Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 164172 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.

I R British

UK

#114598 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.
What you are is a boorish troll whose tactics are as old as the internet itself.

What impresses me is that you found people to actually reply to your inane self.
I suppose I'm as guilty as the rest for making this post, but alas it's pissing it down and I'm bored.

Have a great day embarrassing the Germans, mate.

Cheers
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114599 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.
And why exactly do you "hate Hitler and the Nazis"?

Because they LOST, right?
The Dude

London, UK

#114600 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Obtain a clean sheet of paper, a pencil and a compass (if you want your circle to be pretty)
2. Inscribe three circles of three different sizes, so that the largest one contains the medium one and the medium one contains the smallest one.
3. Label the smallest circle B (for brain)
4. Label the medium circle I (for individual)
5. Label the largest circle U (for universe)
Question/s:
If "B" performs intelligent behavior, is "I" intelligent?
If "I" performs intelligent behavior is "U" intelligent?
IF the universe generating and possessing intelligent mechanisms is not intelligent: you possessing a brain in your head (assuming you do) does not make you intelligent.
But its all the same.
Because if you can look at yourself with all your faculties of reason and creativity in the mirror and say that you DO NOT see any intelligence in the design; you are probably right.
The universe possess mechanisms that can create intelligence. That doesn't necessarily mean that intelligence was required for that to happen in the first place. And if it does then you crashed straight into the infinite regression fallacy.

You are not presenting anything new here, but rather an extremely old philosophical (not evidence based) argument.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#114601 Jun 18, 2014
I R British wrote:
<quoted text>
What you are is a boorish troll whose tactics are as old as the internet itself.
What impresses me is that you found people to actually reply to your inane self.
I suppose I'm as guilty as the rest for making this post, but alas it's pissing it down and I'm bored.
Have a great day embarrassing the Germans, mate.
Cheers
A Whack-a-Mole. He's not much more than that.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114602 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What does "harte Scheiße" mean?
Is it a literal translation of "hard shit"?
And please do explain your earlier statement that you virtuous Germans were FORCED to round up and exterminate 6 MILLION Jews (and others) by the British, French and Americans.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114603 Jun 18, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
And please do explain your earlier statement that you virtuous Germans were FORCED to round up and exterminate 6 MILLION Jews (and others) by the British, French and Americans.
I am somewhat curious on that list of smartest and dumbest countries where he thinks Israel rates.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114604 Jun 18, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
You should give us all of your exports with no costs for 50 years. Then we would be even with you.
Which would be disastrous for American industry, which would then be disastrous for German industry. The American and German economies are inextricably linked through billions of dollars in imports, exports and mutual investments (as well as scientific collaborations, mutual defense, treaties, etc.) Apart from the UK, Germany is considered America's strongest ally in Europe. Our good fortune is your good fortune.

Sorry kid, but you're stuck with us.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114605 Jun 18, 2014
Well, if he comes over here and talks like a typical drunken, beer-soaked, loudmouth Hitler Youth just ready to break into "Tomorrow Belongs To Me," he can expect a rude awakening.

But I think we know he's just a troll looking for reactions.:)
In Six Days

Preston, UK

#114607 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.
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.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114608 Jun 18, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First off if you want to claim that this God thingy exists you are going to need some evidence for it.
When you speak of evidence, WE ALL KNOW that the nature of the evidence is of vital importance; because things of different natures will have different types and levels of effect...

So when I claim that "God" is (that which is) Almighty.

OR

God = Almighty

OR

Let X = Almighty

The rational questions are:

1. What is the meaning of "Almighty"?

2. What type of evidence would you look for if you wanted to observe the influence of X?

My claim regarding "God" does not require more than that and it must be necessarily so.

Only by logic can you know God, because the fact is that you cannot directly experience the fullness of any Almighty and live.

Simply put:

Only with logic can one investigate God, because the attributes of God do not allow direct contact involved, examination of God.

And I know that that method of investigation is valid:

"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
Subduction Zone wrote:
Second it looks like you know nothing of what scientific people are thinking. Most of them are still interested in increasing man's knowledge.
Yes, but by what means?

By blinding your eyes to the other n% of reality that you dont know of?

By simply saying "We cant detect it so it does not exist"; instead of applying logic, and logic embodies the essence of knowledge and the foundation of scientific method?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114610 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
2. What type of evidence would you look for if you wanted to observe the influence of X?
My claim regarding "God" does not require more than that and it must be necessarily so.
Only by logic can you know God, because the fact is that you cannot directly experience the fullness of any Almighty and live.
".....becuase the fact is"?

How and why is that a FACT? It's merely a religious belief, a quote lifted from your Bible, which was written by MEN.

How can you declare that a "fact"?

It's not a fact to the Hindus, who have direct experience of their Gods ( the enlightened ones, anyway).

Your religious beliefs are NOT REALITY. They are a particular INTERPRETATION of reality that has been handed to you as received "truth."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114611 Jun 18, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
When you speak of evidence, WE ALL KNOW that the nature of the evidence is of vital importance; because things of different natures will have different types and levels of effect...
So when I claim that "God" is (that which is) Almighty.
OR
God = Almighty
OR
Let X = Almighty
The rational questions are:
1. What is the meaning of "Almighty"?
2. What type of evidence would you look for if you wanted to observe the influence of X?
My claim regarding "God" does not require more than that and it must be necessarily so.
Only by logic can you know God, because the fact is that you cannot directly experience the fullness of any Almighty and live.
Simply put:
Only with logic can one investigate God, because the attributes of God do not allow direct contact involved, examination of God.
And I know that that method of investigation is valid:
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
<quoted text>
Yes, but by what means?
By blinding your eyes to the other n% of reality that you dont know of?
By simply saying "We cant detect it so it does not exist"; instead of applying logic, and logic embodies the essence of knowledge and the foundation of scientific method?
if you can only investigate God using logic, then you have shown that no such God exists in the real world. Logic is purely a theoretical language, not a proof of existence in reality.

Furthermore, you have not presented any logical demonstration at all. You have made some claims. But it is well known that the standard 'proofs' for the existence of God fail in their internal logic. For example, the one you seem to be suggesting is the ontological argument, which requires the existence to show the existence. It is based on a false characterization of existence as a property something either could or could not have. But if something has a property at all, it exists, you you are essentially assuming your conclusion.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114612 Jun 18, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Wanting to keep religious beliefs out of scientific inquiry is not the same as removing religious beliefs from the world. As we have said repeatedly, over and over and over again, you are completely free to believe in the religion of your choice, to believe in the philosophy of your choice, to believe in the political ideology of your choice, and so on. All scientists want to do is keep those things out of science.
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]
Discord wrote:
If you like to quote things so much, here is a quote for you:
"We... believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist... We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, BUT COMPLEMENTARY, forms of truth."
So whats your point exactly?

I do not need evolution theory to fail for God to work!!!!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114613 Jun 18, 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.
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." [wikipedia.com]

Poly!!!!!

If we are going to continue communicating like civilized human beings, you need to be very careful about how you describe things.

You know that I can be a HOG.
polymath257 wrote:
But they are only speculation until actually verified by observations. A thought experiment is not, in itself, a proof of any concept.
But Poly, 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*

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114614 Jun 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
What you seem to fail to realize is that words alone are never enough to prove something about reality. Words are used by people to communicate and can communicate falsehoods just as easily as truths.
"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?
polymath257 wrote:
... But when something is extraordinary, then the words should be taken with a grain of salt and the topic investigated by other means.
I can agree to that.
polymath257 wrote:
Now, how do you proposed to detect whatever deity you are proposing?
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?
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, 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

Edgewater, 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?

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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.

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
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 5 min quilterqueen 28,877
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 7 min Jennifer Renee 11,422
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 7 min quilterqueen 8,090
News 'John Wayne Day' in Texas Honors Actor's 108th ... 8 min Lawrence Wolf 7
News How To Make Stackable LEGO Gummies 8 min 40ish 3
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 9 min quilterqueen 5,473
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 20 min David0407 79,156
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr dragoon70056 4,556
News This Is The Best Wrong Answer In The History Of... 1 hr Suezanne 3
News Woman Snapping Selfie Shoots Self in Head 2 hr wichita-rick 15
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr wichita-rick 162,920
News 2 Dead, Several Hurt In Shooting At Wal-Mart In... 4 hr Go Blue Forever 50
More from around the web