Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209851 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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120638 Aug 21, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Did he have to include cockroaches?
Any loving creator god of mosquitoes is not a loving creator god of mine!!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120639 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And interestingly, when I tried to make a connection between the "influence of equality" and an intelligent creator, you could not appreciate it./QUOTE]
And I still have no idea what you mean by that phrase.

[QUOTE]Is conformity to the SIMPLE principle of equality not the essence of intelligent thought and intelligent behavior?
Since I have no idea what you mean by the 'principle of equality', I have no idea. To me, it means a few basic statements about the relation of equality: 1) a=a, 2) if a=b, then b=a, 3) if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Clearly that is not what you mean.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120640 Aug 21, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Why would you think we do understand this. Certainly over short term periods we would expect to see variation, but over longer periods these conditions aren't to important. For example during the black plague 25% of Europe died but it didn't take but a few decades for that to be overcome. Less competition for resources allowed for larger families.
.
Are you convinced the birth rate is not falling?
The birth rate is falling and the death rate is at historical lows. it is the difference between the two that determines the growth rate of a population. Even that difference is nowhere close to being constant.

And the fact is that over longer periods of time, the variation is more, not less clear. If we go back 1000 years, the birth rate and the death rate were both very much higher than now. But they balanced in a way such that the population did not grow much, if at all. During certain times, it actually fell dramatically (not just with the Black Plague).

Why would you expect that even over the long term the difference between the two rates would not vary wildly? Plus, do you know what the effects of your calculation are for even minor variations of that difference?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120641 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And what/who exactly is it that will determine this "appropriateness"?
As with all evidence, reliability of the source, testability of that source, whether the evidence fits into an overall picture, consistency with other evidence, etc. If you look at the scientific literature, a good deal of time is spent looking at the reliability of particular observations and what could go wrong in the interpretation of them. The same shoudl hold for any new evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120642 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it ONLY Christian sources that claim there was a real and historical Jesus?
There are many sources that show there were *christians* that believed in certain ideas we now label as christianity. But none of the other sources that mention jesus himself outside of Christian ones are seen as reliable. For example, the passages of Josephus that mention Jesus are clearly interpolations from other writers: the writing style is different, the tone is different, etc.
And this is evidence that Jesus is not real and is a myth?
Which aspects? There is nothing seriously improbable about someone basically fitting the description in, say, the Book of Mark existing around the time mentioned. The question is whether that itinerant preacher actually said and did the things attributed to him and whether the beliefs of his followers are reliable.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120643 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no need for us to try to use the bible to prove the Bible... there are enough natural processes and historical accounts to demonstrate what we claim.
And for the record, circular reasoning is NOT invalid as a logical form.
yes, actually, it is.
Circular reasoning is deemed negligible at times because it represents a redundancy; a forgone conclusion.
It is only by a circular reasoning that we can dispense with the issue of infinite regress...
Which only shows it cannot be dispensed with.
Because for ANY description of how or what; an infinite number of hows, whats and whys can follow...
It is only possible to arrive at a conclusion by deciding that "a thing is what it is because it is what it is and not anything else".
Which isn't circular. it is axiomatic. There is a big difference.
How do you think the reliance on "empirical evidence" is justified?
For every piece of evidence there is an infinite number of whys... why does that prove that..? why does that prove that that proves that..? why does that prove that that prove that that proves that..?
It is by a circular logic that we are able to say this suggests that...
"Justified beliefs are all evidentially supported by other beliefs, but an infinite set of beliefs is not generated, because the chains of evidential support among beliefs is allowed to move in a circle." [Evidentialism, Wikipedia.com ]
Wildly irrational.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120645 Aug 21, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Any loving creator god of mosquitoes is not a loving creator god of mine!!
I would also include certain humanoids.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120646 Aug 21, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
A book is only evidence of the author's opinions. Nothing more.
<quoted text>
Whereas you made no attempt to distinguish between books nor authors; science text books, journals, reports etc are nothing but formalized opinions.
MikeF wrote:
... Nor have I rejected claims of his existence. I allow for the possibility. But feel free to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
That has no meaning except at the point where it betrays your hypocrisy.

What do you mean by "allow for the possibility"?

Either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.

As such it is you who choose to believe what you want to; inasmuch as you decide what it will take to convince you.

Otherwise... the scenario presents itself as a coin having two faces. And when the coin is tossed, there is a 1/2 chance that it will fall on either side. But the side YOU determine that it will fall on is the side YOU HOPE it will fall on.

YOU SIMPLY DO NOT WANT THERE TO BE A GOD.
MikeF wrote:
I make no excuses.
You make nothing at all.
MikeF wrote:
Unlike you who have to resort to criticizing another s logic, thought process or conclusions.
So since when is that a crime or a mark of ill character?

Is it not my responsibility as a rational being to criticize EVERYTHING?
MikeF wrote:
And THAT is your excuse because you can't support your beliefs with anything more than you beliefs and because you can't convince another to believe as you.
I cant support my belief... because I cant convince another to believe?

MikeF, GO F YOURSELF!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120647 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you: does the existence of Socrates demonstrate the existence of Jesus?
Does it need to?

But does the fact that there is little or no physical evidence that he left of his own existence, mean he never existed?

Do not know Socrates?
The Dude wrote:
More importantly, is there any CONTEMPORARY evidence of Jesus?
What do you call the fulfillment of the predictions that He made and the accuracy of the implications of the concepts he communicated?

Ancient?
The Dude wrote:
And further (since I've already stated that for all I care Jesus could have been a real life historical preacher whom Christianity was based on) would contemporary evidence of the existence of this preacher demonstrate that he had magical powers?
Does it need to?

Do we need him to have "magical" powers?

Or do we simply need to know that he knew what he was talking about?
The Dude wrote:
Scientific evidence is that which can be verified by the scientific method.
So describe the evidence that cannot be verified byt he scientific method

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120648 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure. Are there other non-Christian sources which present evidence of the historical existence of Jesus?
So you dont even know the facts as presented by history?

I see.
The Dude wrote:
And if so, does any of this prove that he was a magical wizard?
You are not only psychotic, schizophrenic and paranoid; now you are obsessed with Jewish wizards? Is there a medical term for that?
The Dude wrote:
No, but it is evidence that humans aren't magical wizards. And Jesus was thought to be human.
Was that the only thing he was thought to be?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120649 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then all you need to do is stop whining like a little crybaby and tell us how invisible magic Jew wizards pass the scientific method in an objective manner. Thanks again in advance for not bothering.
Stop asking me to do YOUR JOB for you!

It is YOU that believe in invisible magic Jew wizards!

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120650 Aug 21, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
First part .... Yup.
Second part .... bull crap! If it can be independently verified, it is fact, not rationalization.
Independent of what exactly?

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120651 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Independent of what exactly?
Are you still on here claiming everything and showing nothing?

That'll do pig.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120652 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all I never claimed to be an academic. Second of all the fact you dismiss a potential academic for merely disagreeing with you speaks volumes about your critical thinking skills. Thirdly, I never claimed Jesus did not exist. I am open to the possibilities that he was a real preacher, or a character invented for politico-religious purposes, just like many many other religions. Or even a combination of both.
I am likewise open to the possibilities.
The Dude wrote:
I do however dispute claims that he was a magical wizard.
So do I.
The Dude wrote:
Fourth, my alleged psychosis doesn't change the fact that you resorted to ad-homs instead of presenting evidence for your position or refuting my posts.
The problem is not evidence, for no matter what evidence I present will be questionable; REMEMBER, "Yes. Evidence is always questionable"?

The problem is with the justification for accepting any evidence.

And while it is by logical that man justifies, it is the principles by which one thinks and concludes that are essence of facts... for we do not experience reality directly... since our experiences of reality are subject to our bodies etc.

My attack on your character is warranted, because a person who will knowingly perform extreme acts without necessity is a person who is willing to continue thinking with inequality; even though he knows better.

Simply put, such a person lie intentionally and so cannot be trusted.
The Dude wrote:
Fifth, you're attempting to find validation in the camaraderie of a dishonest fundie liar for Jesus who has a tenuous grip on reality (much less science) to say the least.
SEE WHAT I MEAN?

...you demonstrate resentment at my attack on your character; then you proceed to attack the character of another?

INEQUALITY IN THINKING: INEQUALITY IN ACTIONS (which tend extremes).

LOL!!!!!!!!!!
The Dude wrote:
Even Bohart's not stupid enough to make claims Young Earther's do, but it's funny how you fundies still give those who think The Flinstones was a documentary a free pass.
And you claim I'M psychotic.(shrug)
Yes I do.

And you have effectively demonstrated that my justification is valid.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120653 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright then. Justify walking on water. Spontaneous fig tree degradation via human touch. Immaculate conception. Miraculous healing, ya know...
I am not afraid to say that I am not able to scientifically explain those things, if by "justify" you mean give an explanation. But that doesnt mean he was not able to do them.

Are scientists afraid to say that they do not know (yet) what might have caused the universe to emerge?
The Dude wrote:
Otherwise if all you're gonna do is claim that Jesus was a really cool but still normal human being without magical powers I have no real beef there.
I am claiming that also. But he was more than that alone.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120654 Aug 21, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you want there to be something beyond what science can measure.
Ok thats it.

I think you have just effectively ended the conversation right there.

"Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may APPEAR or might be imagined. In a wider definition, reality includes EVERYTHING that is and has been, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OBSERVABLE OR COMPREHENSIBLE." [wikipedia.com]

You have nothing more to say to me.

I wont take you seriously anyway.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120655 Aug 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I have no idea what you mean by the 'principle of equality', I have no idea. To me, it means a few basic statements about the relation of equality: 1) a=a, 2) if a=b, then b=a, 3) if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Clearly that is not what you mean.
Oh.

I see.

LOL

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120656 Aug 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As with all evidence, reliability of the source, testability of that source, whether the evidence fits into AN overall picture...
Oh.

But the picture as painted by whom and by what justification?
polymath257 wrote:
... consistency with other evidence, etc.
So what is there to prevent one from accepting WHATEVER is consistent?
polymath257 wrote:
If you look at the scientific literature, a good deal of time is spent looking at the reliability of particular observations and what could go wrong in the interpretation of them. The same shoudl hold for any new evidence.
Interesting.

So what if a person decides to take up a piece of say- Biblical scripture; and finds an apparent discrepancy between it and reality; then tries to see what could be going wrong in HIS interpretation of them?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120657 Aug 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many sources that show there were *christians* that believed in certain ideas we now label as christianity. But none of the other sources that mention jesus himself outside of Christian ones are seen as reliable. For example, the passages of Josephus that mention Jesus are clearly interpolations from other writers: the writing style is different, the tone is different, etc.
<quoted text>
It is interesting that you mentioned the source that even we Christians conclude is the most unreliable.

Is it that you know of no other sources or that the unreliable one will suit your disposition?
polymath257 wrote:
Which aspects? There is nothing seriously improbable about someone basically fitting the description in, say, the Book of Mark existing around the time mentioned. The question is whether that itinerant preacher actually said and did the things attributed to him and whether the beliefs of his followers are reliable.
So what if he actually said and did those things; would it prove that he is the son of God?

What if he NEVER said nor did any of those things; would it prove that he is not the son of God?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120658 Aug 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Which isn't circular. it is axiomatic. There is a big difference.
Describe the difference.

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
Philly grey poster hangout 4 min Sam 73
Word Association. (Nov '10) 6 min Red_Forman 19,879
If Trump Wins 8 min Red_Forman 7
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 9 min Red_Forman 147,234
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 9 min grace-fallen 200,983
Who won the Presidential debate 2016 ? 10 min Fairyman 55
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 11 min SUG here 8,613
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 15 min 8541 MARINE 61,563
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Luckys Mommmy 9,126
More from around the web