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
59,401 - 59,420 of 112,806 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63500
Dec 6, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't quite get the "all embracing" part. At best, I gather that here we are only considering absolute faith, nothing less, even though weaker faith is also common.
OK, yes, mostly it has to do with expectation, I agree. For instance, if my light switch worked the last hundred times, I would have faith (confident expectation) that it would work one more time. That would be an example of belief in something not yet seen.(Doesn't matter that I saw it work before, I haven't seen the next attempt yet.)
Although I can think of a case where it is not a matter of expectation:
"I have faith that the sun rose at the correct time yesterday morning."
or "I have faith that Joshua's army killed every man, woman and child in Jericho except the relatives of the prostitutes." The first case perhaps being informed by my general faith in the science of the motions of the solar system, and the second case perhaps due to my trust in authority. Although perhaps it is still a matter of expectation, the one that I will not be disabused of that faith by evidence that might come to my attention later.
I can understand the association with determination, but not that determination, no matter how strongly motivated, is always unstoppable. That's only a romantic view of great determination. Such is another issue however.
Got your point. Without Faith on the part of Faraday, there would be no electricity, talk of having light for switching on and off( bulb or globe).

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63501
Dec 6, 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 and numerous stories around the whale bones have been invented to save the evolutionary day.
This is the article abstrats of the link cited.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....
We know that the tectonic setting of Indiana has remained relatively stable for the last 650 million years because the rocks are still relatively flat and undisturbed. The rocks do however change in thickness across the state. This is because they were deposited in low spots called basins and over high spots called arches . Indiana is bridged by an arch that stretches from the southeast corner of the state to the northwest corner. This arch is called the "Kankakee" arch and is a gentle bend or curve in the bedrock. This arch separates two basins located in the northeast and southwest portions of the state. These basins are round depressions or bowls in the bedrock that collected sediments as they were generated by marine animals or washed in from other sources. Within Indiana these two basins are called the Michigan and Illinois basins (see figure to the right).
The youngest bedrock formations that occur in Indiana are 290 million years old.
http://igs.indiana.edu/Bedrock/tectonic.cfm
Ah Maz. So we read your abstract. Where is the bit we want to see? "Whale bone found in 290 million year old strata"?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm off for a couple days interstate with work. Catch you in a couple of days.
Try not to get crabs
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63502
Dec 6, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
Well at least one of our partners in freedom has logical leadership. From the UK Guardian newspaper.
News that the government (UK) will mandate every new free school "to make provision for the teaching of evolution as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory" is the furthest a British government has ever gone to counter the threat of pseudoscientific creationist beliefs being taught in our state schools. It will be welcomed by all who are working for a rational and evidence-based school curriculum and sends a clear signal that Britain is not willing to go the way of countries like the *United States* or Romania, which have seen creationist advances in state schools fan the flames of culture wars. It follows an equally welcome move by the government in June, when it published its draft of a new primary national curriculum including modules on "evolution and inheritance" for children aged eight to nine.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...
What must the United States do to rid ourselves of this blight (creationism) on humanity?
UH,,,They used to feed people who truly believe in God to the lions, but I recken they can't get away with those practices now days .......

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63503
Dec 6, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh crap, I almost forgot the very important trait that KittenKoder's post reminded me of( sorry to end a sentence with a preposition, hey wait, now I didn't!)
Maz, did Apatosaurus have hollow bones?
Do birds have hollow bones?
Can you guess the next question?
Did Stegosaurs have spiky tails?

Do birds currently have spiky tails?

Ha!

:P

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63504
Dec 6, 2012
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You have evidence of modern birds that predate Archaeopteryx? You better get that published.
Is this part of your avian ecology research program or part of your vertebrate paleontology research efforts?
I'd like you to meet another protobird, Anchiornis Huxleyi, currently the darling of the paleontologic community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

This may have have been an ancestor to animals like Archaeopteryx! This predates Archaeopteryx by about 10 million years.

Also very primitive, they might have been able to glide with those small wings.

HOWEVER, by far and away the biggest breakthrough this little specimen brough us, is that fact that we were able to isolate fossilised pigmentation in its feathers!(I didn't even know that pigmentation CAN fossilise)

So an expert went and studied the shape of pigmentation and compared it to modern-day pigmentation found in feathers.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...

I think for anyone who knows anything about dinosaurs, this little piece of fine research made them sit up. I know that it made me choke on my tea.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63505
Dec 6, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for answer I googled it for you, k?
binary code = series of numbers 1 and 0
the computer converts letters into numbers
BTW, this is red herring. Why are we talking about computers?
And what was your last question again?
I posed the question.

Why are you adamant that we ourselves must know everything about every field related to Evolution? We have demonstrated, neatly, that you are able to use a computer, without understanding jacksh*t about its inner workings

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63506
Dec 6, 2012
 
It started here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Bat Foy wrote:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Here was your reply to it:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
cell fawn. lol
You clearly did not recognise that the poster was ignorant about the subject matter.

The issue was settled, of course, by our dear Madrone:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Cells don't reproduce sexually.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63507
Dec 6, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but there are many things the human brain can do that computers can't.
Not yours, though
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63508
Dec 6, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm still looking to understand what people who claim "faith" in God, Jesus or whatever, mean by it. I figure I might be able to make at least a plausible case for some kind of God out there, and I might suspect that it was correct, but I wouldn't phrase it as faith. More likely I'd apply the word "faith" to my confidence in a light switch that had served me well already 10,000 times.
I know many people of "faith" who don't carry a lot of the baggage that the current wave of born-twicers do, and whose lives are much less messed up than those of many sceptics I know. I only wish there were an easy philosophical key to dealing with life. My experience is that religion is more like skin colour -- rather superficial to the innate personality.
As far as spying on people goes, I'm convinced that as many or more "liberal" or even non-believer politicians rationalize their need for warrantless spying as the other side does. It seems to me to be a moral failure along a different axis.
Ah! Nobody says that the need to trust in voyeurism alone is unique to conservatives.

All people who are faith zealots really have one thing in common. They live by a lifestyle of mimicry and the dark places they can't control are filled by rationalization. The most common form of rationalization usually entails a system where like-minded individuals engage in a "one hand washing the other" form of social interaction. Many people rationalize their selfishness by the act of marriage because the majority already feel that marriage entitles them to something extra.

In Charles manifestation of "faith", that option has obviously eluded him, although I suspect he still wishes to exploit it. In the mean time, he feels a great need to vindicate his will to be selfish. Of course, he thinks he needs to tap into a supernatural manifestation of the super-ego and patriarchal authority.

Too bad for him. The Christian church provides a role for his type, but it is roughly equivalent to the role of the suicidal, bomb carrying terrorist. The Church places much higher value in fraudulent female authority, nurturing a quieter myth around a secretive mythology of magical powers of intuition and the body.

The Science community does not find itself obstructed as much by that type of snake oil, but they probably should. That's where you'll find the liberal elements of shamanism, and tolerating it enables the masculine elements of church brainwashing to go unchecked.

I'd like to think that there are genuinely good-natured elements to Christianity, but I just don't see it. For the most part, they are just as much the cynical, low-paid mercenaries of a bureaucracy as the political parties are. All of those bureaucracies seek power and control through a cultural Ponzi scam that was maxed out years ago, so they seek to extract every last dime from the non-believers before turning on their own. It's just the sign of something that's outlived its purpose.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63509
Dec 6, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>UH,,,They used to feed people who truly believe in God to the lions, but I recken they can't get away with those practices now days .......
Yes, the Romans did feed Christians to the lions occasionally, but when Constantine legalized Christianity in the realm the Christians payed the Romans back in a very big way. Christianity started out just as evilly as Islam is today.

Many Christians today are finagling to bring religion back in control of civilization, they're called Dominionist and for a while they controlled most of the Republican Party.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63510
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe we should settle for more and better airtight compartmentalization. I notice that in daily life it works pretty well; if only the politicians would leave it alone.
Good point bud.

Do you think the creationists can be persuaded to say off of school boards and completely out of politics?

We could register all the confessed YEC's and keep them under control

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63511
Dec 6, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What does one man or a few set of people going to speak against the existence of the most high.
Don't waste your time on that, because no one has ever succeeded doing that.
Ah my friend you don't understand the pure joy I receive from exposing the lie of religion to the believer.

And it IS all a big lie.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63512
Dec 6, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah my friend you don't understand the pure joy I receive from exposing the lie of religion to the believer.
And it IS all a big lie.
No cause for alarm my friend. Let us just watch and see who the liar will be.
As i have said earlier, many before you, have done more than that, but today, they are the soil of the earth. No one can beat God.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63513
Dec 6, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Just didn't explain myself well...not to get upset my friend.

The country was set up so that religion did not control law and policy making. There was no national religion, like Sweden for instance.

In America many sects existed, but none were "officially" endorsed.

From what I understand the only reason many of the founders espoused religion was they could get killed if they disagreed too much. Religion is like that you know.

They still want it to be that way if you listen to the redneck creotards that clog many reply pages on some websites.

Religion is dangerous no matter which one you are talking about
I live in Texas and have never heard anyone say anything about killing people for not believing in God. This may be because I tend to not hang out with morons.
Abolishing religion would be just as wrong as abolishing science.
Even if it weren't what would you say should be done with the creationists of the world? Should they be fined, jailed, executed?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63514
Dec 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Plagiarism? Shame on you!
This bit was stolen from here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_computers_us...
Another giveaway that you have no academic background. No scholar worth his salt will EVER plagiarise the work of ANYONE. I would even go as far as referencing the writer of a song when repeating a lyric.
So, we now know that you do not know the answer to the question and that you had to look it up.
Now my question is this: Do you believe the writer of the piece you plagiarised? How do you know that he/her/they have any kind of clue how a computer works?
Let me answer: You can reference it. You can go on wikipedia, you can go on howstuffworks, or talk to computer engineers and you can verify them as source.
My point: In being adamant that we need to understand every discipline involved in the Theory of Evolution, yet you use the computer while not being able to understandstand its inner workings, makes you a rather stupid-looking hypocrite
what did I plagiarize when I simply said you can simply find an answer on Google! You are really dumb. You evos just like to insult because when asked for REAL evidence you got none. You just resort to ad homs. How sad.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63515
Dec 6, 2012
 
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, no to this one. You are referring to learnt berhaviour, not some propensity to sin that is there at birth. Those abused are more likely to abuse because they are socialised into that behavioural pattern. Likewise with "becoming your parents". Addiction is more complex - it would seem that there are some with a greater likelihood to having addictive personalities, just as there are some with mental illness who become dangerous. However, if this was something universal, it would apply to all, not just to a limited number. Don't think religion has anything to do with it, but since I'm not a psychiatrist, not qualified to judge.
My point is our children see what we do and they imitate us. Not always 100% of the time but they do. My kids will know about God and already pray and seek him out. My son wants to be a mechanic because I was my daughter wants to be an accountant because my wife is. They both want to have 2 kids and go to college because my wife and I did. I understand that life may get in the way of their dreams an goals but they follow me as I lead them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63516
Dec 6, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in Texas and have never heard anyone say anything about killing people for not believing in God. This may be because I tend to not hang out with morons.
Abolishing religion would be just as wrong as abolishing science.
Even if it weren't what would you say should be done with the creationists of the world? Should they be fined, jailed, executed?
No one has really proposed banning religion. Religion has its place, in churches, not in schools.

When religion starts to sneak into schools, and it is your own religion it is very easy to let it slide. The best way to deal with it is to change it up a bit in your head. How would you feel if students were singing songs to Allah in your neighborhood schools? How would you feel if your children were taught such songs?

It is best to leave schools religiously neutral. Of course if your religion has a crazy belief, such as the world being flat, that it is six to ten thousand years old, that there is creative falling, or any other sort of crazy belief not supported by science then don't be too surprised if that part of your religion is not honored. And the same applies to social rules.

If you believe that homosexuals, girls that have sex out of marriage, or even kids that sass their parents should be stoned, those beliefs will not be respected either. So, the schools will even intervene when your religion gets too crazy socially.

If you believe that sort of nonsense that needs to be kept from school yards too.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63517
Dec 6, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
O HAI! You were on page 2967! As you can see it's **quite a while** into the thread...
Here's 330347 papers demonstrating evolution.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
But don't worry. Anything that has the word "delete" in it really proves JEWMAGIC and anything that doesn't is all part of the evil worldwide atheist Darwinist evolutionist scientist Liberal socialist Communist Nazi baby-eating anti-Christian God-hating Satan-worshiping Illuminati conspiracy so therefore really proves JEWMAGIC!
Any questions?
Don't confuse REAL SCIENCE with EVOLUTION. That site doesn't have anything about evolution, or missing links, or fossil records. Or did I not look hard enough?
Kawalski

Littleton, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63518
Dec 6, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in Texas and have never heard anyone say anything about killing people for not believing in God. This may be because I tend to not hang out with morons.
Abolishing religion would be just as wrong as abolishing science.
Even if it weren't what would you say should be done with the creationists of the world? Should they be fined, jailed, executed?
DE-LIGHTENED :):)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63519
Dec 6, 2012
 
Double Fine wrote:
It started here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
Here was your reply to it:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
You clearly did not recognise that the poster was ignorant about the subject matter.
The issue was settled, of course, by our dear Madrone:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
<quoted text>
Except someone proved you wrong. I never claimed ANYTHING whether cells reproduce sexually or not. You're too slow when it comes to humor.
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a kind of sexuality in some single celled species where they stick together and exchange genetic material. More classic sexuality is seen pretty soon in some small multi-celled organisms, like hydra, which reproduce in sexual and non-sexual ways. BTW, hydra have a little advantage over the rest of us, since they are immortal (barring accidents). I guess if we were like them, religion would have less appeal
Even smaller is the diatom, a single celled organism which reproduces both ways. It reproduces by division and also can split out into 4 sperms or an egg.
The smallest organisms to reproduce ONLY sexually are probably some of the worms. It's not area of my expertise, but I did, as a child, keep some planaria (flatworms), and it was possible to cut then lengthwise and end up with two healthy worms after they regenerated.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••