Evolution vs. Creation

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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70423 Jan 8, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that because you're frustrated? Is that even logical?
You're fishing again. No matter what you are attempting to assert, you are wrong, so you should stop before making yourself look more foolish again, because until you have evidence of your assertions it is either delusion or lies, and neither of those is better than the other.
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70424 Jan 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia has improved quite a bit since its earliest days. It may not be a valid source for research papers, but it is perfectly fine for internet debate. Wiki is as good of a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
And how is using Wiki plagiarism? Do you even know the meaning of the word?
Thanks for the affirmation, of the limited credibility.
When formats matter though, Brittanica remains the one with integrity for one simple reason. I'll let you ponder the why's of that.
I didn't say using it was plagiarism, I stated, the only thing that keeps the site out of the leagues of, are the references (of what has been rewritten from)

"Plagiarism" ....They probably didn't, until today?(was it the archeological inscribed shard mentioned in the article that set the rabid attack pack?

One can only guess :-).
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70425 Jan 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Also to the detractors of Wikipedia all you have to do to prove a Wiki article wrong is to check out the numerous sources, which are almost always linked, yourself and show that they got it wrong.
Instead creatards find it much easier to attack Wikipedia.
wah wah wah

Assagne is still a, egomanical dirt bag!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70426 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You're fishing again. No matter what you are attempting to assert, you are wrong, so you should stop before making yourself look more foolish again, because until you have evidence of your assertions it is either delusion or lies, and neither of those is better than the other.
I understand your frustration. Women have that ability to 'create' life. Didn't you learn that from your momma?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70427 Jan 8, 2013
PhiThetaKappa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the affirmation, of the limited credibility.
When formats matter though, Brittanica remains the one with integrity for one simple reason. I'll let you ponder the why's of that.
I didn't say using it was plagiarism, I stated, the only thing that keeps the site out of the leagues of, are the references (of what has been rewritten from)
"Plagiarism" ....They probably didn't, until today?(was it the archeological inscribed shard mentioned in the article that set the rabid attack pack?
One can only guess :-).
That would be news to ... well ... the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081109/151...
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2012/03/20/2b...
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://www.accuracyproject.org/errors-books-E... <- This one is awesome.
http://www.alienshore.com/another/2009/01/enc...
Way to show a complete and total lack of knowledge in basic internet search engine mechanics there:
"If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia. Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?" Jorge Cauz, Britannica President
http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar06/berin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/ency...

Come on, make this a challenge, okay? You need to update everything you know, don't you? I mean, are you still reading newspapers .... on paper ... from the 1970s or something? Sheesh, you old bags of dirt shouldn't even bother connecting to the internet, at least until you learn how to use it.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70428 Jan 8, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your frustration. Women have that ability to 'create' life. Didn't you learn that from your momma?
Yep, a masked assertion. Since you cannot provide evidence of your failed assertion, thus supporting the contention that you are a liar, you have to fish for it now. Go on, you opened the can, now present evidence or continue to prove you are just a liar.
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70429 Jan 8, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn it. I hate being right all the time.
Awe...geeoh now...That has to be a really stinko way to go through life-you have my empathy :-).

But le'Monsenior SubDUHctiozone, eh,(/quote) "je pense qu'il a besoin d'une tasse intéressante de thé de « jahiliyah », avec du n'importe quel sucre !!(/endquote)

<and chuckle>
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70430 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be news to ... well ... the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081109/151...
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/2012/03/20/2b...
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://www.accuracyproject.org/errors-books-E... <- This one is awesome.
http://www.alienshore.com/another/2009/01/enc...
Way to show a complete and total lack of knowledge in basic internet search engine mechanics there:
"If I were to be the CEO of Google or the founders of Google I would be very [displeased] that the best search engine in the world continues to provide as a first link, Wikipedia. Is this the best they can do? Is this the best that [their] algorithm can do?" Jorge Cauz, Britannica President
http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar06/berin...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/ency...
Come on, make this a challenge, okay? You need to update everything you know, don't you? I mean, are you still reading newspapers .... on paper ... from the 1970s or something? Sheesh, you old bags of dirt shouldn't even bother connecting to the internet, at least until you learn how to use it.
I confess, I do still read newspapers, and magazines and even--sacre'blu-uh--- BOOKS sometimes! Shame on older than Goliath pottery shards moi, eh?:-)
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70431 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say so. I see no value in something that causes me to suffer, nor do we need more humans. If anything, we need a LOT fewer humans. So meh, I'm doing the world two favors.
Bless your logical heart!
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70432 Jan 8, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your frustration. Women have that ability to 'create' life. Didn't you learn that from your momma?
So do men. Big deal.
CritterLittersge ehawlore

Somerset, KY

#70433 Jan 8, 2013
and Science sayz so'z do lotsa utter critters!

Mehbe even Aliens too !!!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70434 Jan 8, 2013
PhiThetaKappa wrote:
<quoted text>
So do men. Big deal.
Babies grow in the uterus

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70435 Jan 8, 2013
PhiThetaKappa wrote:
<quoted text>
I confess, I do still read newspapers, and magazines and even--sacre'blu-uh--- BOOKS sometimes! Shame on older than Goliath pottery shards moi, eh?:-)
Wikipedia works like Open Source software, and that's it's strength. Open Source, while a lot of people decry it, stays ahead of the curve in all areas, and Microsoft and Apple actually use Open Source to get their ideas from because of that. Open Source just has horrible marketing ... because ... well ... it's free and since it's free there's no market. But Open Source accomplishes staying ahead of the curve because people, lots of people, contribute to it. Linux still owns the internet, it's open source and used on almost all servers, because the moment any actual threat to Linux appears, someone somewhere writes a patch as quickly as it shows up and that patch propagates all the servers over night.

Wikipedia gets this same benefit, and thus it's constantly being updated as new information comes out. The day after a major event, there's a wikipedia article complete with references from all over the internet, and with someone always awake somewhere in the world, it gets filtered, corrected, and updated as soon as it gets posted. A flaw in a printed book has to wait until the next edition for correction, thus until that next edition that flaw gets presented as fact, wikipedia lacks this drawback. Then there's the simple massiveness of Wikipedia compared to things like the Britannica, if you printed out all the factual information only, not printing the flaws in Wikipedia, using the same font and all the images and other media in Wikipedia, you'd have about 20 complete Britannica sets, and then some because not all the media can be printed. There will be errors, all such sources of information has those, even Britannica has a lot of errors, but simply because of the massiveness, Wikipedia wins, hands down. That is why people depend on it more than the older sources.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70436 Jan 8, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Babies grow in the uterus
Yes, that does not discount the other's assertion, it takes the seed as well, so both create the life, that's the trick of a binary reproductive system. It's also it's greatest flaw.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70437 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia works like Open Source software, and that's it's strength. Open Source, while a lot of people decry it, stays ahead of the curve in all areas, and Microsoft and Apple actually use Open Source to get their ideas from because of that. Open Source just has horrible marketing ... because ... well ... it's free and since it's free there's no market. But Open Source accomplishes staying ahead of the curve because people, lots of people, contribute to it. Linux still owns the internet, it's open source and used on almost all servers, because the moment any actual threat to Linux appears, someone somewhere writes a patch as quickly as it shows up and that patch propagates all the servers over night.
Wikipedia gets this same benefit, and thus it's constantly being updated as new information comes out. The day after a major event, there's a wikipedia article complete with references from all over the internet, and with someone always awake somewhere in the world, it gets filtered, corrected, and updated as soon as it gets posted. A flaw in a printed book has to wait until the next edition for correction, thus until that next edition that flaw gets presented as fact, wikipedia lacks this drawback. Then there's the simple massiveness of Wikipedia compared to things like the Britannica, if you printed out all the factual information only, not printing the flaws in Wikipedia, using the same font and all the images and other media in Wikipedia, you'd have about 20 complete Britannica sets, and then some because not all the media can be printed. There will be errors, all such sources of information has those, even Britannica has a lot of errors, but simply because of the massiveness, Wikipedia wins, hands down. That is why people depend on it more than the older sources.
The internet is like the akashic records in physical form. Tap into that myriad of information! Oh btw, you programmers can't hide nothing from me. My pulse and veins flow through the circuits of a computer! LOL. Muwahahaha!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#70438 Jan 8, 2013
PhiThetaKappa wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the affirmation, of the limited credibility.
When formats matter though, Brittanica remains the one with integrity for one simple reason. I'll let you ponder the why's of that.
I didn't say using it was plagiarism, I stated, the only thing that keeps the site out of the leagues of, are the references (of what has been rewritten from)
"Plagiarism" ....They probably didn't, until today?(was it the archeological inscribed shard mentioned in the article that set the rabid attack pack?
One can only guess :-).
All sources have some limitations to their credibility.

My point was that Wikipedia today has more credibility than most and very few mistakes. Even when I was in school it was known that you don't copy from encyclopedias when it comes to writing papers. We are not writing papers of any sort here. Today Wikipedia is a very useful source for students since it does have one thing that Encyclopedias of my time did not, each article has references that you could use to write your own report.

So until you find some factual reason why Wiki is not a valid source I will have no problem using it for basic knowledge, and most of the topics debated here are debated at a rather basic level.

In fact there is no higher level debate of evolution. There is no "controversy" at all when it comes to evolution. There are a handful of delusional scientists who do not believe the theory, but there are delusional people when it comes to almost every subject.

So what, if any, valid complaints do you have against Wikipedia or evolution?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70439 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that does not discount the other's assertion, it takes the seed as well, so both create the life, that's the trick of a binary reproductive system. It's also it's greatest flaw.
What flaw?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4061477.stm

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#70440 Jan 8, 2013
Meanwhile do you need to see some articles on why Goliath could not have been 9'9"? You could start with learning about the square/cube law. It will give you an idea why there is an upper limit to how large an animal can get.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#70441 Jan 8, 2013
I wrote:
“So the Black Sea was a freshwater lake until it got flooded by the Mediterranean Sea,
and therefore there was a World Flood?
I'm sorry, but I don't follow.
Please explain.“

MazHere wrote:
“I don't think you ever will. To understand flood geology one actually needs to study and interpret data under an alternative assumption. So don't feel too bad.

“Creationists do not expect evolutionists to 'follow'. However we have the 'facts' in our favour, regardless of your not following.”

This seems to be a favorite tactic among Creationists. A few months ago, TheBlackSheep asked, "How was your god created?" KJV replied, "It's beyond your understanding."

I once asked a Creationist where were all the pre-Ordovician fish, pre-Devonian amphibians, pre-Pennsylvanian reptiles, pre-Jurassic birds, and pre-Tertiary mammals which the palaeontologists say they can't find.
He said that the question could only be expressed in language which a materialistically-minded Evolutionist like me couldn't understand.

This is a clever ruse.
One party can never prove that the other party doesn't have an insight which cannot be expressed.

However, there is a catch to it: unfalsifiable hypotheses are also unverifiable.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70442 Jan 8, 2013
Cybele wrote:
You just illustrated the "mad" part of science. Some scientists get so preoccupated with whether they could, they often forget if they should.

The only reason the binary system has succeeded at all because of the combination of genetic material from both parts, the diversity effect which makes the species stronger. If we eliminate that one small benefit it offers, our species will die off, that is a guarantee. However there are a lot of reproduction systems, and the binary is just barely successful, the others are way more successful because they have produced more species and larger genetic diversity, as well as offering more chances for beneficial traits in those species.

Trinary, or the "bisexual" reproductive system is one of the better ones, it allows members of the species to alter gamete production based on the needs of the species, thus maintaining a careful balance between diversity and resource limitations, though it has the unfortunate side effect of making that species capable of completely destroying foreign environments if relocated, one of the things humans need to be more considerate of in using these species as pets.

The pollination reproductive system of plants is the ultimate in reproductive systems. It is why plants have more species than any of the other kingdoms, and why there are so durable and can recover even genetic bottlenecks with almost no lapse in propagation. Because everything fertilizes everything.

Asexual reproduction is the worst form of reproduction for higher life forms, but allows for faster propagation if the resources allow it, that is why it remains in the virus, bacteria, and very few minimally complex species. It offers the least genetic diversity, but because of not requiring fertilization the species can propagate from a single member to thousands, as long as the resources allow it, within a very short time. But again, due to the low genetic diversity new traits are not as frequent and thus the appearance of beneficial traits becomes far less frequent. most such species depend on a lack of change from other species as food, that is why the viruses for binary reproductive systems are more various than others, we just don't have that diversity to resist them that others do.

Out of space almost, but basically, binary is the second worst reproductive system, and if we remove that, becoming asexual reproduction, we doom ourselves to extinction.

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
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 min DILF 27,142
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 3 min DILF 645
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 4 min DILF 55,806
Things you say while driving (Mar '14) 5 min DILF 579
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 6 min Ricky F 24,222
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 7 min DILF 4,623
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 8 min DILF 8,847
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 14 min 40ish 3,670
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 35 min Independent1 28,829
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 38,534
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Good-Evil 155,422
Why do YOU get on Topix? 2 hr Suezanne 31
More from around the web