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
66,181 - 66,200 of 115,170 Comments Last updated 22 min ago

“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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70443 Jan 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not planning to have any more kids. So I find my eggs a waste if not being used. I might as well give them up for stem cell research.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70444 Jan 8, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not planning to have any more kids. So I find my eggs a waste if not being used. I might as well give them up for stem cell research.
I cannot argue that. The research seems promising, sort of the same as giving a kidney to a transplant patient now.
CritterLittersge ehawlore

Somerset, KY

#70445 Jan 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Babies grow in the uterus
There are some critters that are rather different at times, like egg bearers however, and even range into a different category, than the usual "propagation" methods!

Quote from article-on certain "insects"-

"There are, however, rare examples of asexual species that reproduce by cloning. Each offspring is genetically identical to the parent, with little variation generation after generation.(Mutations do create a minor amount of change.)

If asexual reproduction survives at all, conditions must sometimes favor it, even in competition for a niche with sexually reproducing species. Some insects, like aphids, are both asexual and sexual reproducers. Though rare, those species that reproduce asexually tend to persist...."

"Asexual Reproducers". Evolution, Library. WGBH Educational Foundation. Clear Blue SkyProductions. PBS.org . 2001. 1/9/2013
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70446 Jan 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I cannot argue that. The research seems promising, sort of the same as giving a kidney to a transplant patient now.
Research like that is a good thing for sure!
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70447 Jan 9, 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.
I am not a fan of OpenSource, that is why I prefer Britannica. It's okay for home users that don't mind risking and troubleshooting the headaches that can (and do) arise from it, but I find it's methods tainted, invasive and highly unsecured in a world where security breaches have reached pandemic levels.
Therefore, that is the biggest reason I personally view wikistoopedia, as unethical, a continual violation of data security, and in some cases, worse.
Who wants to headbang over other peoples mistakes. Not I, been there, done that, leaves MUCH to be improved upon, over and over and over.:-).
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70448 Jan 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
See previous post on why I do not favor OpenSource, anything. It's almost like accepting viri, just because it's free, and then sticking it in peoples eyes without care, for damaging their retinas.
But we know how people like fwee stuff!

Evolution is Science, I personally Like Science, finding it FAR more interesting and time worthy, than inane, rather myopic, dark age ramblings which generally end up referencing mere philosophical viewpoints, that then further denigrate into kindergarten sandbox level mentalities of the "witch hunting via pitchfork and torch" categories...just plain ol' nasty and quite limited, in having anything with any real merit, ethics or substance.
PhiThetaKappa

Somerset, KY

#70449 Jan 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
Here's some more, just for you, on "animal largese" lol-

. Those who are guilty of conducting wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, waging a covert war against Syria, planning war against Iran and carrying out targeted assassinations, rendition and torture have no compunction in trampling on fundamental precepts of international law. Vice President Joseph Biden has described Assange as a “high-tech terrorist” and secret US Air Force documents have branded WikiLeaks and Assange as “the enemy”, placing them on a legal par with Al-Qaeda. WikiLeaks’ Internet domains have been shut down and its financial operations blocked by numerous US corporations.

Resolution of SEP (UK) Congress:“Defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks”. International Committee of the Fourth International. World SOCIALIST Web. 9 January 2013
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#70451 Jan 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand your frustration. Women have that ability to 'create' life. Didn't you learn that from your momma?
THAT is the cynicism, that you seem to find.

Women don't create life. They accept its presence. It's a very large responsibility, yes. The Church exploits that fear and turns it into a fantasy myth where women believe they have magical intuitive powers to shape and control those around them. It's no less contemptible and socially maladjusted than the Church's efforts to exploit the fear of death in people.

The Church doesn't have quite the same control over men due to the male dominated culture, and so their efforts to marginalize nonconformist men is far greater, but they probably contend with more women who won't fit in no matter how faithful.

Face it. Reproduction is not about religion. You're either confident in your choice to do so or you're not, and sometimes you take chances that you may pay for because Christian society will not forgive you for abandoning their rules and their pecking order.

I say, if you're going to break with Christian nonsense, don't bother to take your "mother earth" mythology with you. It's nothing but residual Christian arrogance with none of the herd benefits to offset it.

That's one of the things the younger generation doesn't get. The sixties/seventies kids grew up with feminism, and watched it wither. Too many young women wanted respect in the business world, and to be put on a pedestal too. When it was over, those young women made a choice and returned to the herd in defeat. It's too bad in a way, but if you're going to be a renegade, honesty with yourself is the first requirement.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#70452 Jan 9, 2013
PhiThetaKappa wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a fan of OpenSource, that is why I prefer Britannica. It's okay for home users that don't mind risking and troubleshooting the headaches that can (and do) arise from it, but I find it's methods tainted, invasive and highly unsecured in a world where security breaches have reached pandemic levels.
Therefore, that is the biggest reason I personally view wikistoopedia, as unethical, a continual violation of data security, and in some cases, worse.
Who wants to headbang over other peoples mistakes. Not I, been there, done that, leaves MUCH to be improved upon, over and over and over.:-).
I am in a business that is particularly dependent on computer resources and spend perhaps 75% of my time waiting for my computer to catch up – hence my time on topix. I chose Linux as the OS and ooo as the office, both open source because they tend to be more reliable and considerably less expensive in setup, down time, crashes, upgrades etc than a comparable paid solution.

I believe the reason for this is commercial. Open source software (certainly the more high end offerings) are fully debugged before being released whereas writers of the commercial offerings are under pressure to publish and let the paying customers report the problems for rectification at a later date.

As an example, when we first set up the business and were looking of an OS we discovered that the then version of Windows blue screened on a fairly regular basis and to that date there were just 5 linux crashes that could be attributed to OS or driver faults. No contest.

However there is a flaw, Although much of the donkey work is done under Linux there is no Linux software (yet) to match the power and function of such offerings as 3Ds Max and Maya so these programmes need to run in a windows shell or second (dedicated) PC

Then of course we have hardware costs. Some of our computers are over 12 years old (they were particularly high end multi processor devices back in the day). To this day they do what we need as seamlessly and fast as modern multi core machines without falling over so often.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#70453 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in a business that is particularly dependent on computer resources and spend perhaps 75% of my time waiting for my computer to catch up – hence my time on topix. I chose Linux as the OS and ooo as the office, both open source because they tend to be more reliable and considerably less expensive in setup, down time, crashes, upgrades etc than a comparable paid solution.
I believe the reason for this is commercial. Open source software (certainly the more high end offerings) are fully debugged before being released whereas writers of the commercial offerings are under pressure to publish and let the paying customers report the problems for rectification at a later date.
As an example, when we first set up the business and were looking of an OS we discovered that the then version of Windows blue screened on a fairly regular basis and to that date there were just 5 linux crashes that could be attributed to OS or driver faults. No contest.
However there is a flaw, Although much of the donkey work is done under Linux there is no Linux software (yet) to match the power and function of such offerings as 3Ds Max and Maya so these programmes need to run in a windows shell or second (dedicated) PC
Then of course we have hardware costs. Some of our computers are over 12 years old (they were particularly high end multi processor devices back in the day). To this day they do what we need as seamlessly and fast as modern multi core machines without falling over so often.
I'm partially loyal to Microsoft, but I don't trust the Cloud, I don't like home users meddling with my machines and I don't like Microsoft's licensing. They're stagnating the way IBM did and someone will likely tip them over on their backs like a tortoise if they don't do something to get the consumer market back.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#70454 Jan 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm partially loyal to Microsoft, but I don't trust the Cloud, I don't like home users meddling with my machines and I don't like Microsoft's licensing. They're stagnating the way IBM did and someone will likely tip them over on their backs like a tortoise if they don't do something to get the consumer market back.
Never bothered with the cloud, I can get to our servers (and hence my work) from anywhere so no need to put it anywhere else.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#70455 Jan 9, 2013
PhiThetaKappa wrote:
<quoted text>
See previous post on why I do not favor OpenSource, anything. It's almost like accepting viri, just because it's free, and then sticking it in peoples eyes without care, for damaging their retinas.
But we know how people like fwee stuff!
Evolution is Science, I personally Like Science, finding it FAR more interesting and time worthy, than inane, rather myopic, dark age ramblings which generally end up referencing mere philosophical viewpoints, that then further denigrate into kindergarten sandbox level mentalities of the "witch hunting via pitchfork and torch" categories...just plain ol' nasty and quite limited, in having anything with any real merit, ethics or substance.
Since when has Wikipedia been a source of viruses? That is one of the most insane fears I have ever heard. Yes, there are viruses out there, that is why I have a good anti-virus program. In fact if someone slips in a suspect, not even a definite source of viruses and malware, my program won't let me go to that site (McAfee by the way). It has no problem with Wikipedia.

And if you don't have enough protection why are you even debating people who might link you to a site much worse than the "evil" Wikipedia.

Sorry, your excuse is one of the lamest I have ever seen.
PTK

Somerset, KY

#70456 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in a business that is particularly dependent on computer resources and spend perhaps 75% of my time waiting for my computer to catch up – hence my time on topix. I chose Linux as the OS and ooo as the office, both open source because they tend to be more reliable and considerably less expensive in setup, down time, crashes, upgrades etc than a comparable paid solution.
I believe the reason for this is commercial. Open source software (certainly the more high end offerings) are fully debugged before being released whereas writers of the commercial offerings are under pressure to publish and let the paying customers report the problems for rectification at a later date.
As an example, when we first set up the business and were looking of an OS we discovered that the then version of Windows blue screened on a fairly regular basis and to that date there were just 5 linux crashes that could be attributed to OS or driver faults. No contest.
However there is a flaw, Although much of the donkey work is done under Linux there is no Linux software (yet) to match the power and function of such offerings as 3Ds Max and Maya so these programmes need to run in a windows shell or second (dedicated) PC
Then of course we have hardware costs. Some of our computers are over 12 years old (they were particularly high end multi processor devices back in the day). To this day they do what we need as seamlessly and fast as modern multi core machines without falling over so often.
"I am in a business that is particularly dependent on computer resources and spend perhaps 75% of my time waiting for my computer to catch up "..

Uhhuh.'Nuff said.
PTK

Somerset, KY

#70457 Jan 9, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm partially loyal to Microsoft, but I don't trust the Cloud, I don't like home users meddling with my machines and I don't like Microsoft's licensing. They're stagnating the way IBM did and someone will likely tip them over on their backs like a tortoise if they don't do something to get the consumer market back.
"Clouds" are everywhere (just about unavoidable in thw world of IP authentication transimissions actually) much to the chagrin of MSoft no doubt lol. Google (just run it flawed and let the bugs/germs be fwee!!) and any other generic "droid" apps., are not the best for practicing any "security enhance" methods...Apple gets a little better "grade" for at least trying to keep a little "checksum integrity".

People need to "devolve" a little with some of the technology stuff. Why have everything "cloud" accessible, when "everything" really doesn't need to be. Imagine the actual worthwhile WORK, that might get accomplished again!!!
And how many versions of Windows do people reallllly need in any given seven or so year time Microsoft.
But in all fairness, HAIL MSoft and their support of products at least!

Okay, now that we've roasted the computer industry :-).....

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#70458 Jan 9, 2013
PTK wrote:
<quoted text>
"I am in a business that is particularly dependent on computer resources and spend perhaps 75% of my time waiting for my computer to catch up "..
Uhhuh.'Nuff said.
You have no idea what that business is and what we do with our computers. Tying up a 4 processor computer, 8 gb ram and a couple of processors on the mainframe for 8 hours to render a 30 second segment of your entertainment is an everyday occurrence.

Uhhuh.'Nuff said.eh???

But I see you feel that attempting to be sarcastic about what you cannot understand comes as second nature to you, are you some sort of funnymentalist?
PTK

Somerset, KY

#70459 Jan 9, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Never bothered with the cloud, I can get to our servers (and hence my work) from anywhere so no need to put it anywhere else.
Every time your machine authenticates, you're saying "hello" to a "cloud"...somewhere or another.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Shaun the shaggy Aussie sheep finally shorn smooth 5 min Petal Power 4
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min Petal Power 145,085
OMG! Just look at this! 8 min Sublime1 38
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 8 min Jolly 23,820
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 9 min Petal Power 54,396
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 11 min Grace Nerissa 23,986
TGIF .. EVERYDAY .. I want to ENJOY .. 13 min Petal Power 28
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 23 min Petal Power 228
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 24 min Petal Power 18,495
What's your tip for the day? 26 min Petal Power 796
Fergson Police Dept. 49 min A TROLL NAMED SLACK 344
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••