Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216925 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.

JBH

Richmond, Canada

#95067 Jul 7, 2013
THE PEOPLE OF THIS WORLD must have human rights freedom and free choices of fundamental liberty righteous rights to live or move to reside in places having these anywhere if they do not have, at where they are.

People can choose not to live by their old grand-parents' places, or barns, or farms or inner cities if finding too corrupted or too MANY BUSYBODIES(nosy snoopy people or big brothers snooping) troubling them.

Workers and security guards at bar places would harass and even beat non-smoker customers because they think non-smokers would spend less on alcoholic drinks. Yet other workers would even go along with bad people for being silent and corrupted, and besides, workers don't even have such rights to say something, or else would be told by leaking secrecy and be disciplined
If nothing can do and can change the corrupted establishment, people are having such bad and ugly environment, then they can move to other lands with other people having societies of no corruption but great value and liberty rights and privacy freedom, with no snooping on public at all.

Countries around the world must keep on building societies and be supported, so that humans have choices for their human rights freedom with no snooping agenda, and also have free choices of fundamental liberty righteous rights to live or move to reside, on the planet.

Many countries would not do as US does on snooping programs, while people can file charges if such snooping occurs too extremely for unjustified reasons to them. Then the human rights free choices societies will be rewarded with building excellent rules and systems for all the dignified people's needs, and many needy people who are thirsty for all these can move to, and they will be dynamic, as all these are constructive and valuable.

As countries on the planet are facing the radicalism of US doing the coalition of willing again (as if like the standpoint of Iraq war), some of those countries as Austria, France, Italy and Spain are the willing, and forge by joining US to pursue on the Snowden case like the Iraq war. Spain did wrong to conduct the detour of airplane going to Bolivia because being one of the willing. First, there were no facts of truth of full evidences of Snowden on board airplane and that was ugliness of Spain. Then in doing the detour of airplane was another wrongdoing by messing up a lot to make bad troubles. Countries can choose not to be with the willing or joining so that the world is not being made so bad, corrupted without rules.

US has damaged relationship with many countries by chasing Snowden, by creating destructive way of International disorder. Whether US has broken International regulations, which can be sued or penalized, those people so concerned are saying of the wrongs and wrongdoing of such--making the world in chaos. US way of doing is not the new world's needs and wants. US ought not to make the world to be bad in volatility in addition to further suffer more harms of relation and economy, by doing the too extreme on Snowden story and violate International rules and systems. It ought to let its people have free choices, and not suppress human rights freedom of choices of dissidents (e.g., Snowden), ADVERSARIES, AND non-believers and let them move to places where they belong and want, just as other countries do to their dissidents by taking lots from their homeland to US.

The world must be a free world with freedom liberty choices for all, so that human rights freedom and free choices of fundamental liberty righteous privacy rights exist in many places around the world, that all people can have basic free rights values to live everywhere and anywhere.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95068 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
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?
Aura Mytha wrote:
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.
So you disagree with Henry Reich and the other physicists then?

Minutephysics:


Do you disagree with these physicists, yes or no?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95069 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
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
You are correct in your understanding of what I was trying to relay.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95070 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
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
No that isn't what we were talking about, we were talking about an entirely disconnected reality separate from this universe.
Some people have a problem with this concept. There is everything we can observe and beyond. Then there is the possibility there are more of them. Aside from the fact the U or u has exactly the same meaning.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95071 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
No that isn't what we were talking about, we were talking about an entirely disconnected reality separate from this universe.
Some people have a problem with this concept. There is everything we can observe and beyond. Then there is the possibility there are more of them. Aside from the fact the U or u has exactly the same meaning.
It seems that you live in a world totally separate from others.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95072 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
So you disagree with Henry Reich and the other physicists then?
Minutephysics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nrTsvn9usVQXX
Do you disagree with these physicists, yes or no?

This is a perfect definition of OUR universe. But you did not pay attention at the end when he touched on the subject of multiverse.
And said that is is the subject of another verse.
So you missed the meaning of another universe completely, and I find that awfully convenient on your behalf.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95073 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that you live in a world totally separate from others.


It seems you have a limited scope of space/time continuum.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95074 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
This is a perfect definition of OUR universe. But you did not pay attention at the end when he touched on the subject of multiverse.
And said that is is the subject of another verse.
So you missed the meaning of another universe completely, and I find that awfully convenient on your behalf.
I did not miss anything. Multiverse can logically apply only to the term observable universe, NOT the totality of existence.

Henry Reich defined the terms in the video:
Universe (capital U) that encompasses absolutely everything that exists (even all possible universes of any number of your so called multiverses).

universe (not capitalized) that is observable to us.

Do you accept these terms as explained by Henry Reich? Yes or no?

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95075 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not miss anything. Multiverse can logically apply only to the term observable universe, NOT the totality of existence.
Henry Reich defined the terms in the video:
Universe (capital U) that encompasses absolutely everything that exists (even all possible universes of any number of your so called multiverses).
universe (not capitalized) that is observable to us.
Do you accept these terms as explained by Henry Reich? Yes or no?
No, I accept it that you aren't saying the same thing he is ,
and that cosmology and astrophysics don't say the same thing you do. He explains observable vs entire here(note there is no distinction between U and u).

https://plus.google.com/114328975933589556247...

Accept the fact there could be more of them. You know plural
Universe's
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95076 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>I did not miss anything. Multiverse can logically apply only to the term observable universe, NOT the totality of existence.

Henry Reich defined the terms in the video:
Universe (capital U) that encompasses absolutely everything that exists (even all possible universes of any number of your so called multiverses).

universe (not capitalized) that is observable to us.

Do you accept these terms as explained by Henry Reich? Yes or no?
Only if you point out this is a new definition that science now needs to use because they are unable to come up with a new word for their new ideas.
The word universe NEVER needed to capitalized in the past to mean what it was first penned to mean.

"The Universe is defined as the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95077 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No that isn't what we were talking about, we were talking about an entirely disconnected reality separate from this universe.
Some people have a problem with this concept.
We can not even see all of this universe as a whole so thinking there is anything beyond it is all just speculation.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is everything we can observe and beyond.
Which is observable Universe and it will always be finite(limited: having an end or limit) "what we can see"

The Universe as a whole which may be may be infinite(not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits) "the beyond"
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Then there is the possibility there are more of them. Aside from the fact the U or u has exactly the same meaning.
More of them is just a speculation.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95078 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Aside from the fact the U or u has exactly the same meaning.
The only difference I know about the spelling is - Universe capitalized = proper noun. universe not capitalized = common noun.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95079 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
We can not even see all of this universe as a whole so thinking there is anything beyond it is all just speculation.
<quoted text>
Which is observable Universe and it will always be finite(limited: having an end or limit) "what we can see"
The Universe as a whole which may be may be infinite(not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits) "the beyond"
<quoted text>
More of them is just a speculation.
No shit, I did say it was a concept, one exactly like what is beyond the observable universe in THIS one. More speculation and isn't any different. But there is evidence of a separate universe also. So it isn't blind speculation it is hypothesis that has a prediction that has been thought to be found in several ways.

“A belief is formed personally.”

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Not forced.

#95080 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
No shit, I did say it was a concept, one exactly like what is beyond the observable universe in THIS one. More speculation and isn't any different. But there is evidence of a separate universe also. So it isn't blind speculation it is hypothesis that has a prediction that has been thought to be found in several ways.
I guess I missed that class. What evidence do we have that there may be a separate universe?

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95081 Jul 7, 2013
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I missed that class. What evidence do we have that there may be a separate universe?

Dark Flow and the disbursement and distribution of matter is not even as it should be, This was predicted to be found by a few physicists. Then data gathered by the Planck spacecraft shows anomalies that can be explained by gravitational pull outside this universe. as they predicted. It's not much but it is enough for them to call it evidence. Whether or not it is so many are calling the dark flow evidence of something outside our universe affecting it.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#95082 Jul 7, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If you take some time and read the lit, the last 2 major USGS studies concluded it shows no sign of an overthrust, so take it up with those folks. No retreat here, it all sits on a thin veneer of shale, no fracturing at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95083 Jul 7, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take some time and read the lit, the last 2 major USGS studies concluded it shows no sign of an overthrust, so take it up with those folks. No retreat here, it all sits on a thin veneer of shale, no fracturing at all.
I am sure that you misread the article. The boundary of an overthrust can be small, but it is noticeable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95084 Jul 7, 2013
And SBT, please link the articles you are talking about.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#95085 Jul 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And SBT, please link the articles you are talking about.
He did if you took time to look back at his comment. Need someone to read it for you too?

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95086 Jul 7, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
He did if you took time to look back at his comment. Need someone to read it for you too?
http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/grca/...

This is talking about the grand canyon.

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
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 4 min Old Sam 5,876
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 7 min Old Sam 16,879
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 9 min Old Sam 32,279
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 9 min SUG here 35,668
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 9 min beatlesinthebog 22,237
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 10 min Old Sam 12,814
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 11 min Old Sam 83,179
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 33 min Gunthram 207,209
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 50 min 8541 MARINE 67,268
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Majority should rule 2,480
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr beatlesinthebog 10,652
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 5 hr Lelouch0 1,525
More from around the web