Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83920 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
"Although the concepts of a law or principle in nature is borderline to philosophy, and presents the depth to which mathematics can describe nature, scientific laws are considered from a scientific perspective and follow the scientific method; they "serve their purpose" rather than "questioning reality" (philosophical) or "statements of logical absolution" (mathematical). For example, whether a law "refers to reality" is a philosophical issue, rather than scientific.
Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
The "law of non-contradiction" is a concept of a law or principle in nature.
Do you see the universal constant principle found in scientific laws. This means non-changing and if it changes with an opposing idea this would be a "contradictory" of the universal constant principle found in a scientific law that is backed with empirical evidence. It is this principle extracted from a scientific law that is backed with the empirical data that followed the scientific method I use to validate “The law of non-contradiction”, which is the foundation to my scientific reasoning I use to interpret all things found in the laws of nature.
wouldn[t the law of non-contradiction only work if we knew all there is to know in the universe?

(we do not, in case that is in question for you...)

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83921 Mar 30, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Any person who truly searches impartially for the actualities of science or any official ivestigator will find the Bible to be truth. Precise application of facts or principles can be gathered and true knowledge of the physical or material world can be gained through observation and experimentation pertaining to the common idea of recurring events or phenomena which are a sequence of changing states that, upon completion, produce a final state like the original one. The Bible clearly teaches that common traits are in natures charcter. Nature produces examples of kinds and living things make propagation following patterns of form to bring the kind about again or anew in any manner to bear fruitful offspring. Natural markings are in kinds which are configurations with distinctive style, or form and a combination of qualities form a consistent characteristic arrangement. The laws and principles that guide the whole universe are a result of inborn or inherent qualities which are following a method of arranged order and material things are systematically comprised. SCPID theory contemplates and explains these truths.
If you are a truth seeker as I am, why do you quantify your GOD when it is a contradictory to do so in the laws of nature?
We both know eternity exists and this term is known in mathematics as infinity. With this said, how can you quantify your GOD if he is infinite because you cannot quantify or put an absolute value on infinity.

This is my first question for you.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#83922 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Several places in history are completely out of sync with the accepted view of the intellectual and societal disposition of the proposed "evolution" of humans. I don't think ALL the evidence is being objectively considered, and is causing considerable difficulty in the formation of discovery of a proper timeline of evolution and involved factors...mostly because of control of the "funding" for research, and the need to be accepted academically, even knowing that the information and methods are in error.
That's a whole lot of nothing other than your personal opinions. Got anything to back any of this up or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#83923 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
"Although the concepts of a law or principle in nature is borderline to philosophy, and presents the depth to which mathematics can describe nature, scientific laws are considered from a scientific perspective and follow the scientific method; they "serve their purpose" rather than "questioning reality" (philosophical) or "statements of logical absolution" (mathematical). For example, whether a law "refers to reality" is a philosophical issue, rather than scientific.
Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
The "law of non-contradiction" is a concept of a law or principle in nature.
Do you see the universal constant principle found in scientific laws. This means non-changing and if it changes with an opposing idea this would be a "contradictory" of the universal constant principle found in a scientific law that is backed with empirical evidence. It is this principle extracted from a scientific law that is backed with the empirical data that followed the scientific method I use to validate “The law of non-contradiction”, which is the foundation to my scientific reasoning I use to interpret all things found in the laws of nature.
Science deals with conflict in empirical evidence, these states do exist. So contradiction itself is universal in a great many things we have learned, particle/wave manifestation, Quantum entanglement where the future decision can affect the past states of the particles, relativity itself . There is a host of paradoxical events, where any law of contradiction will break down and become meaningless. This does not void science, rather proves some things to be counter intuitive and conflictory to the human
psyche. Which is dependent on a perception of space/time not everything is bound to.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83924 Mar 30, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Any person who truly searches impartially for the actualities of science or any official ivestigator will find the Bible to be truth. Precise application of facts or principles can be gathered and true knowledge of the physical or material world can be gained through observation and experimentation pertaining to the common idea of recurring events or phenomena which are a sequence of changing states that, upon completion, produce a final state like the original one. The Bible clearly teaches that common traits are in natures charcter. Nature produces examples of kinds and living things make propagation following patterns of form to bring the kind about again or anew in any manner to bear fruitful offspring. Natural markings are in kinds which are configurations with distinctive style, or form and a combination of qualities form a consistent characteristic arrangement. The laws and principles that guide the whole universe are a result of inborn or inherent qualities which are following a method of arranged order and material things are systematically comprised. SCPID theory contemplates and explains these truths.
Dear...do you keep forgetting all the proven lies and falsehoods we have shown you in your bible?

no, the bible leads no-one to truth. It only leads you to a cult and cult like thinking.(like you are doing now, clearly denying real world facts in front of your face...) denying reality is not healthy, Free Servant. you really need to get out of this harmful cult...

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83925 Mar 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a whole lot of nothing other than your personal opinions. Got anything to back any of this up or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Just opinion. You guys may change them. I am enjoying your posts. They make one actually think.

“Curious? You should be!”

Level 8

Since: Nov 10

East of Eden

#83926 Mar 30, 2013
Hi,geeks!How is it going?

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83927 Mar 30, 2013
Milena N wrote:
Hi,geeks!How is it going?
hey! i resemble that remark...
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83928 Mar 30, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I did but it loses something if I have to explain it...
Which is exactly why you should have kept it to yourself.

Not everything you think is worth saying, you know.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83929 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No precedence necessary. In fact it would be simultaneous. If I dig up a bone everyone else can see it. You quite simply have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Which is exactly why there is no need to refer to the scientific.

If objectivity is achieved so simply, why complicate stuff further systematic junk?
The Dude wrote:
On the contrary, science doesn't give a flying fig about philosophy.
You poor misguided fool.

Science is validated by philosophy:

Science:
"In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself." [wikipedia.com]

Philosophy:

"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument" [wikipedia.com]

It is philosophy that determines the efficiency and goalsof science you nut.
The Dude wrote:
It is, as they say, as useful to science as ornithology is to birds...
And I see you are like a dog returning to its vomit; because you have both tried to separates philosophy from science and used that corny analogy before... to no f@ckin avail.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83930 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
"Although the concepts of a law or principle in nature is borderline to philosophy, and presents the depth to which mathematics can describe nature, scientific laws are considered from a scientific perspective and follow the scientific method; they "serve their purpose" rather than "questioning reality" (philosophical) or "statements of logical absolution" (mathematical). For example, whether a law "refers to reality" is a philosophical issue, rather than scientific.
Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
The "law of non-contradiction" is a concept of a law or principle in nature.
Do you see the universal constant principle found in scientific laws. This means non-changing and if it changes with an opposing idea this would be a "contradictory" of the universal constant principle found in a scientific law that is backed with empirical evidence. It is this principle extracted from a scientific law that is backed with the empirical data that followed the scientific method I use to validate “The law of non-contradiction”, which is the foundation to my scientific reasoning I use to interpret all things found in the laws of nature.
The "Law of noncomtradiction" is not a law of science. At best it is a law of logic and you have not shown how it applies to your cause.

You are trying to use it in a circular argument. And as I showed you already the existence of ring species debunks your claim of the invariance of species.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83931 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we do. The Adam and Eve scenario is not genetically viable. That is why mitochondrial Adam and Eve are separated by thousands of years, but that also acknowledges the fact that they both had plenty of contemporaries.
Actually you dont.

The Bible NEVER stated that Adam and Eve were the only humans in the "Garden": IT DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY TWO HUMANS that existed.

As a matter of fact, there could have been human populations 5 meters away from the Garden.

So the existence of Adam and Eve does not contradict nor violate the concept of "genetic viability".
The Dude wrote:
Goddidit with magic is not science.
No, but it can help us to discover God's science.:P
The Dude wrote:
You don't have any science. You couldn't care less about science.
According to the definition of science, you are a liar.

Science is a general method or approach; not something you can colonize and act like nobody can attain to it unless they think like you, you baboon.
The Dude wrote:
All you have are philosophical arguments which have been around for thousands of years.
Thats a good place to start as any other; science is about investigating, not assuming.
The Dude wrote:
They are no longer relevant to science. Perhaps back in the day they were, as part of the necessary development of the critical thinking process which eventually led to technological development.
Your method of thinking is seriously f@cking skewed.

The strength of the building continually depends on the strength of the foundation; so whatever was crucial in the beginning will continue to be crucial to the end.

The modern is a development of the primitive; not a retiring nor abandonment of the primitive.

You d!ck head!
The Dude wrote:
However today though those same arguments are now being used not for the purpose of advancing knowledge but rather advancing apologetics.
Pffft.

Youre lucky I have to go to church now.

Wait till I catch up with you when church is over...

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#83933 Mar 30, 2013
STOP IT!!!...I feel a headache coming on..MIDOL PLEASE!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83934 Mar 30, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Which is exactly why there is no need to refer to the scientific.
If objectivity is achieved so simply, why complicate stuff further systematic junk?
People thought like you do thousands of years ago. They thought heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. It was quite obvious and logical. Empiricism has since shown otherwise.

People want things to be simple. Especially creationists, as Goddidit with magic is about as simple as you can get. Science is hard. That is why further "systematic junk" as you call it is necessary. It's easier to just use calculations based on classical Newtonian physics if we want to send a probe into space. But if we want to send it to Mercury we NEED to use more complicated calculations based on relativity. This is for practical reasons and practical reasons only.

Otherwise you've just spend millions on putting a new probe into space only to have it miss its target because you were too lazy to deal with any further "systematic junk".
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
You poor misguided fool.
Science is validated by philosophy:
Science:
"In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself." [wikipedia.com]
Philosophy:
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument" [wikipedia.com]
It is philosophy that determines the efficiency and goalsof science you nut.
The problem with philosophy is that it does is not empirical. One guy makes a philosophical argument. Another guy makes another philosophical argument refuting that. The first guy then makes a counter philosophical argument refuting that. And so on. But neither of them have produced anything useful. It's all nothing but mental mastrubation. That is why science ignores all that bollox and goes with what works for practical reasons. That is why science ends up with practical results. That's why you're typing on a computer. Philosophy ends at practicality.

Or it can carry on talking more bollox while practical people using practical methods can improve your computer instead of just sitting around making "philosophical arguments" what might improve it instead.(shrug)
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
And I see you are like a dog returning to its vomit; because you have both tried to separates philosophy from science and used that corny analogy before... to no f@ckin avail.
Actually it's quite easy to separate science from philosophy. If I say this bar of chocolate will melt in the microwave you can whine all you like that I'm still making a philosophical argument. I then demonstrate you wrong by throwing it in and turning the thing on.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83935 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are a truth seeker as I am, why do you quantify your GOD when it is a contradictory to do so in the laws of nature?
We both know eternity exists and this term is known in mathematics as infinity. With this said, how can you quantify your GOD if he is infinite because you cannot quantify or put an absolute value on infinity.
This is my first question for you.
Infinity IS a value in mathematics. We don't know if eternity exists or not because the universe we exist in is apparently finite from what we can tell.

If Polymath's around I'll let him elaborate further since he's the math expert.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83936 Mar 30, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Actually you dont.
The Bible NEVER stated that Adam and Eve were the only humans in the "Garden": IT DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY TWO HUMANS that existed. As a matter of fact, there could have been human populations 5 meters away from the Garden.
So the existence of Adam and Eve does not contradict nor violate the concept of "genetic viability".
Uh, that's what I just said.(shrug) Read more carefully. It DOES violate it if they WERE the only two, just as the fundies claim.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
No, but it can help us to discover God's science.
Actually Goddidit with magic is a science stopper. It doesn't help at all. It is also possible that this "God" of yours may not even exist.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
According to the definition of science, you are a liar.
Science is a general method or approach; not something you can colonize and act like nobody can attain to it unless they think like you, you baboon.
I'm not claiming any scientific authority. Anyone can perform a scientific experiment as long as what they do is empirical and passes the scientific method. The claims of fundies avoid that.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Thats a good place to start as any other; science is about investigating, not assuming.
Yes, investigating. Philosophy doesn't do that. You can sit on your azz on the couch all day and tell everyone you're engaged in philosophy.(shrug)
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Your method of thinking is seriously f@cking skewed.
The strength of the building continually depends on the strength of the foundation; so whatever was crucial in the beginning will continue to be crucial to the end.
The modern is a development of the primitive; not a retiring nor abandonment of the primitive.
Actually it CAN be a retirement and abandonment of the primitive. How many astronomers have YOU seen using astrology?
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
You d!ck head!
ARRGHHH!!! Ya got me, pardnuh!
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Pffft.
Youre lucky I have to go to church now.
Wait till I catch up with you when church is over...
Uh, yes. I feel very lucky because of this.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83937 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Don't tell me you have no clue about supernova explosions and their effects on this planet.
Or solar flare and the effects of the cyclic activity of the sun on our planet.
Or the effects of meteor and cometary impact.
There is more, but that is enough for now.
Have you ever taken into account the timelines and effects these things have had on the planet in general and our civilization?
It appears you haven't as it might not fit that neat little paradigm which has been built by academia.
Yes, I'm aware of the effects. Relatively negligible, so far at least. Though I'm aware that any nearby supernovas or gamma ray bursts pointing in our direction could be a problem.

Luckily though space is HUGE, and we don't appear to be in any danger so far. Giant Earth destroying meteorites on the other hand, now that's a valid concern.(not an excuse for Nibiru Planet X stories though).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83938 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> It could have been a viral infection introduced to them like was the case in the Americas.
Possible perhaps, but unlikely, since many contemporary humans would also have been susceptible to the same virus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83939 Mar 30, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Good job subduct, you used all your defense mechanisms
1. lie
2. called him a creatard.
3. accused him of ignorance
4. spoke of your superiority.
Again, you forgot number 5: Make sure he was right.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83940 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
It appears that is because the normal progression of evolution can not account for an abrupt change in that status of human development, therefore, it just couldn't happen.
12,000 years ago is not a problem for evolution. It's more about the history of the development of culture, which is a query for archaeology. It has zero relevance to common ancestry since humans were biologically well established by then.

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???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 9 min Parden Pard 41,195
2words into 2new words (May '12) 11 min Chimp Pharaoh 1,407
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 14 min Parden Pard 8,067
Florida cop accused of using stolen tags to avo... 18 min Go Blue Forever 1
Would-Be Car Thief Knocks Himself Out 18 min Parden Pard 1
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min Chimp Pharaoh 157,773
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 20 min Red_Forman 2,484
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 58 min TALLYHO 8541 39,206
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 2 hr Bree_Z 6,067
Obama takes control of Internet 5 hr Just TLC 89
Five Weird Signs You're Smarter Than Average 6 hr wichita-rick 49
More from around the web