Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218731 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.

The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115596 Jun 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I am still getting a laugh about a guy that claims God is not anthropomorphic, but rather energy of some sort, yet still names himself the Hand of God. You gotta love it when they give you free stuff.
Yup. He even agreed with Chuck about us being made in God's image.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115597 Jun 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Plants have life cycles just like animal's to a certain extent, in that the systems which sustain life will use certain information to make adjustments that are required to continue life functions. The information is retained and directed through circuitry which makes this possible.
And we still don't care Mikey.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#115598 Jun 24, 2014
Information is learned and retained through circuitry, and in plants it comes through their roots and root system.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115599 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That God obeys Ohm's law? What are you attempting to say? What do *you* think is the logical consequence of that? And how is that relevant?
There was this guy once who came up with this law that people can't rob banks. But later on though, somebody robbed a bank.

I wonder if the same thing applies to us with any laws God makes.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115600 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That God obeys Ohm's law? What are you attempting to say? What do *you* think is the logical consequence of that? And how is that relevant?
The logical implication are perhaps infinite.

But that you should limit the context to Ohm's law; I would rather suggest that it is Ohm's law that obeys God ;)

The relevance is that I wanted some evidence that the dude is capable of thinking with equality.

He plays dodge-ball like his life depends on it.

WHY COULDNT HE ADOPT A STANCE SIMILAR TO YOUR?

Are you a fundie?

Does the fact that you made an attempt to understand what I am saying make you irrational or any less a credible scientist or scientific thinker?

If he has the mental capacity to do like you did, why didnt he?

Unless, he has a deliberately established mental block.
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why you are in so much trouble. Nothing you have said has any actual *logic*. You make a few vague statements, and then ask everyone else what *they* think.
I need evidence that they ARE able to think.

And if nothing I have said has any actual logic, what does that say about your reasoning according to the assumptions I made; EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOT REACH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS NOR AGREE WITH ME?

When you spoke of the relevance of suggesions to the properties that some describe God as having...

And when you suggested that God is equatable with the universe according to the logic of what you hear or assumed; were your remarks VOID OF "ACTUAL *LOGIC*"?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115601 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"anthropomorphism - The ascription of a human attribute or personality to anything impersonal or irrational."
Such as: "intelligent God".(shrug)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115602 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Dirt is evidence that proves that God exists.
Happy now?
Happy? Yes. Convinced? No.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115603 Jun 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The circuitry is in the root system for plants.
Which are not intelligent.

Remember, a book could be said to hold intelligent information, but books are not intelligent.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#115604 Jun 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And we still don't care Mikey.
I was afraid I might get that comment, but SCPID STILL ROCKS!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115605 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
And what if God is an already known scientific phenomena?
What are the logical implications of that?
That you would be substituting meaningful definitions for meaningless ones which do not convey your claims very well.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
But that which is general relates to a specific thing.
So whats your point?
No, that which is general relates to general things. Such as plants, instead of a rose. Machines, instead of a 57 Chevy.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Nevertheless, is it possible to test for Truth?
No, because "Truth" is subjective. Which is why all religions lay claim to it. I'm only interested in facts and evidence. You're only interested in "truth".
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115606 Jun 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Information is learned and retained through circuitry, and in plants it comes through their roots and root system.
Information is retained in many things. Including rocks. But rocks are neither intelligent nor require intelligence to be made.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115607 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
The logical implication are perhaps infinite.
But that you should limit the context to Ohm's law; I would rather suggest that it is Ohm's law that obeys God ;)
Man, I must be a prophet.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#115608 Jun 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Which are not intelligent.
Remember, a book could be said to hold intelligent information, but books are not intelligent.
A plant makes adjustments according to the information it receives. This is a knowing, and we might call it an intelligence, but it just knows.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115609 Jun 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I was afraid I might get that comment, but SCPID STILL ROCKS!
Nope.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115610 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Dirt is evidence that proves that God exists.
Happy now?
OK, once more for the short of understanding. Here are the steps. Take them in order.

Step I: Give a definition of the phenomenon you want to consider.

Step II: Give some criteria that could support the existence of that phenomenon. These criteria should follow logically from the definition given in Step I.

Step III: Provide observational evidence that something exists that meets the criteria given in Step II.

Now, you have jumped to Step III without doing the required Steps I and II. So what you have said is irrelevant at the current time. Now go back and attempt the first two steps and we will see whether the existence of dirt is, in fact, evidence for the existence of God. AT this point, all you have shown is that dirt exists. How and whether it is relevant has not been stated.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115611 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
If *you* give us a definition and show how some criteria are relevant for that definition, we can at least agree that the criteria are met or not. It really isn't that complicated.
And I have never attempted to give any; however vague you may describe it as being?
polymath257 wrote:
... I can define a particle to be a Higgs boson if it is weakly interacting, not strongly interacting, and decays according to certain rules. I present evidence that there *is* a particle that is weakly interacting, not strongly interacting, and decays by the rules I set out. That is how I prove that a Higg's boson exists.
Did I fail to suggest a definition of the term "almighty"?

And I have never suggested a quality, behavior nor potential not phenomena by which the influence of an almighty can be identified?
polymath257 wrote:
On the other hand, simply defining something doesn't prove it exists.
I agree, but leave it at that.

Trust me, you dont want to go down that road with me.

That remark belongs to the realms of epistemology and/or philosophy.
polymath257 wrote:
I could define Z to be the largest positive integer. I could even prove that Z+1<=Z using that definition. But the fact is that Z does not exist.
Interestingly, the falsehood of the proposition (that Z is the largest etc) still allows you to prove Z+1<=Z.

So then, do you understand that it is logic that determines value and meaning in forming and interpreting information?

The inaccuracy of the original proposition or assumption does not make the conclusion entirely false.

So I know that my conclusions contain a degree of accuracy, even though the assumptions that they are based on may not be entirely accurate.
polymath257 wrote:
...So, what is the definition *you* propose for the concept of God? What criteria do *you* think serve to prove the existence of God *using that definition*? And what evidence do you have that such criteria are met by an existing entity?
How would you prove (the) "Truth"?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115612 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
The logical implication are perhaps infinite.
But that you should limit the context to Ohm's law; I would rather suggest that it is Ohm's law that obeys God ;)
And that doesn't follow from the evidence. We know electricity obeys Ohm's law. The identification of God with electricity would show that God obeys Ohm's law.
I need evidence that they ARE able to think.
We are attempting to get similar evidence about you and failing miserably.
And if nothing I have said has any actual logic, what does that say about your reasoning according to the assumptions I made; EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOT REACH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS NOR AGREE WITH ME?
It is common in logic to work from assumptions and see what the conclusions are. This can be an effective way to show something does not exist (if the assumptions lead to a contradiction).
When you spoke of the relevance of suggesions to the properties that some describe God as having...
And when you suggested that God is equatable with the universe according to the logic of what you hear or assumed; were your remarks VOID OF "ACTUAL *LOGIC*"?
Clearly you did NOT understand my point. My point is that *some* people *define* God to be the universe. Under that definition, I believe in God. I can dispute the definition by saying it is misusing the word, though. I certainly did NOT say that 'God is equitable with the universe according to any logic'.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115613 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have no clue whatsoever why you think that what you say has any meaning at all. i am not 'resisting'. I am attempting to figure out some meaning in your statements. So far, no meaning has been apparent except rather vague claims about power.
Did I address that post to you?

I dont remember that I did.

I specifically remember composing it to respond to the dude.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#115614 Jun 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I was afraid I might get that comment, but SCPID STILL ROCKS!
Funny you happened to mention rocks, eh?

Man, I must be a prophet.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115615 Jun 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So God is a humanoid primate?
If the almighty has all powers or controls all powers; he can be whatever you say he is.

You decide.

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
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) (Jul '15) 2 min Poppyann 1,875
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 4 min -Jerilouise- 2,107
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 4 min Poppyann 3,894
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 7 min andet1987 7,151
What Turns You Off? 11 min Poppyann 93
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 12 min streetglidehoney 20,694
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... (Aug '15) 14 min Poppyann 1,613
A to Z songs by title or group! 30 min Poppyann 583
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 57 min Sublime1 68,050
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 1 hr Sublime1 386
More from around the web