Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117173 Jul 7, 2014
if x, y and z are in the same exact place ant the same exact time; x=y=z.
Aura Mytha wrote:
...Since time does not exist for a particle, it exists as several things at the same time.
Exactly: the x exists ALSO as y and z.

So you have agreed with me.

I am glad to see that you are able to appreciate the fact.

You have been one of the most reasonable ones so far.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117174 Jul 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there be any peer review study papers to link a definition to another definition?
But since you insist on playing word games, I'll give you another definition.
clade -- A monophyletic taxon; a group of organisms which includes the most recent common ancestor of all of its members and all of the descendants of that most recent common ancestor. From the Greek word "klados", meaning branch or twig.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1p...
That surely sounds like "kind" or more specifically "all animals of the same kind"
well if you want to be ignorant about it,,, let look at "kind" in the bible. the bible speaks of two "kinds of animals". 1) clean, 2) unclean. so technically there is a working definition for "kind" in the bible. they did not have clade. They did not have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species. What they spoke of, being they were not as knowledgeable as we are today, were two --"kinds"-- of animals as follows; animals of the same kind---"clean" and animals of the same kind---"unclean".

now i can help you support evolution or i can hinder your bs petty arguments you throw at the creationists. They are people just like you and i. if you talk to them as people, show them a little respect which they do deserve, you will get further in talking to them and trying to explain things to them that they don't understand. look at Charles Idemi on my first post to him when he asked me what i believe. i explained to him what, why and what it was about. his reply was "you have some good points but not everything in the bible is false". he is correct that not everything in the bible is false and now maybe he will think about those good points i presented to him and when he is ready he might even want to discuss them more. we don't know. but it is better than treating them as idiots and bashing them down.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117175 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't You are being a moron again. At best that is called "begging the question".
Try again.
<quoted text>
LOL!

Since language and meaning differs from culture, you cannot tell me what I know to be "God"; that it is not different from what another culture identifies as God.

So immediately, I know that you are mad at an image of "God" that you have in your head; not at the fact of God.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Again being a moron by "begging the question".
Try again...
NO! THAT IS NOT BEGGIN THE QUESTION!

" If the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue." [wikipedia.com]

I am describing an idea using terms which are associated with REAL AND NATURAL phenomena (isources, power etc) and you are telling me what?

LOL

Furthermore, the Bible state "And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness..." [Gen 1]

If you payed nay attention in English language class, you would know that the subject "MAN" is plural and suggests the general, whereas "A MAN" would suggest the singular.

The Garden of Eden account was an isolated event as suggested by the narrative.

AND IF THE BIBLE CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MATCH ANY KNOWN FACTS; THEN IT IS INDISPENSABLE, FOR WE CAN USE IT TO LEARN THE NATURE OF ALL FACTS.
FREE SERVANT

Duluth, GA

#117176 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How complex is a fertilized egg cell?
I meant that life itself as it unfolds into its kinds, will become what it is instructed to be from the first of these kinds which were brought forth. It is not going from simple to more complex as a kind. It is unfolding to become what it needs to be to be fruitful and to multiply after its own kind. The process of development and making changes or adjustments is what we are seeing in living things, and when they are fully grown they go about passing complex information as how to best do this down to their offspring.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117177 Jul 7, 2014
By the definition of God that I know, God exists.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't You are being a moron again. At best that is called "begging the question".
Try again..
NO!

Thats not beggin the question either.

To my knowledge, "God" means "Power"; "God" is defined to be "power"; not the powerful, but the power/potential itself is "God".

Now, I know that God exists, because God is power (the god I identify as "God"); and I know that power exists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117178 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Since language and meaning differs from culture, you cannot tell me what I know to be "God"; that it is not different from what another culture identifies as God.
So immediately, I know that you are mad at an image of "God" that you have in your head; not at the fact of God.
<quoted text>
NO! THAT IS NOT BEGGIN THE QUESTION!
" If the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue." [wikipedia.com]
I am describing an idea using terms which are associated with REAL AND NATURAL phenomena (isources, power etc) and you are telling me what?
LOL
Furthermore, the Bible state "And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness..." [Gen 1]
If you payed nay attention in English language class, you would know that the subject "MAN" is plural and suggests the general, whereas "A MAN" would suggest the singular.
The Garden of Eden account was an isolated event as suggested by the narrative.
AND IF THE BIBLE CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MATCH ANY KNOWN FACTS; THEN IT IS INDISPENSABLE, FOR WE CAN USE IT TO LEARN THE NATURE OF ALL FACTS.
You forgot to link the original claim.

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.

Try again, but so far you have only shown that your Bible is worthless.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117179 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
By the definition of God that I know, God exists.
<quoted text>
NO!
Thats not beggin the question either.
To my knowledge, "God" means "Power"; "God" is defined to be "power"; not the powerful, but the power/potential itself is "God".
Now, I know that God exists, because God is power (the god I identify as "God"); and I know that power exists.
Nope, you clearly have no clue.

Try again tomorrow.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117180 Jul 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well if you want to be ignorant about it,,, let look at "kind" in the bible. the bible speaks of two "kinds of animals". 1) clean, 2) unclean. so technically there is a working definition for "kind" in the bible. they did not have clade. They did not have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species. What they spoke of, being they were not as knowledgeable as we are today, were two --"kinds"-- of animals as follows; animals of the same kind---"clean" and animals of the same kind---"unclean".
now i can help you support evolution or i can hinder your bs petty arguments you throw at the creationists. They are people just like you and i. if you talk to them as people, show them a little respect which they do deserve, you will get further in talking to them and trying to explain things to them that they don't understand. look at Charles Idemi on my first post to him when he asked me what i believe. i explained to him what, why and what it was about. his reply was "you have some good points but not everything in the bible is false". he is correct that not everything in the bible is false and now maybe he will think about those good points i presented to him and when he is ready he might even want to discuss them more. we don't know. but it is better than treating them as idiots and bashing them down.
That is clearly not the kind of "knid" under discussion.

Sine evolution was the topic the subject was not clean and unclean kinds, The topic was use of the word as seen in verses that said "after its kind".

But thanks for trying to change the subject, again. Your attempt to do so is again a sign that you know that you were wrong.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117181 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is clearly not the kind of "knid" under discussion.
Sine evolution was the topic the subject was not clean and unclean kinds, The topic was use of the word as seen in verses that said "after its kind".
But thanks for trying to change the subject, again. Your attempt to do so is again a sign that you know that you were wrong.
i quote you again. you said "we(you and the other person) were talking about "kind" in the bible. you did not specify any passage or verse. again if you don't know how to say or ask something right, then keep your mouth shut or be called an idiot as you say. idiot jack wagon

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117182 Jul 7, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I meant that life itself as it unfolds into its kinds, will become what it is instructed to be from the first of these kinds which were brought forth. It is not going from simple to more complex as a kind. It is unfolding to become what it needs to be to be fruitful and to multiply after its own kind. The process of development and making changes or adjustments is what we are seeing in living things, and when they are fully grown they go about passing complex information as how to best do this down to their offspring.
You have not defined "kinds" as the long debate with wondering has shown.

Please try to use defined terms. If you use nonsense terms your statement does not make any sense.

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".

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117183 Jul 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Just admit your errors. The soul is not the same as the flesh or body.
It you can provide a soul to compare then I will compare

Until then it will remain in the same category as your god... a myth.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117184 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And all of this is of this is irrelevant to the discussion.
You had claimed there can only be one 'first thing'.
The claim that if y, x, and z occur at the same exact time in the same exact place; x=y=z; is certainly of importance to the claim that there could only have been one first thing.

It became important when you suggested or asked whether there could have been more than one first thing/s.

I used the equation to show that even if there were more than one first things, they would be indistinguishable from each other.
polymath257 wrote:
I countered that it is possible for there to be two 'first things' that happen at the same time, but in different locations.
Then you have not disagreed with me nor disproved my claim.
polymath257 wrote:
You countered that under relativity, the notion of simultaneity is problematic: there is no universal notion of such; thereby claiming that you cannot have two 'first things' at different locations.
Did I state that, or is that what YOU INTERPRET ACCORDING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE from what stated?

Nevertheless my claim holds universally, because the concept holds true at every point in the universe.

Are you able to show me a case where the contrary is true?
polymath257 wrote:
My counter is that under special relativity, the notion of 'first thing' is problematic because different observers will consider different events to be 'first' in time.
So where will you get the empirical evidence to refute my claim?

Even if experiments were conducted with a single clock (concept of proper time was introduced by Hermann Minkowski ), other issues will arise to irreconcilably obscure measurements.
polymath257 wrote:
So, either you allow for more than one thing to happen at the same time, or you have to give up the idea of a 'first thing' entirely. Either way, your argument fails.
You have not shown that it fails by any empirical means in any case; but I have shown using reference to experiments to assist, that logic is able to describe reality, by itself.

CAn you give a scenario or example or concept which actually falsifies my claim?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117185 Jul 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The society does not recognise that.
So you don’t have refuse disposal in your society?

Funny how you can vomit the word with what you believe to be impunity yet deny it when others use it against you – you must be christian – right?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117186 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...My counter is that under special relativity, the notion of 'first thing' is problematic because different observers will consider different events to be 'first' in time...
I found something interesting about speacial relativity:

"It is based on two POSTUALTES:(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.[wikipedia.com]

What is a "postulate" by the way?

What does it mean to postulate:

"suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."

[https://www.google.com.jm/sea rch?q=postulate&ie=utf-8 &oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozi lla:en-US:official&client= firefox-beta&channel=sb &gws_rd=cr&ei=22C6U7Lh K6aqsATihIHwAw]

So even if you did "prove" me wrong, you would be using an ASSUMPTION; whereas "time dilation" is a scientific FACT.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117187 Jul 7, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I meant that life itself as it unfolds into its kinds,
what exactly are you truing to say here? what unfolds to be what kind? do you mean species birthing the same species?
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>will become what it is instructed to be from the first of these kinds which were brought forth.
what about the species that did not exists when those that were brought forth. where did the new species come from?
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text> It is not going from simple to more complex as a kind. It is unfolding to become what it needs to be to be fruitful and to multiply after its own kind.
that is what species do correct?
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The process of development and making changes or adjustments is what we are seeing in living things, and when they are fully grown they go about passing complex information as how to best do this down to their offspring.
correct. we call that evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117188 Jul 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i quote you again. you said "we(you and the other person) were talking about "kind" in the bible. you did not specify any passage or verse. again if you don't know how to say or ask something right, then keep your mouth shut or be called an idiot as you say. idiot jack wagon
Denial is not a river in Egypt.

You have been shown to be wrong on both small topics and the major topic in this discussion. You have continually shown that you are dishonest and cannot admit when you have even made the smallest of mistakes, not to mention how you have been totally wrong form the start. How do you expect to learn when you cannot even own up to your smallest of errors.

Once again, look at the topic of this thread. Tell me what it is? Honestly what version of "kind" do you think was being talked about?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117189 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
... The problem is that there is no 'universal' time...
I cant agree.

Wherever there is motion there is time, and movement is universal (motion by whichever definition you choose).
polymath257 wrote:
Wrong.
First of all, time is part of the universe, not something outside of the universe. Causality is a relation inside the universe, not outside.
LOL!

So did the universe cause itself, or was it caused by factors that existed before it?

Was time totally non-existent before the universe?

Nothing at all happened before the universe was caused?

Time IS and MUST necessarily be outside of the universe also, because the universe came into existence at a point in time (whatever you describe time to be).
polymath257 wrote:
The 'probabilities' I have been talking about are those from quantum mechanics and are a fundamental aspect of how the universe works. They have been verified experimentally and the possibility of an underlying determinism has been excluded observationally (look up Bell's inequalities).
<quoted text>
Therefore you know nothing with certainty. And can conclude nothing with absolute confidence.

It is only the euqality in the mathematical formula that are employed that allow you to glean any meaningful data.

Your determinism has failed, therefore your empiricism is useless at the microscopic level.

All you have left is rationalism: knowledge by logic, for experimentation confirms that only possibilities exist..

I must go now.

It is after 4 am.

I wish to finish this conve. but at another time.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117190 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You have been shown to be wrong on both small topics and the major topic in this discussion. You have continually shown that you are dishonest and cannot admit when you have even made the smallest of mistakes, not to mention how you have been totally wrong form the start. How do you expect to learn when you cannot even own up to your smallest of errors.
Once again, look at the topic of this thread. Tell me what it is? Honestly what version of "kind" do you think was being talked about?
now take this part of your practiced speech -- "Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You have been shown to be wrong on both small topics and the major topic in this discussion. You have continually shown that you are dishonest and cannot admit when you have even made the smallest of mistakes, not to mention how you have been totally wrong form the start. How do you expect to learn when you cannot even own up to your smallest of errors'--- read it while looking at yourself in a mirror and come to grips that is you to a perfect tee..

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117191 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...Why cannot there be two different 'first things' that happen at different locations?
I never said taht that cannot happen.

I said if x, y and z happen in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME; x=y=z.

Moreover, if two things happened at the same time at different places; you will not be able to say that they are not directly connected or are the same event anyway.

Furthermore, that case of different things happening in different places does not in any way contradict the idea of God as the very first thing.

Because if God is eternal, he/it would have no beginning nor end; therefore nothing could have began the same time that he/it began, because he/it never began.
polymath257 wrote:
And again, this is part of your misunderstanding of how the universe actually works. You are relying on a classical intuition that actually fails in the real world, especially for very small (atomic size and below) things. It is possible for two different electron clouds to overlap: this means the *electrons* themselves are overlapping. They are in the 'same place' at the 'same time'. This is even the expected behavior of bosons.
<quoted text>
But the lapping of the electron clouds does not suggest that they were formed at the same time in the same place; which is what my argument is concerned with.
polymath257 wrote:
And I claim that your claim cannot even be consistently formulated in this context.
I'm sure that meant something; i'll find out later.
FREE SERVANT

Duluth, GA

#117192 Jul 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what exactly are you truing to say here? what unfolds to be what kind? do you mean species birthing the same species?
<quoted text>
what about the species that did not exists when those that were brought forth. where did the new species come from?
<quoted text>
that is what species do correct?
<quoted text>
correct. we call that evolution.
This is being fruitful and multiplying after kinds just as the Bible claims. Evolution theory claims all life started very simple and became something more complex over time and the Bible says God said for all these living things to come forth some from the waters and some from the dry ground and it was so. The power of God caused life on Earth to come about and he has all power in heaven and earth to accomplish his will as soon as he commands for it to be so.

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
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 6 min Da Real Geno 239
Word Association (Jun '10) 8 min Mega Monster 26,999
Word Association. (Nov '10) 9 min Mega Monster 17,239
Word Association (Mar '10) 10 min Mega Monster 16,804
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 13 min Spirit67_ 9,653
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 13 min DILF 10,272
Poll Do You Have A Topix Crush? (2014 Version) 14 min Spirit67_ 32
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 42 min eleanorigby 40,012
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 46,469
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr ms_Sweeter 159,932
More from around the web