Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209793 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114120 Jun 13, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have to do is research the act.
Start with these two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperc...
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php...
That was not the "stealing of German technology". I knew about that. I was waiting to see if Stolz could come up with anything. Operation Paperclip was simply us giving jobs to many German scientists. It kept them out of Soviet hands and served to lessen the ability of Germans to rearm with modern technology. And when you look at Germany's history that was not an unreasonable thing to do.
deutscher Stolz

Visbek, Germany

#114121 Jun 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The humor is beyond you. He points out rather wryly that the German language attaches gender to objects that should not have a gender applied to them. In English almost all objects are gender neutral. There is no "she nose" there is no "he nose" there is only a nose. If German was sensible a man would have a "he nose" and a female would have a "she nose" Instead everyone has a "she nose". For some weird reason German's give the nose a female gender. Again, in English it is neutral.
One good thing about the so called irregularity of the English language is that we do not apply gender to objects that have no gender since the various root languages of English tend to disagree on what gender objects such as eyes, noses, legs, potatoes, fish etc. have.
All Indoeuropean languages are doing this.
For example. The table is masculine in French.
La table

In English the sun is masculine and ships are feminine. Ship in German is neuter (das Schiff).
Besides 'the grammar gender' and 'the biological gender' are two different things.
The grammatical gender is used two classified nouns in two or more Groups. This makes the language more flexible. For instance:
"I bought a knife and a fork. It was very expensive"
In German
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer".
In English you don't know if you are refering to the knife or to the fork. In German you know it because of the grammatical gender. Of course it doesn't work if both nouns have the same gender but it often works randomly, so you can use pronouns more flexible in longer texts.
deutscher Stolz

Visbek, Germany

#114122 Jun 13, 2014
Sorry I meant the table is feminine in French (not masculine)
wondering

Morris, OK

#114123 Jun 13, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
All Indoeuropean languages are doing this.
For example. The table is masculine in French.
La table
In English the sun is masculine and ships are feminine. Ship in German is neuter (das Schiff).
Besides 'the grammar gender' and 'the biological gender' are two different things.
The grammatical gender is used two classified nouns in two or more Groups. This makes the language more flexible. For instance:
"I bought a knife and a fork. It was very expensive"
In German
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer".
In English you don't know if you are refering to the knife or to the fork. In German you know it because of the grammatical gender. Of course it doesn't work if both nouns have the same gender but it often works randomly, so you can use pronouns more flexible in longer texts.
for starters you do not know english very well. we would not say " i bought a knife and a fork. it was very expensive". we would say " i bought a knife and a fork. they were very expensive". we would refer to them both with "they' being we are talking about both in the price.
wondering

Morris, OK

#114125 Jun 13, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
All Indoeuropean languages are doing this.
For example. The table is masculine in French.
La table
In English the sun is masculine and ships are feminine. Ship in German is neuter (das Schiff).
Besides 'the grammar gender' and 'the biological gender' are two different things.
The grammatical gender is used two classified nouns in two or more Groups. This makes the language more flexible. For instance:
"I bought a knife and a fork. It was very expensive"
In German
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer".
In English you don't know if you are refering to the knife or to the fork. In German you know it because of the grammatical gender. Of course it doesn't work if both nouns have the same gender but it often works randomly, so you can use pronouns more flexible in longer texts.
just wondering but what does this translate to in english "Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer".
deutscher Stolz

Visbek, Germany

#114126 Jun 13, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
for starters you do not know english very well. we would not say " i bought a knife and a fork. it was very expensive". we would say " i bought a knife and a fork. they were very expensive". we would refer to them both with "they' being we are talking about both in the price.
No. Actually I wanted to say.
"I bought a knife and a fork. The fork was very expensive".

In English I can't replace the fork with the pronoun. In German it is possible because of the gender.
The fork (die Gabel) is feminine in German. The pronoun would be "sie". The knife (das Messer) is neuter in German. The pronoun would be "es".
So the meaning of "Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer" would be in Englisch "I bought a knife and a fork. The fork was very expensive"
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Es war sehr teuer" would be in Englisch
"I bought a knife and a fork. The knife was very expensive"

You can't replace the knife or the fork with 'it' because it's ambigous.
If you are refering to both you say in German

"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie waren sehr teuer"
Now you see that you are refering to both because of the Pluralform of 'sein'('waren' instead of 'war')
Of course I know that this would be "I bought a knife and a fork. They were very expensive"
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114127 Jun 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The humor is beyond you. He points out rather wryly that the German language attaches gender to objects that should not have a gender applied to them. In English almost all objects are gender neutral. There is no "she nose" there is no "he nose" there is only a nose. If German was sensible a man would have a "he nose" and a female would have a "she nose" Instead everyone has a "she nose". For some weird reason German's give the nose a female gender. Again, in English it is neutral.
One good thing about the so called irregularity of the English language is that we do not apply gender to objects that have no gender since the various root languages of English tend to disagree on what gender objects such as eyes, noses, legs, potatoes, fish etc. have.
Actually, the loss of grammatical gender and of case system already was going on in the Anglo-Saxon era. The same pertaining the loss of conjugation of verbs.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#114128 Jun 13, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Actually I wanted to say.
"I bought a knife and a fork. The fork was very expensive".
In English I can't replace the fork with the pronoun. In German it is possible because of the gender.
The fork (die Gabel) is feminine in German. The pronoun would be "sie". The knife (das Messer) is neuter in German. The pronoun would be "es".
So the meaning of "Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer" would be in Englisch "I bought a knife and a fork. The fork was very expensive"
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Es war sehr teuer" would be in Englisch
"I bought a knife and a fork. The knife was very expensive"
You can't replace the knife or the fork with 'it' because it's ambigous.
If you are refering to both you say in German
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie waren sehr teuer"
Now you see that you are refering to both because of the Pluralform of 'sein'('waren' instead of 'war')
Of course I know that this would be "I bought a knife and a fork. They were very expensive"
Interesting, you should see what I can do with just my thumb.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114129 Jun 13, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
All Indoeuropean languages are doing this.
For example. The table is masculine in French.
La table
In English the sun is masculine and ships are feminine. Ship in German is neuter (das Schiff).
Besides 'the grammar gender' and 'the biological gender' are two different things.
The grammatical gender is used two classified nouns in two or more Groups. This makes the language more flexible. For instance:
"I bought a knife and a fork. It was very expensive"
In German
"Ich kaufte ein Messer und eine Gabel. Sie war sehr teuer".
In English you don't know if you are refering to the knife or to the fork. In German you know it because of the grammatical gender. Of course it doesn't work if both nouns have the same gender but it often works randomly, so you can use pronouns more flexible in longer texts.
No, in English the Sun is just the Sun. No gender applies. The calling of ships "she" by captains is an affectation. In proper English again no gender applies.

And your example is rather poor since tableware is usually the same per piece, at least for pieces that do not have to do a "bigger job" such as a serving spoon. A fork, spoon, and typical butter knife will all have the same cost. But I get your point. Rarely it can be useful. The problem arises when someone from another country misapplies the various genders since they are different in his language. It should be fairly logical that a nose should not have a gender. Nor should a knife or fork. A tomcat should never be a "she". A tomcat is always a he since he does have a gender and his gender is male.

Mark Twain's work was hilarious because he translated the genders of articles literally.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114130 Jun 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the loss of grammatical gender and of case system already was going on in the Anglo-Saxon era. The same pertaining the loss of conjugation of verbs.
It makes sense that they would disappear together. Is there a known reason why genders were dropped?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114131 Jun 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes sense that they would disappear together. Is there a known reason why genders were dropped?
No need to answer. Google is my friend. Several articles support your claim and it seems that the most likely reason that they were dropped is because of the mixing of languages that made English. Here is a short article that supports that idea:

http://blog.dictionary.com/oldenglishgender/
barefoot2626

Colby, KS

#114132 Jun 13, 2014
Whites were created

blacks evolved,just not very far.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114133 Jun 14, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not the "stealing of German technology". I knew about that. I was waiting to see if Stolz could come up with anything. Operation Paperclip was simply us giving jobs to many German scientists. It kept them out of Soviet hands and served to lessen the ability of Germans to rearm with modern technology. And when you look at Germany's history that was not an unreasonable thing to do.
You need to use your friend Google and do more reading my little friend. Denial will get you nowhere. There are 1000's of credible links to read.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114134 Jun 14, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
Whites were created
blacks evolved,just not very far.
You are a freaking IDIOT!!! People like you are one of the major problems in the world.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#114135 Jun 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You are only justified if you can provide evidence of your claims. So far you can't.
I have already suggested that the nature of "God" is such that He can only be examined logically. But you already know that from your familiarity with "dark matter".

Furthermore, you and I both know the nature of "evidence" for anything at all.
... any piece of evidence will make it possible to conclude both for and against an idea etc.

It is the equity in your justification as it relates to the evidence that makes you claim valid or invalid...

In a sense, evidence never proves anything; it helps to support or justify your claim.

For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever that God will come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him; and you do see what appears to be a being come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him.

Would you believe that it was God?

Personally, that wouldnt be enough to convince me that that particular event which I read of is the actual event transpiring before me... It could be an extraterrestrial...
The Dude wrote:
Oh, and then you have the infinite regression fallacy to deal with.
And I have already suggested that the concept of infinite regress does not apply to "Jehovah"; as it is assumed that He/It is eternal.

That which is eternal has no beginning nor end; and would be INDEPENDENT OF A CAUSE as such.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114136 Jun 14, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already suggested that the nature of "God" is such that He can only be examined logically. But you already know that from your familiarity with "dark matter".
Furthermore, you and I both know the nature of "evidence" for anything at all.
... any piece of evidence will make it possible to conclude both for and against an idea etc.
It is the equity in your justification as it relates to the evidence that makes you claim valid or invalid...
In a sense, evidence never proves anything; it helps to support or justify your claim.
For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever that God will come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him; and you do see what appears to be a being come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him.
Would you believe that it was God?
Personally, that wouldnt be enough to convince me that that particular event which I read of is the actual event transpiring before me... It could be an extraterrestrial...
<quoted text>
And I have already suggested that the concept of infinite regress does not apply to "Jehovah"; as it is assumed that He/It is eternal.
That which is eternal has no beginning nor end; and would be INDEPENDENT OF A CAUSE as such.
I think you are confusing the Devil with God. God will not return riding on a horse. The verse is Revelation 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114137 Jun 14, 2014
The whole verse goes:
King James Bible. Revelation 6:8
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Now either you are confusing God and the Devil or you are saying God is death, will bring hell with him and will give power to a 1/4 of the people on earth to to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Now that is not a God I want to believe in.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#114140 Jun 14, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are confusing the Devil with God. God will not return riding on a horse. The verse is Revelation 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."
I think you are dyslexic. I see the word "suppose" in that line of the post.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#114141 Jun 14, 2014
[QUOTE who="The Hand of God (with frustration)"]
For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever...
[/QUOTE]
replaytime wrote:
... Now either you are confusing God and the Devil or you are saying God is death, will bring hell with him and will give power to a 1/4 of the people on earth to to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Now that is not a God I want to believe in.
Now you are a person that I dont need to speak with anymore.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114142 Jun 14, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now you are a person that I dont need to speak with anymore.
Booyah!!! Later then. The verse, Revelation 6:8 says what it says.

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 min wichita-rick 20,569
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 3 min Princess Hey 147,219
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '15) 5 min Old Sam 176
Word Association (Mar '10) 6 min wichita-rick 21,301
A six word game (Dec '08) 6 min Judy 123 20,152
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 6 min Did Not 16,526
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 6 min Old Sam 2,862
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min xxxooxxx 200,907
Philly grey poster hangout 18 min Spotted Girl 54
News Clinton's name spelled wrong on Hofstra Univers... 21 min Spotted Girl 56
2words into 2new words (May '12) 33 min Old Sam 5,104
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 42 min Top Picks HQs 61,533
More from around the web