Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
111,281 - 111,300 of 113,285 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117201
Monday Jul 7
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong!
Can you see the drives that makes you think rationally or irrationally ?
No! You can only see your body and not the drive, that drive is the soul. Wake up!
Still waiting for this soul you seem to think you can provide

Or perhaps it’s like this research into immortally that you think you can provide but in the real world you can’t, in fact you seem to be of the opinion that ignoring your delusional claim is the best way to make it go away.

Oh by the way, yes you can see thought, brain ct & mri scans show the process of thinking

And that thought is the drive, the drive that beats the heart.

Time you thought up another way of denial that is not actually contradicted by facts

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117202
Monday Jul 7
 

Judged:

1

HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I cant agree.
Wherever there is motion there is time, and movement is universal (motion by whichever definition you choose).
Sigh.....I said no *universal time*. That is different than motion being universal. The problem is that if you have two different observers, their measurements of time intervals will often differ. Yes, this is a measured, empirical phenomenon.

So, two events that appear to be 'at the same time' to one person will appear to be 'at very different times' to another observer (one in motion relative to the first).

So your very definition of the term 'first thing' doesn't even get off the ground: you first need to specify an observer,*then* there could be a first thing *to that observer*, but another observer would differ about which things are first.

The closest thing to a universal time happens in the context of general relativity, where we can use the local average curvature as a time coordinate. That may not agree with local clocks, however.
So did the universe cause itself, or was it caused by factors that existed before it?
Causes happen inside the universe. So the universe itself is uncaused.
Was time totally non-existent before the universe?
That is certainly one of the possibilities.
Nothing at all happened before the universe was caused?
it is quite possible that the phrase 'before the universe' is meaningless: time is part of the universe, so asking what is before the universe is like asking what is before time--the concept is self-contradictory. It is sort of like asking what is north of the north pole.
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).
No, time and the universe are co-existent. BOTH started at the same 'time'.
Therefore you know nothing with certainty. And can conclude nothing with absolute confidence.
Outside of mathematics and formal logic, you are correct. EVERYTHING else requires observation and ALL observation has error bars.
It is only the euqality in the mathematical formula that are employed that allow you to glean any meaningful data.
You clearly know very little of mathematics and how it can be used.
Your determinism has failed, therefore your empiricism is useless at the microscopic level.
Wrong again. We can, and do, determine the probabilities of different events: these are predicted by the equations of quantum mechanics. And those probabilities can be verified by observations, so empiricism still maintains.
All you have left is rationalism: knowledge by logic, for experimentation confirms that only possibilities exist..
The problem is that logic is an abstract, formal system and hence cannot and does not determine what happens in the real world. For that, you need observation and all observations are subject to some error. But, by repeated observations and testing, you can still learn how the universe works to a good degree of approximation. Over time, the level of error decreases, which is why even when scientific revolutions happen, the older descriptions still have some validity.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117203
Monday Jul 7
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Mention the number of male president or prime ministers with that of the female's universally , and see for yourself, the difference i7 always very clear. Wake up.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Universally, can any one compare the numbers of females leader as against that of their male counterparts. The difference are always very clear.
The difference imposed by the glass ceiling of abrahamic regions influencing government is clear and has nothing to do with ability but more to do with misogyny and fear of woman proving their worth in society.

“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton

For the most part, those women leaders have always had a tendency to be far more successful than their male counterparts
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117204
Monday Jul 7
 
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
sure evolution uses kind. just ask the idiot subduction zone. he says plainly "evolution says that kind gives rise to the same kind. they have a working definition of kind" and his working definition of kind is saying "clade" is a synonym for "kind". isn't that a hoot?
Yeah, I can see you're playing word games. Fact is evolution doesn't have to match creo definitions - probably to do with the fact they don't HAVE any meaningful definitions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117205
Monday Jul 7
 
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
But the question is whether they are *necessarily* related or the same event. Nothing you have said requires that.
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.
But it does open up the possibility of more than one 'first thing' and hence destroys your claim of only one God.

The problem you have is that you defined God to be 'Almighty'. That does not necessarily require a first thing, only a most powerful thing. So you are going away from your original definition.

And, even if you try to shift definitions and use 'first thing' as the definition of God, you still have not shown there is only *one* such first thing or that this first thing is powerful or has an intelligence. For that matter, because of issues with the nature of time, even defining a 'first thing' is problematic. Different observers could say that different things are 'first'.
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.
That is your claim, but that was neither in your definition or in anything you established. Are you attempting to change your definition?
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.
No, they *are* in the same place at the same time. So your claim that things at the same time and in the same place must be equal is shown empirically to be false.
I'm sure that meant something; i'll find out later.
When you want to claim that something is 'first', you have the problem that there is no universal time, meaning that even the order of events can be different for different observers. You need a *single* thing that is first for all observers, but all your logic can do, at best, and assuming a linear time, is show that there is a first for a single observer.

And you still haven't addressed the question of why there cannot be an infinite sequence of events into the past with *no* first.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117206
Monday Jul 7
 
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.
How do you know? We have evidence that this is, in fact, what happened.
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.
Exactly. And this information changes slowly from one generation to the next, leading to changes in the 'kind', occasionally even branching of the 'kind'. That is evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117207
Monday Jul 7
 

Judged:

1

wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i have never said evolution is wrong. i have never tried or wanted to debunk evolution. i support and back evolution. evolution is what science shows. but i will not lie for science. we have never observed non-human to human evolution, step by step, all steps of the way. we have seen similarities. similarities in the fossil record, in the DNA ect ect. lying to support your cause is no different than a creationists.
this between you and i is all about you being an idiot and i have showed such on numerous occasions. end of story.
We have "never observed" non-human to human evolution in EXACTLY the same way that no-one has ever observed you grow from a baby to a fully formed adult.

Unless you have the video tape that's recorded you non-stop for your entire life, and still is.

Didn't think so.
spike

Dandenong, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117208
Monday Jul 7
 
or grow from a fertilized egg to a fully formed adult.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117209
Monday Jul 7
 
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
do you share chimpanzee dna or does yours and the chimpanzee's dna have similarities?
Both. The key word here being 'orthology'.

Unless you wanna be pedantic about it and claim we don't share it at all, because they own their own DNA and only you are in possession of yours.

In which case by that line of reasoning you also share NO DNA with your parents either. It's just "similar".

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117210
Monday Jul 7
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for this soul you seem to think you can provide
Or perhaps it’s like this research into immortally that you think you can provide but in the real world you can’t, in fact you seem to be of the opinion that ignoring your delusional claim is the best way to make it go away.
Oh by the way, yes you can see thought, brain ct & mri scans show the process of thinking
And that thought is the drive, the drive that beats the heart.
Time you thought up another way of denial that is not actually contradicted by facts
Wake up!
The soul is not the same as the body. We are like God that is why we are created in his likeness and image.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117211
Monday Jul 7
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
The difference imposed by the glass ceiling of abrahamic regions influencing government is clear and has nothing to do with ability but more to do with misogyny and fear of woman proving their worth in society.
“Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.” Charlotte Whitton
For the most part, those women leaders have always had a tendency to be far more successful than their male counterparts
Wrong!
Because we are in the world that is dominated by the men.
Religion have no hold on that.
It started from the family. Wake up.
Hemet123

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117212
Monday Jul 7
 
Since my last time check
8:47 PM pst, yesterday July6
This is all a LOT BETTER
Even if I don't agree with certain views I can still read everything
from all of you. It's Nice here now.
And I'm learning from you now
5:54 AM pst
<3 U ALL
(Love You ALL)

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117213
Monday Jul 7
 
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.
This is just your personal ontological argument. God may not be power. God may just use power. It all depends on what you mean by power. You have failed to show how this proves the existence of God and have failed to show how the existence of God can be shown with empirical evidence. You are just dancing round and round acting arrogantly pretending you know more than everyone else. You have nothing.

1+1 = 2. Sesame Street must be God.
Hitler had power. Say it with me HOG. Then Hitler must have been...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117214
Monday Jul 7
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong!
Can you see the drives that makes you think rationally or irrationally ?
No! You can only see your body and not the drive, that drive is the soul. Wake up!
It seems that God inserted an irrational soul into your body. <shrug> You win some, you lose some. Hey, look on the bright side - you could have been born female in Afghanistan and been betrothed to a lout that thinks just like you.

“Denny Crain”

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117215
Monday Jul 7
 

Judged:

1

1

Good morning all. I hope everyone had a great 4th. Remember the men who guard your freedom!

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117216
Monday Jul 7
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Mention the number of male president or prime ministers with that of the female's universally , and see for yourself, the difference i7 always very clear. Wake up.
That just shows that many modern societies are male dominated and not that dominance by a male is ordained.

Male dominance is a myth perpetuated because we can. It is supported by antiquated opinions from ancient cultures. Organizations that have a single leader have built in mechanisms to remove that leader should they show poor performance. These organizations are becoming more intelligent in selecting there leaders based on skill and not gender, but we still have a long way to go. Adhering to these outdated and baseless traditions is self-destructive if one member that happens to have the greater ability is squashed because of gender and can't move into the lead even long enough to execute a brilliant idea.

To continue to consider leadership on gender and use the arbitrary practices of ancient cultures where women were little more than property is regressive, dictatorial and limiting.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117217
Monday Jul 7
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We have "never observed" non-human to human evolution in EXACTLY the same way that no-one has ever observed you grow from a baby to a fully formed adult.
Unless you have the video tape that's recorded you non-stop for your entire life, and still is.
Didn't think so.
Indeed!
In the same fashion: we neither need to have a full step-by-step record of Old-English changing into modern English. Only a few documents, distributed evenly over the 1000 year since then, suffice.

The evidence for evolution often is more extensive than the record for language change.
Hemet123

Hemet, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117219
Monday Jul 7
 
words.../\

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117220
Monday Jul 7
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wake up!
The soul is not the same as the body. We are like God that is why we are created in his likeness and image.
What soul? Just like immortality, you have never provided any evidence for a soul

I don’t really care about your delusions and wet dreams, I do care about evidence and facts

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117221
Monday Jul 7
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong!
Because we are in the world that is dominated by the men.
Religion have no hold on that.
It started from the family. Wake up.
Garbage

In most cases and most religions/faiths throughout history the woman has been the head of the family, the matriarch.

Only in abrahamic religions and even then only is 2 of the 3 are males dominant and then only publicly. Even today in the most misogynistic society of Islam, the family man will bow to the wishes of the woman.

The history of public male dominance can be traced through societies fairly accurately. Even in truly male dominated societies in history, Greece, Rome etc, it was the case that in the home, the woman was head, and consulted for advice on even the most profound political matters.

It started with religion and jealousy of the female.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••