Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222984 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.

Bill

Owensboro, KY

#118866 Jul 25, 2014
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Modifications on Human Specie ...
THE FDA?
I know for the best quality meat...
And oh yeah and God bless off spring...I jumped I think maybe you could you say that and FDA and food issues it's much to taste..
I guess it would fall under the drug part of FDA an be considered a medical procedure

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118867 Jul 25, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Unfortunately, you are the IDIOT. Too bad. You don' t have any useful time.
"Unfortunately, you are IDIOT. Too bad." - C. Idemi

"To thine own self be true." - Hamlet

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118868 Jul 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Being able to order a baby to specifications won't stop people from having sex to produce them either. Evolution made it something you want to do, so life will keep ....um... being alive. Procreation is a necessary function, no amount of promises of perfect babies grown in a test tube will change this.
It is within the realm of possibility to end hunger and wars. Being within the realm of possibility does not mean it is or will be.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#118869 Jul 25, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
It is within the realm of possibility to end hunger and wars. Being within the realm of possibility does not mean it is or will be.
It sounds alot like eugenics and an attempt to create the master race or super beings. The ability to pre cure diseases sounds good, bit the guise leaves too much to be corrupted. Remember the doctor who did something of the same thing with infertile couples, but inseminated a whole town of women with his own semen?
Then there was Mengles children, the Hitler youth children etc....

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118870 Jul 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It sounds alot like eugenics and an attempt to create the master race or super beings. The ability to pre cure diseases sounds good, bit the guise leaves too much to be corrupted. Remember the doctor who did something of the same thing with infertile couples, but inseminated a whole town of women with his own semen?
Then there was Mengles children, the Hitler youth children etc....
I agree that there are cases of GM being beneficial which would not fall into the category of creating a custom human, as was proposed. Still, if a hereditary disease or birth defect can be prevented, there are still those who will scream "them scientist people is playing God with our babies!"

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#118871 Jul 25, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that there are cases of GM being beneficial which would not fall into the category of creating a custom human, as was proposed. Still, if a hereditary disease or birth defect can be prevented, there are still those who will scream "them scientist people is playing God with our babies!"
I'm all for it helping, but the down sides are huge.
Another problem would arise from this, and humans not genetically engineered, could be labeled inferior. Khan comes to mind, though we could even go to the island of Dr. Moreau with this technology. We already are faced with DNA profiling, I suppose it's inevitable though, we will be forced to such measures, or become slaves to our own creations.
Cybernetics and engineered humans are destined to be pieced together, to create super humans.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#118872 Jul 25, 2014
Xmen forever! lol
Stanley

Edmonton, Canada

#118873 Jul 25, 2014
Lol

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#118874 Jul 25, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm all for it helping, but the down sides are huge.
Another problem would arise from this, and humans not genetically engineered, could be labeled inferior. Khan comes to mind, though we could even go to the island of Dr. Moreau with this technology. We already are faced with DNA profiling, I suppose it's inevitable though, we will be forced to such measures, or become slaves to our own creations.
Cybernetics and engineered humans are destined to be pieced together, to create super humans.
...screwing up a fix for hemophilia, getting spanked by our superior cyborg offspring and annoying the Westboro folks with test tube babies. Great. Now I'll never be able to sleep at night.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#118875 Jul 25, 2014
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess it would fall under the drug part of FDA an be considered a medical procedure
Maybe some Cosmic thing too to what serves a body...

Have my thoughts on some things and the distance of evolving events, which should have been evolved by now evolved and resolved...

Life must have had it's reason to say that life's history has no meaning? For whom it so be it be that I suppose ...

By now a lot has to look at more other things eventful adventurous and daring I mean what better mood for war...

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118876 Jul 25, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
... Yes, anything can be argued.
And then listen to what you wrote:
DanFromSmithville wrote:
That hardly means that you have shown any way to support the existence of God...
But it does mean that it doesnt even matter if I were to show an effective way to support the existence of God!!!!!!!!!!

You will argue it any way you want to.

EVEN IF GOD HIMSELF WERE STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU IN A HUMAN FORM OR WHATEVER FORM YOU COULD PERCEIVE; YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO ARGUE AROUND IT.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118877 Jul 25, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods. It is not a statement that there are no gods.
Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge about gods. It does not imply that gods exist or don't exist.
The statement "there are no gods" is usually used by anti-theists. They are against the concept of god. You are over 99% atheist. It is easy to prove. All I have to do is to ask you the name of 99 gods that you probably do not believe in, heck let's make it one hundred to be sure.
For example do you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Thor? Zeus? Apollo? If you say no to these four you are well on your way to being an atheist.
Well, isnt that interesting?

So when I say that I believe in the God that is the Almighty; what is your problem?

And why is it that it is unlikely that an "almighty" could have "inspired" the generation of the universe?

And how is it not possible to observe that there is an almighty influence active at any time?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118878 Jul 25, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is only your opinion. Very few Christians have that interpretation of it. They usually tend to take it literally or treat it as the myth that it is.
Thats your opinion of their opinion and my opinion.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Are you trying to say it is a fairy tale with a moral?
No. I am never saying that.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118879 Jul 25, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, this is a face palmingly stupid response on your part. And dishonest as well.
You are entitled to your opinion.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118880 Jul 25, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Not really. You haven't shown anything that is all that fantastic on an intellectual level and you rant and behave like an angry adolescent.
Your claims are different than scientific claims, because scientific claims provide supporting evidence. The more you are questioned, the more you rant.
Do scientific claims provide evidence for why evidence is supportive?

Suppose an element or subject is true, i.e. absolute/eternal: What evidence would support the claim that it is eternal (or not eternal)?

Or what would be evidence for any eternal subject?

Since mankind is by no means eternal; THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A SHADOW OF DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE SUBJECT IN QUESTION IS ETERNAL, EVEN WHILE WE ARE EXPERIENCING IT.

Evidence may be misinterpreted, though it may enable some degree of accuracy; for evidence can effectively be falsified.

So what is it that allows you to know that anything is what it is? Evidence?

LOL!!!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118881 Jul 25, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats your opinion of their opinion and my opinion.
<quoted text>
No. I am never saying that.
No, it is a fact. It can be show that most Christians know that the book of Genesis is a myth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118882 Jul 25, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, isnt that interesting?
So when I say that I believe in the God that is the Almighty; what is your problem?
And why is it that it is unlikely that an "almighty" could have "inspired" the generation of the universe?
And how is it not possible to observe that there is an almighty influence active at any time?
I have no problem if you keep your idiocy to yourself. It is when your kind tries to harm others by spreading your idiocy.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118883 Jul 25, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
..."Does the concept of infinite regress indeed suggest that the existence of Creator as we know it is improbable?"
YOU tell, a creator existing is YOUR claim.
See?
Your "infinite regress" only hides your bad reasoning capacities: it inevitably leads - again - to shifting the burden of proof.
Dodge-ball?
Absolute crap.

The the infinite possesses an attribute which allows mankind to deduce its nature by logic.

It is natural logic and an obvious implication, that that which is assumed to be the "Creator of ALL" must be assumed to possess infinite potential.

There is no need to be playing ping-pong with the burden of proof.

Either a thing is or it not.

And that which is is related to logic by equality; as that which physically is, is connected to that which was (and connection is defined by equality, the point where two thing become one). Furthermore logic is determined by equality between ideas.

Hence logic is naturally able to describe whatever is.
TurkanaBoy wrote:
I have A BUNCH of questions left unanswered by you.
For instance, the post I will produce next after this one.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118884 Jul 25, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
...Hence, AGAIN:
Actually I agree on Dude's representation of "god": he never shows up ("invisible"), it is a Jewish deity of origin ("Jewish") and he performs all kinds of wonders that under the regime of normal natural laws can't and won't happen ("wizard").
Hence, the correct questions here are:

1) why are we wrong then on this representation?
2) where can we find the correct representation?
3) why is that representation correct? How may we trust on that?
4) consequently, what is the evidence for the god according to that representation?
Actually, Dude DID describe the nature of the God for which there is no evidence, "invisible Jewish wizard". Hence I do not even know why you posed that request.
AND NOW YOUR ANSWERS PLEASE.
1) You are wrong at the point where he does show up, through representations and his influence on the world and reality in general.

2) By actually reading the Bible, at least the descriptions of God communicated by Jesu/s; you would know how to identify representations of God to begin with.

3) That representation is correct to the degree that it is logical. Only logic can bring us to truth, as there is always a way to argue around any evidence.

Dude's invisible Jewish wizard may or may not exist in reality; but we cannot deny that he strongly believes in it.

Why else would it recur in his mind so often; impressing itself upon his thought? Because it has the potential to affect matter and energy (in the form of the Dude)?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#118885 Jul 25, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. It is better to say no contemporary accounts are known to exist.
Where is the contemporary evidence for the existence of Truth?

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
got any jokes (Sep '08) 3 min forwhatitsworth 196
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 5 min Brandiiiiiiii 31,013
News Naked man claims to be Jesus outside of Lowe's 10 min Brandiiiiiiii 27
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 11 min Brandiiiiiiii 3,001
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 16 min Brandiiiiiiii 6,346
Word Association (Jun '10) 17 min Brandiiiiiiii 32,733
one word only (Jun '08) 18 min Brandiiiiiiii 56,057
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr harrypaul1 6,541
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Naturally Wired 225,643
More from around the web