Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222920 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114682 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So do information technology scientists.
<quoted text>
No.
Something IS here, so there must be a beginning or starting point. You've tried that already and failed miserably.
<quoted text>
"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?
No. But it doesn't make it correct either. If you can get any collection of 10 philosophers to agree, you have demonstrated a miracle.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#114683 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And thats where you are sadly mistaken.
For it is equality which defines logic and it is equality which determines reality (in every way).
Therefore whatever is real is logical and whatever is logical necessarily is real.
<quoted text>
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
*Lights cigarette*
<quoted text>
Oh?
And that makes me what?
Watch me blow my cigarette in yo' face, foo':
"Making assumptions
Much as we might like to avoid it, ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS INVOLVE MAKING ASSUMPTION — many of them justified. For example, imagine a very simple test of the hypothesis that substance A stops bacterial growth. Some Petri dishes are spread with a mixture of substance A and bacterial growth medium, and others are spread with a mixture of inert substance B and bacterial growth medium. Bacteria are spread on all the Petri dishes, and one day later, the plates are examined to see which fostered the growth of bacterial colonies and which did not. This test is straightforward, but still relies on many assumptions: we assume that the bacteria can grow on the growth medium, we assume that substance B does not affect bacterial growth, we assume that one day is long enough for colonies to grow, and we assume that the color pen we use to mark the outside of the dishes is not influencing bacterial growth.
"
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscience...
*Flicks cigarette and laughs at Po Po till he coughs on smoke*
There is nothing logical about creationism. There is nothing logical or Christian about *Flicks cigarette and laughs at Po Po till he coughs on smoke.* It merely demonstrates "the last refuge of the incompetent."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114684 Jun 19, 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!
Considering that science arose about 500 years ago, it is not surprising that it has changed over time. We have found through hard experience that intuition and logic alone fail miserably to determine the nature of reality.

In fact, of course, that is in large part what the scientific revolution was about. Medieval philosophy tended to make conclusions based on 'intuitively obvious' ideas and claim they were proved. The problem is that those 'intuitively obvious' ideas were simply wrong. it is simply not true in the real world that heavy things fall faster than light things under gravity, for example. But no amount of logic alone would be sufficient to demonstrate that. You need actual observations of reality to determine the nature of reality.

Considering that I am the one here that actually does science, interacts with scientists, and has contributed to the growth of human knowledge, perhaps your philosophical meanderings could be labels 'idiotic' at best.

I think you want me to shut up because you realize you are losing the discussion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114685 Jun 19, 2014
wondering wrote:
aura mytha, keep in mind i have to explain that to an 11 year old. so keep it simple if you can
Think of bright light as a crowd of people who start walking away from the center. As the light spreads out, the crowd disperses and the light gets dimmer. The people can continue to walk forever, but they get more and more spread out, corresponding to dimmer and dimmer light.

If you look at a star at night, the light is rather dim. But each and every star is actually as bright as our sun (some are much brighter, in fact). They are just so far away that their light has spread out so that it is now dim.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114686 Jun 19, 2014
wondering wrote:
since this seems to be the hottest thread going I will ask here -
i was asked the other day that what i thought was a simple question by an 11 year old and when i started to answer i found the question was not as simple as i thought. the question was; “if light goes on forever then why is there darkness, does not the suns light keep shining forever? i answered with well yes light does go on forever but it fades with time and distance and the universe is so vast etc etc. but i never really came up with an answer i was satisfied with. any thoughts people? maybe i am having a brain fart.
The light from the sun does go on forever. But if it isn't reflected back to our eyes, we will never see it. Darkness isn't exactly the absence of light: it is the absence of light that comes to our eyes to be seen. And to be seen, it needs to be reflected off of something or directed into the eyes in some way.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114687 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And thats where you are sadly mistaken.
For it is equality which defines logic and it is equality which determines reality (in every way).
Therefore whatever is real is logical and whatever is logical necessarily is real.
Simply false. Logic alone says nothing about the real world. It can be *used* with facts about the real world to help us deduce other facts about the real world. But logic alone can say nothing until other information is brought into the argument.
<quoted text>
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
Yes. And the trade-off is that logic and math cannot say anything about the real world. They provide a *language* that can be used, but no conclusions without other information. Have you actually read Popper? Or are you simply quoting the same thing over and over?
*Lights cigarette*
<quoted text>
Oh?
And that makes me what?
Watch me blow my cigarette in yo' face, foo':
Ok, so you have devolved to being a rude little troll.
"Making assumptions
Much as we might like to avoid it, ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS INVOLVE MAKING ASSUMPTION — many of them justified. For example, imagine a very simple test of the hypothesis that substance A stops bacterial growth. Some Petri dishes are spread with a mixture of substance A and bacterial growth medium, and others are spread with a mixture of inert substance B and bacterial growth medium. Bacteria are spread on all the Petri dishes, and one day later, the plates are examined to see which fostered the growth of bacterial colonies and which did not. This test is straightforward, but still relies on many assumptions: we assume that the bacteria can grow on the growth medium, we assume that substance B does not affect bacterial growth, we assume that one day is long enough for colonies to grow, and we assume that the color pen we use to mark the outside of the dishes is not influencing bacterial growth.
"
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscience...
*Flicks cigarette and laughs at Po Po till he coughs on smoke*
Which is why each and every one of *those* assumptions also have to be tested. Science is a long process exactly because of this: all the assumptions have to be investigated and tested. In the case you have presented, we can independently verify that bacteria do grow on the growth medium. We can test how their growth varies as we change the properties of the growth medium. We can test how long it takes them to grow for various growth media. We can test different pens to see if they affect the growth rate. And yes, each and every one of these is potentially a problem for the experiment. If an anomaly arises, each and every one of them needs to be tested (actually, the preference is that they be tested ahead of time). It is even possible that we find that a particular ink inhibits bacterial growth. That would be a wonderful discovery!

Are you going to continue to be rude or do you want an honest discussion of your ideas?

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114688 Jun 19, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You decide:
Power:
a (1): ability to act or produce an effect (2): ability to get extra-base hits (3): capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect....
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/power]
Equality:
the quality or state of being equal
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/equality]
Equal:
a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
b : like in quality, nature, or status
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/equal]
we communicate, that power often called godlike. Here beginneth the lesson. It's only an arrogant godlike shit. Let's play the meaning thereof. Why are we here, what do we have to say? You start I may follow, tell me about the godlike. Us. Stu

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114689 Jun 19, 2014
I think you are trying. This may sound like religion, I see the spirit. God and the goddess requires, this conscious place within the infinite. This now. How may the sweet kiss, the long loving apply? See it. Stu

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114690 Jun 19, 2014
Civilization is a cave wall 15000 years ago and a painting under torchlight. We need to communicate, evolution needs consciousness. This soul this light meaning. Stand up, do not trust me. Go go go. Be powerful. Every child needs to learn to stand up. Stu. Where are our teachers?

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114691 Jun 19, 2014
Creation within , the infinite and that evolved soul. Stu

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114692 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?
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*
A conclusion can be correct even if the argument fails to prove it. Being able to produce intelligence is not sufficient to prove something is intelligent itself. Your feeble attempts at insult don't add weight to your position.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114694 Jun 19, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
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.
Should Scheiße Kopf be written as one word or two?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114695 Jun 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Somebody wanna remind Hogwarts of Poly's actual credentials again?
Happy to.

Poly has a PhD in Mathenatics and short a dissertation - for administrative circumstances beyond his control - for a second PhD in Physics.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114696 Jun 19, 2014

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114697 Jun 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am still trying to determine if you do.
Oh, I think he IS intelligent. Just with some screwy ideas, a bad attitude and bad logic.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114698 Jun 19, 2014
Stuart Cudahy wrote:
I think you are trying. This may sound like religion, I see the spirit. God and the goddess requires, this conscious place within the infinite. This now. How may the sweet kiss, the long loving apply? See it. Stu
Stuart Cudahy wrote:
Civilization is a cave wall 15000 years ago and a painting under torchlight. We need to communicate, evolution needs consciousness. This soul this light meaning. Stand up, do not trust me. Go go go. Be powerful. Every child needs to learn to stand up. Stu. Where are our teachers?
Are you related to Trinka?
deutscher Stolz

Georgsmarienhütte, Germany

#114699 Jun 19, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Should Scheiße Kopf be written as one word or two?
In German we tend to form compound words. So it should be "Scheißkopf" but it is just a literal translation of the English "shit head" and it isn't a common insult in German. I don't know why but Americans and English think that "Scheißkopf" and "Schweinehund" would be common German insults. I first heard "Schweinehund" as an insult in English TV. Maybe you are confusing it with "Der innere Schweinehund" (The inner pig dog) but this has nothing to do with an insult. "Der innere Schweinehund" is a voice that makes you lazy and procrastinate.
Common insults in German that mean the same as "shit head" are
Arschgeige (ass violin)
Scheißkerl (shit guy)
Scheißer (shitter)
THE LONE WORKER

Tucker, GA

#114702 Jun 19, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Are you related to Trinka?
Where is Tinker these days?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114703 Jun 19, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Just out of curiosity, is your problem with Evolution or all of science?
Neither.

My problem is with the attitudes of people when it comes to the concept of God.

You know what I find interesting?

The fact that they can readily say that there is no evidence for God or that the existence of God cant be proven etc... WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ATTRIBUTE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF GOD BY WHICH THEY INVALIDATE THE ABILITY TO PROVE OR FIND EVIDENCE.

HOW IN THE HELL CAN THEY DENY RATIONALLY WHEN THEY DONT EVEN KNOW THE PROPERTIES THEY ARE DENYING?
Discord wrote:
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?
Is it possible to get more mechanistic or naturalistic than evolution?

Nevertheless, it is the equality (consistency) of any explanation that makes it logically valid and workable.

As such, whatever has consistency will do for me.

Personally, the "God's eye view" works for me, so it will always be the main method I use to describe the world.

It offers me a stable foundation on which to build knowledge and investigate the world.
THE LONE WORKER

Tucker, GA

#114704 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither.
My problem is with the attitudes of people when it comes to the concept of God.
You know what I find interesting?
The fact that they can readily say that there is no evidence for God or that the existence of God cant be proven etc... WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ATTRIBUTE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF GOD BY WHICH THEY INVALIDATE THE ABILITY TO PROVE OR FIND EVIDENCE.
HOW IN THE HELL CAN THEY DENY RATIONALLY WHEN THEY DONT EVEN KNOW THE PROPERTIES THEY ARE DENYING?
<quoted text>
Is it possible to get more mechanistic or naturalistic than evolution?
Nevertheless, it is the equality (consistency) of any explanation that makes it logically valid and workable.
As such, whatever has consistency will do for me.
Personally, the "God's eye view" works for me, so it will always be the main method I use to describe the world.
It offers me a stable foundation on which to build knowledge and investigate the world.
Like a rock!

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 Latest: Analyst: Refinery fire unlikely to affe... 4 min wichita-rick 2
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 9 min quilterqueen 2,951
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 10 min quilterqueen 4,238
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 13 min Suezanne 150,473
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 14 min quilterqueen 4,117
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 16 min Suezanne 9,512
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 17 min wichita-rick 224,403
More from around the web