Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
108,261 - 108,280 of 114,555 Comments Last updated 34 min ago
barefoot2626

Oakley, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114132
Jun 13, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Whites were created

blacks evolved,just not very far.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114133
Jun 14, 2014
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not the "stealing of German technology". I knew about that. I was waiting to see if Stolz could come up with anything. Operation Paperclip was simply us giving jobs to many German scientists. It kept them out of Soviet hands and served to lessen the ability of Germans to rearm with modern technology. And when you look at Germany's history that was not an unreasonable thing to do.
You need to use your friend Google and do more reading my little friend. Denial will get you nowhere. There are 1000's of credible links to read.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114134
Jun 14, 2014
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
Whites were created
blacks evolved,just not very far.
You are a freaking IDIOT!!! People like you are one of the major problems in the world.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114135
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You are only justified if you can provide evidence of your claims. So far you can't.
I have already suggested that the nature of "God" is such that He can only be examined logically. But you already know that from your familiarity with "dark matter".

Furthermore, you and I both know the nature of "evidence" for anything at all.
... any piece of evidence will make it possible to conclude both for and against an idea etc.

It is the equity in your justification as it relates to the evidence that makes you claim valid or invalid...

In a sense, evidence never proves anything; it helps to support or justify your claim.

For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever that God will come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him; and you do see what appears to be a being come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him.

Would you believe that it was God?

Personally, that wouldnt be enough to convince me that that particular event which I read of is the actual event transpiring before me... It could be an extraterrestrial...
The Dude wrote:
Oh, and then you have the infinite regression fallacy to deal with.
And I have already suggested that the concept of infinite regress does not apply to "Jehovah"; as it is assumed that He/It is eternal.

That which is eternal has no beginning nor end; and would be INDEPENDENT OF A CAUSE as such.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114136
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already suggested that the nature of "God" is such that He can only be examined logically. But you already know that from your familiarity with "dark matter".
Furthermore, you and I both know the nature of "evidence" for anything at all.
... any piece of evidence will make it possible to conclude both for and against an idea etc.
It is the equity in your justification as it relates to the evidence that makes you claim valid or invalid...
In a sense, evidence never proves anything; it helps to support or justify your claim.
For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever that God will come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him; and you do see what appears to be a being come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him.
Would you believe that it was God?
Personally, that wouldnt be enough to convince me that that particular event which I read of is the actual event transpiring before me... It could be an extraterrestrial...
<quoted text>
And I have already suggested that the concept of infinite regress does not apply to "Jehovah"; as it is assumed that He/It is eternal.
That which is eternal has no beginning nor end; and would be INDEPENDENT OF A CAUSE as such.
I think you are confusing the Devil with God. God will not return riding on a horse. The verse is Revelation 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114137
Jun 14, 2014
 
The whole verse goes:
King James Bible. Revelation 6:8
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Now either you are confusing God and the Devil or you are saying God is death, will bring hell with him and will give power to a 1/4 of the people on earth to to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Now that is not a God I want to believe in.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114140
Jun 14, 2014
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are confusing the Devil with God. God will not return riding on a horse. The verse is Revelation 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."
I think you are dyslexic. I see the word "suppose" in that line of the post.
The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114141
Jun 14, 2014
 
[QUOTE who="The Hand of God (with frustration)"]
For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever...
[/QUOTE]
replaytime wrote:
... Now either you are confusing God and the Devil or you are saying God is death, will bring hell with him and will give power to a 1/4 of the people on earth to to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Now that is not a God I want to believe in.
Now you are a person that I dont need to speak with anymore.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114142
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now you are a person that I dont need to speak with anymore.
Booyah!!! Later then. The verse, Revelation 6:8 says what it says.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114143
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now you are a person that I dont need to speak with anymore.
Don't go away ad,,, yet! If you are male here is another one for you: King James Bible-Deuteronomy 23:1- He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So if you are a male and ever been kicked or injured in your stones,,, you are going to hell.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114144
Jun 14, 2014
 
don't go away "mad" is what that should have read
deutscher Stolz

Vechta, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114145
Jun 14, 2014
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, in English the Sun is just the Sun. No gender applies. The calling of ships "she" by captains is an affectation. In proper English again no gender applies.
in poetic English it it as follows:

Do you know the sun? HE is very hot.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

And your example is rather poor since tableware is usually the same per piece, at least for pieces that do not have to do a "bigger job" such as a serving spoon. A fork, spoon, and typical butter knife will all have the same cost. But I get your point. Rarely it can be useful. The problem arises when someone from another country misapplies the various genders since they are different in his language. It should be fairly logical that a nose should not have a gender. Nor should a knife or fork. A tomcat should never be a "she". A tomcat is always a he since he does have a gender and his gender is male.
Mark Twain's work was hilarious because he translated the genders of articles literally.
The example was just about grammar not about content.
The content doesn't matter in this example.

As I already said: grammatical gender and biological gender are two different things. It is just a categorization. I could also categorize the nouns in red, blue and yellow nouns.
For example in physic you are talking about colour charge in Quantum Chromo Dynamics but this has nothing to do with colour. It is just a categorization of the charge in red, blue and green charge.
The division of nouns into grammatical gender has nothing to do with biological gender. It has something to do with endings.
For example all nouns that ends with 'chen' are neuter.'Das Mädchen'(the girl) is neuter in German even though the biological gender is feminine but the word 'Mädchen' ends with 'chen'
Further examples with 'chen' are
das Herzchen
das Häschen

Every noun that ends with 'keit' is feminine
die Einigkeit
die Einsamkeit
die Geschwindigkeit

every noun that ends with 'ling' is masculine
der Lehrling
der Zwilling
der Schmetterling

The 'nose' for example is feminine in German because it ends with an 'e'. The same with the word 'Die Lage'

and so on

Mark Twain's work wasn't hilarious.because he is confusing grammatical gender with biological gender.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114147
Jun 14, 2014
 
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
The only German words Brits know are
Ja, Nein, Hitler, Nazi, Sieg Heil (mostly with wrong spelling) and Rindfleischettikettierungsüber wachungsaufgabenübertragungsge setz (this word really exist).
No, I didn't mean "Ja", I meant "J.A.", the kiddie version of the AfD.

And anyway, you missed out "schnell"!
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114148
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Hand of God wrote:
I have already suggested that the nature of "God" is such that He can only be examined logically. But you already know that from your familiarity with "dark matter".
That's not actually the case, as with Dark Matter I already pointed out that it successfully predicts the motions and positions of astronomical phenomena. But if you can do that with "Goddidit" then maybe I'll be impressed.

Otherwise, using "logic" in your Aristotle-like fashion is just another way of pretending to know stuff just by sitting on your azz. It turned out wrong for Aristotle, it'll be the same for you.
The Hand of God wrote:
Furthermore, you and I both know the nature of "evidence" for anything at all.
... any piece of evidence will make it possible to conclude both for and against an idea etc.
It is the equity in your justification as it relates to the evidence that makes you claim valid or invalid...
In a sense, evidence never proves anything; it helps to support or justify your claim.
For example, suppose you read in the Bible or wherever that God will come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him; and you do see what appears to be a being come from space in all white riding a steed of sorts with throngs of "angels" proceeding Him.
Would you believe that it was God?
Personally, that wouldnt be enough to convince me that that particular event which I read of is the actual event transpiring before me... It could be an extraterrestrial...
Uh, God IS an extra-terrestrial. It's the most alien thing one could possibly conceive of, so what's the diff?(shrug) The trick would be to figure out WHICH extra-terrestrial it is.

So in all this babbling of yours you are STILL avoiding telling us all how to identify "Jehova" in an objective empirical manner.
The Hand of God wrote:
And I have already suggested that the concept of infinite regress does not apply to "Jehovah"; as it is assumed that He/It is eternal.
That which is eternal has no beginning nor end; and would be INDEPENDENT OF A CAUSE as such.
Exactly, "God" has to be a special case. Of course aside from the fact your position has zero evidence (thus far) you ignore the possibility that any special case that is applied to your particular deity could also apply to any other proposition. Why? Because they too would be "a special case".
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114149
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Hand of God wrote:
Now you are a person that I dont need to speak with anymore.
Oh, boo hoo!

Repro's not all THAT bad...

(eyeroll)

Geez, what is it with fundies and their sensitive egos? "I NO WANNA PLAY WIV YOU NO MORE!!!"
deutscher Stolz

Vechta, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114150
Jun 14, 2014
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I didn't mean "Ja", I meant "J.A.", the kiddie version of the AfD.
And anyway, you missed out "schnell"!
Allegedly you Brits are humourous people. Then tell me why you Brits are laughing about this?



That's so stupid and then you are saying that we German allegedly don't have a sense of humour. Ridiculous.

Btw I know the 'joke' about the name for English speaker despite it isn't funny.

That is funny.
It is with English Subs
https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114151
Jun 14, 2014
 
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Allegedly you Brits are humourous people. Then tell me why you Brits are laughing about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =K7lqeemM-XUXX
That's so stupid and then you are saying that we German allegedly don't have a sense of humour. Ridiculous.
Btw I know the 'joke' about the name for English speaker despite it isn't funny.
That is funny.
It is with English Subs
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
The first is funny to Brits because the word "fanny" is a nasty slang term fro vagina there. So the ladies name sounds like Fotze Geruch to them. Actually not quite Geruch, Google translate cannot seem to get the active act of smelling down.

Second how could Germans ever complain about American food? That is worse than the pot calling the kettle black. Second to England, Germany is supposed to have some of the worst cuisine in all of Europe.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114152
Jun 14, 2014
 
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
Allegedly you Brits are humourous people. Then tell me why you Brits are laughing about this?
Am I the Brits?

Or am I a Brit?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114153
Jun 14, 2014
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes sense that they would disappear together. Is there a known reason why genders were dropped?
The loss of genders is part of a major transition in most Indo-European (IE) languages.
This can de characterized as a shift from synthetic to analytic language form.
Synthetic languages come with:
1. heavily infliction of nouns, pronouns and adjectives (case system)
2. heavily conjunction of verbs and personal pronouns were not used as subject
3. lack of articles, only demonstratives
4. use of genders

Analytic languages:
1. do not use case system any more or only partly and substituted by foxed word order and the extensive use of prepositions
2. verb conjunction is substituted by the obligatory use of pronouns and the extensive use of auxiliary verbs
3. articles are obligatory
4. loss of or reduction of the use of gender.

All these things are intertwined.

What we see in all IE languages, is what is called deflexion: the loss in languages of flexion (conjugation, case system and along with it, gender) and becoming more analytic.
And deflexion happened in all IE languages, more or less.
Less in Slavonic and Baltic languages, more in Germanic tongues. More in English and Dutch, less in German.

And, to be honest, linguistics doesn't have a definite clue WHY!

One empirical linguistic study (R. Perkins, 1992) compared society types with language pertaining the degree of a language being analytic or synthetic. He took 50 languages from all over the world, some profound synthetic, others analytic and some in between. Next he grouped the society types in 5 categories:
- nomadic hunter-gatherer type, mostly built upon family ties
- larger tribe like groups, sometimes nomadic, sometimes settled, still with strong reliance on family ties but also having group ties exceeding the family
- tribes living in settlements with simple labour division and authority structures transcending family ties
- peasant societies, with small cities, highly labour division and regional authority structures
- modern industrialized societies with complex national rule.

There seemed to be a strong correlation between complexness of the society type and the language being synthetic or analytic. The more complex, the more analytic. There are exceptions but the correlation seemed to be significant.

But the way HOW increasing complexness of society brings deflexion in language, is not understood.

The mixing of languages may be another good explanation. For instance, I know a Czech woman who got here for amorous reasons. After she married her love, she adopted her husband's surname. Which is Pinker. According to the conventions of the Czech language, her surname would be Pinkerová or even Pinkrová. But she didn't felt it proper.=ová is the genitive feminine ending of nouns.

But the loss of gender already was in full speed in the Anglo-Saxon era. You might say that the mixing of old French and English might have caused it, but both Anglo-Saxon and old French had genders and rather great concordance in gender declination of nouns. In those cases a little tinkering of the gender of nouns would be more likely than a complete drop of gender.

French itself is a better example: it emerged in Gallic people, forced to speak Latin after Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Gaulish was a Celtic language, itself a heavily flexive language. After the collapse of the Roman empire, Gaul was submerged by Germanic languages, who all already showed loss of gender. Yet, French until today retained its gender system completely.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114154
Jun 14, 2014
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
Whites were created
blacks evolved,just not very far.
All men eventually come from Africa and originally all were black.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondr...
The United States of America are established by ethnic cleansing of the original native American population.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••