Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222984 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.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114851 Jun 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do fundies always keep trying to get us to do THEIR homework?
Because you are the only ones who can do any work. Apparently.

*flicks cigarette*

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114852 Jun 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Why would god need a hog hand?
HOG is an anagram for Hand Of God.

H+O+G.= Hand + Of + God.

Get it?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114853 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What exactly do you think I have dodged? Even if there is an X, that doesn't mean that X is a who.
Even if there is an X, that doesnt mean that X is an "X" either.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114854 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
All this shows is that you don't understand what the physics actually says.
Math and logic are the language of physics.

That implies that the laws of physics are of a mathematical and logical nature.

As such, mathematical and logical assumptions can be used to deduce the nature of the physical.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114855 Jun 20, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect evolutionists are not all idiots? They are lost souls desperate to believe in something they can not understand. Ever wonder why their pro-evolution arguments are based upon feelings and emotion rather than true science. They have lost the argument but want to believe. Therefore they cling to their cult belief system and seek acceptance from other like minded folks.
I agree.

Notice how PolyMath dodges even the simplest line of logic that could suggest that the belief in God can be justified.

Between me and you, I have no real interest in proving that intelligent design is real or that evolution is false.

Sorry if my remarks implicated all evolutionists. I did not mean to offend evolutionists in general.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114856 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Way to general of a question. Water doesn't need to be in something to be able to generate water from it. Electrons don't have to be in something in order for them to emitted by it.
<quoted text>
Is intelligence water?

Is intelligence electrons?
polymath257 wrote:
You are using the ambiguity in the word 'produce' to muddy the waters here. The ability to produce an intelligent idea is evidence of intelligence. The ability to produce an intelligent organism is not.
<quoted text>
What is the difference between produce in the first case and produce in the other?

Would both products not possess intelligence, regardless of the context of "production"?

Stick to dodge-ball.
polymath257 wrote:
Intelligence isn't a unitary thing: it has components that one assembles as one learns and grows.
<quoted text>
But assembles it by what standard or principle?

Is whatever assembles automatically intelligent, regardless of its nature?

Intelligence can be reduced to a single general component; EQUITY.
polymath257 wrote:
Wrong yet again. Science does quite well dealing with causeless events...
*puts cigarette between lips and turns to a group of people who practice occult arts and waves, shouting:*

OK FOLKS BREAK OUT THE CRYSTAL BALLS, CANDLES, INCENSES, INCANTATION SCRIPTS AND THE WHOLE WORKS.

WE ARE OFFICIALLY IN BUSINESS!!!!

*turns to poly and asks*

Wanna-cracker?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114857 Jun 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Hog, apart from blowing our irony meters, you're repeating fallacies we've already addressed.
You are more than ironic in that remark; YOU ARE DOWNRIGHT SARCASTIC.
The Dude wrote:
You need to counter them first rather than assuming your claims are true...
You need to justify your claims that my logic is erroneous (and it could be) first rather than assuming they are false.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114858 Jun 20, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
...
Polymath has never claimed to be intelligent..
He/she/it CANT EVER claim to be intelligent, given their assumption!
JM_Brazil wrote:
He has proven his intelligence time and time again with his UNBIASED thoughtfulness...
Now herein is the truth of my assertion manifested!

You being an ass/mule are able to identify EQUITY (unbiased does imply equity) as the key element for observing intelligence.

What was Poly's justification or proof of his/herits intelligence: the ability to act, or do etc...

But Poly cannot conclude on that be cause Poly already suggested that the act of acting or behaving (which includes making, producing etc); IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF INTELLIGENCE.

*puffs cigarette*

YOU JM, ARE TRULY A SMART ASS (or mule)!
JM_Brazil wrote:
You, on the other hand try to come off as intelligent with your pseudo-knowledge when it is clear to most on this forum, that you are not.

"Me myself, I like to reason with those who are naturally intelligent..." Translated: Those who think your garble is actually intelligent. Because anyone with half a brain can see right through your BS.
Wait a minute - "...being the products of the intelligent potentials" Really?
<quoted text>
I could say the same for you and everyone on this forum.

HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
If I continue to reason with you, I will appear to be a fool.
JM_Brazil wrote:
If you continue to "reason" with Polymath or some of the other intelligent posters here, you will appear to be an even GREATER fool.
<quoted text>
My point exactly.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#114859 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
HOG is an anagram for Hand Of God.
H+O+G.= Hand + Of + God.
Get it?
No one ever really "get's" the dizzying intellect of believers.
But in the attempt to explain yourself within your topix handle, you provided a comedy.
HOG_the hand of god.....a new superhero..lol
Brian

Ottawa, Canada

#114860 Jun 20, 2014
Evolution of man from ape-like creatures is impossible
• 60 million base-pair differences in DNA between man and apes
• Base-pairs said by evolution theory to change through random mutation – like a spelling mistake. These are caused by radiation, chemical attack or copying errors during mitosis or meiosis. Favorable “spelling mistakes” said to be preserved in the species because they make the individual fitter and more likely to survive to breed and pass the favourable change on to the next generation. Individuals with unfavorable spelling mistakes in their DNA more likely to die before breeding.
• Evolution diversion of man and apes said to have started 6million years ago. If we assume 10 years per generation, there have been 0.6 million generations to select 60 million base-pair improvements. That’s 100 improvements per generation.
• Each individual has only one death to die and so can only select for one improvement per generation. This means we would need at least 100x more generations than the evolutionists say we had.
• Also for every favourable mutation there must be at least 100 unfavourable ones. When is the last time a random spelling mistake improved the text? For an unfavourable change to die out the individual must die. Apes don’t have enough babies for 100 to die for every one that lives. So the species would quickly die out.
• If the unfavourable mutations don’t die out then the genome will slowly deteriorate not evolve. That is we would get devolution.
• Also a single small change in the genome - one base pair in a billion would be such a small change that it would be unlikely to be the reason an individual lived rather than died. Random chance would be a much bigger factor affecting whether they ran into a predator.
• So evolution of man from ape like creatures would not have enough time, enough progeny, enough of a driving force and if it did would actually go backwards.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114861 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Notice how PolyMath dodges even the simplest line of logic that could suggest that the belief in God can be justified.
.
He didn't dodge it, he quietly and politely explained how your logic is false, based on unproven or undemonstrated assumptions,

You had no response but smirking nonsense.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Between me and you, I have no real interest in proving that intelligent design is real or that evolution is false.
Lucky for you, because you are completely unequipped to prove EITHER. LOL
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114862 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I resort to gross behavior because your mind is impervious to logic.
You resort to gross behavior because that is your NATURE,:follower of Jesus."

You were reasonably polite until Poly began to slowly dismantle your "arguments" and expose the faulty or non-existent logic of them.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114863 Jun 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...We label intelligence as an ability to react deliberately...
Which "we"?

WHAT YOU DID NOT SAY:

INTELLIGENCE:

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways such as in terms of one's capacity for logic, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication, learning, emotional knowledge, memory, planning, creativity and problem solving." [wikipedia.com]

WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE MEANT AS AN EDUCATED PERSON:

IRRITABILITY:

"Irritability is an excessive response to stimuli. The term is used for both the physiological reaction to stimuli and for the pathological, abnormal or excessive sensitivity to stimuli; It is usually used to refer to anger or frustration. Irritability can be a growing response to the objective stimuli of hunger or thirst in animals or humans which then reaches some level of awareness of that need.
Irritability may be demonstrated in behavioral responses to both physiological and behavioral stimuli including environmental, situational, sociological, and emotional stimuli." [wikipedia.com]

Are you a dunce, or a dodge-ball player?!!

You decide.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114864 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Math and logic are the language of physics.
That implies that the laws of physics are of a mathematical and logical nature.
Asked and answered several times yesterday by polymath.

Physics USES math and logic to some extent, but also MUCH MORE, i.e. direct observation and experimentation.

Your implication is false.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
As such, mathematical and logical assumptions can be used to deduce the nature of the physical.
They can be helpful in doing so, but much more is needed to form and to support an accurate scientific theory.

Also, if the logical arguments you put forth are based on FALSE assumptions, then your logic is FALSE and CANNOT be successfully sued to deduce the nature of the physical.

All of this was politely explained to you yesterday by polymath.

And he showed you specifically several times how and where your "logical assumptions" were false.

Were you even reading the thread, one wonders?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114865 Jun 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We HAVE shown why your arguments are wrong, even if your conclusions aren't.
Thereby, effectively demonstrating that you are dunces...

I got it.

*blows cigarette smoke in the dude's face*
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#114866 Jun 20, 2014
Brian wrote:
Evolution of man from ape-like creatures is impossible
• 60 million base-pair differences in DNA between man and apes
• Base-pairs said by evolution theory to change through random mutation – like a spelling mistake. These are caused by radiation, chemical attack or copying errors during mitosis or meiosis. Favorable “spelling mistakes” said to be preserved in the species because they make the individual fitter and more likely to survive to breed and pass the favourable change on to the next generation. Individuals with unfavorable spelling mistakes in their DNA more likely to die before breeding.
• Evolution diversion of man and apes said to have started 6million years ago. If we assume 10 years per generation, there have been 0.6 million generations to select 60 million base-pair improvements. That’s 100 improvements per generation.
• Each individual has only one death to die and so can only select for one improvement per generation. This means we would need at least 100x more generations than the evolutionists say we had.
• Also for every favourable mutation there must be at least 100 unfavourable ones. When is the last time a random spelling mistake improved the text? For an unfavourable change to die out the individual must die. Apes don’t have enough babies for 100 to die for every one that lives. So the species would quickly die out.
• If the unfavourable mutations don’t die out then the genome will slowly deteriorate not evolve. That is we would get devolution.
• Also a single small change in the genome - one base pair in a billion would be such a small change that it would be unlikely to be the reason an individual lived rather than died. Random chance would be a much bigger factor affecting whether they ran into a predator.
• So evolution of man from ape like creatures would not have enough time, enough progeny, enough of a driving force and if it did would actually go backwards.
Congratulations on your "discovery."

Now why haven;t you collected your Nobel Prize, riches and worldwide fame?

Think there could be a REASON?

LOL

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114867 Jun 20, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
An interesting paradox in the critical thinking skills of believers is..
Believing a uncaused causer exists, but an uncaused event cannot take place.
Which is basically saying...
The impossible is possible for my belief, but not possible in reality.
This leads to this thought. In your reasoning is....
All uncaused events are caused by the uncaused skydaddy causer of the uncaused!
I never said that.

If I am arguing for an eternal God, I should depend on the possibility of causeless event to support the idea of the existence of such a God.

You seem to be attacking what you ASSUME to be contrary to what you believe.
Aura Mytha wrote:
... So you see what you believe to be explained by inventing a skydaddy , is explained by science as a function or state that makes what seems impossible to be possible.
If you know that, then what are you arguing against?

Your attitude confirms the suggestion that you refute the validity of the concept of God, based on your own personal inclination: not science.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#114868 Jun 20, 2014
Brian wrote:
Evolution of man from ape-like creatures is impossible
• 60 million base-pair differences in DNA between man and apes
• Base-pairs said by evolution theory to change through random mutation – like a spelling mistake. These are caused by radiation, chemical attack or copying errors during mitosis or meiosis. Favorable “spelling mistakes” said to be preserved in the species because they make the individual fitter and more likely to survive to breed and pass the favourable change on to the next generation. Individuals with unfavorable spelling mistakes in their DNA more likely to die before breeding.
• Evolution diversion of man and apes said to have started 6million years ago. If we assume 10 years per generation, there have been 0.6 million generations to select 60 million base-pair improvements. That’s 100 improvements per generation.
• Each individual has only one death to die and so can only select for one improvement per generation. This means we would need at least 100x more generations than the evolutionists say we had.
• Also for every favourable mutation there must be at least 100 unfavourable ones. When is the last time a random spelling mistake improved the text? For an unfavourable change to die out the individual must die. Apes don’t have enough babies for 100 to die for every one that lives. So the species would quickly die out.
• If the unfavourable mutations don’t die out then the genome will slowly deteriorate not evolve. That is we would get devolution.
• Also a single small change in the genome - one base pair in a billion would be such a small change that it would be unlikely to be the reason an individual lived rather than died. Random chance would be a much bigger factor affecting whether they ran into a predator.
• So evolution of man from ape like creatures would not have enough time, enough progeny, enough of a driving force and if it did would actually go backwards.
Did you explain all that to the ape like to increasingly human like hominids that inhabited this planet millions of years before us?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114869 Jun 20, 2014
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't dodge it, he quietly and politely explained how your logic is false, based on unproven or undemonstrated assumptions,

<quoted text>
Lucky for you, because you are completely unequipped to prove EITHER. LOL
Explained?

Explained how?

By the principle of equality, whatever arises follws directly from what was at first.

As such, in order to know what will follow when assuming anything about the world, one must include at least one FACT OR ASSUMPTION about the world.

The value of my conclusions are determined by the equality/consistency between the premises and the conclusion.

The moment my method of arguing is wrong, all of science becomes invalid; because I base my arguments on the principle that makes science valid.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114870 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Math and logic are the language of physics.
That implies that the laws of physics are of a mathematical and logical nature.
As such, mathematical and logical assumptions can be used to deduce the nature of the physical.
Wrong. They are used in the language to help us understand the physical. But they alone cannot be used to deduce the nature of the physical any more than natural language alone can. No matter what, if you want to learn about the physical world, you have to resort to observation.

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's your favorite animal? (May '10) 8 min -Sprocket- 327
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 9 min Princess Hey 150,573
News Oh [email protected]: Roadside defecation ends in disaster 32 min Faith 8
News Your Life Story In 6 Words (Feb '08) 38 min Joi C 10,308
News Man gets his dying wish: To be buried with chee... 39 min Faith 6
Words with silent letters... (Oct '12) 57 min Pardon Pard 57
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 1 hr rainmaker2016 1,096
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Joi C 30,834
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 hr -feelingSOblue- 225,301
More from around the web