Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209586 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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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]

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#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.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#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?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#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?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#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.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#116093 Jun 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
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?
1. I don't know. Not enough discussion. I think you are mixed.
2. No
3. No
4. Again not enough discussion. I think you feel mixed

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#116094 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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 would make me safer from the bullet by reducing the loss due to possible death without it. I still could suffer severe pain, bruising and possible broken bones due to the impact. Bullets still pack a lot of energy and hurt like hell even if they don't penetrate. The point is that getting shot at has a high risk as opposed to not being shot at no matter how many vests you are wearing.

Statistics indicate that you are less safe when in possession of a gun than you are without it despite how many bad guys you can kill with it.

I'm just being realistic. It has nothing to do with a political opinion.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#116095 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Ok, I see you are aware of the actual outcome of being shot while wearing a vest. They should be afraid, they are about to be shot at. Their risk of injury has just jumped.

“Proud Member”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#116096 Jun 26, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
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?

A-1.
A-2.
A-3.
A-4.

You forgot the above part.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#116097 Jun 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't know. Not enough discussion. I think you are mixed.
2. No
3. No
4. Again not enough discussion. I think you feel mixed
1. I am a gun owner. I raised by a gun collecting marine who grew up using guns to put food on the table. He made sure his children knew about guns and gun safety. I do not think we should remove guns from private hands.

2. I support the 2nd Amendment. Always have. Can't see why I wouldn't continue to do so. It provides the states the right to a militia and the private citizen the right to own them and possess them as well.

3. The primary person responsible for my safety and security is me. There are other people and organizations out there with my safety in mind, but I have the most personal stake and responsibility. If I think a gun is what need to ensure my ability to defend myself, then that is what I choose and I have. But just owning a gun doesn't satisfy what is needed to carry out that defense and you still could get hurt or killed. It is a choice and shouldn't be taken lightly.

4. If you are a person legally able to purchase a gun, there isn't any reason preventing you from doing it. I imagine my previous responses gave that position away.

I thought I might elaborate since I was beginning to wonder if our discussion about the safety of firearm ownership was being mistakenly seen as a political position from my end. The only thing I am concerned about is that just making a blanket statement about safety will leave a potential purchaser unaware of the full ramifications of gun ownership.

If you want a gun, buy one. If you don't, then don't.

I will close with this. According to an analysis of the available data, if you have children, they are far more likely to be injured or killed if you own a pool than if you own a gun.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#116098 Jun 26, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
A-1.
A-2.
A-3.
A-4.
You forgot the above part.
I am really not sure what you position is. Your posts have left me with more confusion than clarity. Do you think you are safer with a gun or without a gun?

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 song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min avon5735 200,790
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 9 min Poppyann 10,631
News Smoking rates in England are the lowest on record 10 min Spotted Girl 92
News Police Respond To St. Cloud Mall On Reports Of ... 11 min Emerald 161
Only Three Word (Nov '09) 11 min Poppyann 13,524
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 12 min Poppyann 1,372
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 19 min Denny CranesPlace 20,111
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 22 min Denny CranesPlace 61,442
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 46 min Hypocrite Hunter 9,095
2words into 2new words (May '12) 57 min Poppyann 5,062
More from around the web