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
65,761 - 65,780 of 113,285 Comments Last updated 18 min ago

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69973
Jan 5, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Another "well stated".
Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.
It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).
Sagan didn't seem to think so...

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69974
Jan 5, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
It appears that even in accordance to some of his own quotes, that statement would prove detrimental, in thinking Einstien was "hatefilled" like that. Seems the man had better things to do in life.

"God is subtle, but not malicious;" (Einstien).

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69975
Jan 5, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
What do you believe?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69976
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan didn't seem to think so...
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Personally myself, I've always felt that both compliment (rather than detract from)and often times do indeed, validate, the other.

I just have a hard time with tolerance for ones so small minded, or ignorant or something(?), that they can't comprehend, MANY have always, and still do, have "room in brain cavity" for the existence of concepts pertaining to BOTH realms.

But that's just my opinion :-).
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69977
Jan 5, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan didn't seem to think so...
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
For example- what you just typed, actually VALIDATES, what I stated my own opinion to be prior-

As in-

(FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever)

So in only using the presented statement from the person you referenced,it appears they might think right along the same lines. However, with out researching the subject referenced any myself, that just really constitutes just a third party assumption on my part, being based only on the statement you posted about another, so that assumption in no ways makes it any sort of "fact"... Just opinion upon assumption :-).

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69978
Jan 5, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Is what because (Science has named what has eluded them since time began) the God particle?
Was there something you were trying to ask?
Again, try the CERN web, certainly they can explain their life's work, should one ask them a coherent question anyway.
Actually it was named the "Goddamn" particle, in exasperation at its elusive nature.

Some press flack cleaned it up - much to the irritation of the scientists involved, who cordially hate the name.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69979
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan didn't seem to think so...
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Sagan also smoked pot, and I think he was a big fan of acid but I don't recall the specifics. If we discredited everyone with one crazy idea, nothing would ever get done. Bill Mahar doesn't think illness is caused by germs and viruses. Newton thought he could change lead to gold with magical words and herbs. Imhotep believed Horus was real. I believe that our machines are more alive than we think. We all have crazy ideas not based on scientific facts, it doesn't change the things we contribute to advancement. Until you understand that, you won't understand the difference between fanciful dreams and science.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69980
Jan 5, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it was named the "Goddamn" particle, in exasperation at its elusive nature.
Some press flack cleaned it up - much to the irritation of the scientists involved, who cordially hate the name.
Funny. Laurel and Hardy called...said you needed A (one) sanitary wipe for yer mouthn' lol.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69981
Jan 5, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>There's not really anything to respond to. The person you were conversing with made a good point- that nde states can be brought on by things other than near death. Your assertion that a "natural" nde state is somehow categorically different from a drug induced one is unsupported. How are they different? Is it because the chemicals involved are different? If so, why not ascribe a natural nde to the chemicals in the brain, and not some mystical "something."
What mystical something did I mention here? I tried to explain how chemicals are involved.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6907783_parts-brain-...
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?
I believe we can induce NDE. Yes it would still be like natural. In fact, I've had many NDEs of different types.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
And your assertion that people avoid death by having a nde is... funny.
No, from my experience I wasn't trying to avoid death, I was responding to death as I thought I was going to die!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69982
Jan 5, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
For example- what you just typed, actually VALIDATES, what I stated my own opinion to be prior-
As in-
(FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever)
So in only using the presented statement from the person you referenced,it appears they might think right along the same lines. However, with out researching the subject referenced any myself, that just really constitutes just a third party assumption on my part, being based only on the statement you posted about another, so that assumption in no ways makes it any sort of "fact"... Just opinion upon assumption :-).
We already know the secrets of the bible. Do you think the periodic table does too? I think it does. I think if scientists study it, they would find out things we don't know yet such as which atom came to existence first, etc. Before finding out about the God Particle (Higgs Boson), shouldn't we first know which atom was created first?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69983
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We already know the secrets of the bible. Do you think the periodic table does too? I think it does. I think if scientists study it, they would find out things we don't know yet such as which atom came to existence first, etc. Before finding out about the God Particle (Higgs Boson), shouldn't we first know which atom was created first?
You think more than you study, this could explain why you are still stuck on second century ideas instead of catching up with modern scientific facts. Then you make an assumption at the end, you assume things were "created" and not the result of further interactions of other various non-intelligent forces. Then you do the "which atom" thing, well, we know, it was hydrogen.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69984
Jan 5, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You think more than you study, this could explain why you are still stuck on second century ideas instead of catching up with modern scientific facts. Then you make an assumption at the end, you assume things were "created" and not the result of further interactions of other various non-intelligent forces. Then you do the "which atom" thing, well, we know, it was hydrogen.
I was leaning towards hydrogen as well. So explain how it was formed without something created it?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69985
Jan 5, 2013
 
Based on this premise:

"Hydrogen is the raw fuel that most stars 'burn' to produce energy. The same process, known as fusion, is being studied as a possible power source for use on earth. The sun's supply of hydrogen is expected to last another 5 billion years."

We know that STARS did it and life was created on earth.

Now if we go further back, how do we explain the birth of a star? Which element was created first?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69986
Jan 5, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it tells me that society is slow to realize that some of their laws are nothing more than motivated by prejudice.
So your point is?
My point isn't the point. THE point is the epiphany of knowing when you're pointing a gun at your own head.

If you want a tip, accept that perfection is not strength. Adaptability is strength.(Getting back on topic, one way or another!) If you're interested in progress, you'll need to start asking the right questions. The truth will come racing at you faster than you'll like it, once others see you walking a straight line, rather than swimming around like the other mindless thralls. Thralls adapt, but they don't know perfection. Perfectionists don't adapt, but they waste their time controlling the uncontrollable.

And so, the moral of the story..

Me? I answer a question with another question. YOU!...don't know the truth, and so you don't get the truth, or at least not enough of it to make a difference. You have to choose to ask the right questions, which first means you have to stop living in denial. So, let's end this Cheshire cat dialog, and you can decide who you are and what you really want.

I?...live in the moment. Every time you react, you've already slipped into the past.

When you can dissect this quaint monolog existentially, you'll have a clue!:)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69987
Jan 5, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
My point isn't the point. THE point is the epiphany of knowing when you're pointing a gun at your own head.
If you want a tip, accept that perfection is not strength. Adaptability is strength.(Getting back on topic, one way or another!) If you're interested in progress, you'll need to start asking the right questions. The truth will come racing at you faster than you'll like it, once others see you walking a straight line, rather than swimming around like the other mindless thralls. Thralls adapt, but they don't know perfection. Perfectionists don't adapt, but they waste their time controlling the uncontrollable.
And so, the moral of the story..
Me? I answer a question with another question. YOU!...don't know the truth, and so you don't get the truth, or at least not enough of it to make a difference. You have to choose to ask the right questions, which first means you have to stop living in denial. So, let's end this Cheshire cat dialog, and you can decide who you are and what you really want.
I?...live in the moment. Every time you react, you've already slipped into the past.
When you can dissect this quaint monolog existentially, you'll have a clue!:)
So now an evolutionist has an idea of Perfection as opposed to Random. lol!

Way to go to have a TOE in your mouth!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69988
Jan 5, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny. Laurel and Hardy called...said you needed A (one) sanitary wipe for yer mouthn' lol.
On the very good chance that you really are that ignorant:

"He [Higgs] is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle", as he believes the term "might offend people who are religious".
Usually this nickname for the Higgs boson is attributed to Leon Lederman, the author of the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, but the name is the result of the insistence of Lederman's publisher: Lederman had originally intended to refer to it as the "goddamn particle"." - Wiki.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69989
Jan 5, 2013
 
Dude doesn't give two 'hoots'. The question is can he 'shoot?'

Anonymous points a gun in his head. The question is can he 'shoot?'

LOL! You guys are like crack in the head. What shooting stars ;-)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69990
Jan 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I was leaning towards hydrogen as well. So explain how it was formed without something created it?
Physicists have a very complete, and extremely complicated answer for that. I do not, ask one of them. Postulating such matters is rather inane and unless you know about physics and quantum mechanics, you will never have an answer, all you can do is make up answers, which is a huge waste of time and effort unless you make money writing fiction.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69991
Jan 5, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Physicists have a very complete, and extremely complicated answer for that. I do not, ask one of them. Postulating such matters is rather inane and unless you know about physics and quantum mechanics, you will never have an answer, all you can do is make up answers, which is a huge waste of time and effort unless you make money writing fiction.
Ah, you just gave me an IDEA. I write fiction, so what, but only on a different level. Not that you can't comprehend it. lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69992
Jan 5, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, you just gave me an IDEA. I write fiction, so what, but only on a different level. Not that you can't comprehend it. lol
The scientific minds know a lot about the universe, it would take you a hundred lifetimes of solid study to learn it all. It takes less time to study something than it does to postulate pointless fancies, it just requires two things:

1. Lots of work to comprehend it.

2. Admitting you don't know.

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.

180 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 min MistySomers1973 16,073
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 5 min Hidden Nikki 13,082
"Poetry in Motion" (Sep '13) 9 min Hidden Nikki 115
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min just an allusion 141,698
Julie Anne Flannery of is a psychic who loves t... 26 min Jen and Arlene Toast 1
topix.com describe in one word (Apr '13) 26 min Dogomit 121
I read the news today, oh boy (Jun '10) 30 min Frankie 845
Grammar Blogger Fired Over 'Homo' in 'Homophones' 56 min wichita-rick 5
Fisherman's wharf restaurant fields angry calls... 3 hr Phyllis Schlafly s Stain 4
•••
•••