Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223190 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.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#116178 Jun 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and look at my post again. I didn't say what you said I said.
Actually, I did misunderstand the context. My apologies.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#116179 Jun 27, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. I like you.
Don't go liking me too much. I happen to be an atheist like these other heathens. I just don't put as much blind faith in science as many of them do :)

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#116180 Jun 27, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a failed experiment, faulty prediction or unexpected results yields new information. How many discoveries or technological innovations came about by complete accident or scientists looking for something different from what they discovered? Science can be ugly, messy, complicated and unpredictable but if the focus is primarily on discovery then it does always work.
We will have to agree to disagree here. In most any other field or profession, if one doesn't obtain set goals, that is usually considered a failure even if other good comes from the efforts of trying to obtain intended goal.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116181 Jun 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. For example, time itself might be finite. Remember, time is *part* of the universe.
<quoted text>
My argument is concerned with what is infinite, NOT that which is finite.

The only time the finite is relevant is whenever it helps to identify or describe the finite.
polymath257 wrote:
You make a mistake here. Being neither created nor destroyed doesn't imply nor is it implied by 'never changes'.
<quoted text>
Show me where something that cannot change has ever been created or destroyed.

If there is never a change; can you say that creation or destruction has taken place?
polymath257 wrote:
No, if the universe is eternal, then there simply would be no first thing. It is sort of like claiming there is a largest integer, only in reverse.
So would the universe not be the first (and last) thing, since it is the only?

It is nothing like claiming there is a largest integer in any direction.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116182 Jun 27, 2014
dragoon70056 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't go liking me too much. I happen to be an atheist like these other heathens. I just don't put as much blind faith in science as many of them do :)
Ah but you see that's the great thing about believing in a higher power. I'm not supposed to judge you for what you believe or don't believe. So I won't.:)
Some people in my family are atheist. I don't think I'll ever understand it but I respect their choice and they mine.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116183 Jun 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just silly. For example, a wave going past will bring things back to the same point, but there certainly was a change.
<quoted text>

1 = 1+2-2, 1=....

The return to the point of origin is described as *the move towards equality/conformity*.

Simply put, they change to remain the same; and as such the difference is only apparent, but never true.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"]
Why do you assume there was such a point?
<quoted text>
It is not an assumption: it is the subject under investigation.
polymath257 wrote:
Disproved by reductio as absurdum. There is no reason why several different first things could not have been the case. Your 'sentence' about equality only shows your muddled thinking about the subject.
That is impossible.

There could not have been more than one first things.

WHY:

If X, Y and Z begin at exactly the same time, exactly the same place: X = Y = Z.

Because it will not be possible to distinguish between them, not rationally nor physically.

Your remark shows your inability to think critically.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116184 Jun 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have stepped outside the realm of logical deduction and into the realm of HOG claims. Your lack of comprehension concerning logic is getting quite tiring.
No it is a simple fact.

When ever you leave direct relationships (of the nature X=Y), you approach the realm of PROBABILITY.

In other words, if you cannot say that X=Y, you cannot say anything about neither X nor Y with certainty.

And whenever you approach the realms of probability; my guess is as good as yours.

But I am concerned with certainty.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116185 Jun 27, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase is "natural selection" not "Mother Nature selected." Friggin unethical fundies.... The only way you can confuse "intentionally select" with "natural selection" is if you're fixated on intelligent design - which leads me to wonder what kind of "cigarette" you keep puffing on.
I never told YOU anything about "intentionally select".

We were discussing the idea that YHWH is an anthropomorphism.

I made the reference to "natural selction" to show that anthropomorphism is ONE WAY of making sense of reality WHETHER THE CONTEXT IS SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS.

If you only take a look at the example YOU provided you will see another case:

" Biology A natural or artificial process that FAVORS or induces survival and perpetuation...- American Heritage Dictionary"

Does nature have a heart????????!!

ANTHROPOMORPHISM IS A METHOD OF DESCRIPTION; AND DOESNT RENDER THAT WHICH IS DESCRIBED INVALID NOR MEANINGLESS AUTOMATICALLY.

FRIGGIN UNETHICAL FUNDIES!!!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116186 Jun 27, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
What's with the questions? Is this your only rebuttal - trying to shift the burden to others? YOU are the one making preposterous claims, it is YOUR responsibility to back them up, not just pawning the burden to those challenging you.
I am not pawning anything.

The same standards by which one man can know anything are the same standards by which any man can learn anything...

Stay out of this. This is beyond you.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116187 Jun 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not an assumption: it is the subject under investigation.
<quoted text>
That is impossible.
There could not have been more than one first things.
WHY:
If X, Y and Z begin at exactly the same time, exactly the same place: X = Y = Z.
Because it will not be possible to distinguish between them, not rationally nor physically.
Your remark shows your inability to think critically.
I disagree. On a simple level, when a cell splits you have two cells made a the exact same time.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#116188 Jun 27, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The spoon was not designed to kill, the gun was. Sure itís just a tool like other tools but most tools were not designed to kill although some may be used that way
But that's not the analogy Cristina, no one is insinuating that the spoon was designed to be lethal, rather it cannot be held responsible for making you fat. That's the comparison.(Ergo,'Guns don't kill... Spoons don't fatten...')The whole 'killed by spoon' was just an adage on my part, because, well,'killed by spoon'. lol.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116189 Jun 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Or is it that schools that teach critical thinking are not appreciated by the willfully ignorant?
if you had not made that remark, your behavior would have been tolerable...

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116190 Jun 27, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. On a simple level, when a cell splits you have two cells made a the exact same time.
No, you do not disagree.

The "parent" cell would have been the one first thing.

Thus example does not contradict the claim that there could have been only on first thing; because the "parent" state existed before the divided state.

I love you.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116191 Jun 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is a simple fact.
When ever you leave direct relationships (of the nature X=Y), you approach the realm of PROBABILITY.
In other words, if you cannot say that X=Y, you cannot say anything about neither X nor Y with certainty.
And whenever you approach the realms of probability; my guess is as good as yours.
But I am concerned with certainty.
This should help. Your answers have a CERTAIN smell to them.

X=Y. Everything you observe about X will be the same for Y. Is your double negative more of your double talk or was that an accident? If you don't know that X = Y you can still make inferences about one with relation to the other and test those inferences with appropriate degrees of certainty.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116192 Jun 27, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's not the analogy Cristina, no one is insinuating that the spoon was designed to be lethal, rather it cannot be held responsible for making you fat. That's the comparison.(Ergo,'Guns don't kill... Spoons don't fatten...')The whole 'killed by spoon' was just an adage on my part, because, well,'killed by spoon'. lol.
I like Motorhead's "Killed by Death". The song mentions neither spoon nor gun though. Squeezing lizards and something about snakes is mentioned. Not sure what it all means.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116193 Jun 27, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. On a simple level, when a cell splits you have two cells made a the exact same time.
I find this question most inteteresting. See, I gave it high ratings, and it keeps me thinking.

However, there is another reason why it is not in conflict with the claim of "if x and y are formed at the same palce and same time: x=y"...

The two cells would not have been formed at the same place.

The division of the cells could not have taken place without a differentiation of the space in which the original cell existed.

In other words: the cell went two different directions during the split, so they were formed in different places.

The God is in the details, I always say.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116194 Jun 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you do not disagree.
The "parent" cell would have been the one first thing.
Thus example does not contradict the claim that there could have been only on first thing; because the "parent" state existed before the divided state.
I love you.
You forgot, that should have been written "Welcome to Costco, I love you".

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#116195 Jun 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not pawning anything.
The same standards by which one man can know anything are the same standards by which any man can learn anything...
Stay out of this. This is beyond you.
HOG, no offense, but it's pretty obvious you're actually not too bright. You stand behind other's quotes, you post absurd pseudo-knowledge, you lose yourself in abstract thought, and then you throw out random insults at the first sign of someone with greater knowledge than your own starts to call you out on your bullshit. No sir, most of this is beyond you.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116196 Jun 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not pawning anything.
The same standards by which one man can know anything are the same standards by which any man can learn anything...
Stay out of this. This is beyond you.
No, it isn't. Just by his question, it is clear he has good vision. He can really see shit when it is there.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#116197 Jun 27, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
if you had not made that remark, your behavior would have been tolerable...
Again, putting yourself above others. If you hadn't been so condescending...

No, you're still a tool.

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
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 58 min CFS 7,571
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 2 hr what a russsh 16,325
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. (Oct '16) 2 hr Pardon Pard 4,150
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 2 hr what a russsh 21,140
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 2 hr what a russsh 84,288
News Why People Have Weird Dreams During Their Periods 2 hr Pardon Pard 2
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 2 hr what a russsh 7,449
Does anyone remember? (Apr '13) 2 hr Pardon Pard 1,978
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Rosa 32,417
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Dave 226,082
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Dave 76,615
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 hr Rosa 6,755
More from around the web