Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221445 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.

FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95047 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I don't. The definition of any specific purpose is also subjective. I may produce something for a specific purpose and then give it to someone else who then purposes it totally differently.
<quoted text>
You are only creating a straw man argument by redefining the terms that are used.
As I explained Universe with a capital U refers to *absolutely everything* that exists.
Given this definition, can something exist apart or outside the Universe?
Surely you must agree and accept that nothing can exist apart from the Universe. Yes?
If you define the universe as ALL material things that exist, then no matter could exist outside of this.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95048 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Chimney is right , the concept of our space/time continuum being disconnected and separate from other realities has come into existence in theory. We know our universe maybe 250x as large as the observable universe, but it could be part of an infinite number of other universes with separate space/time continuum's.
Only godbot's have a problem with this concept for some reason, they become even hostile over disconnected realities, I have no idea why.
That is certainly a logical possibility of the nature of the Universe. Natural science commonly has a purpose to help us discover new Truth of the Universe via testing and observational verification. This advances technology etc..

However, I fail to understand what is the purpose of trying to explain something that is by definition unobservable and untestable. Do you see some rational purpose for it? Isn't that exactly what your so called godbots do, propose explanations that by default can not be tested?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95049 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I don't. The definition of any specific purpose is also subjective. I may produce something for a specific purpose and then give it to someone else who then purposes it totally differently.
<quoted text>
You are only creating a straw man argument by redefining the terms that are used.
As I explained Universe with a capital U refers to *absolutely everything* that exists.
Given this definition, can something exist apart or outside the Universe?
Surely you must agree and accept that nothing can exist apart from the Universe. Yes?
Definition as connected space-time
See also: Eternal inflation

It is possible to conceive of disconnected space-times, each existing but unable to interact with one another. An easily visualized metaphor is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle. According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of space-time is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular space-time is denoted as the Universe, just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate space-times is denoted as the multiverse.[32] In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of space-time, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are purely speculative.

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

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#95050 Jul 7, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
The issue up in the Lewis is there seems to be no evidence of a typical thrust fault, an example would be where continental plates contact, one goes up, one goes down. Nothing like that around the Lewis. We must remember that man is limited in what we can actually map below the surface in mountain ranges. Montana has a number of spectacular geologic features that boggle the mind. The Troy Lead/Zinc massive being one to behold. I believe these deposits were given to us by God as I have worked around the planet in them over the years, all the right things are deposited in all the correct geographic locations where people live to be an "accident".
On the post-flood lake bed north of Page,AZ, we are speaking of an area larger than the great lakes together.(Dr. Austin discovered this). A shoreline exists around this entire closed basin. Plenty of water. As for the Kaibab, this upwarp provided the southern "dam" of this basin that trapped the waters in the first place. Being full to the lip held the water for a period of time post-flood, but it appears an event somewhere north slipped in another volume of water that topped the natural dam, just like what happened in the Missoula and Knik.
Hydrologists tell us once the surface tension is broke and a spillway starts over a dam, is all over, as the concave volume of the backwaters let go and takes everything out of its path. The none lithified structure of the canyon and dam blew out all the way to the pacific. We have little sediment delta at the Colorado's exit, so where has all this uniform sediment gone?
As you can see, there is more to this than a blog rebuttal can hold in a few rounds. I am amazed that people enjoy all the benefits God has provided for our welfare and easy living on this blue planet, yet spend all this time railing against Him. We are blessed. Hatred and pride is our foe, love and truth is our ally.
This has a good overview of some canyon structures like the Coconino, notice the shear zone at the Apachi. How can you see a 100MY of age along that perfect contact line?
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...
I guess the Lewis Overthrust Fault is another figment of a geologists' imagination. The contact of plates is exactly what happened. Science has seen it, but you keep clicking those heals together Dorothy. Wish it into the cornfield.

What has arguing about a fictional flood have to do with railing against God? This is always the parting shot of the young earthers as they retreat in defeat.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95051 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If you define the universe as ALL material things that exist, then no matter could exist outside of this.
You are still going on with the straw man argument. That is not very polite.

The definition of the Universe is as said *absolutely everything* that exists, all things that may be observable and unobservable to us. The "known universe" or "observable universe" is then what we can observe and test.

As the term Universe encompasses everything (material or not), nothing can exist outside of the Universe. You must agree with this, yes?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95052 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Definition as connected space-time
See also: Eternal inflation
It is possible to conceive of disconnected space-times, each existing but unable to interact with one another. An easily visualized metaphor is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle. According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of space-time is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular space-time is denoted as the Universe, just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate space-times is denoted as the multiverse.[32] In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of space-time, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are purely speculative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
The very first sentence in the link you gave is:
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence

Do you see the obvious logical contradiction in what you have posted here (copied from the link)?
So the totality of existence is not actually the real totality of existence?:)

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95053 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still going on with the straw man argument. That is not very polite.
The definition of the Universe is as said *absolutely everything* that exists, all things that may be observable and unobservable to us. The "known universe" or "observable universe" is then what we can observe and test.
As the term Universe encompasses everything (material or not), nothing can exist outside of the Universe. You must agree with this, yes?
Word meanings change over time, or didn't you get the memo?
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95054 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still going on with the straw man argument. That is not very polite.
The definition of the Universe is as said *absolutely everything* that exists, all things that may be observable and unobservable to us. The "known universe" or "observable universe" is then what we can observe and test.
As the term Universe encompasses everything (material or not), nothing can exist outside of the Universe. You must agree with this, yes?
Yes.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95055 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
The very first sentence in the link you gave is:
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence
Do you see the obvious logical contradiction in what you have posted here (copied from the link)?
So the totality of existence is not actually the real totality of existence?:)
When we talk about a space/time continuum's , yes our totality of existence could only a part of a greater totality of existence.
Existence of this universe as a space/time continuum is a contradiction of terms anyway. The infinitesimal expands to infinity.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95056 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Word meanings change over time, or didn't you get the memo?
Well the meaning of the term Universe has not changed. Everything that exists is equal to the totality of existence.
Aura Mytha wrote:
When we talk about a space/time continuum's , yes our totality of existence could only a part of a greater totality of existence.
Existence of this universe as a space/time continuum is a contradiction of terms anyway. The infinitesimal expands to infinity.
But it seems that in your mind the "the totality of existence" is not "the totality of existence". Apparently all words are like rubber bands to you.

It seems that you enjoy a proper straw man, don't you :)
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95057 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Yes.
Thank you. It is much easier to discuss when all share the same understanding of the used terminology.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95058 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the meaning of the term Universe has not changed. Everything that exists is equal to the totality of existence.
<quoted text>
But it seems that in your mind the "the totality of existence" is not "the totality of existence". Apparently all words are like rubber bands to you.
It seems that you enjoy a proper straw man, don't you :)
NO it isn't a strawman, I showed you the concept doe's in fact exist. But when we talk about all time and space within our reality the universe is all that is "known" to exist.
That doesn't bar the imagination of something disconnected from this universe, which you seem to have a problem doing.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95059 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. It is much easier to discuss when all share the same understanding of the used terminology.
The universe is one.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95060 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
NO it isn't a strawman, I showed you the concept doe's in fact exist. But when we talk about all time and space within our reality the universe is all that is "known" to exist.
That doesn't bar the imagination of something disconnected from this universe, which you seem to have a problem doing.
You are still in your straw man argument. I am talking about the Universe, which is by definition the absolute totality of all existence. You seem to be mixing and matching universe (the observable one) with Universe (absolutely everything) in whatever form that suits best your needs.

Do you agree that "the totality of existence" (i.e. the Universe with capital U) encompasses absolutely everything?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95061 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The universe is one.
That is indeed one way of putting it :)

But that's the universe observable and known to us, without the capital U.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95062 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still in your straw man argument. I am talking about the Universe, which is by definition the absolute totality of all existence. You seem to be mixing and matching universe (the observable one) with Universe (absolutely everything) in whatever form that suits best your needs.
Do you agree that "the totality of existence" (i.e. the Universe with capital U) encompasses absolutely everything?
No I don't agree , because your concepts are outdated.
When we talk about OUR universe , YES it is "the totality of existence" known. That does not bar the possibility there is another one that has it's own "totality of existence" separate from "ours".
This is modern cosmology, and it's not limited to your classical definition of universe. Why is it only godbots that have the problem comprehending this?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95063 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
That is indeed one way of putting it :)
But that's the universe observable and known to us, without the capital U.
No it isn't universe is universe whether typed in caps or not, you are confused now. Universe has the exact same meaning as universe.
Sigh, I'm never going to even respond to you like you are an intelligent human being again, it's obvious you only play silly word games, and such.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95064 Jul 7, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>So a new-born baby, a new life, degenerates from that state down??

Give it up dude....evolution happens....it's fact.
Rather stupid.

Go figure.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95065 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No it isn't universe is universe whether typed in caps or not, you are confused now. Universe has the exact same meaning as universe.
Sigh, I'm never going to even respond to you like you are an intelligent human being again, it's obvious you only play silly word games, and such.
I may be wrong but I think he is talking about the Observable Universe vs the Universe as a Whole.

A universe may be infinite, but an observable universe is only everything we can see. An observable universe will always be finite
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#95066 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>How would you suggest we could alleviate the most problems of future populations?
====

Again, I don't think there is a climate change or some other crisis at present, related to these things, as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, floods and famines have been there since history of time when the population on the planet was just a small fraction of today's, as today's is a lot of many billions more.
When more populations arise the cultivating development and industrial production, these aspect are just getting as some concern, but not as crisis.

The crisis have been warfares, from Vietnam, Iraq war to unrest, etc., to man-made ones of axis-of-evil hysteria, to social warfares, to economies as Bush years of economic credit crunch of Negative GDP, to even freedom liberty today turning backward, to military build up around the world and contention.

Your ancestors got used to the hurricanes, so you have faced them too and there is nothing unusual for next generation to face. It will be a long way if you think opf some serious crisis due to climate and earth temperature.

I don't know all things.
You had better ask many others around.
It is just my opinion.

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
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 min Boink face 4,053
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min Sublime1 217,047
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 4 min Boink face 2,539
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 9 min Interesting 75,211
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 14 min 40ish 11,840
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 57 min Sublime1 6,287
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 58 min Jennifer Renee 23,767
News Sea lion grabs girl, pulls her into water 12 hr Beautiful Black M... 26
More from around the web