Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204736 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: Jul 14

Location hidden

#122034 Sep 8, 2014
reporterreport wrote:
<quoted text>
Could our German Wunderkind be mixing up the terms "concise" and "precise"? Well, he'd never admit it. He'd rather die than concede that he could possibly make a mistake.
Only mature ADULTS are able to do this.
Of course German is more precise as well but I also meant concise.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#122035 Sep 8, 2014
Let's face it, science is just knowledge concerning how the natural world works. All of nature is a regular and intelligible form or sequence regularly found in comparable objects or events. These actions are commonly called patterns. My point is that the Bible has always said that the LORD our Creator shows patterns. Scripture such as Numbers 8:4 tells us that Moses was given a pattern for a lampstand with blossoms at its base. This is how our Creator works.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#122036 Sep 8, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The generalization that I keep in mind and it is imperfect, is that roughly 2000 years ago the Roman Empire was the most powerful military. 200 years ago, France was the most powerful military. Today the United States is the most powerful military. Each of these persisted for a time but are no more. Who will replace us tomorrow? Not a very optimistic view, but from a historical point, it is practical.
The stereotypes perpetuated in the United States regarding the French military appeal to the more conservative minds in the United States because the French version of democracy is a European style on the more progressive end of the spectrum. The stereotype is also supported due positions taken by the French people or French government regarding US foreign policy during the Bush administration.
Not quite sure how to define the most powerful, the US certainly have big numbers but China has around double the active personnel, 4 times the reserves and 10 times the paramilitaries. India and Russia also have considerably more manpower. What makes the US powerful is expenditure, technology, media and they are shouty but I’m not so sure that the pentagon ‘big up’ shout filterers down to the guys that actually do the slog. The world has changed dramatically in the last 100 years and without the alliances of Nato most of the western military machines would be pretty inconsequential.

It’s is quite sad (although I have benefited*) that the Bush hate the French campaign was so widely accepted by the right over your side of the pond. All because the French were not willing to bow to Bush as our Blair did (and what a name and legacy Blair earned for himself). One thing Bush failed to recognise is that France has the highest Muslim population in Europe and no president is going to go on a gung ho and alienate 10% of his voting public. Another is that France is a fairly left wing country anyway (despite the recent rise popularity of the NF) and right wing policies are in general anathema to them

As bush once said, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."... chuckle, you are a fellow countryman so tell me, did he do this sort of thing on purpose to appeal to the dumbos or was he really as thick as he made out?

*My benefit, very high class French restaurant (accolades and stars abounded) in New York was hit hard by the anti France rhetoric. Within 5 weeks of the freedom fries saga (Note French fries were actually a Belgian invention) they had gone from a full house every night to broken windows, kicked in doors, graffiti scrawl and the show stopper, threats of violence to their children. All good American fun I am told. They could not even sell up but simply locked up shop and moved back to France to open a rather astounding restaurant close to my place there. Example, the beef stew using medallions of ribeye steak with aged cognac sauce and seasonal veg is truly amazing, the best beef stew I have ever tasted.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#122037 Sep 8, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are a wealth of information Christine. Thanks for bringing this up. I was using a conservative technique used by such notable leaders as Ronald Reagan in his pursuit of the defeat of communism. In his case he strengthened anyone that might be a foil to the Soviets while I poke fun at second parties in an effort to foil our Douche friend. Of course that didn't work out so well for the US in the long run as now we have had to deal with Iraq, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS.
We all (well most) have to deal with the bad boys in whatever way we can, it’s the way of the world

More info, ISIS is no longer ISIS, they have renames to become IS, short for Islamic State.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#122038 Sep 8, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it was the Italians we picked on.
Ahh, that’s different... Not had much military success since they ruled the entire known world a couple of thousand years ago.

But I never heard of the US government renaming Lasagne to freedom sheets of freedom duram wheat with freedom meat and freedom tomatoes sauce

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#122039 Sep 8, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah. I didn't get upset. I even posted an engineer joke.
I do get a little annoyed when anyone suggests all engineers are fundie types though.
Aww common, I know some pretty strange and radical engineers.

OK, you commented though, just as I do when people put the French military down because it's the hip thing to do

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#122040 Sep 8, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I accept our action in Afghanistan, but the idea that we can bring democracy to this region by military force wasn't very well thought out.
Enforcing will by military might will always be seen as fascist dictatorship by those the imposition is being forced on at the point of a gun, not democracy.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#122041 Sep 8, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No my dear you are picking apart a joke, The French were instrumental in defeating the English here , without the French Navy , there possibly wouldn't have been a United States.
But as much as the French are a part of what we are, so is England.
We are in it together, well our history is New World but the old world is a part of us too.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tSukMQHQLIsXX
Ahh you mean like America has wars to teach the US public about geography... That sort of joke? I see now

Again, a joint effort and considerably longer than within the last 100 years though

Yes, we are all in it together
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122042 Sep 8, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Though I am not a linguist myself I do believe that one of the reasons that English is considered to be more concise is because so many different countries over ran it and changed the language of the natives. We have roots from so many different sources that we had more choices in picking concise terms that cover many different ideas. One of the problems with German, as Mark Twain point out, is that if you don't have a term you can make one up on the spot by making your own portmanteau.
Making up on the spot a new term by portmanteaus seems to me a very creative process and makes a language flexible, though. The only difference with English is that English just put a blank between two connected words:'tram stop' in Dutch is 'tramhalte' and in German 'Straßenbahnhaltestelle'(talki ng about 'concise'). Let's analyse the German:'Straße'='street'-'Bahn '='course, track'-'Halte'='stop' and 'Stelle'= place, spot. Actually, in spoken German the word is truncated to 'S-bahnhalte'. In English the full word would have been 'street track stopping spot', hence with the blanks in between. I don't think that affects concise language use as such.

The conciseness of English relates to the fact that it doesn't spell out the function but just used an old Flemish (Dutch) word for it:'tram'. Which had (a lost) meaning 'barrow' and was first used by Scottish miners (maybe they borrowed the word from a Flemish migrant worker) for the 'train of barrows' used in mines to transport the coal. When the tramway was invented (in Wales, drawn by horses) they just picked up the word used in the mines.

Another reason English is more concise is its grammar. It tends to skip words. Like skipping the article in 'all day'(German 'den ganzen Tag') or use of prefixes like in 'I have worked'- German 'ich habe gearbeitet'. Hence 'I have worked all day' includes 5 spoken syllables, in German 'ich habe den ganzen Tag gearbeitet', we count 11 syllables. It's just one example of course but I can tell you it works throughout the whole of both languages.

To make my point, I translated the last paragraph into German:
'Ein weiterer Grund weshalb Englisch prägnanter ist, ist die Grammatik. Sie neigt dazu, Wörter aus zu lassen. Wie die Auslassung des Artikels in 'all day'-(Deutsch 'den ganzen Tag') oder die Verwendung von Präfixen wie in 'Ich habe gearbeitet'- Deutsch 'ich habe gearbeitet'. Daher:'I have worked all day' umfasst 5 gesprochenen Silben, im Deutsch 'ich Habe Den ganzen Tag gearbeitet', zählen wir 11 Silben. Selbstverständlich ist es nur ein Beispiel, aber ich kann Ihnen sagen, es funktioniert in Ganz beider Sprachen so.'

English hasn't that much sources. In its Anglo-Saxon state it was just a ordinary Germanic dialect which resembled modern German to a high degree. Mind that Saxon is one of the main sources of modern German too. The influence of the Celtic substrata has found to be negligible. The influence by the later Scandinavian Vikings also pertains a typical Germanic language (old Norse) so not much of a deal here. That leaves the old French of the Normans. I think it is the mingling of Anglo-Saxon and old French that really shaped modern English. By 1400 (the time of Chaucer) that process was halfway and finished when Shakespeare wrote his works.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122043 Sep 8, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite sure how to define the most powerful, the US certainly have big numbers but China has around double the active personnel, 4 times the reserves and 10 times the paramilitaries. India and Russia also have considerably more manpower. What makes the US powerful is expenditure, technology, media and they are shouty but I’m not so sure that the pentagon ‘big up’ shout filterers down to the guys that actually do the slog. The world has changed dramatically in the last 100 years and without the alliances of Nato most of the western military machines would be pretty inconsequential.
It’s is quite sad (although I have benefited*) that the Bush hate the French campaign was so widely accepted by the right over your side of the pond. All because the French were not willing to bow to Bush as our Blair did (and what a name and legacy Blair earned for himself). One thing Bush failed to recognise is that France has the highest Muslim population in Europe and no president is going to go on a gung ho and alienate 10% of his voting public. Another is that France is a fairly left wing country anyway (despite the recent rise popularity of the NF) and right wing policies are in general anathema to them
As bush once said, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."... chuckle, you are a fellow countryman so tell me, did he do this sort of thing on purpose to appeal to the dumbos or was he really as thick as he made out?
*My benefit, very high class French restaurant (accolades and stars abounded) in New York was hit hard by the anti France rhetoric. Within 5 weeks of the freedom fries saga (Note French fries were actually a Belgian invention) they had gone from a full house every night to broken windows, kicked in doors, graffiti scrawl and the show stopper, threats of violence to their children. All good American fun I am told. They could not even sell up but simply locked up shop and moved back to France to open a rather astounding restaurant close to my place there. Example, the beef stew using medallions of ribeye steak with aged cognac sauce and seasonal veg is truly amazing, the best beef stew I have ever tasted.
And I remind that also Germany was reluctant to follow Bush in his idiotic enterprise in Iraq.
Both Germany and France were perfectly right not to engage in this sh!t.
The Christal Nacht like rantings in the USA against everything that resembled 'French' was appalling and along with the lies ('arms of mass destruction') and the utter stupid idea of turning over a whole country in just a few years, the USA has lost much of its goodwill in many parts of the world. And, as you know, trust comes by feet and leaves on horseback.

And then to know that you almost voted for wackojacko Sarah Palin to be in charge as vice-president.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#122044 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it amusing you say this
"The reason science cannot do it is that it is claimed to be impossible from the start: anything 'supernatural' is, by definition, impossible to test. And *that* is the basic problem. Without *some* sort of testability, it *cannot* ever be scientific."
then knowing they say their god is supernatural. you come back with this
"Religious believers have been at this for millenia. I would expect *something* testable from them by now."
you first say supernatural cannot be tested then come back and say you expect something by now? kind of contradict yourself just a little.
No, you just need to read a bit better.*If* the concept of a supernatural were meaningful, it would be testable. Since those with religious beliefs have had thousands of years to develop such tests and have had the motivation to do so (if only to make converts), the lack of such tests argues for the meaninglessness of the concept. Many religious people have retreated to the position that the supernatural is completely untestable, which makes it forever un-scientific. It becomes a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#122045 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
no, why should it is your answer to these questions.
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for a god?
does science have tests for a god.
maybe now you can see how foolish it is to ask for something that you know is not possible.
Would it know how to test for a god if the concept of a god is meaningful?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#122046 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
god exists in anyone's head that argues against or for god. both have to think of god to argue about him. as far as believing in god i thought i made that pretty clear that i,(even we) do not know if god does or does not exist. that leaves the believing as this. either you believe god exists or you don't believe god exist. if you don't know then you don't believe either.
You could say the exact same thing about unicorns.
The Dude

London, UK

#122047 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1) for evolution against creation
2) to hope it disproves god which in your mind it already has.
3) to battle people that have faith in god
4) those are poor reasons to like something that is great.
Science doesn't care about gods either way.

Not interested in falsifying non-falsifiable concepts.

Creationism was already falsified long ago.

Wouldn't be interested in fighting the faithful if they weren't pooping on everyone else's religious freedom.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#122048 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you still don't get it do you? you ask for scientific evidence for something that you admit science does not look for, science does not test for, science does not know how to test for and science does not know what/where to test for but yet you want scientific evidence of it.
Yes, I want the *believers* to come up with a test for the concept. That is *their* duty if they think the notion is meaningful and subject to evidence. In other words, it is the job of the believers to provide evidence for something they think exists. Without that, all they have is their opinion. Furthermore, the contradictory ideas of 'god' from different religions shows it to be a matter of opinion and not of knowledge.
why use the moronic statement of "show scientific evidence" for something that you admit science doesn't/can't do? if science doesn't/can't do it,,, where are they supposed to get you the scientific evidence you ask for? DUH!!!!!
Ask yourself *why* science cannot do so. You see, it *would* be possible if the concept was clear enough, or was susceptible to evidence. The fact that no test is possible in and of itself shows the concept to be useless: the word 'supernatural' is simply a null word.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122049 Sep 8, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I have never heard that English is considered to be more concise. I have often heard that it sounds cool what I can't understand but I have never heard that it is a concise language. Actually it is considered to be a wishy-washy language.
The English word pool consists of many dead words. Even though the English vocabulary is bigger than the German vocabulary you are using more different words in a German small talk than in an English one in average because in a German every day conversation you make more distinctions.
"One of the problems with German, as Mark Twain point out, is that if you don't have a term you can make one up on the spot by making your own portmanteau."
Why is it a problem? It is one of the biggest advantages of the German language and it is often used as a stylistic element in German texts. It is also called neologism.
The point is that YOU consider English to be a wishy-washy language and the REST OF THE WORLD knows that English is more concise.

The German vocabulary also consists of many dead words.
Not 'even though' but WHILE the English language has a bigger vocabulary and is using more different words than German, in small talk English speakers have more word variety to draw from and are able to make more distinctions.

English also is spoken by many many more people, as a first or a second language. That means that it has a larger input of foreign words and sayings of all directions and cultures, which enriches it to a high degree.
The Dude

UK

#122050 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you demand scientific evidence for something science doesn't know how, doesn't know where, doesn't know any test etc etc. to find. so how if science does not know, do you expect to get scientific evidence?
but yet science has the knowledge to show russell's magic teapot nothing more than an atheist trick/tactic to avoid things on god. science does not have the knowledge to test or find a god if one exists.
What's to avoid? Nothing but apologetics. There's a point there that goes right over their heads.

And yours apparently.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#122051 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you are still completely lost. it is moronic for you to ask for something you know and even admit can't be given. it is not a matter of a claim, it is the matter of what you want, which you know and even admit can't be given but yet you continuously ask for it.
so I ask again if science doesn't know how or where and science doesn't look where do you expect them to get scientific evidence that you always want?
*If* the concept is meaningful, such evidence would be possible. It is up to the *believers* to find and produce such evidence. It is the believers that think it is real, so they are the ones that have to come up with the methods and the evidence that can be used to test their ideas. If no test is possible (my position), then their ideas are opinion and not fact.

You see, the reason I think it is untestable is that believers have had ample opportunity to come up with tests and have failed to even provide the basics. But perhaps they can surprise me and come up with a test. That is what is required to be meaningful.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#122052 Sep 8, 2014
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>

No, there is not coincidence at all. It is easy to set your rate to a wide range of dates.
.
I used available data, and I believe I used observed data to set an upper limit. You have offered no data in objection. Again where is the science here?
You used corrupted data, as demonstrated. AND NOT ADDRESSED BY YOU. When you don't address those, you apparently do not manage to rebut them. When coming back with the same 'data', you are consequently DECEIVING.
I have offered many data, along with the scientific sources. HENCE, YOU LIE.
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
And it is foolish to assume a steady rate. We know that is has changed.
.
Of course it has changed but if you use data which is accumulated over long periods of time those peaks and valleys are smoothed out.
REALLY? Where are the scientific articles (which BY DEFINITION excludes any creationist's, UNLESS you can demonstrate its scientific ) on this then?
.
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the big changes in rates came from when agriculture was first invented.
Where is the scientific evidence for this?
Why do you care?
If provided, you will just IGNORE it, DODGE it and continue as if nothing had provided.
Like you did with about all of my previous posts.
You are just a random creationist's liar and deceiver.
.
messianic1114 wrote:
<quoted text>
We can estimate population in the past based upon the "measured rate of evolution" (the number of mutations that we all get each generation is key), and the size of the genome for the population as a whole, and using known populations of the Earth.
.
Where is the data on this "measured rate of evolution"
.
Conclusion: Not one shred of data is presented.
Why do you care?
If provided, you will just IGNORE it, DODGE it and continue as if nothing had provided.
Like you did with about all of my previous posts.
You are just a random creationist's liar and deceiver.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#122053 Sep 8, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you are still completely lost. it is moronic for you to ask for something you know and even admit can't be given. it is not a matter of a claim, it is the matter of what you want, which you know and even admit can't be given but yet you continuously ask for it.
so I ask again if science doesn't know how or where and science doesn't look where do you expect them to get scientific evidence that you always want?
It's not moronic to ask them at all. It's the ENTIRE POINT.

They are here because they claim to have evidence. If they can present it then we would be wrong. Since they can't then you should be asking them why they are lying. Or at the very least why they aren't looking for it themselves.

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
I Haven't Had____? In ages (Sep '12) 4 min AliceBlue 1,172
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 10 min whatimeisit 59,828
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 33 min whatimeisit 44,594
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 41 min Bezeer 8,316
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 58 min Red_Forman 146,495
Word Association. (Nov '10) 1 hr Bezeer 19,680
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 1 hr Bezeer 13,701
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 hr Calisportsgirl 19,715
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Grace Nerissa 59,694
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr wichita-rick 197,327
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 5 hr TheJerseyDevil 8,810
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 6 hr Spotted Girl 601
More from around the web