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 (Page 3,325)

Showing posts 66,481 - 66,500 of106,035
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70649
Jan 12, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Which rules don't apply, and why don't they?
If someone meant to say something figuratively speaking and not literally then they are not fallacies. If someone's using sense of humor is another example.
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If you form an opinion that a person's argument fits into the category of a particular logical fallacy, how is that not judgment?
I never said it wasn't. I said before that I usually use my 'own' sound judgement instead of pointing out fallacies.

Do you have a topic you want to talk about other than argue about arguments?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70651
Jan 12, 2013
 
Which rules don't apply, and why don't they?
Cybele wrote:
If someone meant to say something figuratively speaking and not literally then they are not fallacies. If someone's using sense of humor is another example.
Can you point to a posting I made where I applied a rule of logic when the other poster was clearly engaged in being figurative or humorous?

***

If you form an opinion that a person's argument fits into the category of a particular logical fallacy, how is that not judgment?
Cybele wrote:
I never said it wasn't.
You didn't claim that I wasn't using judgment when I formed an opinion that someone else's argument was using a logical fallacy?

***
Cybele wrote:
Do you have a topic you want to talk about other than argue about arguments?
Yes, let's talk about evolution vs. creationism, the actual topic of this thread. Where do you stand on that issue?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70652
Jan 12, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Of course, people who try to hijack threads for purposes other than the topic of the thread are certainly acting in an anti-social way, don't you think?
Then you don't know what anti-social really means

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70653
Jan 12, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Which rules don't apply, and why don't they?
<quoted text>
Can you point to a posting I made where I applied a rule of logic when the other poster was clearly engaged in being figurative or humorous?
***
If you form an opinion that a person's argument fits into the category of a particular logical fallacy, how is that not judgment?
<quoted text>
You didn't claim that I wasn't using judgment when I formed an opinion that someone else's argument was using a logical fallacy?
***
<quoted text>
Yes, let's talk about evolution vs. creationism, the actual topic of this thread. Where do you stand on that issue?
Do you have a wheely in your head?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70654
Jan 12, 2013
 
Of course, people who try to hijack threads for purposes other than the topic of the thread are certainly acting in an anti-social way, don't you think?
Cybele wrote:
Then you don't know what anti-social really means
If the social norm is to see that a message board system, such as Topix, is intentionally organized into forums and threads in order to facilitate discussion about the topic of the thread, and a person acts antagonistically toward that social norm by attempting to divert discussion away from the topic of the thread and toward some personal pet topic, why wouldn't that qualify as being "anti-social"?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70655
Jan 12, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Of course, people who try to hijack threads for purposes other than the topic of the thread are certainly acting in an anti-social way, don't you think?
<quoted text>
If the social norm is to see that a message board system, such as Topix, is intentionally organized into forums and threads in order to facilitate discussion about the topic of the thread, and a person acts antagonistically toward that social norm by attempting to divert discussion away from the topic of the thread and toward some personal pet topic, why wouldn't that qualify as being "anti-social"?
Are you acting like a mod now? How is a discussion on a personal level anti-social? How is that damaging to others?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70656
Jan 12, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically, according to still in process hypothesis being studied in comparisons of say justgenetics, in it's parts of the whole of basic evolutionary tenets, Yes, it could be quite "different", due to a little, relatively new phenotype phenomenon dubbed "phenotypic plasticity".
Which is why SOME us have ascribed to the notion, for quite some time(since the first thought existed on the subject anyway) that Science itself would be limited in it's endeavors of exact complete recreation, of anything.
MMMmmmm (NOT) frog legs. lol.
Huh? What does phenotypic plasticity have to do with this? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Why, if we could replicate the exact chemical state of a nde, would it be different from a "natural" one? And even if we couldn't exactly replicate the chemical state, it wouldn't matter, and my proposition was more of a thought experiment anyway. My point is that we have a reasonably thorough understanding of the physical underpinnings of NDEs, and they can be more or less replicated with the use of drugs or with electrical stimulation of the appropriate regions of the brain. Why do we need to invoke a "something" to explain ndes when we already know, more or less, what causes them?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70657
Jan 12, 2013
 
If the social norm is to see that a message board system, such as Topix, is intentionally organized into forums and threads in order to facilitate discussion about the topic of the thread, and a person acts antagonistically toward that social norm by attempting to divert discussion away from the topic of the thread and toward some personal pet topic, why wouldn't that qualify as being "anti-social"?
Cybele wrote:
Are you acting like a mod now?
No, I'm pointing out why you seemed to fail to recognize anti-social behavior when it occurs. Or, you recognize it, but condone it.
Cybele wrote:
How is a discussion on a personal level anti-social? How is that damaging to others?
Because it's an attempt to hijack the thread for purposes other than for what it was set up to do.

I see that you failed to respond to my question that was on the topic of this thread. Why is that?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70658
Jan 12, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Machines more alive than we think? Do tell.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70659
Jan 12, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What mystical something did I mention here? I tried to explain how chemicals are involved.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6907783_parts-brain-...
<quoted text>
I believe we can induce NDE. Yes it would still be like natural. In fact, I've had many NDEs of different types.
<quoted text>
No, from my experience I wasn't trying to avoid death, I was responding to death as I thought I was going to die!
I was under the impression that you were asserting that ndes are not purely physical phenomena, and that they might actually be "proof" of some sort of afterlife. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70660
Jan 12, 2013
 
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?
What? That is quite a dubious assertion - that the periodic table might be hiding the secret of "which atom came first." Or are you saying that the bible holds this secret? Either way, that's a strange claim.

And we already have discovered evidence of the "god particle" (I believe this moniker is not favored in the scientific community), the LHC captured evidence of it last year. It was quite a big story, actually.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70661
Jan 12, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
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?
What? We know that stars did what? Perform fusion? So what?

And we don't know that life was created on earth, unless you are using the version of the word "created" that does not imply a "creator."

We already have a pretty solid explanation for how stars are born. Here is a short primer from wiki.

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

And hydrogen was probably the first element.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70662
Jan 12, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
Are you acting like a mod now? How is a discussion on a personal level anti-social? How is that damaging to others?
It damages those who came to talk about Evolution vs. Creation. but who have to plow through discussion on other topics.

It damages those who skip the discussion on other topics, and who might skip a message about Evolution vs. Creation by mistake.

It is frustrating to those who try to remind other people that this forum is about Evolution vs. Creation, not about abiogenesis.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70663
Jan 12, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So now an evolutionist has an idea of Perfection as opposed to Random. lol!
Way to go to have a TOE in your mouth!
What?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70664
Jan 12, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is it? Memory cell is just in computers?
What? I'm saying that there is no such thing as "cellular memory" or "body memory." It doesn't exist. The only part of our body that can store memories is the brain. And what do computers have to do with anything?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70665
Jan 12, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What? That is quite a dubious assertion - that the periodic table might be hiding the secret of "which atom came first." Or are you saying that the bible holds this secret? Either way, that's a strange claim.
And we already have discovered evidence of the "god particle" (I believe this moniker is not favored in the scientific community), the LHC captured evidence of it last year. It was quite a big story, actually.
There are patterns everywhere, from our DNA to the galaxies in the universe. I'm sure one will discover a pattern on the periodic table if examined closely such as in atomic numbers and electron configurations that which create matter and perhaps explain how they came into existence.

And no, the bible only says we were made from dust. Nothing more. That's where science comes in and call it 'particles.'

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70666
Jan 12, 2013
 
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do the cells develop an immunity to some things after being exposed to it?
That's our immune system at work, and it happens because when our body is exposed to germs, it reacts by producing antibodies, which then give our body a "head start" the next time the same thing attacks our body.

And that's not "cellular memory." Cellular memory is the pseudo scientific idea that each cell in our body somehow retains a "memory" of all the experiences that our body has gone through, and it simply isn't true. Our cells do not remember in the same way that our brain remembers.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70667
Jan 12, 2013
 
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly...there has to be a 'master chemist' there to arrange chemicals in the proper order...
Just as man takes dust, and arranges it into whatever he wants, through chemistry...but there has to be someone or something to orchestrate it...
Ahahahhahahaha. There just *has to* be a master chemist, eh? No justification, no evidence, just - "I don't understand science, so godditit!" Funny.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70668
Jan 12, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
If God created space/time, then he would be outside of space/time and therefore be infinite in nature.
( This idea is referenced by many through out history.)
Even the latest developments in Quantum Physics support this concept with the Observer Effect.
The observer effect absolutely does not suggest that god exists. What are you talking about?

And do you realize how much of a cop out it is to say that god doesn't need to conform to the natural laws?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70669
Jan 12, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What? I'm saying that there is no such thing as "cellular memory" or "body memory." It doesn't exist. The only part of our body that can store memories is the brain. And what do computers have to do with anything?
whatever they call it but memory is not just stored in the brain.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/conten...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 66,481 - 66,500 of106,035
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••