Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221768 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.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116073 Jun 26, 2014
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text> I do think morals should be taught in schools. Morals are not religion. Being taught to not lie cheat or steal are a moral code not a religious one
Schools are to busy teaching the kids to disrespect their parents and their beliefs.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116074 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Put it this way. If you were sitting on your porch in your chair and had a shotgun across you lap, whether you knew how to use it or not, the odds of someone coming up to you and robbing you are cut drastically down,,, thus guns make you safer.
Lol.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#116075 Jun 26, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
You guys keep whining and crying and taking God the flag, morals and anything good that you don't what to abide by and doesn't fit your life style choice out of the schools and the kids will just keep piling up on the floor. K? Then you can blame it on guns.
Just so I am not misunderstanding, are you, in a roundabout way, connecting the teaching of Evolution with school shooting deaths?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116076 Jun 26, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse please ....but you haven't even ....asked a question....yet!
Not asking. Answering.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116077 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Put it this way. If you were sitting on your porch in your chair and had a shotgun across you lap, whether you knew how to use it or not, the odds of someone coming up to you and robbing you are cut drastically down,,, thus guns make you safer.
That isn't an argument that the gun makes me safer. It is an argument that I have a gun that gives me the ability to defend myself. A robber might still come along and rob me or sneak up behind me. The gun only makes it more difficult for him and it might deter some robbers. But it is not inherently safer to have a gun than not. What if it isn't apparent that you possess a gun to protect yourself. Concealed carry would be just such a situation. Just like having 5000 pounds of spoons won't impact how much you eat.

The NRA doesn't provide me with accidental death and dismemberment insurance because they think I am safer with a gun than without. The police have guns and still they are injured or killed. The fallacy that guns make you safer is no different than the fallacy that guns cause school shootings.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116078 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
Let me add to this;
A gun by itself or even having many guns will actually make a person safer. It all changes when that "person" chooses what to do with/how to use that gun.
This is the part of the post you made that I was responding to. I cut out the rest for clarity. You are saying too things here. 1. A gun or guns makes you safer. 2. The next statement is about the use of the gun. I am just explaining to you how your first statement is wrong. I have given you more than enough good examples to support my position. For instance, the recent events of a few weeks ago in Las Vegas with the gun wielding couple that killed some police officers and an armed civilian. They had guns and are dead. The police had guns and are dead. The armed civilian had a gun and he is dead. How were these people safer by the mere possession of guns?

Having a gun and the training, skill and ability to use it can protect you and others, but it does not make you safer. The armed civilian was lawfully carrying a gun for his protection and he used it lawfully to protect himself and others. The outcome shows how much safer he was.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116079 Jun 26, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Drug companies are not private. Lol.
Some are, but most are publicly traded companies. I assume you picked drug companies, because these free market entities are good, bad guys to target. Anybody that funds your research is a stakeholder in the outcome of that research to be sure, however, you seem to imply that means that the research is always biased to the stakeholders wishes. That is fraud and not science.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#116080 Jun 26, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do think science has a political agenda. Where do you think they get most of their funding? Government is in the schools, they fund them.
Scientists have a political agenda in that they want a country and a government that will continue to fund science. Scientific discoveries themselves do not have a political agenda.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#116081 Jun 26, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Teaching the kids wrong from right will keep us all safer.
And if a parent wants to use religion in their home to do that, I have no problem with that. If a teacher wants to use civics or history or the concept of the social contract or any other aspect of learning to do that, I have no problem with that. But public schools using a specific religion in order to do that, I have a huge problem with that.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#116082 Jun 26, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Schools are to busy teaching the kids to disrespect their parents and their beliefs.
[Citation Needed]

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#116083 Jun 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is the part of the post you made that I was responding to. I cut out the rest for clarity. You are saying too things here. 1. A gun or guns makes you safer. 2. The next statement is about the use of the gun. I am just explaining to you how your first statement is wrong. I have given you more than enough good examples to support my position. For instance, the recent events of a few weeks ago in Las Vegas with the gun wielding couple that killed some police officers and an armed civilian. They had guns and are dead. The police had guns and are dead. The armed civilian had a gun and he is dead. How were these people safer by the mere possession of guns?
Having a gun and the training, skill and ability to use it can protect you and others, but it does not make you safer. The armed civilian was lawfully carrying a gun for his protection and he used it lawfully to protect himself and others. The outcome shows how much safer he was.
You're asking a stupid question, do forks make you eat better? NO Do the possession of forks enhance your ability to eat better? YES
Guns give you the ability to fire projectiles. do guns make you safer? NO
Do guns enable you to defend yourself on equal term. YES

Q. If grandmother was threatened by a intruder man with a gun, would she be able to defend herself?

A. If she had a gun.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#116084 Jun 26, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists have a political agenda in that they want a country and a government that will continue to fund science. Scientific discoveries themselves do not have a political agenda.
But falsifying the reasearch of the discovery or part of the discovery has a political agenda to just keep getting more funding. I posted a link the other day of that happening where the scientists got $millions.

Sadly it does happen

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#116085 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But falsifying the reasearch of the discovery or part of the discovery has a political agenda to just keep getting more funding. I posted a link the other day of that happening where the scientists got $millions.
Sadly it does happen
I am sure it does, which is unfortunate. But that is still the scientists, not the science.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116086 Jun 26, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're asking a stupid question, do forks make you eat better? NO Do the possession of forks enhance your ability to eat better? YES
Guns give you the ability to fire projectiles. do guns make you safer? NO
Do guns enable you to defend yourself on equal term. YES
Q. If grandmother was threatened by a intruder man with a gun, would she be able to defend herself?
A. If she had a gun.
It isn't my question. I didn't claim that guns would make you safer or forks would make you healthier.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116087 Jun 26, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You're asking a stupid question, do forks make you eat better? NO Do the possession of forks enhance your ability to eat better? YES
Guns give you the ability to fire projectiles. do guns make you safer? NO
Do guns enable you to defend yourself on equal term. YES
Q. If grandmother was threatened by a intruder man with a gun, would she be able to defend herself?
A. If she had a gun.
No, the gun would not make her safer, it would reduce her loss possibly, but they don't inherently make you safer by having one.

I don't know your grandmother and what she is capable of. I know of several older people that have successfully defended themselves from armed intruders sometimes with a gun and sometimes without. It is how you view safety that seems to be in question here.

Think of a seat belt. It doesn't make you safer. It reduces loss. You might still be in a horrendous auto accident, but the seatbelt might prevent you from being killed. Or it may be that you are left a quadriplegic but alive. The seat belt does not remove the threat of a car wreck it just changes the probability of how much you lose.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#116088 Jun 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>No, the gun would not make her safer, it would reduce her loss possibly, but they don't inherently make you safer by having one.
I don't know your grandmother and what she is capable of. I know of several older people that have successfully defended themselves from armed intruders sometimes with a gun and sometimes without. It is how you view safety that seems to be in question here.
Think of a seat belt. It doesn't make you safer. It reduces loss. You might still be in a horrendous auto accident, but the seatbelt might prevent you from being killed. Or it may be that you are left a quadriplegic but alive. The seat belt does not remove the threat of a car wreck it just changes the probability of how much you lose.
I propose an experiment involving only four things. Me, you, a gun and a bulletproof vest. You put on the vest and I will shoot you. Then you take off the vest and I will shoot you. Did the vest reduce your loss or make you safer? Actually it did both. First by making you safer from the bullet, it reduced your loss. Same thing with a seat belt. It makes you safer from the impact of the crash thus reducing your loss. << Now not saying it is perfect, but it is safer.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116089 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I propose an experiment involving only four things. Me, you, a gun and a bulletproof vest. You put on the vest and I will shoot you. Then you take off the vest and I will shoot you. Did the vest reduce your loss or make you safer? Actually it did both. First by making you safer from the bullet, it reduced your loss. Same thing with a seat belt. It makes you safer from the impact of the crash thus reducing your loss. << Now not saying it is perfect, but it is safer.
I knew responding to your original post had a risk of offending you since that doesn't seem to take much. However, I believe it is important to correct a person when they are wrong and offer them a more informed view. Especially on an issue like this. Saying gun possession makes you safer gives people a false sense of security and can actually make them less safe.

You have yet to show me how possessing a gun causes you to be inherently safer. How does it reduce your risk of being a target of violent crime beyond the minor deterrence value? If no one knows you have a gun, it isn't of any deterrence value at all.

I note how easily you volunteered me to be shot at but didn't step up yourself. Like I said, it doesn't seem to take much to offend you. However, were we able to carry out such and experiment, I would be willing to be the target and not volunteer another for any reason. The vest would in fact reduce my loss. That is the point of such a thing. However, I am less safe because a stranger with a short temper is shooting at me. To top it off, I don't have a gun so this doesn't show how a gun would make me safer. I would be safer not being in the presence of a gun and avoiding the test. It is safer not to be shot at than to be shot at with a bullet proof vest or body armor on. They can fail.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#116090 Jun 26, 2014
Now, if Aura or replay could answer these questions, I would be curious at what answers I get. I think they have something to do with the responses I am getting.

1. Am I a gun control advocate?

2. Do I think the 2nd Amendment is intended to support a state militia only and really isn't addressing private ownership of firearms?

3. Do I think you can't use a gun to defend yourself or others?

4. Do I think that people should not own guns?

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#116091 Jun 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I knew responding to your original post had a risk of offending you since that doesn't seem to take much. However, I believe it is important to correct a person when they are wrong and offer them a more informed view. Especially on an issue like this. Saying gun possession makes you safer gives people a false sense of security and can actually make them less safe.
You have yet to show me how possessing a gun causes you to be inherently safer. How does it reduce your risk of being a target of violent crime beyond the minor deterrence value? If no one knows you have a gun, it isn't of any deterrence value at all.
I note how easily you volunteered me to be shot at but didn't step up yourself. Like I said, it doesn't seem to take much to offend you. However, were we able to carry out such and experiment, I would be willing to be the target and not volunteer another for any reason. The vest would in fact reduce my loss. That is the point of such a thing. However, I am less safe because a stranger with a short temper is shooting at me. To top it off, I don't have a gun so this doesn't show how a gun would make me safer. I would be safer not being in the presence of a gun and avoiding the test. It is safer not to be shot at than to be shot at with a bullet proof vest or body armor on. They can fail.
It is not a matter of offending me. Many times I and even everyone here does not say exactly what they mean, which in turn gets a dew different responses. So by discussing back and forth they can hash it out so to speak.
You say the vest would reduce your loss. How would it reduce your loss other than protecting you from the bullet ie making you safer from the bullet?

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#116092 Jun 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
I note how easily you volunteered me to be shot at but didn't step up yourself. Like I said, it doesn't seem to take much to offend you. However, were we able to carry out such and experiment, I would be willing to be the target and not volunteer another for any reason. The vest would in fact reduce my loss. That is the point of such a thing. However, I am less safe because a stranger with a short temper is shooting at me. To top it off, I don't have a gun so this doesn't show how a gun would make me safer. I would be safer not being in the presence of a gun and avoiding the test. It is safer not to be shot at than to be shot at with a bullet proof vest or body armor on. They can fail.
I have been there done that. Not a fun thing. Leaves many times a good bruise, soreness and I don't care how many of those vest you have on nothing will take away the mental effect of "damnnn, I am about to be shot even though you know it will not come through. I have never seen any one without fear on their face.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 6 min Rosa 23,925
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 8 min Chilli J 5,841
News Florida Man Shoots Neighbor, Drives Dead Body t... 16 min Chilli J 15
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 18 min Dr S Niper 4,554
A six word game (Dec '08) 42 min Hoosier Hillbilly 21,138
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 46 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,045
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 56 min Hoosier Hillbilly 38,142
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Mister_ E 220,679
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 3 hr Mister_ E 2,113
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Rich and Happy 76,666
More from around the web