Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63723 Dec 7, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Faraday, amazing fellow. Very pious too. I don't see where his religious faith had anything particular to do with his scientific work. Lots of excellent scientific work is done with great doubts all along the way. Doesn't need faith to keep experimenting, if only to show that, nope, it can't be done that way at all. Whereas according to the bible, I understand you are not supposed to "test" God.
So everyday faith and religious Faith are two different animals. What's the point of saying "Faith" is necessary, and then pretending that there is an analogy to everyday (lower-case) "faith" which is merely a statistical measure of confidence.
You are not getting me. Faith is/ are not solely centred on religion, it embraces all areas of life. It was faith that led Faraday to discover electricity.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63724 Dec 7, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
All people who are faith zealots really have one thing in common..... the sign of something that's outlived its purpose.
I attended a two day seminar with Malidoma Some, from Upper Volta (Burkina Faso) who grew up with dual traditions, Jesuit and witch doctor. He convinced us of how we have an innate attraction to ritual, and it does have a good side, in that it facilitates community building, and can bring a sense of piece if done gently.

Sure, ritual can be a potent force for evil, but for good as well if kept in balance. I would not be too hasty to deprecate it's value.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63725 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say reply with "assexually" as a joke but of course you missed that on purpose.
Which, in itself, is about as funny as a bag of pigs
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you got not sense of humor. Watch comedy central.
I watch John Stewart and Colbert on there.

Otherwise, it's Brit comedy - they are the masters

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63726 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I've watched MANY documentaries including extinct animals in NGC and HIST channels.
Then why the ignorance of giraffes?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63727 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, if you're going to give me crap about social status then FU.
Okay, so can we assume that you are a loser?

Sorry.
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in social constructs in this sorry ass society. You are the most ignorant person in this forum. And I hope you find someone who will wipe your ass when you start going senile.
How about you answer some questions, girlie?

How old is the earth?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#63728 Dec 7, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
Whoops, sorry, double post - no doubt topix will sort it in due course.
Did.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#63729 Dec 7, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why the ignorance of giraffes?
Hehehe.

Wonder whether she knows they have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do...

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63731 Dec 7, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hehehe.
Wonder whether she knows they have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do...
That is a question I'd like creationists, fundies and IDiots to answer for me: Why do humans, giraffes, bats and whales have the same number of cervical vertebrae?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63732 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't until recently. I'm sick of asking a question and the goo clucks clan here calls me stupid because I don't know but if they're so smart why not just give the answer.
I second the motion. When a simple question is asked, and when it's not a loaded question, and when it is purely a request for information, the insults are really choking up the discussion.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63733 Dec 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The sheer power of such a machine, but yeah, the noise issue is one that has slowed it down considerably as well. Mostly it's that people who code, like me, have become comfortable with binary, it's easy and static so we don't have to worry about precision. Most people don't know enough about computers so they just shrug at the notion not even considering how much computing power such a thing would conceivably possess. If I had a lab for development I'd work on it myself, but alas, you need a bit more funding for hardware tech development than other sciences. I think that analogue computers are the next step, we've reached a ceiling in our digital tech and now we're just adding more processors to the machines instead of actually improving the processors. Oh, and we are improving the PCB layouts, using evolutionary algorithms, that's fun to watch in real time, the computers working out the best PCB layouts is a thing of poetry.
Digital computers have reached their peak, the chips cannot be etched smaller than the wavelength of light and they reached that stage years ago, hence the search for more power with multiple cpus on a chip.

My business (3D animation and graphics) is very computer intensive, the requirement and expectation is now far outstripping the ability of digital processing.

People like Pixar build there own mainframes from hundreds of the most powerful rack PCs simply because there is nothing to do the job otherwise. Itís rather reminiscent of a server room using a custom OS dedicated to one single task.

Perhaps analogue machines will bring about a solution, I hope so because these old SGIís we use are literally getting worn out and there is nothing economically viable to replace them.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63734 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice she didn't respond to what I said about her faulty interpretation. Funny how that works.
Quite sad really, but no more than can be expected from a lying creatard

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63735 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
Because--
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
The aspiration toward truth and understanding only happens when one escapes religion. You, on the other hand, have got it quite backward. In fact, religion is endlessly and falsely claiming to the the source of all good emotions. It's amazing how effective that indoctrination is. Look at yourself spouting it. You know when you have been indoctrinated when it actually feeds so good to say it -- despite not having taken a critical look at what you are saying.

"faith in the possibility" -- Now there's a hopeful phrasing. A bit self contradictory, don't you think?

Most religion includes the faith in miracles. Miracles, if true, are the total disabuse of that "faith in the possibility" that the real world operates with rational rules, ones that would be comprehensible to reason.

Lots of good science is done with out any religion or religious inspiration about it. Lots is done by the very pious too. Humans are so good at compartmentalization that religion hardly interferes except in a few specific categories where it feels threatened.

Sorry for coming down so hard on you. I really do appreciate the feeling of what you are saying. The more gentle part of religion, the kind that just gives one a sense of peace without getting too much into theology, may afford some happiness that allows one to concentrate better on difficult science. Probably depends on cultural upbringing. It is rather frantic to have to question everything all at once. There are times to just accept some things and concentrate on the others.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63736 Dec 7, 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?
Ahh a series of 0ís and 1ís yes, can you explain for example why the digital device identified as 74LS373 is described as a TRI STATE binary D type latch? Is the third state a binary Ĺ or a binary 2 or a binary Ė1, or what?

You see digital electronics and binary code are not just a matter of 0ís and 1ís

We are discussing computere/binary code because DF asked you a question which you fobbed off with a duhÖ
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

I was simply querying your post to see if you actually knew what you were talking about. It seems you didnít and so had to look it up.

My last question was does an analogue computer use binary codes?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63737 Dec 7, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pleased to see that you incorporate evolution as a theory. It will always be a theory because we don't have the fossil evidence to prove otherwise. Creation is the only adaption as to why we are even here. However, it takes humility to accept a creator.
Gravity is only a theory too. It will always be a theory. Jump off a cliff, and see what the theory of evolution, survival of the fittest, has to say about your role in it.

All it takes is is a bit more humility to accept that the creator was Darwin himself. Humility good. More humility better. So long as you don't mind getting humiliated.

Aside from mountains of fossil evidence supporting evolutionary theory, there is also a pile of living organizations that seem to show a pattern that indicates the operation of evolution over the ages. More than that, there is all the DNA evidence.

Blithely saying something doesn't accomplish much to make it true. For instance I would say there is no such thing as red lights. Try believing me just for a day in city traffic. Given enough faith you won't see them. Evolution has some simple measurements of the value of blind credulity. Hey little bunny rabbit, that fox over their must want to be friends with you.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63738 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do giraffes bend over to eat grass? The shorter ones will survive just as well. And where did giraffes evolve from?


Long legs and a long neck reach the ground just as well as short legs and a short neck. In that they are the same. When all the grass is eaten the long neck can much on the trees, but the shorter ones do not have that fall back upon.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63739 Dec 7, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get your conscience? The ability to choose? You give credit to an unknown theory or purpose. Try to fathom a rolex watch emerging from stone dust to exactness of time. You are a fool. It's inexcusable to deny creation.
We got our conscience and the ability to choose from evolution, which, by the way is a known theory, not an unknown one.

Miracle believers are the ones who might believe a rolex watch emerging from stone dust. All you would have to do is say the it was a miracle, and all common sense goes out the window. Scientific theory creators are the least likely to fall for such am illusion. Why to you think they would be more gullible than you are?

If there were an argument to make me doubt the effectiveness of evolution, you might be it.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63740 Dec 7, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Long legs and a long neck reach the ground just as well as short legs and a short neck. In that they are the same. When all the grass is eaten the long neck can much on the trees, but the shorter ones do not have that fall back upon.
Giraffes like Acacia and Combretums - They have very specialised tongues to navigate the thorns. Their long neck allow them to reach the succulent leaves at the top.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63741 Dec 7, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I know quite a lot about digital systems and the history of digital electronics, but not so much about analogue, my only experience of analogue electronics is in the general fields of TV/Radio so thanks for the info.

Following my conversation with Kitten I spent some of yesterday (while I spent 10 hours travelling to and from a 25 minute meeting) looking at the analogue side of modern computing.

From what I now understand they are more simulation specific than calculation specific (and therefore less flexible) than their digital counterpart but considerably faster at performing their dedicated simulations.

Hereís a paper from columbia uni dated 2005 for an analogue computer idea that solves differential equations at the rate of 14Gflops
http://www.cisl.columbia.edu/grads/gcowan/vls...

And here is one from Reading uni with a discussion of the differences in processing methods and ways of comparing speeds.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sws97mha/Public...

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63742 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>

I'm asking how does DNA of one species change into another.
Are you saying that you really don't know this already?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63743 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright but how does it come to be that 2 of a compatible species would have come to be at the same time?(What are the odds really?)
Speciation is not a quantum step, it's a gradual process. This is the perspective that you are missing.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min Wyle E Coyote 155,487
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min Sublime1 28,805
Are You a MEAN Person ? 6 min Bree_Z 2
Word Association (Mar '10) 8 min SpoonFullofSugar 16,426
Word Association (Jun '10) 10 min SpoonFullofSugar 26,491
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 11 min David0407 78,005
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 11 min SpoonFullofSugar 7,218
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 41 min CrunchyBacon 737
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 57 min Denny CranesPlace 38,556
Why do YOU get on Topix? 4 hr 40ish 63
More from around the web