Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216947 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.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#114753 Jun 19, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap, after all this time we finally got him from 'all' to 'most'. This is called progress, ladies and gentlemen.
Well when you get him to reality he will realize why we were playing ....

deutscher Stolz

Georgsmarienhütte, Germany

#114754 Jun 19, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy crap, after all this time we finally got him from 'all' to 'most'. This is called progress, ladies and gentlemen.
I have never said that all Americans are Jesus Freaks. I have only said that almost every American is an idiot. All Jesus Freaks are idiots but not all idiots are Jesus Freaks. That's logic. Get it.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114755 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares what his credentials are and are not?!!
It is equality (consistency) which justifies and validates EVERYTHING that you think, assume, suggest, observe, test, measure, KNOW, think, dream, scheme; you name it.
It does matter where he attended nor what he studied nor how much.
What matters is the equality (consistency) in what he says and believes.
So when an individual allows other men to impose inequalities in his thought processes in the name of "education", without critically thinking about the implications of what is being taught; he/she willfully exposes themselves to intellectual disgrace.
Fair enough.

Except he is quite consistent. You are not.(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114756 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah!
So my advice to you is to keep your trap shut when I am spewing my philosophical shit!
<quoted text>
What is God?
And dont give us YOUR definition now.
Give me my definition of God, for example.
<quoted text>
Which "God"?
You tell us. It's YOUR claim. You back it up. You claim to know all about this allegedly consistent God concept yet NO-ONE around here knows what the heck it is because you won't tell us.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114757 Jun 19, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is a fair statement. Even science relies on repetitive and variety. They have repetitive tests and get a variety of answers.
Okay, just gotta point out the irony here of you calling me stupid while simultaneously falling for Mikey's SCPID schtick. Wow.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114758 Jun 19, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>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.
From the looks of things I'd say he's got an eternal supply of cigarettes...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114759 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt matter.
Since intelligence can from the un-intelligent; you are a dumb horse, regardless of how appropriate your response is.
So shove it... up your nose and blow it out you a$$.
Don't post angry, pigeon.

Yawl have a good day now, ya hear.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114760 Jun 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yup, that's circuitous reasoning fo sho, Mikey. Hog would certainly appreciate it.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#114761 Jun 19, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never said that all Americans are Jesus Freaks. I have only said that almost every American is an idiot. All Jesus Freaks are idiots but not all idiots are Jesus Freaks. That's logic. Get it.
I get Berlin and the Russians get you.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114762 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?
Simple.

By pointing out that you haven't provided what is necessary to demonstrate your claims yet.(shrug)
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Personally, the "God's eye view" works for me, so it will always be the main method I use to describe the world.
Perhaps far more so than you realise.

Fundies quite often proclaim, as if they are the Creator God Himself. In fact it's EXCEEDINGLY rare to see them speak otherwise.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
It offers me a stable foundation on which to build knowledge and investigate the world.
No, it really doesn't.

For thou art human. Not God.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114763 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If I want?
So the questions have no direct answers?
Are you not capable of evaluating simple, direct answers to the questions?
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"?
<quoted text>
Thats because you are accustomed to confining your thoughts to the physical, as if the physical is eternal, i.e. had no beginning and always existed.
You subconsciously accept the eternity of the physical by accepting that energy (and hence matter since e=mc^2) cannot be created nor destroyed. And that which cannot be created nor destroyed is without beginning or end, which is the definition of eternal.
If however you were considering that the physical had a starting point (as suggested by the big bang), it would become obvious that its creation was "inspired" by potentials "beyond" it.
And it would never have sounded like that to you.
The existence of eternity does not necessarily mean your god.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
To say that the universe is "intelligent" does not mean that the universe itself is conscious and thinking.
To say "Intelligent Design" more accurately suggests:
"4. Appealing to the intellect; intellectual..." [http://www.thefreedictionary. com/intelligent]
When we say that we see intelligent design; we are saying that the structure of the universe appeals to the intellect.
THATS WHAT MAKES US ASSUME THAT THE SOURCE POSSESSES A MECHANISM WHICH CONFORMS TO THE "STANDARD" OF "INTELLIGENT".
However intellect can also examine the structure of things WITHOUT logic or a coherent structure.

Your philosophical arguments here being a PRIME example. Ergo...
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
It is from the observation of formations which appeal to intellect which leads us to conclude that "God" (Source, Power, Ruler, Creator etc etc) possesses a capacity for intelligent behavior.
... it does not necessarily follow that your "God" is responsible.

But again, your concept here sounds more like a form of deism. I know some like to use the universe and the forces that brought it as a metaphor for God, and call all those things "God", and I'm cool with that. But for me that stuff is pretty meaningless, and I would rather give them meaningful labels that actually inform us of things, like physics, gravity, etc etc, and whatever the heck other forces are all ultimately involved.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#114764 Jun 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, just gotta point out the irony here of you calling me stupid while simultaneously falling for Mikey's SCPID schtick. Wow.
Now come on Dudey, tell us what is wrong with SCPID. If it isn't correct in some way, I need to know.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114765 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Based on which premise?
Your assumption had not been tested empirically.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
No. The intelligence that was the very first intelligence would be the essence of intelligence, and would require no intelligence outside itself nor beyond itself; and would determine the intelligence of all that came after it.
IF the argument is that intelligence is required to make intelligence then an individual intelligence cannot be infinite because an intelligence was needed to create the intelligence. Hence an infinite string of intelligent individuals that stretches forever into the past.

If your intelligent agent did not require a previous intelligent agent (which may even be possible) then intelligence it not required to make intelligence. Therefore it is equally possible in that case that maybe non-intelligent forces were able to develop intelligence. And from what we observe here on Earth, it certainly seems that way. Babies aren't intelligently designed by their parents, their parents have very limited control over the offspring's development.

It's not that your God cannot exist, it's that your argument for it fails by making itself an exception to its own premise.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
By YOUR thinking, an intelligence was necessary to create YOUR intelligent God.
I don't posit any Gods.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
And you know beyond question that the God I am talking about is not one which can "exists that did NOT require a prior intelligence to create it""
Right?
No. I just know beyond question that your argument requires a violation of its own premise and is therefore invalid. As Poly pointed out, you might even have the correct conclusion, but it's your argument that fails to demonstrate it.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
That probability will always exist!
It is only the logic in ANY argument, EVEN IN THE RIGHT ARGUMENT, that will prove it.
So as long as my arguments are consistent, I will work with them.
And you're not working. Logic may have proof, but that doesn't mean it's consistent with reality. Logic must match reality, and no matter how internally consistent it is, if it's inconsistent with reality then it doesn't matter.

But as it turns out we can't tell if your logic is consistent with reality because it's not empirically testable. It's just your logic is internally inconsistent anyway.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If intelligence is present, it had to come from somewhere.
And intelligence came from the thing/s which determineintelligence.
There!
Which does not require a prior intelligence.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Your concept of infinite regress debunk or/and rendered meaningless.
False.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114766 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Oh?
Is that so?
And if the thing which determined your intelligence is not intelligent
1. BY WHAT STANDARD DO YOU MEASURE YOUR INTELLIGENCE?
2. How do you justify your intelligence?
3. How is your intelligence demonstrated?
If the thing which created your intelligence is not intelligent:
ii) WHY SHOULD WE REGARD YOU AS A SOBER, RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT ENTITY WHEN YOU CREATE EVOLUTION THEORY????!!!!
1 - Fundies. Apparently.

2 - By refuting them.

3 - Ditto.

ii)- Because evolution passes empirical testing:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
By your assumptions, I would be correct if I said that your most credible products of science are a meaningless pile of bull... manure.
*puffs on cigarette*
False.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114767 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
OK!
Substitute the meaning of "almighty" for any meaning you can find and try to answer the questions again.
My definition of almighty is too vague; so substitute it with ANY one that you prefer that is convenient to YOUR intellect.
But by all means answer:
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?
Why do fundies always keep trying to get us to do THEIR homework?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114768 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
And in the case where it doesn't: the standard by which you measure and justify the produced intelligence will be purely arbitrary.
So by YOUR line of reasoning:
YOU (Polymath) ARE ONLY INTELLIGENT BECAUSE YOU SAY YOU ARE; NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT BY WHAT YOU PRODUCE (including your posts) OR DEMONSTRATE.
Me myself, I like to reason with those who are naturally intelligent, being the products of the intelligent potentials.
If I continue to reason with you, I will appear to be a fool. NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE MADE A FOOL OF ME.
But because only a fool would try to discuss matters with what you have argued yourself to be.
HONESTLY, I see no reason, nor logic in continuing to regard anything that comes from you.
Now if you could be so kind as to avoid me....
Your posts waste a lot of time.
*lights up a cigarette*
Translation:
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
STOP BEATING ME, YOU MEAN MAN YOU!!!

:-(
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#114769 Jun 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Now come on Dudey, tell us what is wrong with SCPID. If it isn't correct in some way, I need to know.
It's neither correct nor incorrect. It's just useless.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#114770 Jun 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's neither correct nor incorrect. It's just useless.
It is useful! Every living thing has systems which cycle and the recurring motion can be predicted. Life unfolds following patterns that are passed down and adjustments are made to the local environment. All life does this and when we can fully understand these regular patterns the concept is useful.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#114771 Jun 19, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It is useful! Every living thing has systems which cycle and the recurring motion can be predicted. Life unfolds following patterns that are passed down and adjustments are made to the local environment. All life does this and when we can fully understand these regular patterns the concept is useful.
No shit Sherlock.

The patterns of nature have been known to mankind for millennia. Where have you been?

REAL scientists have been using this knowledge for a very long time.

SCPID promises nothing new.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114772 Jun 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. You assume there was a 'who' with no reason to make such an assumption. Why would you assume a 'who'?
I also assumed there was an X, in case you havent noticed.

You are really good at dodge-ball, arent you?

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. (Nov '10) 1 min Bezeer 19,920
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 2 min Bezeer 11,169
The Letter "C" (Aug '09) 3 min Bezeer 5,639
The letter E (Jun '13) 3 min Bezeer 1,284
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 4 min Bezeer 6,615
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 5 min Bezeer 9,258
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min Appreciate 207,258
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 9 min Judy 123 3,447
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 18 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,532
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 24 min KNIGHT DeVINE 22,245
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 48 min Poppyann 10,656
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr Poppyann 34
More from around the web