Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223290 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.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#117885 Jul 13, 2014
Sooey! Sooey! Sooey!

That'll do pig.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#117887 Jul 13, 2014
HMT 123 Observatory wrote:
<quoted text>
The Lorde MY GOD and Saviour hath held Back my hand from those very words
ROTFLMAO!
I worry about the Hand of God. One day he may HOGwash his hands of us and commit Sooeycide.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117888 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!!!!!
And yet your statement shows that you are incredibly ignorant about my claim.

Here you go, an hour well spent:

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117890 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
... 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?
kind1
k&#652;&#618;nd/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
"all kinds of music"
synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre;

[https://www.google.com.jm/sea rch?q=definition%3Akind&oq =definition%3Akind&aqs=chr ome..69i57j69i58.3609j0j4& sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0 &ie=UTF-8]

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

We dont.

But the way you speak it is as if you have the authority to say what and what cannot be; so we just ask you to define and explain the things we are trying to, since you know more about them than us.

Nevertheless, you have no scientific definition for "kind", while I am able to present a definition of kind which is consistent with EVERY definition of "kind" that you can conceive of.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117891 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
No matter what definition of kind I use, you will never be able to say that "kind" as suggested by the bible does not include the concept of "kind" used to describe evolution or anywhere in science for that matter.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117892 Jul 13, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
But "have some shared quality" is general and may be inclusive of "kind" in the evolutionary sense also.

So while clean and unclean is a way of classifying animals; it does not mean that that is the only implication of "kind" in ALL of the Bible and in all contexts.
wondering wrote:
that you see more things in the bible that are not there but can’t interpret/get what is there.
But how would you know that I see things that are not there?

Do you know what the author/s of the Bible intended to communicate using the specific words or expression that they chose at the time?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117893 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet your statement shows that you are incredibly ignorant about my claim.
Here you go, an hour well spent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =7ImvlS8PLIoXX
That "Universe from Nothing" an ambiguous piece of insult to human intelligence.

Firstly, the idea of "nothing" was not defined.

"Philosopher of science, and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book FAILED TO LIVE UP TO ITS TITLE, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about HIS USE OF THE TERM NOTHING to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (I.E. instead of having the meaning "NOT ANYTHING")."[wikiped ia.com]

So your idea of a universe from nothing is only valid in a certain context.

If there was something, anything at all, even virtual particles; your idea of a universe from "nothing" is meaningless and false.

So you are back to square zero (not even square one).

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#117894 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what the author/s of the Bible intended to communicate using the specific words or expression that they chose at the time?
But you do because you are the HOG? Grandiose and delusional.. the whole package.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But how would you know that I see things that are not there?
Just call it an educated guess.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117895 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
kind1
k&#652;&#618;nd/Submit
noun
1.
a group of people or things having similar characteristics.
"all kinds of music"
synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre;
[https://www.google.com.jm/sea rch?q=definition%3Akind&oq =definition%3Akind&aqs=chr ome..69i57j69i58.3609j0j4& sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0 &ie=UTF-8]
Why do creationists always want other to do their work for them?
We dont.
But the way you speak it is as if you have the authority to say what and what cannot be; so we just ask you to define and explain the things we are trying to, since you know more about them than us.
Nevertheless, you have no scientific definition for "kind", while I am able to present a definition of kind which is consistent with EVERY definition of "kind" that you can conceive of.
Sorry, that is a fail on your part. This was supposed to be a working definition. If I gave you photographs of two groups of animals could you tell me if they were the same kind or not and why or why not would they be the same kind?

All you have is a undefined term, it is worthless in a scientific argument. So if you try to claim that the Bible says animals reproduce after their kind I will point out that that supports evolution, depending upon your definition of kind. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117896 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what definition of kind I use, you will never be able to say that "kind" as suggested by the bible does not include the concept of "kind" used to describe evolution or anywhere in science for that matter.
If you have a nonworking definition of kind there is nothing stopping me from using a working definition, and I can make a definition that supports evolution.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117897 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But "have some shared quality" is general and may be inclusive of "kind" in the evolutionary sense also.
So while clean and unclean is a way of classifying animals; it does not mean that that is the only implication of "kind" in ALL of the Bible and in all contexts.
<quoted text>
But how would you know that I see things that are not there?
Do you know what the author/s of the Bible intended to communicate using the specific words or expression that they chose at the time?
as i said in a prior comment; that is one way to use kind in the bible. the other ways it is used we don't really know what they meant and they probably did not know what they meant either.

made kind from their kind? wtf! how can you make a kind from their kind if their kind does not exist yet?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117898 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
That "Universe from Nothing" an ambiguous piece of insult to human intelligence.
Firstly, the idea of "nothing" was not defined.
"Philosopher of science, and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book FAILED TO LIVE UP TO ITS TITLE, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about HIS USE OF THE TERM NOTHING to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (I.E. instead of having the meaning "NOT ANYTHING")."[wikiped ia.com]
So your idea of a universe from nothing is only valid in a certain context.
If there was something, anything at all, even virtual particles; your idea of a universe from "nothing" is meaningless and false.
So you are back to square zero (not even square one).
Actually "nothing" was defined. It was shown not to exist. You did not watch the video or read the book. An you congratulations on finding one critic of the book. The problem is that Albert tried to use a philosopher's definition of physics and not a realists. I really don't give a rat's ass about the opinion of philosophers.

What Krauss demonstrated is that "nothing" is impossible in our universe. The concept is a false concept. There is no empty space in our universe, at the very least you will have a space that is occupied by virtual particles.
wondering

Morris, OK

#117899 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, that is a fail on your part. This was supposed to be a working definition. If I gave you photographs of two groups of animals could you tell me if they were the same kind or not and why or why not would they be the same kind?
All you have is a undefined term, it is worthless in a scientific argument. So if you try to claim that the Bible says animals reproduce after their kind I will point out that that supports evolution, depending upon your definition of kind. There is no "change of kind" in evolution.
technically their is only "a" kind. we all, every living thing evolved from the same life form that started life. so all of life is of the technically same kind because we all descend from the very first life form. now you can call different clades or kingdoms, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, genus, species, ect or whatever but they are nothing more than labels of how we try and do separate them into smaller groups. the true only "kind" being we all evolved from that first spark of life is the "living kind" and after death there is the "dead kind"

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117901 Jul 13, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But you do because you are the HOG? Grandiose and delusional.. the whole package.
<quoted text>
No.

I do because I actually do the research and acquaint myself with the culture and methods of thinking of the people who influenced its writing.
ChromiuMan wrote:
Just call it an educated guess.
Actually, I think I'll just call it "Grandiose and delusional.. the whole package"

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117902 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, that is a fail on your part. This was supposed to be a working definition. If I gave you photographs of two groups of animals could you tell me if they were the same kind or not and why or why not would they be the same kind?
Why dont you try me?
Subduction Zone wrote:
All you have is a undefined term, it is worthless in a scientific argument.
Your attempt to put common and local knowledge away from me is futile.

I have presented a definition of "kind".

Now is it in direct conflict with whatever definition of "kind" you have or not?
Subduction Zone wrote:
So if you try to claim that the Bible says animals reproduce after their kind I will point out that that supports evolution, depending upon your definition of kind.
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
Subduction Zone wrote:
There is no "change of kind" in evolution.
Does there need to be?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117903 Jul 13, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
as i said in a prior comment; that is one way to use kind in the bible. the other ways it is used we don't really know what they meant and they probably did not know what they meant either.
LOL!

Describe the what they meant that they probably did not know what they meant either.
wondering wrote:
made kind from their kind? wtf! how can you make a kind from their kind if their kind does not exist yet?
Technically their kind already existed in the "Consciousness of God", so in a manner of speaking; the "ARCHETYPE" of all things already existed.

That may be another way of saying all things existed as their potentials, prior to there formation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117904 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Why dont you try me?
<quoted text>
Your attempt to put common and local knowledge away from me is futile.
I have presented a definition of "kind".
Now is it in direct conflict with whatever definition of "kind" you have or not?
<quoted text>
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?
<quoted text>
Does there need to be?
And it is of no value. I have told you both in private message and openly that a version that does not allow you to test to groups to see if they are of the same kind or not is worthless. It is a term without any meaning behind it.

Since you are denying evolution I will ask you if beagles and German Shepherds are the same kind or not. Why or why not?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117905 Jul 13, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually "nothing" was defined. It was shown not to exist.
Explain yourself.

If nothing was shown not to exist; then there is no such thing as nothing. As such, a universe from "nothing" is mere... imagination.

You present that ambiguous mumbo jumbo and then some of you would accuse me of being "vague"?

LOL!
Subduction Zone wrote:
<
The problem is that Albert tried to use a philosopher's definition of physics and not a realists. I really don't give a rat's ass about the opinion of philosophers.
The value of the individual's claim has nothing to do with the label that you attach to him/her.

You speak of realism so you know that.

The fact is that there is a need to distinguish between the condition of "not any thing" a quantum condition or case where there is something that may be described as "nothing".
Subduction Zone wrote:
What Krauss demonstrated is that "nothing" is impossible in our universe. The concept is a false concept. There is no empty space in our universe, at the very least you will have a space that is occupied by virtual particles.
BRILLIANT!

So there is no way for you to say that nothing is the cause of the universe or the natural world.

Back to God and metaphysics it is.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117906 Jul 13, 2014
Correction:

The fact is that there is a need to distinguish between the condition of "not any thing" AND a quantum condition or case where there is something that may be described as "nothing".
wondering

Morris, OK

#117907 Jul 13, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Describe the what they meant that they probably did not know what they meant either.
<quoted text>
Technically their kind already existed in the "Consciousness of God", so in a manner of speaking; the "ARCHETYPE" of all things already existed.
That may be another way of saying all things existed as their potentials, prior to there formation.
god has a conscious? how does that work when he lets so many suffer starving and so many suffer from disease and then let so many die die young from both all the time. he consciously does all that on purpose?

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 min Unstable Genius 34,697
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 25 min -Papa-Smurf- 3,635
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 39 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,552
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 40 min Hoosier Hillbilly 39,068
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 42 min Hoosier Hillbilly 11,535
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 46 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,817
first word in your sentence must rhyme with the... (Sep '15) 49 min Hoosier Hillbilly 199
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Ricky F 227,149
More from around the web