Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#115649 Jun 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Even so, I like fill in the blanks activities, so let me give it a go:
Step I: Give a definition of the phenomenon you want to consider.
"A single phenomena (the almighty) which controls all things in the universe; determining what they are and will be."
OK, that is fair enough.
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.
The criteria which supports the existence of such a phenomena is equality/equal-ness/equity. Why/How?
Logically: a man cannot rationally conclude on what is or what will be without relying on equality, as it is equality which allows man to conclude with positivity (certainty).
So what? Even if this is true (debatable, at least) it in no way shows that equality implies the existence of something in control over everything.
Physically: no power can cause a thing to exist UNLESS/BEFORE it makes that thing equal with or causes it to share equal properties with real things or with what is reality.
Sorry, I cannot parse what this is supposed to mean, let alone determine if I agree with it. But, as far as I can parse it, it doesn't make the link to showing that there is something that controls *everything*.

Conclusion: These do not support your contention that the criteria are evidence for the phenomenon you are seeking to show. You failed in Step II.
Step III: Provide observational evidence that something exists that meets the criteria given in
1. heat will travel through a medium until it is evenly distributed everywhere
2. water will continue to flow until it reaches a point where all of the surface is of equal height.
3. air will continue to fill a space, exerting pressure equally on all point inside the vessel.
4. life is possible through the revolutions of the planet around the sun, which influences even distribution of the sun's energy contacting the earth.
5. all life is sustained by cycles which allow equal distribution of vital elements, etc
so on and so on.
I could go on...
Really? You think that the tendency of things to go towards an equilibrium supports the claim that there is something in control over everything? Exactly how does that follow logically?
wondering

Sunset, TX

#115650 Jun 24, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
In comparison to what, the number of scientists?
in comparison to sober sailors if you prefer.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#115651 Jun 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's clarify things. Biological evolution depends upon abio to exist. However the THEORY of evolution only requires life. Since we have that, we have evolution. Life is here. Life evolves. Facts. The theory of evolution no more needs to explain the origin of life any more than the theory of gravity needs to explain the origin of mass. Both work without having to explain their respective origins.
biological evolution, vs the theory of evolution. one depends on abiogenisis(life) and the other depends on ,,life. what is the difference in scientific terms and how does science see them differently? how would they be taught differently? which one should be taught? do you think abiogenisis started life?
wondering

Sunset, TX

#115652 Jun 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Do plants need instincts? They don't know a thing but have no trouble surviving.
Also another thing I forgot to mention was that everything you are you got from non-living compounds.
do plants reproduce?--instinct to survive
do plants store water for dry times?--instinct to survive
do plants strive for the sun?--instinct to survive
do plants absorb nutrition?--instinct to survive.
do plants prepare for winter?--instinct to survive
do plants turn their leaves before a storm?--instinct to survive
do plants produce fruits and nectar that attract insects and such that in turn help pollinate other plants?--instinct to survive
that is enough to show you are wrong and it was easy. or you can stick with they donít do anything, it just happens.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#115653 Jun 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They would have if they stood and spun in a circle.
;-)
you must do that quite often by the looks of the dizzy answers you post.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#115654 Jun 24, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. I didn't know we had established that the origin of a flat earth was 3-4 thousand years ago. So obviously you have data to support that science originated the claim that the earth was flat. I don't suppose you have some links you would like to share and then bellyache when you don't attention for them fast enough?
Incidentally, boats have been around for a long time. The refuted claim of a flood with Noah as captain of the ark is based on a date 4500 ybp. I imagine that there must have been some of those that used boats (sailors) that also indulged excessively in alcohol. Or do you think that is a wild fantasy with no validity? Oh sorry, I guess I better do my own research into what you think since you get so testy from questions.
you didn't - actually flat earth was by observation for what they could see at the time. no matter how far you traveled the horizon in the distance looked flat/they could not see a curve.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#115655 Jun 24, 2014
it amazes me that with all the peer reviewed scientific papers that are available to read and study on the internet that so many here use their opinion, wiki and youtube for evidence of their claim (which none are evidence) then wonder why people are so un/under-educated.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#115656 Jun 24, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
God gave us science.
WRONG!

God if any , gave man the ability to formulate his science, you see science is man's invention and it is his own.. Do not and it really pisses me off when you try to credit god
FOR OUR ACHIEVEMENTS. Man created science by his ability alone.

&fe ature=kp

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#115657 Jun 24, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point.
But for brain diseased funditarted godbots, we would still live in caves in fear of lightening .
Enlightenment and divinity are on a curve, they curve away from each other.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#115658 Jun 24, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you have it backwards. did you get that from wisegeek? try again.

The evidence that LUCA was a super organism comes from microbiology, and the proteins that all life share in common across the clades, the ancient parts that are common to all life were compiled , and microbiologists came to this conclusion. A tell tale sign that is donsidered part of this line of reasoning is the microbiome and it's newly discovered ability to share cross species information in LGT or HGT. The microbiome is much more complex than once thought and our little parts more complex than ever thought, all this shows us is another avenue for evolution to take paths we never thought possible before, now realized through microbiology.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n73...

You'rte still an evolution denying fundiseased godbot of low caliber and not worth of any serious discussion.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#115659 Jun 24, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
pythagoras made influential contributions to philosophy and religion in the late 6th century bc. he is often revered as a great mathematician, mystic, and scientist
many mathematical and scientific discoveries were attributed to pythagoras.
but yet there was no science or scientists 1000ís years ago right?
No, only very preliminary tiny parts of it, like the preoccupation of post Socratic philosophers with observation.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#115660 Jun 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
God can not lie or go against his word. God spoke to all living creatures and living things and he said for them to be fruitful and to multiply after their own kind. Now we can assume that this is the way it was and has been from the beginning of life on Earth, can we not?
In science we don't assume.
We give empirical evidence.
If there is no empirical evidence, OFF goes the idea.
Until at least someone came with empirical evidence.

Here are you assumption, count them how many there are in just 3 lines of text:
1) "God" - which one of the about 6,000 ones? Where to be found? Ever observed?
2) "God cannot lie" - why not? How do you know?
3) "and he said for them to be fruitful and to multiply after their own kind"? How do you know? Where can I find this? The bible? what's so special about that book and not about the I Tching, Upanishads, Gilgamesh Epic, Edda or the Qu'ran?
4) "Now we can assume.." How so? On what grounds?
5) "this is the way it was and has been from the beginning of life on Earth" How so? How do you know? A first glance into the fossil stratification and geological record ALREADY proves OTHERWISE.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115662 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
You still need to show your assumption (that X causes green-ness in Y).
No I dont.

Thats where your understanding falls short.

If X causes green-ness in Y, green Ys contain X.

Then the implication is that WHENEVER or WHEREVER or AT THE POINT WHERE, Y causes green-ness in X, Ys WILL contain X.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY DEMONSTRATES TRANSCENDENCE.

Therefore it is possible to arrive at accuracy by direct equation or by directly equating.

But it doesnt seem that equity is on your street, so it doesnt surprise me if you dont know about it.

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#115663 Jun 24, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what personal reasons do you have? does it make you feel better? does it make your life better?
It makes me feel better which in turn makes my life better. Ii that good enough for you?

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#115664 Jun 24, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i see. you believe in something until you see that they are false. have you ever seen a fire breathing dragon? no you say! so they must exists too right? by chance you say. isnít it by chance that you are here? the chance that you parents met.
The chance my parents meeting was not near as big of chance as the world just coming into existence so I fail to see your point.

Fire breathing dragons,,lol that doesn't even deserve a reply!

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115665 Jun 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> WRONG!
God if any , gave man the ability to formulate his science, you see science is man's invention and it is his own.. Do not and it really pisses me off when you try to credit god
FOR OUR ACHIEVEMENTS. Man created science by his ability alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =r6w2M50_XdkXX&feature=kp
Why does the thought of God threaten you so? Is it that your ego can't handle not being the center of your universe? Or maybe you're afraid you may have to account for the wrongs you've done and bad behavior toward others at some point.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115666 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please attempt to follow the argument.
*IF* we define God to be electricity,*then* God follows Ohm's law and not the reverse. That was the question you asked: what is the logical implication of the assumption that God is electricity.
Now, you are switching the assumption and assuming that God is 'the creator'.
A lie for a lie and a truth for a truth.

If I am suggesting that God is creator and god possesses almighty power/potential; then how the Sam Hill could he suggest that God is electricity?!!!!???!!

I wish I told him... electricity is really the manifestation of a supernatural.

IF YOU WANT TO ASK OR TELL ME SOMETHING, DO IT DIRECTLY: DO NOT INVOLVE YOURSELF WHEN I AM NOT ADDRESSING YOU DIRECTLY.

Different strokes for different folks.
polymath257 wrote:
Now, I want to point out that this is different than your previous definition that God is 'the almighty'. You have not shown either actually exists, nor that they must be equal.
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting to me that you are not seeing a direct relationship between "creator" and "almighty"?

HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So the definition that people have of God which convinces or ALLOWS YOU TO BELIEVE in God (under that definition) is void of logic?
polymath257 wrote:
Yes...
Oh.

In that case I am not surprised.

LOL!
HAGER

United States

#115667 Jun 24, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In science we don't assume.
We give empirical evidence.
If there is no empirical evidence, OFF goes the idea.
Until at least someone came with empirical evidence.
Here are you assumption, count them how many there are in just 3 lines of text:
1) "God" - which one of the about 6,000 ones? Where to be found? Ever observed?
2) "God cannot lie" - why not? How do you know?
3) "and he said for them to be fruitful and to multiply after their own kind"? How do you know? Where can I find this? The bible? what's so special about that book and not about the I Tching, Upanishads, Gilgamesh Epic, Edda or the Qu'ran?
4) "Now we can assume.." How so? On what grounds?
5) "this is the way it was and has been from the beginning of life on Earth" How so? How do you know? A first glance into the fossil stratification and geological record ALREADY proves OTHERWISE.
The evidence can be made to look any way and the record may not take a lot of things into account like massive worldwide earthquakes. You said a mouthful when you said "A first glance".

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115668 Jun 24, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
But for brain diseased funditarted godbots, we would still live in caves in fear of lightening .
Enlightenment and divinity are on a curve, they curve away from each other.
I'd rather be that then a closed minded, angry, dingbat like you who is afraid of what other people believe.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#115669 Jun 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, it wasn't a proposition that Z is the largest number, it was the definition.
<quoted text>
It is a proposed definition (unless you found it sprouting somewhere in the universe naturally).
polymath257 wrote:
Not only logic. I tis *one* criterion, but not the only. You still need information for the logic to work upon.
<quoted text>
Any input will do: X, God, Almighty, Poly....

When you say "information" you make it sound as if it has to have regularity and structure; however, all it requires is a single input of whatever nature.

It makes no difference whether you say:

If the spaghetti monster can be eaten by human beings; it will be afraid to tour the streets of China.
OR

If asghasd jghasdgidsjhgsdafnsdajifne can be aiusdfgeauigaeu; it will be asfkjdsaff to ahfbf the asdklfhdsf of akjfhsejfbweuf.
polymath257 wrote:
yes, in fact, it does. In fact, it is the falsity of that conclusion that is one way of showing no such Z exists.
<quoted text>

Ok.

Obviously Z cannot be less than nor greater than Z; Z will always equal Z, or else it cannot equal anything else.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"]
The 'Truth' is not a single statement. Since only statements can be proven or disproven, there is no way to prove 'the Truth'. On the other hand, if we start with true statements and use logic, we will obtain true statements.
Oh yeah?

But truth is a single concept; wanna guess what it is?

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
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 7 min Mitt s Airtight D... 303
Turkey pardons Turkey 7 min Hoosier Hillbilly 1
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 11 min andet1987 7,353
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 18 min Analog man 1,803
ChANge "2" letter ChANgLE 19 min Hoosier Hillbilly 32
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min Wolftracks 151,113
Change-Six-Of-Six-Letters....Fun Game! 20 min Go for It 382
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 28 min Deer Whisperer 37,494
Bill Cosby 30 min Mitt s Airtight D... 230
Woman Arrested For $6400 Sausage Heist 2 hr Capn Greg 14

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE