Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204729 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.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114673 Jun 19, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And, apparently, we also stole your sense of humor. Bummer for you.
But they still have their smile.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114674 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps all those cigarettes are getting to my head.
Please read that quote and tell me where it says anything equivalent to "HAS TO BE BACKED UP LATER by an actual experiment."
"A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. GIVEN THE STRUCTURE OF THE EXPERIMENT, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY PERFORM IT, and if it can be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question."
So Wikipedia is incomplete. Not a huge surprise, I would assume. Yes, the thought experiments do need to be backed up by observations, at least eventually. Einstein's famous thought experiments that lead to special relativity needed to be verified by experiment and observation (although some of the data was already collected by the time Einstein wrote).
But 0Poly, Poly, Poo:
" we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
*takes a puff of cigarette smoke and looks quizzingly at Pol*
Exactly, only logic and math provide proofs of their ideas. But both are based on axioms that are assumed a priori. The basic axioms are never demonstrated, only accepted. The trade off for having proof is that neither has any necessary connection to the real world. THAT is the role of scientific models. But the assumptions of those models need to be verified by observation and testing.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114675 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, PROOFS DO NOT OCCUR, if we mean by 'proof' an AN ARGUMENT WHICH ESTABLISHES once and for ever the truth of a theory."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
Pol, have you been keeping up to date with you epistemology studies?
And I quite agree with Popper here. Absolute proofs of concepts do not happen in studies of the real world, as opposed to abstract systems like math and logic.
Now that we have established that it is crucial to concider the nature of the thing being investigated:
What is the nature of God?
Assume one attribute that God has; say Power.
Let God be Almighty.
What type of evidence would one expect to find for an Almighty anything?
Is it possible that an Almighty could be present and influencing the development of the world?
I don't know. So far all I have seen is vague wording, nothing actually testable. Even the word 'almighty' has so many different interpretations it is only a matter of your interpretation what it actually means. In other words, your concept is way, way too vague to be meaningful.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114676 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, lets try a little math here: simple substitution will suffice.
"X" intelligence, such as it is, is a product of "Polymath". So, in that sense, "Polymath" is capable of producing intelligence. That does not mean the "Polymath" him/herself is intelligent, however.
Could you bring yourself to accept the statement as I have rephrased it?
Yes. Simply producing intelligence doesn't imply intelligence in all cases. There needs to be more evidence of intelligence of the producer. In this case, there is.
Because if you can answer yes to that question; you are probably right.
Only something totally dumb would produce an entity such as yourself (i.e. if you say yes).
*Puffs cigarette*
Now, now, insults like that get us nowhere when we are attempting to find the truth of a subject. I am simply pointing out that you are claiming a general rule is supported by a specific case. In this case, while I do have intelligence, it is not demonstrated by the fact that I produced an intelligence (my daughter, for example).

Likewise, producing stupidity doesn't automatically mean one is stupid in all cases. Yourself as an example, I would hope.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114677 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
He he he he he.
Great.
Now:
Does an X who creates an artificially intelligent system show signs of being intelligent?
Depends. A person who is already known to be intelligent can potentially produce intelligence. But natural selection can also produce intelligence and natural selection is NOT intelligent. So the outcome is insufficient to determine the intelligence of the producer.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114678 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So the universe creates an intelligent being, yet the universe is not intelligent.
But then an intelligent being that the unintelligent universe created demonstrates intelligence by creating intelligence...
Very good. You finally get it.
My oh my, you seem to be right.
An intelligent universe would have no part of you.
You win!!!
*puffs cigarette and smirks*
Thanks.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114679 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If X generates Y and Y is intelligent;
What is more rational to assume:
a) X is intelligent
b) X is not intelligent
<quoted text>
"gen·er·ate verb \&#712;je-n&#601;- &#716;r&#257;t\
: to produce (something) or cause (something) to be produced
: to be the cause of or reason for..."
In that case, clearly both X and Y are possibilities. Without further evidence, no conclusion can be obtained. Once again, how is heredity not 'generation' in this case?
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/generate]
<quoted text>
In other words you would rather play dodge-ball?
No, I am attempting to show that you are making a conclusion using an implication that goes the wrong way for your argument. Intelligence can arise from several types of source. In fact, all examples we actually have of intelligent species arose from non-intelligent species and non-intelligent processes. We have never actually seen AI being produced, so the production of intelligence via intelligence has yet to be demonstrated.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#114680 Jun 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I quite agree with Popper here. Absolute proofs of concepts do not happen in studies of the real world, as opposed to abstract systems like math and logic.
<quoted text>
I don't know. So far all I have seen is vague wording, nothing actually testable. Even the word 'almighty' has so many different interpretations it is only a matter of your interpretation what it actually means. In other words, your concept is way, way too vague to be meaningful.
The scriptures indicate that God shows PATTERN'S when things are to be made or built and Solomon taught that life and all things follow his CIRCUIT'S. This simple claim itself is proof the God of the Bible is THE Creator.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114681 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
1. Does power or potential exist?
2. Is it rational to assume that power or potential has a source?
3. Is it rational to describe the SOURCE of power or potential as "Almighty"?
All questions that are way, way, way too vague to be meaningful.

1. Power, as in the ability to act, clearly exists in many different guises. In this broad sense, gravity has the power to make planets orbit a central object.

2. No, it is not rational to assume that the many different types of power all have a single source. For example, the power of gravity to deflect objects is quite different than the power of a person to eat. They have no common source whatsoever. In fact, it is anything *but* rational to assume all forms of power have the same 'source'.

3. Without 2 being verified, 3 has no meaning.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114682 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So do information technology scientists.
<quoted text>
No.
Something IS here, so there must be a beginning or starting point. You've tried that already and failed miserably.
<quoted text>
"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy..." [wikipedia.com]
"Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS[4](28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British[5] philosopher and professor ... He is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science... Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification" [wikipedia]
Ok, so the philosophical nature of an argument automatically renders the argument invalid?
No. But it doesn't make it correct either. If you can get any collection of 10 philosophers to agree, you have demonstrated a miracle.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#114683 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And thats where you are sadly mistaken.
For it is equality which defines logic and it is equality which determines reality (in every way).
Therefore whatever is real is logical and whatever is logical necessarily is real.
<quoted text>
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
*Lights cigarette*
<quoted text>
Oh?
And that makes me what?
Watch me blow my cigarette in yo' face, foo':
"Making assumptions
Much as we might like to avoid it, ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS INVOLVE MAKING ASSUMPTION — many of them justified. For example, imagine a very simple test of the hypothesis that substance A stops bacterial growth. Some Petri dishes are spread with a mixture of substance A and bacterial growth medium, and others are spread with a mixture of inert substance B and bacterial growth medium. Bacteria are spread on all the Petri dishes, and one day later, the plates are examined to see which fostered the growth of bacterial colonies and which did not. This test is straightforward, but still relies on many assumptions: we assume that the bacteria can grow on the growth medium, we assume that substance B does not affect bacterial growth, we assume that one day is long enough for colonies to grow, and we assume that the color pen we use to mark the outside of the dishes is not influencing bacterial growth.
"
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscience...
*Flicks cigarette and laughs at Po Po till he coughs on smoke*
There is nothing logical about creationism. There is nothing logical or Christian about *Flicks cigarette and laughs at Po Po till he coughs on smoke.* It merely demonstrates "the last refuge of the incompetent."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114684 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
YOu do realize of course that your remarks are absolutely contrary to the people who "invented" science (for want of a better word)?
Your idea of science is as far removed from actual, credible science as religion is removed from... grade school.
STOP TALKING TO ME, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Considering that science arose about 500 years ago, it is not surprising that it has changed over time. We have found through hard experience that intuition and logic alone fail miserably to determine the nature of reality.

In fact, of course, that is in large part what the scientific revolution was about. Medieval philosophy tended to make conclusions based on 'intuitively obvious' ideas and claim they were proved. The problem is that those 'intuitively obvious' ideas were simply wrong. it is simply not true in the real world that heavy things fall faster than light things under gravity, for example. But no amount of logic alone would be sufficient to demonstrate that. You need actual observations of reality to determine the nature of reality.

Considering that I am the one here that actually does science, interacts with scientists, and has contributed to the growth of human knowledge, perhaps your philosophical meanderings could be labels 'idiotic' at best.

I think you want me to shut up because you realize you are losing the discussion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114685 Jun 19, 2014
wondering wrote:
aura mytha, keep in mind i have to explain that to an 11 year old. so keep it simple if you can
Think of bright light as a crowd of people who start walking away from the center. As the light spreads out, the crowd disperses and the light gets dimmer. The people can continue to walk forever, but they get more and more spread out, corresponding to dimmer and dimmer light.

If you look at a star at night, the light is rather dim. But each and every star is actually as bright as our sun (some are much brighter, in fact). They are just so far away that their light has spread out so that it is now dim.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114686 Jun 19, 2014
wondering wrote:
since this seems to be the hottest thread going I will ask here -
i was asked the other day that what i thought was a simple question by an 11 year old and when i started to answer i found the question was not as simple as i thought. the question was; “if light goes on forever then why is there darkness, does not the suns light keep shining forever? i answered with well yes light does go on forever but it fades with time and distance and the universe is so vast etc etc. but i never really came up with an answer i was satisfied with. any thoughts people? maybe i am having a brain fart.
The light from the sun does go on forever. But if it isn't reflected back to our eyes, we will never see it. Darkness isn't exactly the absence of light: it is the absence of light that comes to our eyes to be seen. And to be seen, it needs to be reflected off of something or directed into the eyes in some way.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114687 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And thats where you are sadly mistaken.
For it is equality which defines logic and it is equality which determines reality (in every way).
Therefore whatever is real is logical and whatever is logical necessarily is real.
Simply false. Logic alone says nothing about the real world. It can be *used* with facts about the real world to help us deduce other facts about the real world. But logic alone can say nothing until other information is brought into the argument.
<quoted text>
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]
Yes. And the trade-off is that logic and math cannot say anything about the real world. They provide a *language* that can be used, but no conclusions without other information. Have you actually read Popper? Or are you simply quoting the same thing over and over?
*Lights cigarette*
<quoted text>
Oh?
And that makes me what?
Watch me blow my cigarette in yo' face, foo':
Ok, so you have devolved to being a rude little troll.
"Making assumptions
Much as we might like to avoid it, ALL SCIENTIFIC TESTS INVOLVE MAKING ASSUMPTION — many of them justified. For example, imagine a very simple test of the hypothesis that substance A stops bacterial growth. Some Petri dishes are spread with a mixture of substance A and bacterial growth medium, and others are spread with a mixture of inert substance B and bacterial growth medium. Bacteria are spread on all the Petri dishes, and one day later, the plates are examined to see which fostered the growth of bacterial colonies and which did not. This test is straightforward, but still relies on many assumptions: we assume that the bacteria can grow on the growth medium, we assume that substance B does not affect bacterial growth, we assume that one day is long enough for colonies to grow, and we assume that the color pen we use to mark the outside of the dishes is not influencing bacterial growth.
"
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscience...
*Flicks cigarette and laughs at Po Po till he coughs on smoke*
Which is why each and every one of *those* assumptions also have to be tested. Science is a long process exactly because of this: all the assumptions have to be investigated and tested. In the case you have presented, we can independently verify that bacteria do grow on the growth medium. We can test how their growth varies as we change the properties of the growth medium. We can test how long it takes them to grow for various growth media. We can test different pens to see if they affect the growth rate. And yes, each and every one of these is potentially a problem for the experiment. If an anomaly arises, each and every one of them needs to be tested (actually, the preference is that they be tested ahead of time). It is even possible that we find that a particular ink inhibits bacterial growth. That would be a wonderful discovery!

Are you going to continue to be rude or do you want an honest discussion of your ideas?

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114688 Jun 19, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You decide:
Power:
a (1): ability to act or produce an effect (2): ability to get extra-base hits (3): capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect....
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/power]
Equality:
the quality or state of being equal
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/equality]
Equal:
a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
b : like in quality, nature, or status
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary/equal]
we communicate, that power often called godlike. Here beginneth the lesson. It's only an arrogant godlike shit. Let's play the meaning thereof. Why are we here, what do we have to say? You start I may follow, tell me about the godlike. Us. Stu

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114689 Jun 19, 2014
I think you are trying. This may sound like religion, I see the spirit. God and the goddess requires, this conscious place within the infinite. This now. How may the sweet kiss, the long loving apply? See it. Stu

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114690 Jun 19, 2014
Civilization is a cave wall 15000 years ago and a painting under torchlight. We need to communicate, evolution needs consciousness. This soul this light meaning. Stand up, do not trust me. Go go go. Be powerful. Every child needs to learn to stand up. Stu. Where are our teachers?

Since: Mar 14

Coorparoo, Australia

#114691 Jun 19, 2014
Creation within , the infinite and that evolved soul. Stu

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114692 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, lets try a little math here: simple substitution will suffice.
"X" intelligence, such as it is, is a product of "Polymath". So, in that sense, "Polymath" is capable of producing intelligence. That does not mean the "Polymath" him/herself is intelligent, however.
Could you bring yourself to accept the statement as I have rephrased it?
Because if you can answer yes to that question; you are probably right.
Only something totally dumb would produce an entity such as yourself (i.e. if you say yes).
*Puffs cigarette*
A conclusion can be correct even if the argument fails to prove it. Being able to produce intelligence is not sufficient to prove something is intelligent itself. Your feeble attempts at insult don't add weight to your position.

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.

US Governors Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Hillary Clinton's shadiness won't be fatal 10 min okimar 16
News Walker knocks Clinton for her Milwaukee shootin... 21 min WeTheSheeple 311
News Support Sununu for governor (Oct '15) 31 min Neskier 4
News Clinton proposes new federal fund to combat Zik... 32 min okimar 8
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 52 min Battle Tested 987
News Demand sags for California credits aimed at gre... 1 hr okimar 4
News Cost of EpiPen: Senators' daughters call for ac... 1 hr okimar 1
More from around the web