Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205425 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.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#114651 Jun 18, 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
Pretty simple really my friend, the energy is less the farther you move from it.
Even though the light at the source, was unimaginably strong .
The effect was proportionally weakened by the square root of the distance from it.
While the fire burned very hot , and you could not stand next to it.
We backed away to where we could.
This is universally a reason why life is not on Mercury , but is on Earth.
A physical reason, and because of our understanding of the inverse square law, we can deduce many things. This is also the reason why , a searchlight has it's limit in distance.

But when we talk about light over great distances , light also requires time to travel.
The reason we cannot see light from the very farthest reaches of space is twin fold.
It maybe hasn't had time to reach us and it maybe have been reduced to undetectable.
WORLD CLASS

United States

#114652 Jun 18, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
Everything in life has repetitive rhythms related to their own kinds. Variety is not only the spice of life, it is essential for life to work. There had to have been variety from the beginning for life to thrive on Earth. Instructions were given in patterns to follow for each kind.
Interesting.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#114653 Jun 18, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
Everything in life has repetitive rhythms related to their own kinds. Variety is not only the spice of life, it is essential for life to work. There had to have been variety from the beginning for life to thrive on Earth. Instructions were given in patterns to follow for each kind.
I think that is a fair statement. Even science relies on repetitive and variety. They have repetitive tests and get a variety of answers.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114655 Jun 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
if you can only investigate God using logic, then you have shown that no such God exists in the real world.
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.
polymath257 wrote:
Logic is purely a theoretical language, not a proof of existence in reality.
"...we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic)."
[Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953]

*Lights cigarette*
polymath257 wrote:
Furthermore, you have not presented any logical demonstration at all.

[QUOTE who="polymath257"]
You have made some claims. But it is well known that the standard 'proofs' for the existence of God fail in their internal logic. For example, the one you seem to be suggesting is the ontological argument, which requires the existence to show the existence. It is based on a false characterization of existence as a property something either could or could not have. But if something has a property at all, it exists, you you are ESSENTIALLY ASSUMING your conclusion.
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*

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114656 Jun 18, 2014
And another creatard that does not know the difference between an assumption and a deduction.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114657 Jun 18, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
And another creatard that does not know the difference between an assumption and a deduction.
And previous experience.

We can be very sure that a known bacterial growth agent will work because it has worked millions of times before. The same goes for other materials and times used. Usually an experiment has an unknown in it and that is tested compared to known substances. Conclusions are based upon deductions from the data supplied by the experiment. No need for guessing, presumptions, assumptions etc..

Of course creatards try to foist off their flaws upon others.
THE LONE WORKER

Tucker, GA

#114658 Jun 19, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is a fair statement. Even science relies on repetitive and variety. They have repetitive tests and get a variety of answers.
Life on Earth is a motif or set of movements of different kinds of living things. Systems or cyclic masses have strong and weak movements with rhythmic pulses or on and off beats. We can say this is a PATTERN of periodicity or frequency and life adjusts or is entrained to the local environment by cues like daylight which is part of the life circuit. It's like when you listen to your kind of music and become entrained to it by tapping your foot. This has been described by SCPID Theory, and the basic concept has not been refuted yet.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114659 Jun 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh you mean the very initial spark of evolution, you do not mean the
continuing results of that evolution, thank you for making that clear.
As to the initial spark, it is true that science does not know the
precise details and has been unable to devote a billion years or so to
research but that does not mean you have to guess. Is it not enough to
say “we don’t know, we may never know but at least we are trying to find
out” as opposed to your approach of “we don’t know so clearly we must
guess that my god dun it wiv magic and those trying to find out are
always wriong eben if the succeed in finding the truth”.
First that’s truth, small t, not Truth, capital T, as used by christians
to denote belief rather than fact
And secondly, nope, not any of the 2400+ other creator gods that have
been worshipped throughout recorded history but your own particular god
construct?
Nope.
I hope you know that there is a very big dichotomy or difference between gods and God ?
You may never understand that.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114660 Jun 19, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh you mean the very initial spark of evolution, you do not mean the
continuing results of that evolution, thank you for making that clear.
As to the initial spark, it is true that science does not know the
precise details and has been unable to devote a billion years or so to
research but that does not mean you have to guess. Is it not enough to
say “we don’t know, we may never know but at least we are trying to find
out” as opposed to your approach of “we don’t know so clearly we must
guess that my god dun it wiv magic and those trying to find out are
always wriong eben if the succeed in finding the truth”.
First that’s truth, small t, not Truth, capital T, as used by christians
to denote belief rather than fact
And secondly, nope, not any of the 2400+ other creator gods that have
been worshipped throughout recorded history but your own particular god
construct?
And again, you don't know is not an excuse, because that thing exist. As long as it exist, it was made. Get that!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114661 Jun 19, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the difference between 'smart' and 'intelligent'
And no I am not smart. I am a genious for non-Germans but for Germans I am just average.
Pride!

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114662 Jun 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And Jesus was God, son of the father. So I didn't assign a goddamm thing.
And as far as I know God has no race, colour or gender.
Oh, and another thing. I have no belief that God does not exist.
One day you'll pay attention to my posts and understand where I'm arguing from.
Understand? Lol
may be in another life, if there is any.

“Learning from others is good.”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#114663 Jun 19, 2014
"I am not a man I am a monkey." ( quote from Elephant Man )

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114664 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the universe have the capacity for intelligence?
I am still trying to determine if you do.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114665 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
I have made an observation, not an opinion.
Will:
"—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job>>>"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]
Disposition:
"2. a natural or acquired tendency, INCLINATION, or habit in a person or thing"
[http://dictionary.reference.c om]
"in·cli·na·tion
: a feeling of wanting to do something : a tendency to do something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]
THEREFORE:
Both "will" (intent) and "disposition" (natural tendency, such as natural selection) REPRESENT INCLINATIONS.
And since we are of nature and exist in nature, both human will and disposition of the world express the "inclination" of nature.
We are nature, being natural products of it and remaining in it; therefore whatever terms can be applied to man can be applied to nature.
You gave an opinion you gutless moron. You presence here is a lie and you tells are many. One of the biggest is that whole routine you go through with your cigarette smoking. If you are really searching for the truth or on some pedagogical mission, constantly showing your contempt in such a childish manner is at odds with that. You don't understand the weakness when I throw it back in your face. You are another marvelously deluded zealot with an agenda and the objectivity of a turd.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114667 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But then again you dont figure anything much it seems...
But I did figure that I would get a response from my statement and I was right about the nature of that response as well. Seems I figure fairly well pigeon.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114668 Jun 19, 2014
deutscher Stolz wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't talk like them. I don't want to invade other countries. I just want to protect my country from stupid greedy Americans. You have already exploited my country twice.
Are you referring to the two early 20th Century events were we "exploited" your country from taking its show on the road and spreading the "Good News" to the rest of the world?

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114669 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that full well.
"It is NOT that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for WE cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
[Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist)]
And this is the scary part:
"The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen." [http://creation.com/amazing-a dmission-lewontin-quote]
So they are being led to cut themselves off.
Did you run out of cigarettes?

Well now I have seen you deny that you deny science and now I see you deny science again. What will your story be tomorrow?

Might I recommend checking to see if anyone in the alley you preach from has a loosie.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114670 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
*throws cigarette filter on the ground, squashes it, turns and walks away while reaching in pockets for another cigarette to light*
You are a confessed litterer. The irony is not lost on me.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114671 Jun 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Kong's intelligence -- and that intelligence exhibited by his kin -- are the consequence of evolution. There is no evidence of an 'intelligence' as depicted in the Bible... or anywhere else.
Well we only have the one example from Jamaica, so it is too early to draw conclusions based on that one sad individual.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#114672 Jun 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as I said, any thought experiment has to be backed up later by an actual experiment.
In practice, thought experiments are typically used to test the consistency of the ideas in a model or to clarify intuition. But they are only speculation until actually verified by observations. A thought experiment is not, in itself, a proof of any concept.
HOG uses a lesser standard. A much lesser standard.

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 News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Republicans outraged over reported delay of Cli... 2 min Captain Yesterday 52
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min Uncle Tab 240,010
News German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the TT... 4 min Captain Yesterday 11
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min Actual Science 61,093
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min Rosa_Winkel 16,140
News Trump backer tweets cartoon of Clinton in black... 8 min Pros and cons 22
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min John Galt 1,420,532
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 10 min Chilli J 8,024
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 44 min Cheech the Conser... 393,413
News Former Obama aide: Trump is a 'psychopath' 1 hr Le Jimbo 105
More from around the web