Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222780 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80729 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is pretty cool. Is it real? I am not saying that it isn't, but I would like to see some evidence.
If you want to see a fun scientific concept type DDWFTTW in your Google search bar.
i too wondered if it wa not 'created'...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80730 Mar 13, 2013
woodtick, just in case you were wondering. DDWFTTW stands for: Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind.

The question is can you devise a vehicle that is powered only by the wind, that does not store energy in any way, can it run directly downwind faster than the wind that is blowing it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80731 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
woodtick, just in case you were wondering. DDWFTTW stands for: Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind.
The question is can you devise a vehicle that is powered only by the wind, that does not store energy in any way, can it run directly downwind faster than the wind that is blowing it?
Actually, that's not too difficult if you understand aerodynamics. ;)

About the only thing you'd have to solve is the friction on the gears and tires, once you solve that, it's just pure aerodynamics. I think it's cool we now have the technology capable of working with such ideas, that's the awesome part of that whole advance.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80732 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
woodtick, just in case you were wondering. DDWFTTW stands for: Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind.
The question is can you devise a vehicle that is powered only by the wind, that does not store energy in any way, can it run directly downwind faster than the wind that is blowing it?
it looked really cool! i'm just finishing a novel..i'll look at it more later...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80733 Mar 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that's not too difficult if you understand aerodynamics. ;)
About the only thing you'd have to solve is the friction on the gears and tires, once you solve that, it's just pure aerodynamics. I think it's cool we now have the technology capable of working with such ideas, that's the awesome part of that whole advance.
Yes, but even a lot of aero experts thought it was impossible.

I originally argued on the wrong side of this topic until the number on web protagonist made a simple working model that to me was undeniable. After that he went on to build a full scale sized vehicle that he drove at officially close to three times the speed of the wind and unofficially more than three times the speed of the wind directly downwind.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80734 Mar 13, 2013
This is the first video that convinced me that I was wrong:



This is the most impressive of the unofficial videos, notice that the cart goes through a cloud of dust that would have been going at the speed of the wind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80735 Mar 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but even a lot of aero experts thought it was impossible.
I originally argued on the wrong side of this topic until the number on web protagonist made a simple working model that to me was undeniable. After that he went on to build a full scale sized vehicle that he drove at officially close to three times the speed of the wind and unofficially more than three times the speed of the wind directly downwind.
Pft, experts can be wrong, and with technology they are almost always wrong, especially the limits. Remember, for the longest time the speed of sound was the barrier, they said it was impossible to break it, everyone did. We're now looking at the possibility of a new train design that could break that speed, as well as a few old "impossibilities," like friction.:P

Friction has always been our bane in many things, that's why it's a billion dollar research and development focus. The more we can overcome friction, the more useful our technology will become, faster and more efficient transportation, better cooling systems in computer technology, even inexpensive interplanetary flight, possibly to Mars or further, for manned missions. Oh, and small microchips.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#80736 Mar 14, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! wait a minute you lying co*ksucker, you've been saying for months that ..life is simply chemistry, now its tricky to define, get your lies in order.
What part of that confuses you?

Is a virus alive?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#80737 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, you don't have know that fire is hot through logical rational.You KNOW it hot instantly, without doubt, without question.
Wow... really?? You're going to use 'fire'?? LOL!!!!! I was going to explain how stupid that comparison is but judging by that post you wouldn't understand anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80738 Mar 14, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey! wait a minute you lying co*ksucker, you've been saying for months that ..life is simply chemistry, now its tricky to define, get your lies in order.
Unlike you, I haven't lied. You may disagree with my posts, but that is something quite different. Yes, life is chemistry. There are other things which are also chemistry byt we don't call them life. Then there are other things which are chemistry and we can't decide on whether or not to call them life or not (such as bacteria and viruses etc). This is because life is an arbitrary label that we apply to real things. The problem is that reality simply does not fit into nice neat little pigeon holes for our convenience. Very much like a colour gradient. There is no definitive line of when the colour changes from red to orange. It's all a blur. The same thing applies to real phenomena in real life. Planets are another example, which is why they recently changed the definition of the word. Just because arbitrary labels may require a change every now and then does not mean there is something wrong with our current knowledge. It just means we are using labels to describe things a little better.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80739 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I know they exist...you ask for physical evidence of a non physical reality. Quite absurd.
Oh, I agree it's absurd. And you claim to have evidence which is not physical. Which is also absurd. Ain't my fault your position's absurd.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80740 Mar 14, 2013
THOR wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one. For one.
Like Highlander!

If only. That would have been a great way for that idiot Benny to go, eh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80741 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"evidence","res ults", "tests"...these are scientific terms that apply to the physical world....not the metaphysical.
The "evidence" of the metaphysical world comes not by way of logical assessment, but by direct experience.
You are correct, that IS illogical.

Christians claim to have metaphysical experiences of angels.

Muslims claim to have metaphysical experiences of Allah.

Hindus claim to have metaphysical experiences of Vishnu.

UFO nuts claim to have metaphysical experiences of aliens.

Each and every one of these claims is just as valid as each other. NONE have evidence. They can't all be right. Meaning you have a lot of gullible idiots deluding themselves or are just plain liars.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80742 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So if scientists are always making corrections on scientific data for evolution, then how can you say the theory is based on facts? Don't worry, more questions will come from me and when you can provide real evidence for it, then it will be real science. But until you can keep trying...lol.
It's based on facts because so far there have been no facts presented that falsify it. Plus the fact that it's capable of making successful scientific predictions. I don't need to try, I've already presented evidence for evolution - and not even ONE of you fundies have been able to address it yet. Your only prayer is "Well maybe one day...!"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80743 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, you don't have know that fire is hot through logical rational.You KNOW it hot instantly, without doubt, without question.
This is ridiculously incorrect. You know something is hot ONLY by one of two things -

1 - Taking someone's word for it

2 - Testing it yourself.

Most of us find out for sure via option 2 when we are very very young.

Then fundies apparently forget this in later life, otherwise they wouldn't say such stupid things.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80744 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
and that is exactly right...like I said before, science is ideologically lame, when it comes to truth.
Bingo. That's because science deals with facts and evidence, not "truth". Science makes no ideological claims. "Truth" is subjective and therefore meaningless in science. Which is why every religion lays claim to it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80745 Mar 14, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"The only source of knowledge is experience."
-Albert Einstein
Ah, but knowledge is not the only source of experience.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80746 Mar 14, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you to DEFINE, not DESCRIBE sentience, there is a subtle difference. You descibed it simply. Defining it is almost impossible.
And I just explained that to Bo. The reason for this is that definitions are arbitrary, and constantly change over time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80747 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Anyone want to explain why lizards switching birth from egg to live young as evolution?
Evolution IS the explanation.
Cybele wrote:
I'm talking about the skinks species, a type of Australian lizard, those that live in higher, colder mountains giving birth to live young. And that nourishment in the mother's young play a role in this. Scientists claim that this is evolution in action.
Let's say this could be the holy grail for evolution. Alright.
Or let's not. The closest thing to "holy grail" was DNA, which firmly established evolution WAY back in the fifties. But since fundies are still arguing from a couple of centuries behind they're a little out of date. Another could be called ERV's.
Cybele wrote:
But what about other species of lizards such as the desert night lizards that also give birth to live young?
Lizards are special animals. Take for example the Komodo dragon that was dubbed to have virgin birth or immaculate conception. That is, no male needed to fertilize the egg.
You see, just because a certain type of animal has the flexibility to adapt in so many ways doesn't necessarily mean they are evolving into another species. Unless anyone have evidence that this is a process of speciation.
We have evidence, in the form of monotremes. They are an evolutionary relic from the days when reptiles led to monotremes which led to mammals. That's why monotremes have characteristics of both.

The immaculate conception of certain species is not evidence of speciation since there is very little to instigate change in an organism which is essentially cloning itself. That's a limitation of genetic variation while sexual reproduction leads to genetic variation (unless you're into the whole Biblical in the family style). It's an adaptation to survive in single sex environments, but once they get to an area with both sexes evolution will continue again.
Cybele wrote:
That lizard that can regenerate its tail for instance, that's not evolution.
Bingo. Because individuals don't evolve. Populations do. If a lizard with no tail has kids those kids WILL have tails.
Cybele wrote:
They just have that unique trait. And perhaps all lizards have their own unique and special traits.
Of course they do. That's why they're called different species or subspecies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80748 Mar 14, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA. That's all it is. Lizards have a unique DNA.
All organisms have unique DNA. Even identical twins have a few mutations different. And DNA changes with each subsequent generation.

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 hr grace f a l l e n 223,410
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 2 hr Tunes from the Crypt 781
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 hr 8541 MARINE 27,381
Let's Play Song Titles With Only Three Words,... (Dec '13) 4 hr wichita-rick 705
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 hr wichita-rick 24,566
News Weird 7 mins ago 7:30 p.m.Tractor-trailer makes... 5 hr Xstain Spot Remover 3
News Weird 3 hour ago 10:29 a.m.FEMA tweets wrong nu... 5 hr Xstain Spot Remover 7
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 9 hr Poo Bears 6,064
Things that make life eaiser... (Apr '15) 9 hr TheJerseyDevil 969
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 10 hr a_visitor 2,346
More from around the web