Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222226 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: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114912 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz, in the interests of international cooperation and in the slight hopes it might you slightly less insufferable, I'll give you a small piece of info that might benefit you when you come to America. I don't know what music you listen to, but you might be aware of certain German bands like wumpscut, Funker Vogt, Wolfsheim and others that are usually classified as electro, industrial, synthpop or EBM. There are scenes in the US where such bands are very popular and where your accent and language would be very beneficial. Industrial, alternative or goth clubs that play that kind of music are in most major markets and many suburban ones.

Don't say I never gave you nothing.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114913 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
It is typical American to be mortally offended if someone is criticizing America.
Of course as a German, you are above such offense. Typical arrogant kraut.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114914 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Germans have nothing to do with Nazis.
Except for creating, supporting, following and serving as Nazis. Other than that you are spot on.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114915 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure that you don't know the meaning of "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles"
I give you a hint. It has nothing to do with Germany ruling over the world.
You can translate it with "Germany, Germany above all" but that doesn't give you the real meaning.
It is the same with the myth about Kennedy as he said "Ich bin ein Berliner". The first time I heard that he actually said "I am a jelly doughnut" was in an English newspaper.
English people proposed that he should say "Ich bin Berliner" but this means that he is a Berliner citizen what is wrong. "Ich bin ein Berliner" means that he is feeling with the Berliner citizens. I have to admit that his translator was good value.
Of course there is the pastry what we called "Berliner" but no German would confusing it.
To be honest, I have nothing against Germany the country or the people of Germany, I descend from them. I just figure that just as there are stupid people here in the United States, there are stupid people in Germany. You just happen to one of those on the internet.

No Germans, show evidence that they would ignore the Berliner as it rolled across Europe killing Jewish people and waging war with an entire continent only to deny they ever heard of or supported the donut when it was defeated.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114916 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes. By definition of all. So? How does that prove the existence of an X with that property?
<quoted text>
Its ok.

I have seen what I have seen.

*puffs cigarette*
polymath257 wrote:
...The word 'potential' has multiple meanings in various guises. Is existence a 'potential'? Is non-existence? How do you determine if some property is or is not a potential?
By deciding on the definition of "potential" that you will be using for the investigation; DUH.
polymath257 wrote:
If every property is a potential, then existence of something with all potentials is self-contradictory.
Exactly.

So we can rule out the conclusion that every property is a potential; or look at it from a perspective where every property is not a potential.

And from then on, you proceed to further eliminate the unlikely/impossible.

You see, you can do it too.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114917 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
... I said that the production of an intelligence is not enough to conclude intelligence....
At the point where the production of an intelligence such as man's does not demonstrate intelligence, the implication is that man is more intelligent than the source of intelligence.

That is an absurdity, in and of itself.
polymath257 wrote:
All you have shown is either your own dishonesty or your inability to understand my point.
Here is dishonesty, read it and weep:
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
... I said that the production of an intelligence is not enough to conclude intelligence....

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114918 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not empirically testable. But it is an assumption (or easily proven) in some abstract systems that are used as a language to investigate empirical reality.
But when I use it it is what?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114919 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...Intelligence is the ability to come up with ideas that correspond with testable observations. This ability arose from the differential survival of species that are able to accurately store and interpret sensory information about their surroundings. If you want more detail, look into biology.
<quoted text>...
You see what we have here is a paradox.

A) generating an intelligent being (the universe);

B) come up with ideas (man);

GENERALLY, AND WHICHEVER WAY YOU DESCRIBE IT:

Both A and B are equally ACTIONS,

Both A and B are equally BEHAVIORS

Both A and B are equally DEMONSTRATORS OF CAPACITY.

*****As such, the same terms that apply in the description of the universe will be applicable in the description of you.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114920 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...Which is not enough. They also need to be consistent with observation...
What evidence would you look for if you were trying to prove that God exists?

What would you expect to observe?

How would you identify evidence of God?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114921 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Is 'Bubi' an English word as well?
It could be the shortened version of bubbeleh.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114922 Jun 20, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
...Do you realize that your assumptions about what is required for science are actually not required and have actually been shown to be wrong?
Not according to the information I presented from the various sources.

All you have is a claim of my errors.

You claim that you require evidence to validate assumptions, and that is fair.

But how does evidence prove something that you are not interested to prove?

"When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. " [wikipedia.com]

So you can always interpret evidence according to YOUR PERSONAL INTERESTS.

IN AN ANALOGICAL FORM:

A man walks into a town wearing a hat with half red and half black.

After he passed through the town and left, the people in the town were asked what color hat the man was wearing.

Some people said "a black hat"; some people said "a red hat".

What would you accept as evidence proving God existed?

Even if the evidence where to be presented to you, you would still be led to conclude otherwise based on YOUR OWN DISPOSITION:

"A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. "[wikipedia.com]

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114923 Jun 20, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic, as in rational thinking or reason, is already a part of science. But ways that people have used in order to explore or think about the universe beyond just science could be things like philosophy, introspection, meditation, and yes, religion.
Yes, science is limited. It explores and investigates the mechanistic, naturalistic aspects of the universe. That's it. If you want to explore beyond that (or explore if there IS something beyond that) you need to rely on something else. Different tools for different jobs.
The reasons we have these debates at all is because some people think that the mechanistic explorations science does somehow conflicts with the other explorations they are doing.
Let me give you an example. Presumably you believe God created rainbows. But at some point you probably learned about how rainbows are made by light going through rain droplets. Did learning that undermine your belief that God created rainbows? Of course not, that was just the mechanism by which rainbows are formed.
Same thing with Evolution or the Big Bang Theory or whatever other science. Evolution is the mechanistic explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That's it.
I agree

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#114924 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the information I presented from the various sources.
All you have is a claim of my errors.
You claim that you require evidence to validate assumptions, and that is fair.
But how does evidence prove something that you are not interested to prove?
"When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. " [wikipedia.com]
So you can always interpret evidence according to YOUR PERSONAL INTERESTS.
IN AN ANALOGICAL FORM:
A man walks into a town wearing a hat with half red and half black.
After he passed through the town and left, the people in the town were asked what color hat the man was wearing.
Some people said "a black hat"; some people said "a red hat".
What would you accept as evidence proving God existed?
Even if the evidence where to be presented to you, you would still be led to conclude otherwise based on YOUR OWN DISPOSITION:
"A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. "[wikipedia.com]
All you are saying is that if you claim something, you don't have to have evidence for it to be true, so we can't argue the evidence.*slops hog*

Based on their view of the evidence both sides would be right and because they were not able to see all the evidence, both sides are wrong. The towns people can only rule on what they have been given, but it is evidence nonetheless and not a claim that has no evidence.*Pigeon struts around the board while crapping and furiously stroking his cigarette*

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#114925 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the information I presented from the various sources.
All you have is a claim of my errors.
You claim that you require evidence to validate assumptions, and that is fair.
But how does evidence prove something that you are not interested to prove?
"When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. " [wikipedia.com]
So you can always interpret evidence according to YOUR PERSONAL INTERESTS.
IN AN ANALOGICAL FORM:
A man walks into a town wearing a hat with half red and half black.
After he passed through the town and left, the people in the town were asked what color hat the man was wearing.
Some people said "a black hat"; some people said "a red hat".
What would you accept as evidence proving God existed?
Even if the evidence where to be presented to you, you would still be led to conclude otherwise based on YOUR OWN DISPOSITION:
"A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence.[1] These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence. "[wikipedia.com]
Here is your flaw.

"Some people said "a black hat"; some people said "a red hat"."

With the red and black hat..there is a hat.

What would you accept as evidence proving God existed?

Produce something tangible.

Memory of a red and black hat is subjective and memory is flawed.
The existence of the hat explains itself. Hat can be used to repeat test.

Empirical science using a visual item for evidence has to be repeatable for peer review to observe the same phenomena. So that it isn't just two or three who observe it, but all you want to.

You have no test, and can produce no effect to test.
Only what you want to recall as evidence is presented.

Memory is subjective and flawed.
No test can be made.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#114926 Jun 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree
So we're cool with Evolution?

Excellent. I feel like we accomplished something today.

Tomorrow, peace in the Middle East. I'm feeling saucy.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#114927 Jun 20, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans in general are dumb. There are some exceptions.
Thank you. That is what I thought. Discord here is you answer.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#114928 Jun 20, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. That is what I thought. Discord here is you answer.
You are welcome.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#114929 Jun 20, 2014
Discord wrote:
deutscher Stolz, in the interests of international cooperation and in the slight hopes it might you slightly less insufferable, I'll give you a small piece of info that might benefit you when you come to America. I don't know what music you listen to, but you might be aware of certain German bands like wumpscut, Funker Vogt, Wolfsheim and others that are usually classified as electro, industrial, synthpop or EBM. There are scenes in the US where such bands are very popular and where your accent and language would be very beneficial. Industrial, alternative or goth clubs that play that kind of music are in most major markets and many suburban ones.
Don't say I never gave you nothing.
Never heard about it but thank you.
deutscher Stolz

Osnabrück, Germany

#114930 Jun 20, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Of course as a German, you are above such offense. Typical arrogant kraut.
At least our prejudices are mostly true.

French eats more sauerkraut than we do.
I first heard in the American TV that we Germans love 'David Hesselhoff'. I didn't even know David Hesselhoff before.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#114931 Jun 20, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Or we can read what he has already written, he hasn't exactly been shy about the topic.
I hope you saw when I used my "crazy ideal" of asking him,,,, IT WORKED!!! He said Americans in general and there are exceptions. Not all Americans like you thought. Glad I could help you out and get that clear for 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
News not Real News: a look at what didn't happen thi... 8 min anonymous 20
Name something you shouldn't do naked .... (Mar '14) 1 hr Crazy Jae 541
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 1 hr Crazy Jae 3,966
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 1 hr Crazy Jae 5,907
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 1 hr Crazy Jae 5,477
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 1 hr Crazy Jae 26,793
Poll New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 1 hr Crazy Jae 961
Cyber Friendships real or not? (Nov '11) 1 hr Crazy Jae 1,264
More from around the web