She spends her time "researching" creo apologetics and spamming it here. Then ignores subsequent debunkings. Lays it thick with a little ad-hom, skeedaddles again, lather, rinse, repeat. Another day, another bunch of fundie lies to spew in the service of Jesus.

Maybe one of these days she'll tell us all what the "scientific theory" of creationism is.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63387 Dec 5, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet we evos claim that Darwin was capable of making great insights despite total ignorance of the mechanism of genes and DNA.
Ah yes, but he made testable, successful predictions.
FREE SERVANT
#63388 Dec 5, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We still don't give a crud about your Shites Craps and Poops, Mikey.
Just trying to make it simple!!!!!!
barefoot2662
#63389 Dec 5, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Pft, mine's a Dell.
Dude!! You got a Dell!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63390 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have lost your evidence for intermediacy and you lot are still struggling.
If dinos had feathers and birds have feathers then feathers are not intermediate. That is one reason why Rhuben suggests that there was a common ancestor that was neither bird nor dino.
So feather were FIRST a dino trait, not a bird trait, so arch was not showing intermediate mic of dino and bird traits, it was showing more dino traits.
Look you struggler. Even the evolutionist himself states arch's traits are no longer intermediate because they have been found in dinos.
Feathers are no longer unique to birds and cannot be relied on. Flight never was as kitten said showing again what an unthinking looser you actually are.
Are you going to suck this up or will I repost the reseach and make a fool of you that way instead?
What about the fraud around the furcula?
Um, yes, the feathers ARE an intermediate trait since they were found on dinos AFTER the proposed bird-dino connection, when otherwise there would be no reason to presume to find any at all. Duh. Yeah, I know reality is inconvenient to you and all but hey, that's not OUR problem.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63391 Dec 5, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're lying. The whale bones were found in Holocene strata.
This has been made abundantly clear.
What, Maz LYING???

(again?)

I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63392 Dec 5, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Just trying to make it simple!!!!!!
Godmagic. Less syllables than SCP.

And it means the same thing!

:-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63393 Dec 5, 2012
barefoot2662 wrote:
<quoted text>Dude!! You got a Dell!
Nah, I got a laptop. Couple o' months though and I'll have a beast.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63394 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You need more faith in these screw ups you call evolutionaruy researchers than fat boy will ever need to have to believe in God.
You bow down to your evo reseachers and hold their hands through falsification after falsification and are still bowing. You evos are still wiping the egg off your faces from over 150 years of fraudulent claims for human knuckle walking ancestry that were falsified on the back of one single fossil, you numbnuts.
All the twoddle of having empirical evidence for junk dna that only a fool creo would not accept, is falsified. Now it is you evolutionists and all your gobble that have been proven to be the real misrepresentative idiots that rely on faith in these boofheads.
Yup. It's all just a big evil world-wide atheist Darwinist conspiracy, involving a multi-national conglomerate of different countries, the schools, the courts, the Governments, the scientific community at large and pretty much every major science organisation in the world.

Must suck to be you.
MazHere wrote:
The above is a small demonstration that those that are atheist evolutionists and consider themselves 'not marginalized', have been proven to be boofheads many times. The theist evos can hold hands with the atheists seeing as they denounce the power of God and rely on the reasonings of man. They to now have egg on their faces.
Except just a few problems - you're the one denouncing reality (ie: God's creation) to protect your massive (but fragile) ego and its baseless religious beliefs. You're also denouncing God by constantly ignoring the 9th Commandment. And everything you THINK you know about God (which in reality is just jack) you have to rely on the "reasonings" of... yep, you guessed it - MAN. Oh, and that little inconvenient bit about science being testable, and therefore vindicating the reasoning of men of science. At which point you give us apologetics which we debunk then you just ignore anyway to move onto your next set of dishonest spam.

Irony is not good to you, is it eh?
MazHere wrote:
Yours is a faith in mans reasonings and mans reasonings has been stumbling, changing and been falsified on a regular basis, whilst handing over data in support of creation to creos on a silver platter.
Hmm, let's see: You claim evolution can't be falsified but at the same time it's been falsified. You claim young Earth apologetics (which has been falsified long before you were even born) is "data that supports creationism". You then also cherry-pick tiny pieces of genuine research and claims that is "data that supports creationism", even though you have already REJECTED this data in the first place due to your previous theological convictions. In other words it DOES NOT MATTER what data exists, as you claim it all contradicts evolution anyway, even when it doesn't, and even when it DOES contradict your own position.

Feel free to turn your position into a coherent rational "scientific theory" any time now. I HAVE been providing you with that opportunity for MONTHS now.

Or is it still just Goddidit with magic?

Uhuh. Thought so.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63395 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be
Oh lookiee! The same old spam we refuted weeks ago.(yawn)

Hey Maz. What's the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#63396 Dec 5, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
What questions?
I am not lying because I can present evidence to suport my view
Yeah, just ignore the fact it's all an incoherent mishmash when used to "support" Jewmagic.(shrug)

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 min Poppyann 21,286
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 2 min Poppyann 14,651
Word Association (Jun '10) 3 min Poppyann 31,267
One Word (Jan '09) 3 min Poppyann 17,516
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 4 min Poppyann 47,876
The letter E (Jun '13) 4 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,053
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 5 min Poppyann 5,168
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 30 min Lucy the First 63,660
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 43 min Sharlene45 204,028
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 45 min X -Man- 239
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Snore 9,673

#### Weird News

More Weird News from Topix »

More from around the web