Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222271 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

#117860 Jul 12, 2014
EQUALITY:
". equivalency, parity, correspondence, SAMENESS; justice,***FAIRNESS***, impartiality. " [http://dictionary.reference.c om/browse/equality]
CONFORM:
" TO BE SIMILAR TO OR THE SAME AS something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/conform
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but your definitions were of no help. Once again, I see no way that 'conforming' can modify the word 'equality'. Two things are either equal or they are not. If they are equal, I would say they 'conform to equality' and if they are not equal, I would say that they do not 'conform to equality'. That is clearly NOT what you are meaning, but I cannot find any actual meaning in your words...
But all you have done is suggest that what I claimed has no meaning and and then suggested the same thing that I mean and behave as if it means something.

equality + conform = "TO BE SIMILAR TO OR THE SAME AS" + "equivalency"

To conform to equality suggests "to be similar to (that which has) equivalency."

How is that much different from "If they are equal, I would say they 'conform to equality' "?

You thought pattern is quite in-equitous.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117861 Jul 12, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
EQUALITY:
". equivalency, parity, correspondence, SAMENESS; justice,***FAIRNESS***, impartiality. " [http://dictionary.reference.c om/browse/equality]
CONFORM:
" TO BE SIMILAR TO OR THE SAME AS something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/conform
<quoted text>
But all you have done is suggest that what I claimed has no meaning and and then suggested the same thing that I mean and behave as if it means something.
equality + conform = "TO BE SIMILAR TO OR THE SAME AS" + "equivalency"
To conform to equality suggests "to be similar to (that which has) equivalency."
How is that much different from "If they are equal, I would say they 'conform to equality' "?
You thought pattern is quite in-equitous.
Look what got choked up on the carpet again. Good to see you are back on the streets.

Planning on any more death threats or did that lesson I taught you, stick?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117862 Jul 12, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Bereft of meaning.
<quoted text>
Please explain where you got the quote "kinds of animals".
Because I dont see them in Leviticus...
"Now the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, "Speak to the children of Israel, saying,'These are the animals which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth: Among the animals, whatever..." [Book of Leviticus]
Nope.
No such implication anywhere there.
Furthermore, to place animals into groups such as clean and unclean is to categorize them.
Therefore the implications of "kind" as used in the bible remain general.
You are misrepresenting what the bible suggests to say the least.
<quoted text>
you donít have the faintest clue about science. you just regurgitate what has been said or what you read and most of the time you donít understand either of what you read or hear. now shut up you idiot jack wagon. we are tired of you whining.
Don't be so hard on wondering. I think he is in love with you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117863 Jul 12, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
...we hold that God is eternal...in order to know if the thing you are studying is eternal, you would have to be eternal and you are not. SO THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE A SHADOW OF DOUBT.
<quoted text>
Your remark suggests that you identify or equate the "eternal" with the metaphysical.
But the only way for you to avoid metaphysics is to willfully neglect the fact that matter/energy had to come from somewhere.
If matter and energy came from somewhere then to search for them is to look "beyond" the physical for the physical would have been caused by something beyond it. So you must logically and naturally proceed towards metaphysics.
If matter and energy did not come from anywhere, then either it does not exist or it is eternal; having no beginning and hence no real end. So you would be claiming metaphysics quite point-blankly.
No, no metaphysics need apply. Physicists already know quite a bit about the early universe. Perhaps you should read A Universe From Nothing by Laurence Krauss. Or watch the YouTube video. He explains how the energy of the universe is zero. It breaks no physical laws for the universe to come from nothing. Also we now know that even the emptiest of vacuums is teeming with virtual particles. None of these works are based upon metaphysics.

I equate nothing with the metaphysical. That is not my error.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117864 Jul 12, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No scientific definition of kind here.
Where is it so that I can compare it with the biblical one.
<quoted text>
You have utterly failed to present a scientific definition of "kind" for comparison with the biblical use of "kind".
Until you do, you are jabbering.
There is no scientific definition of "kind". I never said there was. I said I could make a working definition of "kind" and I did.

It is your turn now. You could go back and find my definition, or you could try to make a definition of your own and then I will tell you my definition.

Why do creationists always want other to do their work for them?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117865 Jul 12, 2014
Perhaps HOG does not know what a working definition of kind would entail. You would need to be able to form a test to see if two different groups were of the same "kind' or not.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117866 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Bereft of meaning.

Please explain where you got the quote "kinds of animals".
You like using the dictionary so;

kind- noun \&#712;k&#299;nd\
: a group of people or things that belong together or have some shared quality : a particular type or variety of person or thing.

so as I see it all clean animals were of the same kind (group) and all unclean were of the same kind (group)

funny that you see more things in the bible that are not there but canít interpret/get what is there.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117867 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey!! my stalker is back again.
These posts belie what you claimed earlier. You did not accept human evolution since there was not enough evidence to support it. That was on another thread and I do not feel like going back that far to look for your idiocy. All I have to ask is do you accept human evolution or not? If you don't you are the lying jack wagon That was why I said your answer was not honest.
Creatards are always trying to lie by quoting out of context. If you leave out what caused the initial disagreement you are clearly quoting out of context.
If you are willing to say that you accept the evolution of humans from other apes I will be truly amazed.
you always cry foul when there clearly is not one.

why don't you hold your breath so you will quit wasting the air ya jack wagon.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117868 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Don't be so hard on wondering. I think he is in love with you.
funny i thoguht the same thinhg about you with all the little quarrels and spats you and HOG have had. lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117870 Jul 13, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you always cry foul when there clearly is not one.
why don't you hold your breath so you will quit wasting the air ya jack wagon.
Pointing out the obvious is not "crying foul". ya jack wagon.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117873 Jul 13, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Broke or low paid losers rent out their extra bedroom to "room mates" because they can't afford to support themselves without a room mate. Why can't you make enough money to support yourself?
Jesus was a millionaire? I didn't even know he was gainfully employed.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117874 Jul 13, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...No, truth is simply a description of how the universe actually is. It isn't a thing in itself, but a description of things. The truth is an idea in *our* minds that we use to help us understand the universe around us.
No.

Truth is a real condition; a real and natural phenomena generated by something that is true (i.e. does not change).

This is the central conflict: you do not believe truth nor in the truth, so you cannot be expected to agree to anything truthful.

Period.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117875 Jul 13, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, simply false. There are *many* uncaused events in the universe. None of them are eternal.
<quoted text>
How would you know what is eternal and what is not?
polymath257 wrote:
Nope. I embrace physics, not metaphysics. Causality requires time and time is part of our universe. Because of that, it is meaningless to talk about the 'cause' of our universe. It is simply not a concept that applies to the referent.
If causality requires time; time is a cause in and of itself?

Therefore the moment you mention "time", you mention the metaphysical; since the universe was caused in time that was prior/beyond the universe.
polymath257 wrote:
And why would you assume the chances are equal?
<quoted text>
I do not assume the chances are equal, for I assert that God exists.

It is for your sake that I suggest that the chances are equal.

There is no way for you to rationally conclude otherwise.
polymath257 wrote:
Why is the person force to make a choice? Since the probabilities are equal, any choice is equally 'good', so any way they make the choice is equally valid.
On the other hand, that is NOT the case with your deity. None of your arguments have shown the existence, and that alone points to the unlikelihood of that existence. Furthermore, there are good reasons to think that the existence is false.
Forget your reasons!

Give credible evidence which proves that the existence is false; if you can.
polymath257 wrote:
So, now I propose the alternative question: if a dice is weighted so that it shows sixes 99.99% of the time, what would induce a person to choose threes?
That is an unfitting analogy.

The case of the existence/non-existence of God takes the form of "either/or".

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117876 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know what is eternal and what is not?
<quoted text>
If causality requires time; time is a cause in and of itself?
Therefore the moment you mention "time", you mention the metaphysical; since the universe was caused in time that was prior/beyond the universe.
<quoted text>
I do not assume the chances are equal, for I assert that God exists.
It is for your sake that I suggest that the chances are equal.
There is no way for you to rationally conclude otherwise.
<quoted text>
Forget your reasons!
Give credible evidence which proves that the existence is false; if you can.
<quoted text>
That is an unfitting analogy.
The case of the existence/non-existence of God takes the form of "either/or".
Did you see wonderings post to me. He is just like a little boy with a crush.

He is pining away for you.

Maybe you guys could spend an afternoon on the beach spooning.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117877 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Truth is a real condition; a real and natural phenomena generated by something that is true (i.e. does not change).
This is the central conflict: you do not believe truth nor in the truth, so you cannot be expected to agree to anything truthful.
Period.
Your self importance is a truth. It is a real thing. But it is not based on truth. So if it is truth, but not based on truth, is it really truth.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117878 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no metaphysics need apply... It breaks no physical laws for the universe to come FROM NOTHING... None of these works are based upon metaphysics.
It is not necessary to contemplate the nature of "nothing" even though it is likely that the universe came out of that state?


...the physical could come from nothing, and you claim that there is no need for metaphysics (i.e. to look beyond the physical)?

LOL!!!!!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117879 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know what is eternal and what is not?
<quoted text>
If causality requires time; time is a cause in and of itself?
Therefore the moment you mention "time", you mention the metaphysical; since the universe was caused in time that was prior/beyond the universe.
<quoted text>
I do not assume the chances are equal, for I assert that God exists.
It is for your sake that I suggest that the chances are equal.
There is no way for you to rationally conclude otherwise.
<quoted text>
Forget your reasons!
Give credible evidence which proves that the existence is false; if you can.
<quoted text>
That is an unfitting analogy.
The case of the existence/non-existence of God takes the form of "either/or".
It must be a truth that I taught you a valuable lesson about making death threats on Topix, since you haven't made any since I taught you that.

*HOG has realized the health hazards of smoking and that he really couldn't carry off the imagery he was trying for. Munches carrot and blows chunks in air, stomps carrot out.*

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117880 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know what is eternal and what is not?
<quoted text>
If causality requires time; time is a cause in and of itself?
Therefore the moment you mention "time", you mention the metaphysical; since the universe was caused in time that was prior/beyond the universe.
<quoted text>
I do not assume the chances are equal, for I assert that God exists.
It is for your sake that I suggest that the chances are equal.
There is no way for you to rationally conclude otherwise.
<quoted text>
Forget your reasons!
Give credible evidence which proves that the existence is false; if you can.
<quoted text>
That is an unfitting analogy.
The case of the existence/non-existence of God takes the form of "either/or".
The HAND of God asserts that God exists, but offers only broken philosophical arguments to support the existence of a God he claims is not anthropomorphic while using a name that implies God is anthropomorphic. The HAND of God is infamous which means more than famous for his plethora of pinatas full of nonsense. Philosphize like the wind grandma HOG.

*References courtesy of "The Three Amigos"*

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117881 Jul 13, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It must be a truth that I taught you a valuable lesson about making death threats on Topix, since you haven't made any since I taught you that.
*HOG has realized the health hazards of smoking and that he really couldn't carry off the imagery he was trying for. Munches carrot and blows chunks in air, stomps carrot out.*
I don't know about carrots, but it's my opinion that religies' posts are pretty much just blowing chunks they gobbled up from places like Aig and CARM. Anybody got a mop and some Lysol?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#117882 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not necessary to contemplate the nature of "nothing" even though it is likely that the universe came out of that state?
...the physical could come from nothing, and you claim that there is no need for metaphysics (i.e. to look beyond the physical)?
LOL!!!!!
Insane people look beyond the physical. Is it upon that basis that you have developed your uncommon understanding of that which cannot be shown?

*HOG grunts and snuffles down fist full of carrots*

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
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 7 min Bovenzi13 5,945
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 8 min Judy 123 2,829
Words "with more than one meaning" (Sep '12) 9 min Bovenzi13 1,164
True False Game (Jun '11) 14 min Bovenzi13 15,364
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 14 min Judy 123 9,347
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 15 min Bovenzi13 6,825
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 17 min Bovenzi13 2,466
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 46 min wichita-rick 222,244
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Ohio Sam aka F_R_E_D 25,526
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Bovenzi13 5,524
Cyber Friendships real or not? (Nov '11) 1 hr Princess Hey 1,314
More from around the web