Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222780 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.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117264 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you only have the existence of power, not the existence of a common source for all power.
Even if all power has a source, you are making the illogical leap from the statement
'For each power, there is a source of that power'
to the statement
'there is a common source for all powers'
THAT is the logical leap that you have not established.
Look at how your statement about not knowing what it means to conform to equality proves true:

If all power has one source, then it is naturally the source of EACH ONE of those powers which it (the source) has created.

Therefore the remark:

"Even if all power has a source, you are making the illogical leap from the statement...";

Should never even have entered your mind as a reasonable individual ("reasonable" by any definition).

The assumption that there is a source of all powers MUST immediately, directly, naturally and every -ally-ly implies that:'For each power, there is a source of that power'.
polymath257 wrote:
So you have not proven that there is a God, even by your definition, and even granting that the term 'power' is sufficiently defined to lend itself to this argument (which I also deny).
<quoted text>
If that conclusion was based on your sentiments above; it is meaningless (both the conclusion and the sentiment).
polymath257 wrote:
The logical flaw is pointed out above. You assume a common source for all types of power. That has not been demonstrated and, in fact, is incredibly unlikely.
But logic demands that there be, and there must naturally be.

That which is powerful by any definition of power, must possess one unique attribute (or set of attributes) which allows it to be identified as being powerful or having potential. And it is this attribute/s which is causes or generates the power by itself or from itself.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117265 Jul 7, 2014
Hey, there are 14 people currently viewing this forum. The world is taking heed of the Hand of God. ROFLMMFAO!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117266 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You forgot to link the original claim.
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
Subduction Zone wrote:
Until you do it was begging the question and you missed the point. If the Bible can be reinterpreted to fit the truth no matter what the truth is it is absolutely useless.
So since letters words and numbers are reinterpreted to fit reality no matter what reality is; is it absolutely useless when a scientist describes what he observes using a particular set of words?

Do words have any real meaning apart from what the speakers agree that they mean?

Do you know the agreements that influence the writing of the Bible and the way it interprets reality?

And besides; WHAT HAVE YOU TO DO WITH "TRUTH"?

The moment you speak of truth you enter the metaphysical, for the truth never changes and is therefore eternal; surpassing the physical in time...
Subduction Zone wrote:
Try again, but so far you have only shown that your Bible is worthless.
It is worthless to mosquitoes too.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117267 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you clearly have no clue...
How would you know?

Do you know the truth about the things of which I speak so that you can conclude on how much of a clue I have or dont have.

GFU!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117268 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not defined "kinds"...
So the term "kind", means nothing to you neither in general nor specifically so that you could analyse based on at least an assumption of what it means.

BUT YET:
Subduction Zone wrote:
Also you have not defined what "complexity" is. It is easy to show that life can get more "complex" through evolution for practically any definition of "complexity".
So what your thought pattern implies, is that you have no capacity to think critically about anything outside of evolution... to that degree.

You could not have made any progress without scientific method, and it is not that the method as described is intrinsically accurate... though it is indispensable with in its efficiency.

It is because scientific method embodies equality, a phenomena which brains like yours fail to appreciate...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117269 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
Don't be a fool. I do not make senseless assumption. I am not a creatard.
So since letters words and numbers are reinterpreted to fit reality no matter what reality is; is it absolutely useless when a scientist describes what he observes using a particular set of words?
That is not what scientists do. That is what you attempted to do with your Bible and that makes it worthless. I see that logic does not live in your neighborhood.
Do words have any real meaning apart from what the speakers agree that they mean?
That has nothing to do with this conversation.
Do you know the agreements that influence the writing of the Bible and the way it interprets reality?
I could not care less. The Bible has been debunked no matter how you try to interpret it unless you put such a lax interpretation on it that it is worthless. Which is what you tried to do.
And besides; WHAT HAVE YOU TO DO WITH "TRUTH"?
The moment you speak of truth you enter the metaphysical, for the truth never changes and is therefore eternal; surpassing the physical in time...
No, truth is much more than metaphysical. And your last line was pure bullshit. Try again.
It is worthless to mosquitoes too.
No, the Bible makes a very effective mosquito swatter. It weighs very heavily on them when applied.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117270 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know?
Do you know the truth about the things of which I speak so that you can conclude on how much of a clue I have or dont have.
GFU!
Yes, I do know the truth about the things of which you speak. You should have come to me sooner.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117271 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So the term "kind", means nothing to you neither in general nor specifically so that you could analyse based on at least an assumption of what it means.
No, that would be presumptious of me. No one knows what foolishness lies in the brain of the creatard. The point was that no one on your side can properly define what the word "kind" means. You do not have a working definition of kind. You don't tell what tests could be taken to see if two animals were of the same "kind" or not.
BUT YET:
<quoted text>
So what your thought pattern implies, is that you have no capacity to think critically about anything outside of evolution... to that degree.
You could not have made any progress without scientific method, and it is not that the method as described is intrinsically accurate... though it is indispensable with in its efficiency.
It is because scientific method embodies equality, a phenomena which brains like yours fail to appreciate...
No, you should never pretend to know what someone else is thinking. Especially someone that actually uses his brain. I was pointing out that you had not defined what "complexity" is. Again what is complex and what is not. Why is something complex? A snowflake can look quite complex but on a crystalline level it is extremely simple.

Your side likes to misuse terms and then try to use those misuses to try to win arguments.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117272 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
<quoted text>
So since letters words and numbers are reinterpreted to fit reality no matter what reality is; is it absolutely useless when a scientist describes what he observes using a particular set of words?
Do words have any real meaning apart from what the speakers agree that they mean?
Do you know the agreements that influence the writing of the Bible and the way it interprets reality?
And besides; WHAT HAVE YOU TO DO WITH "TRUTH"?
The moment you speak of truth you enter the metaphysical, for the truth never changes and is therefore eternal; surpassing the physical in time...
<quoted text>
It is worthless to mosquitoes too.
What have you to do with the truth. You have a belief and are claiming it is fact. Big whoop. There are many, many people ahead of you in that line.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117273 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So the term "kind", means nothing to you neither in general nor specifically so that you could analyse based on at least an assumption of what it means.
BUT YET:
<quoted text>
So what your thought pattern implies, is that you have no capacity to think critically about anything outside of evolution... to that degree.
You could not have made any progress without scientific method, and it is not that the method as described is intrinsically accurate... though it is indispensable with in its efficiency.
It is because scientific method embodies equality, a phenomena which brains like yours fail to appreciate...
The term kind is not defined. It could mean anything in the context of the Bible. Jeez, is that so hard for a fella calling himself the Hand of God. I think you should have opted for the Mind of God, maybe you would understand better and make more sense.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117274 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So the term "kind", means nothing to you neither in general nor specifically so that you could analyse based on at least an assumption of what it means.
BUT YET:
<quoted text>
So what your thought pattern implies, is that you have no capacity to think critically about anything outside of evolution... to that degree.
You could not have made any progress without scientific method, and it is not that the method as described is intrinsically accurate... though it is indispensable with in its efficiency.
It is because scientific method embodies equality, a phenomena which brains like yours fail to appreciate...
The problem is that the term "kind" is general and open. It can be equal to whatever you want it to be equal to.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117275 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
Causes happen inside the universe. So the universe itself is uncaused.
<quoted text>
YOUR VERY STATEMENT SUGGESTS METAPHYSICS:

If the uncaused exists, it is eternal.

And whatever is eternal exists beyond causes, as you rightly claimed.

Therefore to study causes within the context of the eternal is metaphysics itself; repackaged and labelled according to the perspective of Institution...

Therefore you only reject one metaphysics to embrace another...

But its ok; you are entitled to your own metaphysics as much as you are to your own opinion, I guess.

__________

From now on, I will speak to you of the hypocrisy of agnosticism:

If there is an equal chance that God exists or does not exist; the probability is 1/2 that either one could occur.

Now if I toss a coin in the air, the probability that it will land on either heads or tails is 1/2: so the cases are somewhat equivalent (and I am willing to bet, directly related).

Now if a coin is tossed and the probability of heads or tails being the result is 1/2 for both; WHAT WILL CAUSE A PERSON TO CHOOSE HEADS AS OPPOSED TO TAILS, EXCEPT PERSONAL INCLINATION?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117276 Jul 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The problem is that the term "kind" is general and open. It can be equal to whatever you want it to be equal to.
Lets test that:

I dont see that when I consult the English dictionary; and English is a language I am going to assume you can handle effectively, to say the least.
KIND:

"
kind
&#8194; Use Kind in a sentence
Ads
Check My Grammar Online
www.grammarcheckforsentence.com
Check Grammar Errors, Sentence Free Checking Tex,Spell,Rule,Word,Paper.
Translator Download
translationbuddy.com
One-click Translations In 50+ Languages. Always Free-Try Now!
kind
1 [kahynd] Show IPA
adjective, kind·er, kind·est.
1.
of a good or benevolent nature or disposition, as a person: a kind and loving person.
2.
having, showing, or proceeding from benevolence: kind words.
3.
indulgent, considerate, or helpful; humane (often followed by to ): to be kind to animals.
4.
mild; gentle; clement: kind weather.
5.
British Dialect . loving; affectionate.
Origin:
before 900; Middle English kind ( e ) natural, well-disposed, Old English gecynde natural, genial1 . See kind2

...

Antonyms
1. cruel.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
kind
2 [kahynd] Show IPA
noun
1.
a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs.
2.
nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
3.
a person or thing as being of a particular character or class: He is a strange kind of hero.
4.
a more or less adequate or inadequate example of something; sort: The vines formed a kind of roof.
5.
Archaic.
a.
the nature, or natural disposition or character.
b.
manner; form.
Idioms
7.
in kind,
a.
in something of the same kind or in the same way as that received or borne: They will be repaid in kind for their rudeness.
b.
in goods, commodities, or services rather than money: In colonial times, payment was often made in kind.
8.
kind of, Informal. to some extent; somewhat; rather: The room was kind of dark.
9.
of a kind, of the same class, nature, character, etc.: They are two of a kind.
Origin:
before 900; Middle English kinde, Old English gecynd nature, race, origin; cognate with Old Norse kyndi, Old High German kikunt, Latin g&#275;ns (genitive gentis ); see kin

Can be confused: kind, sort, type (see usage note at the current entry)(see usage note at type).

Synonyms
1. order, genus, species; race, breed; set.

...
kind 1 (ka&#618;nd)

— adj
1. having a friendly or generous nature or attitude
2. helpful to others or to another: a kind deed
3. considerate or humane
4. cordial; courteous (esp in the phrase kind regards )
5. pleasant; agreeable; mild: a kind climate
6. informal beneficial or not harmful: a detergent that is kind to the hands
7. archaic loving

[Old English gecynde natural, native; see kind ²]

kind 2 (ka&#618;nd)

— n
1. a class or group having characteristics in common; sort; type: two of a kind ; what kind of creature?
2. an instance or example of a class or group, esp a rudimentary one: heating of a kind
3. essential nature or character: the difference is one of kind rather than degree
4. archaic gender or sex
5. archaic nature; the natural order
6. in kind
a.(of payment) in goods or produce rather than in money
b. with something of the same sort: to return an insult in kind
7. informal kind of
a.( adverb ) somewhat; rather: kind of tired
b.( sentence substitute ) used to express reservation or qualified assent: I figured it out. Kind of

...
...

.[http://dictionary.reference. com/browse/kind]

NO, HE IS JUST PLAIN BIASED IN HIS THINKING!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117277 Jul 7, 2014
HOG, the problem is that you do not have a working definition of kind.

How do you tell if two different animals are of the same "kind" or not?

How do you tell if two different populations of animals are of the same "kind" or not. If you can answer those questions with a reasonable test then you can possibly claim to have a working definition. If you can't do so then it is clear that you do not have a working definition.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117278 Jul 7, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
....
In order to understand the eternal truth we FIRST have to investigate Jewish thought and culture?
How interesting.
No, but it is necessary to investigate their perspectives; for they were the first to recognize its power/influence of all things... to the point where they worshiped it as they worshiped a God.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117279 Jul 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The term kind is not defined. It could mean anything in the context of the Bible...
But the Bible was translated into english. Therefore we know that jews and the english could agree on what "kind" suggests.

But what are you?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117280 Jul 7, 2014
Do you know the agreements that influence the writing of the Bible and the way it interprets reality?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
...I could not care less...
So why are you even here talking about what you dont know?

I know that agnosticism is a decision, not a rational obligation.

I just press buttons to make you come to terms with yourself.

YOOOOU choose not to acknowledge the reality and existence of God; whether He does or not.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117281 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
HOG, the problem is that you do not have a working definition of kind...
The problem is that you dont seem to be able to recognize that all you will ever have is a working definition.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117282 Jul 7, 2014
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
... I do not make senseless assumption. I am not a creatard....
So only creatards make foolish assumptions; such that whoever assumes something that happens to be senseless is a creatard?

My statement is a self fulfilling prophesy!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117283 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Oh, so now its my fault that you make senseless assumptions?
<quoted text>
So only creatards make foolish assumptions; such that whoever assumes something that happens to be senseless is a creatard?
My statement is a self fulfilling prophesy!
Look at your previous post. It proves my point. You are an ignorant idiot.

But don't worry, ignorance can be cured by education.

Now try to quit being a fool and tell me how you would tell if two animals were of the same "kind" or not.

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
News Your Life Story In 6 Words (Feb '08) 3 min September Daze 10,300
Woman appreciate a man that.........? (Mar '15) 25 min September Daze 199
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 28 min Dear Missus 27,390
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 47 min Parden Pard 9,446
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 1 hr Parden Pard 2,347
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Dear Missus 223,412
"2" TWO word FUN game*** (Mar '13) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 1,657
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 11 hr Poo Bears 6,064
Things that make life eaiser... (Apr '15) 11 hr TheJerseyDevil 969
More from around the web