Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223366 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.

deutscher Stolz

Bissendorf, Germany

#114615 Jun 18, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
And why exactly do you "hate Hitler and the Nazis"?
Because they LOST, right?
Because they killed innocent Germans. They killed Jewish Germans, gay Germans,...
They destroyed a lot of German culture.

I am glad that the Nazis lost WW2. I don't want to grow up in a Nazi dictatorship.
Germany had to win WW1. Then the world would be much nicer today. Besides WW2 caused by Brits and French would never happened.
We would force Britain and France to give up their colonies. No one has the right to invade other innocent countries and to suppress its people.

Brits always invaded weak innocent countries like India to exploit them. We only invaded criminal countries (France for example) that invaded and exploited innocent weak countries.
Sheriff Joe

New Smyrna Beach, FL

#114616 Jun 18, 2014
Evolution is man-made, and creation was done by God. I'm sticking with God.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114617 Jun 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Our intelligence, such as it is, is a product of natural forces. So, in that sense, the universe is capable of producing intelligence. That does not mean the universe itself is intelligent, however.
Ok, lets try a little math here: simple substitution will suffice.

"X" intelligence, such as it is, is a product of "Polymath". So, in that sense, "Polymath" is capable of producing intelligence. That does not mean the "Polymath" him/herself is intelligent, however.

Could you bring yourself to accept the statement as I have rephrased it?

Because if you can answer yes to that question; you are probably right.

Only something totally dumb would produce an entity such as yourself (i.e. if you say yes).

*Puffs cigarette*

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114618 Jun 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientist was previously known to show intelligence. Creating the AI system isn't any further proof of that.
And, you have yet to show there *was* a scientist that created the life in the universe.
He he he he he.

Great.

Now:

Does an X who creates an artificially intelligent system show signs of being intelligent?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#114619 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the difference between 'smart' and 'intelligent'
And no I am not smart. I am a genious for non-Germans but for Germans I am just average.
Genius my German genious is more effectively pronounced by others than ones self.
I can claim to be such a bad ass, but it means nothing when I do.
However when everybody else says it, "Oh he is a real bad ass" , well then that means everything. You are making the same mistake many Americans do when they say things like...
America is the greatest country in the world.
Now you can be intelligent and without wisdom, and be book smart without common sense. You can be genius without wisdom and America can be great without a genius saying it. Wisdom tells me Germans can be genius, and America can be great, but neither you or I have anything to do with it. It means more me saying Germans are genius, and you telling me America is great.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114620 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Does a scientist who creates an artificially intelligent system show signs of being intelligent?
polymath257 wrote:
The scientist was previously known to show intelligence. Creating the AI system isn't any further proof of that.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Does the universe have the capacity to behave intelligently or demonstrate elements of behavior similar to those observable in intelligent behavior?
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the answer is a clear NO.
So the universe creates an intelligent being, yet the universe is not intelligent.

But then an intelligent being that the unintelligent universe created demonstrates intelligence by creating intelligence...

My oh my, you seem to be right.

An intelligent universe would have no part of you.

You win!!!

*puffs cigarette and smirks*

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#114621 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the difference between 'smart' and 'intelligent'
And no I am not smart. I am a genious for non-Germans but for Germans I am just average.
Btw ...you may want to read this. Or not.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114622 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:

If X generates Y and Y is intelligent;
What is more rational to assume:
a) X is intelligent
b) X is not intelligent
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends a lot on what you mean by the word 'generates'...
"gen·er·ate verb \&#712;je-n&#601;- &#716;r&#257;t\
: to produce (something) or cause (something) to be produced

: to be the cause of or reason for..."
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/generate]
polymath257 wrote:
For example, it is likely that something that gives birth to an intelligent individual shows intelligence since intelligence is, in part, hereditary...

On the other hand, the only species with intelligence we know of (us...possibly elephants and dolphins and chimps if you extend the idea a bit) was 'generated' by non-intelligent processes.
In other words you would rather play dodge-ball?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114624 Jun 18, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No
No
No
Yes
Now ante up, pooch.
"pow·er [pou-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
"ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."

potential:

"capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety."
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potent...

NOW:

1. Does power or potential exist?

2. Is it rational to assume that power or potential has a source?

3. Is it rational to describe the SOURCE of power or potential as "Almighty"?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114625 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Which demonstrates a presupposition that religion WILL NEVER have anything relevant to science.
Meanwhile falsification is an effective method of verification; therefore by disproving religious assumptions you can learn fact.
And they are what?
Trying to "keep those things out of science"?
LOL!!!!!
It is interesting that you mention "philosophy of your choice"; because you must admit in honesty that you espouse philosophies in science too: Realism and Determinism...
May I point out to you that THERE IS A THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
Did you know that one of the main individuals advocating that scientific claims should be falsifiable was a philosopher of science?
" Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the PURPOSE of science." [wikipedia.com]
<quoted text>
So whats your point exactly?
I do not need evolution theory to fail for God to work!!!!
You are absolutely free to introduce aspects of various religions if they can fit within a scientific framework. I believe there have been experiments to study the effects of prayer, for example.

What I mean by keeping religious beliefs out of science, I mean that if you believe something from your personal doctrine (say, about the age of the universe) and science provides evidence that contradicts that, if you try to block the scientific answer from being taught, you are using your religious beliefs to interfere with scientific progress. When you want the things taught to you by your religion to replace, circumvent or block scientific evidence, there is a problem.

I would also use the same argument against atheists. Richard Dawkins has every right to say that he does not believe in God as part of his personal philosophy. But the moment he says science says no God, then I question that because science does not say that. Science takes no position on the existence of God, for or against.

Yes, there is such a thing as the philosophy of science, what does that have to do with what we are discussing?

The point of quoting the clergy letter is to contravene the idea that Evolution is somehow in opposition to God or religious belief. There is no conflict in believing in God and accepting the scientific evidence for Evolution.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114626 Jun 18, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The universe possess mechanisms that can create intelligence.
So do information technology scientists.
The Dude wrote:
...And if it does then you crashed straight into the infinite regression fallacy.
No.

Something IS here, so there must be a beginning or starting point. You've tried that already and failed miserably.
The Dude wrote:
You are not presenting anything new here, but rather an extremely old philosophical (not evidence based) argument.
"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy..." [wikipedia.com]

"Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS[4](28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British[5] philosopher and professor ... He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science... Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification" [wikipedia]

Ok, so the philosophical nature of an argument automatically renders the argument invalid?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114627 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not need evolution theory to fail for God to work!!!!
Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Evolution or all of science?

To answer that, you need only answer this: Would you be OK if Evolution were replaced with a new mechanistic, naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that fit the available evidence?
deutscher Stolz

Bissendorf, Germany

#114628 Jun 18, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Btw ...you may want to read this. Or not.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
I am not a native speaker you idiot.

It's sad if a German native speaker is writing "Ihr seit" instead of "Ihr seid" but it isn't bad if a non-native Speaker is writing this.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114629 Jun 18, 2014
the HOG wrote:
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...Logic is purely a theoretical language, not a proof of existence in reality...
YOu do realize of course that your remarks are absolutely contrary to the people who "invented" science (for want of a better word)?

Your idea of science is as far removed from actual, credible science as religion is removed from... grade school.

STOP TALKING TO ME, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
deutscher Stolz

Bissendorf, Germany

#114630 Jun 18, 2014
Besides I never said that I am a genius. I am not a genius. I am a genius compared to non-Germans. That's a difference.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114631 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"pow·er [pou-er] Show IPA
noun
1.
"ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something."
potential:
"capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety."
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/potent...
NOW:
1. Does power or potential exist?
2. Is it rational to assume that power or potential has a source?
3. Is it rational to describe the SOURCE of power or potential as "Almighty"?
If you want.(shrug)

But your definitions are vague to say the least, and what you're offering also sounds like the idea that the universe itself is "God", or perhaps the universe itself is allegedly intelligent - essentially forms of deism. Which is again, useless metaphorical non-explanatory philosophical twaddle. But hey, if that's what does it for ya.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114632 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So do information technology scientists.
Sure.

They can make babies. Like most other people.

But actual artificial intelligence I dispute has ever really been achieved.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
No.
Something IS here, so there must be a beginning or starting point. You've tried that already and failed miserably.
No, I have not failed at all. You've failed since the start as all you can do is rehash philosophical bollox that goes back literally centuries to millenia. Our universe apparently had a starting point. We do not yet know whether anything stretched on into infinity "before" that. Your position is everything "must" have a cause, except for your "God". Because of course fundies always require exceptions for their position. I accept the possibility of a "God", but propose that the definition is too ill defined for objective investigation.

So what I'm saying here is that while it MAY be possible that your "God" does not require a cause, and MAYBE could be infinite (as most fundies claim) it is ALSO possible that:

1 - it doesn't exist.

2 - Something like it exists but also required a cause. Leading to something else that is NOT God that didn't require a cause, or there was an infinite string of causes meaning there never was "ONE true God".

But simple fact of the matter is that it's still no more valid than Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy..." [wikipedia.com]
"Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS[4](28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British[5] philosopher and professor ... He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science... Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification" [wikipedia]
So we agree that Popper, in later life, didn't quite stand with you on your position.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Ok, so the philosophical nature of an argument automatically renders the argument invalid?
If it can't be changed into something empirical? YES.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114633 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
YOu do realize of course that your remarks are absolutely contrary to the people who "invented" science (for want of a better word)?
Your idea of science is as far removed from actual, credible science as religion is removed from... grade school.
STOP TALKING TO ME, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Somebody wanna remind Hogwarts of Poly's actual credentials again?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114634 Jun 18, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural forces? I take it you have evidence for this.. I'm all ears. Please explain & with empirical evidence, not stories - which natural forces (gravity?) and how. A pathway from non-intelligence to intelligence would be nice. This is going going to be just great. Make my day.
Well yeah, every single life form on the entire planet is the result of natural forces. And this is observed EVERY FRIKKING DAY.

But by all means, go ahead and provide us with evidence of just ONE lifeform that was magically poofed into existence by a magical Jew wizard.

Take your time.

As usual.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#114635 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a native speaker you idiot.
It's sad if a German native speaker is writing "Ihr seit" instead of "Ihr seid" but it isn't bad if a non-native Speaker is writing this.

Actually you aren't even worth consideration, so feel privileged.

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
News 'It's just really strange': Who is beheading th... 15 min test 6
what bothers you the most (Jun '13) 25 min gouphi 838
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 34 min wichita-rick 230,100
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 35 min gouphi 34,772
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 43 min Flipped Mike Cohen 7,934
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 45 min Princess Hey 6,568
What ?? are you thinking about NOW? 2014 (Jun '14) 51 min gouphi 695
In honor of princess hey (Apr '14) 1 hr Princess Hey 292