• Sections
Evolution vs. Creation

# Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223359 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.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113977 Jun 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
Can't rule out what doesn't exist.(shrug)
Did the universe or our children born by us came by accident, MR. sg. SHRUG?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113978 Jun 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It is your headache, if the so called spaghetti monster is your creator, it does ' nt change facts from lies or opinions.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113979 Jun 12, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
:-/
Open your eyes if it is closed.
THE LONE WORKER
#113980 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand the problem.
It is difficult for me to explain this in English but I try it.
Let us assume you have 2^2=4 grand-parents.
Does it mean that you have 2^3=8 grand-grand-parents?
No.
For example you can only have 6 grand-grand-parents in the following way.
I denote the grand-grand-parents with C1 to C6 (C1, C3, C5 are masculine) and the grandparents with B1 to B4 (B1 and B3 are masculine).
C1 and C2 get B1. C3 and C4 get B2. C5 and C6 get B3.
It is also possible that C1 and C2 get B4 as a second child.
ok B1 and B4 are brother and sister, so because of incest they shouldn't get childs.
Now B1 gets with B2 your father and B3 with B4 your mother.
Maybe this isn't the case on that level but it is definite the case if you go back for 20 or more generations.
Since I don't know the exact relations between the persons I can't calculate the number of family members.
If there wouldn't be any overlap it would be 2^35 but this is definite not the case.
I ask you for a number of women involved in getting you here. Please give us a number, assuming you had a mother and your mother and father had a mother and they had mothers? I am only asking for 35 steps back. No side stepping please!

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#113981 Jun 12, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>"God" is an answer in the same way "Pork Chop" is an answer. Neither "answer" explains anything
Do you agree that we are just a visitor to this planet?
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113982 Jun 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume you meant to have delta(y-b) instead of delta(x-b). And do you want a particular boundary condition?
yes you are right I meant delta(y-b).
No I don't want a particular boundary condition.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#113983 Jun 12, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ich spreche fünf Sprachen.
Deutsch ist nur einer davon.
Pass gut auf was du sagst.
Du hattest es allerdings schon falsch um alle Leute hier Amerikaner zu nennen.
Dem das ohnehin zu hoch ist?
Ich unterrichte Soziobiologie auf einer Universität.
Wieder mal komplett geschlittert.
Du sollst deine Minderwertigkeitskomplex ein Bisschen ablegen.
Es macht dich einen kompletten Vollidioten und abscheulich dazu.
Nur Soziobiologe?
Kein Wunder, dass ich noch nichts Intelligentes von dir gehört habe.
Für mehr als so ein Schmalspurstudium reicht es wohl nicht.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113985 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
yes you are right I meant delta(y-b).
No I don't want a particular boundary condition.
In that case, let
k(x,y)=1/sqrt(2) if x=y>=0 nad k(x,y)=0 otherwise.
Let g(x) be any function.

Then f(x,y)=k(x-a,y-b)+g(x-y).

Your left hand side is simply the directional derivative in the (1,1) direction.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113986 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand the problem.
It is difficult for me to explain this in English but I try it.
Let us assume you have 2^2=4 grand-parents.
Does it mean that you have 2^3=8 grand-grand-parents?
No.
For example you can only have 6 grand-grand-parents in the following way.
I denote the grand-grand-parents with C1 to C6 (C1, C3, C5 are masculine) and the grandparents with B1 to B4 (B1 and B3 are masculine).
C1 and C2 get B1. C3 and C4 get B2. C5 and C6 get B3.
It is also possible that C1 and C2 get B4 as a second child.
ok B1 and B4 are brother and sister, so because of incest they shouldn't get childs.
Now B1 gets with B2 your father and B3 with B4 your mother.
Maybe this isn't the case on that level but it is definite the case if you go back for 20 or more generations.
Since I don't know the exact relations between the persons I can't calculate the number of family members.
If there wouldn't be any overlap it would be 2^35 but this is definite not the case.
Exactly, the binary tree going backwards is NOT a tree: there are common ancestors from different directions. As stated, the problem is unsolvable because we don't know what degree of consanguinity is allowed.

“Denny Crain”

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#113987 Jun 12, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, the binary tree going backwards is NOT a tree: there are common ancestors from different directions. As stated, the problem is unsolvable because we don't know what degree of consanguinity is allowed.
LOL For a dumb American that was great!

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#113988 Jun 12, 2014
Stuart Cudahy wrote:
This worldwide government is out of time. I hate tony abbot and harper. Yes I hate the fool who cannot see. We shall burn and flood. God does not wish it. Barak, frack me. Entropy asks us. 1 million souls. Stu
Well, we found Tinka's soulmate...
The Dude

#113989 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha
that doesn't make any sense
'Hitler Jugend' was an organization for the youth in Nazi Germany.
How can I be an organization?
Maybe you wanted to say
"He's a creepy little member of the Hitler Jugend, isn't he? LOL"
That's typical American. Just because I am a proud German I am not a Nazi.
Uh, actually you're splitting ends over grammar there. It may be bad grammar in German, but not in English. And no, it's not because he's American either.
The Dude

#113990 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok let us Count the German crimes.
1.'The genocide of the Hera'
Thats all.
WW1 and WW2 were caused by Britain, France and Poland and partly by Americans as I already said.
Now the crimes of Americans.
1. enslaving and killing of native Americans and blacks
2. WW1
3. WW2
4. Iraq
5. Afghanistan
6. Vietnam
7. exploitation of Germany after WW2
8. cruel human experiments
9. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
and so on
8.
Hey, I'm a Brit so if anything my country probably wins here. Move on.(shrug)

(except for the whole Jewish holocaust thing, that's definitely your fault)

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113991 Jun 12, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
But since I have not mentioned anything about a "supernatural being", nor does my suggestion require the involvement of the "supernatural"; there is no need for me to be concerned...
<quoted text>
I dont agree.
I have the behavior of the universe and all in it to show me what "Jehovah" is capable of.
<quoted text>
Actually, you are the one failing to distinguish and differentiate between what "God" is and is not (or may/may not be).
For example, there are two distinct concept of "God":
a) one conception is that (such as the one espoused by Greeks and Romans etc), "God" is a "supernatural being"; a somewhat Zeus-like character.
b) another conception (such as the one espoused by Muslim and Jews), is that "God" is the All Powerful (causing, determining all etc); and this is the attribute on which confidence or "faith" is structured.
<quoted text>
Dont be retarded.
Your ability to achieve success by intelligent structuring (whether of thoughts or physical things) proves that intelligent design exists and that it works.
The only question is whether or not intelligent behavior (or behavior that is equivalent to intelligent behavior) originated in the brain/mind.
This question leads us to another question which you may reject claiming that it is purely metaphysical and philosophical etc: though it is of great scientific value regardless of you disposition...
And that question is:
Why does intelligence work?
Intelligence does work (better for some than others, it seems) but asking "why" is too vague to succinctly address. Why is water "intelligent" enough to form a snowflake? Is a tree "intelligent" to reach toward sunlight? Is the Earth showing its intelligence by maintaining an orbit which can be described by complex formulas? Let's not beat around the bush. You attribute these things not to balancing natural effects, but to "intelligent" magic for which the root is a romantic belief in a bronze age codex... nothing more.

a) Zeus is a supernatural humanoid being. b) despite your careful wording, Jehovah aka "God" aka All Powerful is similarly a supernatural humanoid being. All evidence points to intelligence as being the product of a working biological brain. You attest to this by your own derogatory statement, "Don't be retarded." Even a cockroach is capable of some level of self awareness and intelligence. Intelligent behavior is not evidenced by supplicating to mythical supernatural creatures. In this, the cockroach is more sane than others, it seems.
The Dude

#113992 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagreed
Second it's not about evolution. It's just an ideological American discussion about Evolution vs Creationism
Creationism is totally nonsense. Every intelligent human would go to a scientific library and read specific literature if he wants to know something about evolution and not inform in an arbitrary forum with laymen.
Now I have a question for the Americans about evolution.
Why is homosexuality realized even though homosexuals can't reproduce themselves?
I am sure that this easy question already overcharge the Americans and many Americans would say that homosexuality isn't natural.
@Mike
if you don't want to solve my equation you can still prove your intelligence with this question.
btw the equation is a part (only a specific case for not making it too hard) of a specific modern population model based on evolution theory. you even didn't recognize that this had something to do with this topic.
Well those who claim homosexuality isn't natural are wrong. It's observed in nature, both in humans and animals. Ergo it's natural.

Maybe it's nature's answer to birth contol.(shrug)
The Dude

#113993 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't solve this equation because you are an American.
And you couldn't solve the Holocaust equation because you're a fundamentalist Nationalist.(shrug)

Not all equations are about mathematics...
The Dude

#113994 Jun 12, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
I agree.
But since I have not mentioned anything about a "supernatural being", nor does my suggestion require the involvement of the "supernatural"; there is no need for me to be concerned...
<quoted text>
I dont agree.
I have the behavior of the universe and all in it to show me what "Jehovah" is capable of.
<quoted text>
Actually, you are the one failing to distinguish and differentiate between what "God" is and is not (or may/may not be).
For example, there are two distinct concept of "God":
a) one conception is that (such as the one espoused by Greeks and Romans etc), "God" is a "supernatural being"; a somewhat Zeus-like character.
b) another conception (such as the one espoused by Muslim and Jews), is that "God" is the All Powerful (causing, determining all etc); and this is the attribute on which confidence or "faith" is structured.
Just one problem - your god fails at every definition just as much as Jupiter or Zeus does.

Can God create a rock it cannot lift? If so, it's not all-powerful. If not, it's not all-powerful.

Are you capable of free-will under the context of God? If so, then God is not all-powerful. If not, then God is not all-powerful. And then does God have free will? If so, then it is not all-powerful. If not, then it's not all-powerful.

Problem with the "God concept" is that no-one can produce a viable definition which is non-contradictory, objective, and capable of being tested empirically.

So until then your god is quite literally meaningless.

Besides, everyone knows that if an all-powerful entity DOES exist then it's the Flying Spaghetti Monster. RAMEN!
The Hand of God wrote:
Dont be retarded.
Your ability to achieve success by intelligent structuring (whether of thoughts or physical things) proves that intelligent design exists and that it works.
The only question is whether or not intelligent behavior (or behavior that is equivalent to intelligent behavior) originated in the brain/mind.
This question leads us to another question which you may reject claiming that it is purely metaphysical and philosophical etc: though it is of great scientific value regardless of you disposition...
And that question is:
Why does intelligence work?
Why shouldn't it? Lots of things work, intelligent and non-intelligent. The REAL question is, does intelligence require intelligence to create it? If it doesn't then your god is not required. If it does then your god was intelligently created by someone else who was intelligently created, who was also intelligently created, who... and you've just ran smack bang into the infinite regression problem.
The Dude

#113995 Jun 12, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Was I talking to you? You just have to defend the other praetorian guard members don't you? Don't speak unless spoken to you childish brainwashed idiot
Nice ad-hom. But no, you weren't talking to anyone. You were preaching while ignoring the fallacies of your own position.

As usual.(shrug)

Feel free to come back any time and refute me. There's a REASON why you can't.
The Dude

#113996 Jun 12, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by "we never claim all forces act randomly randomly"?
You never claim all forces act randomly random as opposed to what; "orderly random" or "random order"?
All TRULY random acting things will act randomly randomly at all times: thats what makes us call them random.
Intelligence is not the opposite of random: but inequity is the seed of madness and falsehood.
So you claim, but you're rambling nonsense.

Natural selection isn't random. Gravity isn't random. Why? Because these have predictable effects.

Now, if you want to claim there's an intelligence behind these mechanisms, then by all means go ahead. And then demonstrate such by providing the mechanisms AND evidence for them.

Otherwise your claims are no better than Zeus.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113997 Jun 12, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course Germans voted for the Nazis because they felt humiliated by France and Great (Little) Britain because of the treaty of Versaille and the occupation of the Rheinland. That are the main reasons for the vote for the Nazis and the second world war.
Boo hoo. You fought a war and lost. The consequences of that loss and the treaty ending the war made you sad. Too bad. That isn't a reason to bring in racist promoters of genocide.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.