Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222780 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

#114661 Jun 19, 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.
Pride!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114662 Jun 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And Jesus was God, son of the father. So I didn't assign a goddamm thing.
And as far as I know God has no race, colour or gender.
Oh, and another thing. I have no belief that God does not exist.
One day you'll pay attention to my posts and understand where I'm arguing from.
Understand? Lol
may be in another life, if there is any.

Level 4

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#114663 Jun 19, 2014
"I am not a man I am a monkey." ( quote from Elephant Man )

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114664 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the universe have the capacity for intelligence?
I am still trying to determine if you do.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114665 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
I have made an observation, not an opinion.
Will:
"—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job>>>"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]
Disposition:
"2. a natural or acquired tendency, INCLINATION, or habit in a person or thing"
[http://dictionary.reference.c om]
"in·cli·na·tion
: a feeling of wanting to do something : a tendency to do something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]
THEREFORE:
Both "will" (intent) and "disposition" (natural tendency, such as natural selection) REPRESENT INCLINATIONS.
And since we are of nature and exist in nature, both human will and disposition of the world express the "inclination" of nature.
We are nature, being natural products of it and remaining in it; therefore whatever terms can be applied to man can be applied to nature.
You gave an opinion you gutless moron. You presence here is a lie and you tells are many. One of the biggest is that whole routine you go through with your cigarette smoking. If you are really searching for the truth or on some pedagogical mission, constantly showing your contempt in such a childish manner is at odds with that. You don't understand the weakness when I throw it back in your face. You are another marvelously deluded zealot with an agenda and the objectivity of a turd.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114667 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But then again you dont figure anything much it seems...
But I did figure that I would get a response from my statement and I was right about the nature of that response as well. Seems I figure fairly well pigeon.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114668 Jun 19, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't talk like them. I don't want to invade other countries. I just want to protect my country from stupid greedy Americans. You have already exploited my country twice.
Are you referring to the two early 20th Century events were we "exploited" your country from taking its show on the road and spreading the "Good News" to the rest of the world?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114669 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that full well.
"It is NOT that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for WE cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
[Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist)]
And this is the scary part:
"The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen." [http://creation.com/amazing-a dmission-lewontin-quote]
So they are being led to cut themselves off.
Did you run out of cigarettes?

Well now I have seen you deny that you deny science and now I see you deny science again. What will your story be tomorrow?

Might I recommend checking to see if anyone in the alley you preach from has a loosie.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114670 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
*throws cigarette filter on the ground, squashes it, turns and walks away while reaching in pockets for another cigarette to light*
You are a confessed litterer. The irony is not lost on me.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114671 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong's intelligence -- and that intelligence exhibited by his kin -- are the consequence of evolution. There is no evidence of an 'intelligence' as depicted in the Bible... or anywhere else.
Well we only have the one example from Jamaica, so it is too early to draw conclusions based on that one sad individual.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114672 Jun 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as I said, any thought experiment has to be backed up later by an actual experiment.
In practice, thought experiments are typically used to test the consistency of the ideas in a model or to clarify intuition. But they are only speculation until actually verified by observations. A thought experiment is not, in itself, a proof of any concept.
HOG uses a lesser standard. A much lesser standard.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114673 Jun 19, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And, apparently, we also stole your sense of humor. Bummer for you.
But they still have their smile.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114674 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps all those cigarettes are getting to my head.
Please read that quote and tell me where it says anything equivalent to "HAS TO BE BACKED UP LATER by an actual experiment."
"A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. GIVEN THE STRUCTURE OF THE EXPERIMENT, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY PERFORM IT, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."
So Wikipedia is incomplete. Not a huge surprise, I would assume. Yes, the thought experiments do need to be backed up by observations, at least eventually. Einstein's famous thought experiments that lead to special relativity needed to be verified by experiment and observation (although some of the data was already collected by the time Einstein wrote).
But 0Poly, Poly, Poo:
" we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
*takes a puff of cigarette smoke and looks quizzingly at Pol*
Exactly, only logic and math provide proofs of their ideas. But both are based on axioms that are assumed a priori. The basic axioms are never demonstrated, only accepted. The trade off for having proof is that neither has any necessary connection to the real world. THAT is the role of scientific models. But the assumptions of those models need to be verified by observation and testing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114675 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, PROOFS DO NOT OCCUR, if we mean by 'proof' an AN ARGUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES once and for ever the truth of a theory."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
Pol, have you been keeping up to date with you epistemology studies?
And I quite agree with Popper here. Absolute proofs of concepts do not happen in studies of the real world, as opposed to abstract systems like math and logic.
Now that we have established that it is crucial to concider the nature of the thing being investigated:
What is the nature of God?
Assume one attribute that God has; say Power.
Let God be Almighty.
What type of evidence would one expect to find for an Almighty anything?
Is it possible that an Almighty could be present and influencing the development of the world?
I don't know. So far all I have seen is vague wording, nothing actually testable. Even the word 'almighty' has so many different interpretations it is only a matter of your interpretation what it actually means. In other words, your concept is way, way too vague to be meaningful.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114676 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Yes. Simply producing intelligence doesn't imply intelligence in all cases. There needs to be more evidence of intelligence of the producer. In this case, there is.
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*
Now, now, insults like that get us nowhere when we are attempting to find the truth of a subject. I am simply pointing out that you are claiming a general rule is supported by a specific case. In this case, while I do have intelligence, it is not demonstrated by the fact that I produced an intelligence (my daughter, for example).

Likewise, producing stupidity doesn't automatically mean one is stupid in all cases. Yourself as an example, I would hope.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114677 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
He he he he he.
Great.
Now:
Does an X who creates an artificially intelligent system show signs of being intelligent?
Depends. A person who is already known to be intelligent can potentially produce intelligence. But natural selection can also produce intelligence and natural selection is NOT intelligent. So the outcome is insufficient to determine the intelligence of the producer.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114678 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
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...
Very good. You finally get it.
My oh my, you seem to be right.
An intelligent universe would have no part of you.
You win!!!
*puffs cigarette and smirks*
Thanks.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114679 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
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
<quoted text>
"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..."
In that case, clearly both X and Y are possibilities. Without further evidence, no conclusion can be obtained. Once again, how is heredity not 'generation' in this case?
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/generate]
<quoted text>
In other words you would rather play dodge-ball?
No, I am attempting to show that you are making a conclusion using an implication that goes the wrong way for your argument. Intelligence can arise from several types of source. In fact, all examples we actually have of intelligent species arose from non-intelligent species and non-intelligent processes. We have never actually seen AI being produced, so the production of intelligence via intelligence has yet to be demonstrated.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#114680 Jun 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I quite agree with Popper here. Absolute proofs of concepts do not happen in studies of the real world, as opposed to abstract systems like math and logic.
<quoted text>
I don't know. So far all I have seen is vague wording, nothing actually testable. Even the word 'almighty' has so many different interpretations it is only a matter of your interpretation what it actually means. In other words, your concept is way, way too vague to be meaningful.
The scriptures indicate that God shows PATTERN'S when things are to be made or built and Solomon taught that life and all things follow his CIRCUIT'S. This simple claim itself is proof the God of the Bible is THE Creator.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114681 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
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"?
All questions that are way, way, way too vague to be meaningful.

1. Power, as in the ability to act, clearly exists in many different guises. In this broad sense, gravity has the power to make planets orbit a central object.

2. No, it is not rational to assume that the many different types of power all have a single source. For example, the power of gravity to deflect objects is quite different than the power of a person to eat. They have no common source whatsoever. In fact, it is anything *but* rational to assume all forms of power have the same 'source'.

3. Without 2 being verified, 3 has no meaning.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr grace f a l l e n 223,410
Phrases that you don't hear very often (Nov '11) 2 hr Tunes from the Crypt 781
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 hr 8541 MARINE 27,381
Let's Play Song Titles With Only Three Words,... (Dec '13) 4 hr wichita-rick 705
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 4 hr wichita-rick 24,566
News Weird 7 mins ago 7:30 p.m.Tractor-trailer makes... 5 hr Xstain Spot Remover 3
News Weird 3 hour ago 10:29 a.m.FEMA tweets wrong nu... 5 hr Xstain Spot Remover 7
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 9 hr Poo Bears 6,064
Things that make life eaiser... (Apr '15) 9 hr TheJerseyDevil 969
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 10 hr a_visitor 2,346
More from around the web