Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216895 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.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70656 Jan 12, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically, according to still in process hypothesis being studied in comparisons of say justgenetics, in it's parts of the whole of basic evolutionary tenets, Yes, it could be quite "different", due to a little, relatively new phenotype phenomenon dubbed "phenotypic plasticity".
Which is why SOME us have ascribed to the notion, for quite some time(since the first thought existed on the subject anyway) that Science itself would be limited in it's endeavors of exact complete recreation, of anything.
MMMmmmm (NOT) frog legs. lol.
Huh? What does phenotypic plasticity have to do with this? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Why, if we could replicate the exact chemical state of a nde, would it be different from a "natural" one? And even if we couldn't exactly replicate the chemical state, it wouldn't matter, and my proposition was more of a thought experiment anyway. My point is that we have a reasonably thorough understanding of the physical underpinnings of NDEs, and they can be more or less replicated with the use of drugs or with electrical stimulation of the appropriate regions of the brain. Why do we need to invoke a "something" to explain ndes when we already know, more or less, what causes them?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#70657 Jan 12, 2013
If the social norm is to see that a message board system, such as Topix, is intentionally organized into forums and threads in order to facilitate discussion about the topic of the thread, and a person acts antagonistically toward that social norm by attempting to divert discussion away from the topic of the thread and toward some personal pet topic, why wouldn't that qualify as being "anti-social"?
Cybele wrote:
Are you acting like a mod now?
No, I'm pointing out why you seemed to fail to recognize anti-social behavior when it occurs. Or, you recognize it, but condone it.
Cybele wrote:
How is a discussion on a personal level anti-social? How is that damaging to others?
Because it's an attempt to hijack the thread for purposes other than for what it was set up to do.

I see that you failed to respond to my question that was on the topic of this thread. Why is that?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70658 Jan 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan also smoked pot, and I think he was a big fan of acid but I don't recall the specifics. If we discredited everyone with one crazy idea, nothing would ever get done. Bill Mahar doesn't think illness is caused by germs and viruses. Newton thought he could change lead to gold with magical words and herbs. Imhotep believed Horus was real. I believe that our machines are more alive than we think. We all have crazy ideas not based on scientific facts, it doesn't change the things we contribute to advancement. Until you understand that, you won't understand the difference between fanciful dreams and science.
Machines more alive than we think? Do tell.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70659 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What mystical something did I mention here? I tried to explain how chemicals are involved.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6907783_parts-brain-...
<quoted text>
I believe we can induce NDE. Yes it would still be like natural. In fact, I've had many NDEs of different types.
<quoted text>
No, from my experience I wasn't trying to avoid death, I was responding to death as I thought I was going to die!
I was under the impression that you were asserting that ndes are not purely physical phenomena, and that they might actually be "proof" of some sort of afterlife. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70660 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We already know the secrets of the bible. Do you think the periodic table does too? I think it does. I think if scientists study it, they would find out things we don't know yet such as which atom came to existence first, etc. Before finding out about the God Particle (Higgs Boson), shouldn't we first know which atom was created first?
What? That is quite a dubious assertion - that the periodic table might be hiding the secret of "which atom came first." Or are you saying that the bible holds this secret? Either way, that's a strange claim.

And we already have discovered evidence of the "god particle" (I believe this moniker is not favored in the scientific community), the LHC captured evidence of it last year. It was quite a big story, actually.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70661 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Based on this premise:
"Hydrogen is the raw fuel that most stars 'burn' to produce energy. The same process, known as fusion, is being studied as a possible power source for use on earth. The sun's supply of hydrogen is expected to last another 5 billion years."
We know that STARS did it and life was created on earth.
Now if we go further back, how do we explain the birth of a star? Which element was created first?
What? We know that stars did what? Perform fusion? So what?

And we don't know that life was created on earth, unless you are using the version of the word "created" that does not imply a "creator."

We already have a pretty solid explanation for how stars are born. Here is a short primer from wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

And hydrogen was probably the first element.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#70662 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Are you acting like a mod now? How is a discussion on a personal level anti-social? How is that damaging to others?
It damages those who came to talk about Evolution vs. Creation. but who have to plow through discussion on other topics.

It damages those who skip the discussion on other topics, and who might skip a message about Evolution vs. Creation by mistake.

It is frustrating to those who try to remind other people that this forum is about Evolution vs. Creation, not about abiogenesis.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70663 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So now an evolutionist has an idea of Perfection as opposed to Random. lol!
Way to go to have a TOE in your mouth!
What?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70664 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what is it? Memory cell is just in computers?
What? I'm saying that there is no such thing as "cellular memory" or "body memory." It doesn't exist. The only part of our body that can store memories is the brain. And what do computers have to do with anything?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70665 Jan 12, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What? That is quite a dubious assertion - that the periodic table might be hiding the secret of "which atom came first." Or are you saying that the bible holds this secret? Either way, that's a strange claim.
And we already have discovered evidence of the "god particle" (I believe this moniker is not favored in the scientific community), the LHC captured evidence of it last year. It was quite a big story, actually.
There are patterns everywhere, from our DNA to the galaxies in the universe. I'm sure one will discover a pattern on the periodic table if examined closely such as in atomic numbers and electron configurations that which create matter and perhaps explain how they came into existence.

And no, the bible only says we were made from dust. Nothing more. That's where science comes in and call it 'particles.'

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70666 Jan 12, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do the cells develop an immunity to some things after being exposed to it?
That's our immune system at work, and it happens because when our body is exposed to germs, it reacts by producing antibodies, which then give our body a "head start" the next time the same thing attacks our body.

And that's not "cellular memory." Cellular memory is the pseudo scientific idea that each cell in our body somehow retains a "memory" of all the experiences that our body has gone through, and it simply isn't true. Our cells do not remember in the same way that our brain remembers.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70667 Jan 12, 2013
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly...there has to be a 'master chemist' there to arrange chemicals in the proper order...
Just as man takes dust, and arranges it into whatever he wants, through chemistry...but there has to be someone or something to orchestrate it...
Ahahahhahahaha. There just *has to* be a master chemist, eh? No justification, no evidence, just - "I don't understand science, so godditit!" Funny.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70668 Jan 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
If God created space/time, then he would be outside of space/time and therefore be infinite in nature.
( This idea is referenced by many through out history.)
Even the latest developments in Quantum Physics support this concept with the Observer Effect.
The observer effect absolutely does not suggest that god exists. What are you talking about?

And do you realize how much of a cop out it is to say that god doesn't need to conform to the natural laws?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70669 Jan 12, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>What? I'm saying that there is no such thing as "cellular memory" or "body memory." It doesn't exist. The only part of our body that can store memories is the brain. And what do computers have to do with anything?
whatever they call it but memory is not just stored in the brain.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/conten...

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70670 Jan 12, 2013
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor is there any evidence of life coming out of inordinate matter...
Inordinate lifeless elements cannot ever, will not ever, produce life...
get over it...
It has no reason to...dust will remain dust for trillions of years, until a master, intellegent chemist entity, comes along and arranges the chemicals in a way that can produce life...
Dude, come on. We have no evidence of a creator. We know that life exists. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume abiogenisis until such evidence is forthcoming.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70671 Jan 12, 2013
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit reisiting me and grow...
Your fear of the 'Christian god' doesn't mean there isn't an intellegent creator beyond human comprehension...
Ahahahah. "Do not resist, just accept my blind assertions and believe in the god I believe in." You are hilarious.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70672 Jan 12, 2013
Time and Space wrote:
Most resist the idea of a creator...simply because religion has attached judgment and condemnation, as traits of this creator or creators or spirits or superior beings...
You're right man. I'm just so, so scared to believe that there is a merciful, benevolent being in the sky who loves me, wants the best for me, and has a meaningful plan for my life. I just can't bear the thought!

Or maybe, we "resist" because you and people like you have not even come close to making your case yet.

The general argument I hear from religious people is "I believe in god, and I don't understand how the universe could possibly exist if not especially for me and people like me, so you should believe too."

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70673 Jan 12, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your right...nor is logical deduction. But when you have cultures that have had no contact with one another that also are separated by time and space, come up with basic intuitional knowledge that correlates to a idea that science adheres to...( the Observer Effect)then you have something that should be considered...
You keep using that phrase... I don't think it means what you think it means.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70674 Jan 12, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
It damages those who came to talk about Evolution vs. Creation. but who have to plow through discussion on other topics.
It damages those who skip the discussion on other topics, and who might skip a message about Evolution vs. Creation by mistake.
It is frustrating to those who try to remind other people that this forum is about Evolution vs. Creation, not about abiogenesis.
So we can't discuss the evolution of cosmos and particles? yawn

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70675 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
whatever they call it but memory is not just stored in the brain.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/conten...
That link contained information about epigenetic memory, which is not "memory" in the same way that the memories in our brain are memories. You are getting confused about what "memory" is in this context. Nothing in our body can retain memories in the same way that our brain can - our brain is the only organ that has a depository of information that we can access at will.

"Epigenetic memory" is, to put it very simply, the ability of the cells in our body to remember what they were before when they split. Additionally, our genes can change the ways in which they "express" themselves without any actual change to the underlying dna sequence, and these changes can be passed on from parent to child. This does not constitute "brain like memory."

If you would have read that link of yours before you posted it, you would have known this.

Here is a little something on "body memory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Yep 154,816
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr SoE 48,824
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 6 hr GoTrump 1,047
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr GoTrump 179,741
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Aura Mytha 23,562
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web