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

St. Croix valley

#107352 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, like I said, I'm pretty sure it happened and am not interested in debating it. I've never bothered to read up on it because what relevance does it have to my life?
yeah, again the fact that you are "pretty sure" means you don't seem to be able to use logic to figure out that of course it did happen...

doesn't lend much credibility to anything you say after that, does it...kind of like saying you believe in bigfoot or the full moon makes people act weird...
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107353 Dec 5, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The amount of people and resources needed to replicate existing studies would be staggering. I imagine it would halt our current progress just to embark on such a task. Not only does it require people, but they must be educated and trained in the fields they would be working in. How would you evaluate the quality of the work that results from such an enterprise? Considering the volume of work that has been conducted over the last 10 years, let alone 200, it isn't reasonable that any one person could evaluate this or insist it be done.
So, like I said, maybe a couple of people, or something.

Scientists like to claim that science is as close to the truth as you can possibly get because research is performed openly and other people are free to repeat that research and expose any mistakes or frauds.

Sounds great but, as you point out, nobody has the time or inclination to do it. Just because you publish openly doesn't mean anyone else will ever try to repeat your experiment. So you end up with a tiny number of good, useful results, swamped in a sea of suspect research. And there isn't even an appetite to try to reverse the trend.
muffy

Glasgow, UK

#107354 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah, again the fact that you are "pretty sure" means you don't seem to be able to use logic to figure out that of course it did happen...
doesn't lend much credibility to anything you say after that, does it...kind of like saying you believe in bigfoot or the full moon makes people act weird...
No, it means I've never examined the evidence. I've never spoken to anyone involved in the space programme, I've never read a book about it, I've only seen scratchy black and white clips that looked convincing to me but I'm no videography expert either. My working hypothesis is that we landed on the moon, but as I have very little data to base my opinion on, why would I say that I'm 100% convinced? Why is it such a big deal that I don't have a really strong opinion on something that I've not spent much time thinking about? It's like asking what I think about house prices in Ukraine - I don't know and I don't care.

I don't think there's a bigfoot (there might be) and I don't know if a full moon makes people act weird, although I'm sure there are people that act weird when there's a full moon (correlation != causation).

I'm having quite a nice time talking about things I don't usually talk about on here. I get the sense that you'd like me to feel uncomfortable and leave, so you're seeking to attack my credibility instead of just ignoring me or have a civil discussion. That's fine.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107355 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it means I've never examined the evidence. I've never spoken to anyone involved in the space programme, I've never read a book about it, I've only seen scratchy black and white clips that looked convincing to me but I'm no videography expert either. My working hypothesis is that we landed on the moon, but as I have very little data to base my opinion on, why would I say that I'm 100% convinced? Why is it such a big deal that I don't have a really strong opinion on something that I've not spent much time thinking about? It's like asking what I think about house prices in Ukraine - I don't know and I don't care.
I don't think there's a bigfoot (there might be) and I don't know if a full moon makes people act weird, although I'm sure there are people that act weird when there's a full moon (correlation != causation).
I'm having quite a nice time talking about things I don't usually talk about on here. I get the sense that you'd like me to feel uncomfortable and leave, so you're seeking to attack my credibility instead of just ignoring me or have a civil discussion. That's fine.
you brought up the moon landing topic...

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#107356 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And a peer reviewed article is only the first step in making sure that something is correct.
A new idea has to go through a barrage of different tests before it is accepted.
By the time you see an idea taught in public schools it has probably been tested hundreds of times. Creationists don't want to do that. They want to go straight from untested idea to being accepted in schools. That is not going to happen.
Dear subduction zone, according to you an idea taught in public schools has been tested hundreds of times? The untested idea that life arose from primordial seas has been, and is being taught in public schools! This is exactly what you accuse creationists of wanting to do! You just want your religion to be the exclusive one.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107357 Dec 5, 2013
muffy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it means I've never examined the evidence. I've never spoken to anyone involved in the space programme, I've never read a book about it, I've only seen scratchy black and white clips that looked convincing to me but I'm no videography expert either. My working hypothesis is that we landed on the moon, but as I have very little data to base my opinion on, why would I say that I'm 100% convinced? Why is it such a big deal that I don't have a really strong opinion on something that I've not spent much time thinking about? It's like asking what I think about house prices in Ukraine - I don't know and I don't care.
I don't think there's a bigfoot (there might be) and I don't know if a full moon makes people act weird, although I'm sure there are people that act weird when there's a full moon (correlation != causation).
I'm having quite a nice time talking about things I don't usually talk about on here. I get the sense that you'd like me to feel uncomfortable and leave, so you're seeking to attack my credibility instead of just ignoring me or have a civil discussion. That's fine.
You don't have to be much of a videographer to know the Moon landing was real. All you need is a little knowledge of physics and some experience driving cars on gravel roads in the middle of the summer.

If you ever watch the lunar rover you will see its wheels throw up a mixture of soil that falls just as fast as it rises. If you ever drove on a gravel road you would know that the fine dust tends to hang in the air while the coarser pieces quickly fall. We do not see any suspension of dust in any videos. That indicates that it is a vacuum where all particles rise and fall just as fast. It is not possible to make a vacuum chamber large enough for a lunar rover even today. And as far as "faking it" that sort of technology, to replicate dust movement, was not possible until very very lately with very intricate computer modeling that was not possible 40 years ago.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107358 Dec 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear subduction zone, according to you an idea taught in public schools has been tested hundreds of times? The untested idea that life arose from primordial seas has been, and is being taught in public schools! This is exactly what you accuse creationists of wanting to do! You just want your religion to be the exclusive one.
Let's see a quote from a textbook on abiogenesis, which is what you are obviously talking about. In any decent textbook it would mention the hypothetical nature of abiogenesis.

The rest of evolution has been tested hundreds to thousands of times and found to be correct.

Poor boahrt, he still does not realize that abiogenesis is not evolution. He probably never will.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107359 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be much of a videographer to know the Moon landing was real. All you need is a little knowledge of physics and some experience driving cars on gravel roads in the middle of the summer.
If you ever watch the lunar rover you will see its wheels throw up a mixture of soil that falls just as fast as it rises. If you ever drove on a gravel road you would know that the fine dust tends to hang in the air while the coarser pieces quickly fall. We do not see any suspension of dust in any videos. That indicates that it is a vacuum where all particles rise and fall just as fast. It is not possible to make a vacuum chamber large enough for a lunar rover even today. And as far as "faking it" that sort of technology, to replicate dust movement, was not possible until very very lately with very intricate computer modeling that was not possible 40 years ago.
that and just acknowledging the fact that the soviets (and others..) would have been able to tell if the transmissions were coming from the moon or not...

why would the Soviets be in on this scam?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107360 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text> that and just acknowledging the fact that the soviets (and others..) would have been able to tell if the transmissions were coming from the moon or not...
why would the Soviets be in on this scam?
That only shows how deep the conspiracy is <shift eyes>

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#107361 Dec 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear subduction zone, according to you an idea taught in public schools has been tested hundreds of times? The untested idea that life arose from primordial seas has been, and is being taught in public schools! This is exactly what you accuse creationists of wanting to do! You just want your religion to be the exclusive one.
Life did rise on primordial Earth, must likely in the sea. What's the problem here?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#107362 Dec 5, 2013
Extreme Ways wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Was Zimmerman a cop? NO
2. Was Zimmerman protecting his own property? NO
3. Was Zimmerman told by 911 not to follow? YES
4. Did Zimmerman listen to 911? NO
5. Was Zimmerman advised by 911 not to confront the person? YES
6. Did Trevon fight back? YES
7. Was Zimmerman in a fight he was told not to do? YES
8. Was Zimmerman getting his butt kicked? YES
9. Was Trevon armed? NO
10. Was Trevon breaking the law? NO
11. Did Zimmerman go against what he was told by 911? YES
12. Did Zimmerman panic because he was getting his butt kicked? YES
13. Did Zimmerman put himself in danger? YES
14. Did Trevon have the right to defend himself? YES
15. Should Zimmerman listened to what 911 told him? YES
16. Did Zimmerman panic while getting his butt kicked? YES
17. Did Zimmerman start it when confronting Trevon? Yes
18. Did Zimmerman have a choice of waiting for police? YES
19. Did Zimmerman wait for police? NO
20. Did Zimmerman shoot and kill Trevon? YES
21. Could it have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to 911? Yes
22. If Zimmerman would have done what he was told by 911 would Trevor have been killed? NO
Imagine if it was a little white girl, or even a younger white guy in martin's position. The prosecution would have a field day. "Obviously this young woman was terrified by the dark figure following her in the shadows, it was her right to defend herself."
But since it's a young black kid, he's automatically up to no good, and automatically has no right to be scared of the psychotic wannabe cop stalking him.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107363 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That only shows how deep the conspiracy is <shift eyes>
Holy swiss cheese, Batman, you're right!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107364 Dec 5, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Imagine if it was a little white girl, or even a younger white guy in martin's position. The prosecution would have a field day. "Obviously this young woman was terrified by the dark figure following her in the shadows, it was her right to defend herself."
But since it's a young black kid, he's automatically up to no good, and automatically has no right to be scared of the psychotic wannabe cop stalking him.
You forgot why Zimmerman was following Martin in the first place.

Plus it is highly doubtful that a little girl would double back and attack his stalker.

Before making foolish hypotheticals make sure that they fit the topic.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107365 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot why Zimmerman was following Martin in the first place.
Plus it is highly doubtful that a little girl would double back and attack his stalker.
Before making foolish hypotheticals make sure that they fit the topic.
yes, why was he follwing martin? Martin had done nothing illegal or even suspicious...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107366 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, why was he follwing martin? Martin had done nothing illegal or even suspicious...
Supposedly his behavior was suspicious. We can't say since we weren't there, but the area had been hit by quite a few burglaries.

Again, I am not saying that Zimmerman was an angel. but the evidence did support his story.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107367 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Supposedly his behavior was suspicious. We can't say since we weren't there, but the area had been hit by quite a few burglaries.
Again, I am not saying that Zimmerman was an angel. but the evidence did support his story.
what would make you say his behavior was suspicious? he was walking home from the store.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107368 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Supposedly his behavior was suspicious. We can't say since we weren't there, but the area had been hit by quite a few burglaries.
Again, I am not saying that Zimmerman was an angel. but the evidence did support his story.
no there was absolutely not one shred of evidence that Martin was doing anything suspicious.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#107369 Dec 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>no there was absolutely not one shred of evidence that Martin was doing anything suspicious.
On whether or not Martin was doing anything suspicious all we have is Zimmerman's statement where he stated that he was just walking in the rain. In Zimmerman's opinion, which I will admit without bias, the way that Martin was walking through the neighborhood on a cold rainy day did not make much sense. Personally if it is cold and rainy out I tend to go quickly to and from my goal. Perhaps that is what he saw.

Zimmerman may have been a wanna be cop, but that does not mean Martin had a legal right to attack him.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107370 Dec 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
On whether or not Martin was doing anything suspicious all we have is Zimmerman's statement where he stated that he was just walking in the rain. In Zimmerman's opinion, which I will admit without bias, the way that Martin was walking through the neighborhood on a cold rainy day did not make much sense. Personally if it is cold and rainy out I tend to go quickly to and from my goal. Perhaps that is what he saw.
Zimmerman may have been a wanna be cop, but that does not mean Martin had a legal right to attack him.
do the science, if martin was really smashing his head against teh concrete Zimmerman wouldn't be here. what is the force needed to crush the human skull, you don't think martin could have generated that force? i know i could and i go a buck sixty-five and 5'-10"....

how is walking in the rain suspicious?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#107371 Dec 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I see.
From which branch or department of the English government did YOU receive your permission to (mis)use the English language?
Do you pay the English government by mail? Or electronically?
Holy shit... is idemi really still going on about the english language? It's been about a year... wow.

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
topix.com describe in one word (Apr '13) 9 min Princess Hey 142
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 22 min Truths 29,498
True or False Game 22 min SLY WEST 383
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 23 min Truths 1,385
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min wichita-rick 148,969
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 29 min SLY WEST 6,831
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 31 min wichita-rick 1,884
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 1 hr SLY WEST 32
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 1 hr -Lea- 37
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr -Lea- 22,231

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE