Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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

#70682 Jan 12, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep in mind that I knew that it would provoke them to carry on a polite dialog with you. I wouldn't use you to make them feel less manly in the eyes of all these important people! In all honesty, I wasn't entirely sure if I would have made you annoyed if I didn't let you indulge your off-topic moment, which we all have, and as long as we get back on topic, life goes on.
I consider it a learning experience to observe people's hidden obsessions. Unfortunately, these aren't particularly unique or new from where I'm standing. My obsession? Since I know that will be the next rebuttal, it's a bit of an experiment for me to confront the political rhetoric of the two parties. I figure that both sides won't see their bad behavior once they are personally involved, so.... this is more about the bystanders.
Interesting results, but the debate was over before it began. And yes, I'm being smart-@ss analytical to excess because that brings out the best of the "you think you're so...yada, yada." They talk more about what they really think when you've got an evil nemesis thing going on!
Anyway, don't feel that you're on trial. Do your own thing.:)
We have a regular super genius over here, manipulating the poor plebes to do his bidding.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70683 Jan 12, 2013
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't play that game with me...
On the contrary...where is your evidence that life can sprout on it's own, out of rocks?
It can't...
How can rocks suddenly code themselves with millions of messages and genes?
You have no evidence of dead matter, suddenly deciding to create life on it's own...with the complexities involved...
Quit resisting...
Ever heard of the miller urey experiment?

Anyways, you are being dumb. Do you really think that any assertion you make is right until proven wrong? There is no evidence of any god, let alone anything supernatural - so what makes you think that it's reasonable to assume the existence of a creator until proven wrong?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70684 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Atoms have kinetic energy based on thermal energy (the "vibration" of the atom) and also on electron motion. They also have the energy of their mass. This is the energy that would be derived if all of their mass was converted into energy. That's the so-called mass equivalence that Albert Einstein gave us with E=mc2.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_atoms_have_energ...
Energy does not equal life.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70685 Jan 12, 2013
Time and Space wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok...I read it...well parts of it...
And got lot's of 'mays''maybes' and 'mights'...and 'theories'....
But no absolutes...
DNA...RNA...is just like computer programming...it can't be done by chance...
Each life form, species, has it's own code...color, feathers, gills, feet, hands, mating habits, eyes,...
Insects, mammals, birds...plant life...
All, each, so complex...if you know and study engineering...you could never say all this programming was done, created, by accident...
it's impossible...
Lifeless matter has no logical reason to create life on it's own...
For the path of least resistance is always death...not life and conscious...
And matter always follows the path of least resistance...which would be death and rocks....not conciousness and life...
Quit resisting the idea of there being a creator...
Your disdain towards Christanity or religion, shouldn't blind you to the idea of an intellegent creator...
Matter does not need a "reason" to "create" life.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70686 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing wrong with someone believing God created it. What should concern Science is HOW God did it.
Wtf? Seriously? Sure, there is no problem with someone believing that "goddidit," but there is a problem with someone claiming that "goddidit," an assertion for which there is no evidence, is somehow just as valid as the evidence based claims that come from science.

Why should science concern itself with "how god did it" if we have no proof that god did anything in the first place, or that he even exists in the first place? That makes no sense at all.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70687 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
That is what I was trying to explain. I never claimed cells have 'brain like memory.'
Well, then I apologize for misinterpreting you, but you were kind of unclear. When people say "cellular memory" it brings to mind the nonscientific concept of body/cell memory, at least for me.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#70688 Jan 12, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>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?
Could you please invoke the original question again?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70689 Jan 12, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Wtf? Seriously? Sure, there is no problem with someone believing that "goddidit," but there is a problem with someone claiming that "goddidit," an assertion for which there is no evidence, is somehow just as valid as the evidence based claims that come from science.
Why should science concern itself with "how god did it" if we have no proof that god did anything in the first place, or that he even exists in the first place? That makes no sense at all.
what makes no sense is how we existed without an external agent. Just because you have no proof of God, doesn't mean there is none. Which is why that makes him more of a God because your little brain can't comprehend it. You don't make a good detective. lol

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70690 Jan 12, 2013
If you can't find God, be God.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#70691 Jan 12, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>The gay agenda? Is that like the negro agenda of the 60's? Those damn uppity negroes, with all their talk about
"equality" and "rights." Just like the gays.
Are you for or against the issue of racism?
What has gay rights got to do with the rights of human beings?
is it because they were negroes?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70692 Jan 12, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Energy does not equal life.
Depends on how you define life. Inanimate objects doesn't have the life like humans or animals. In accounting, everything has life. Companies buy an asset, that asset will soon depreciate and be used up, thus why accountants calculate their useful life.

If you think energy is not equal to life, then what is the source of life?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70693 Jan 12, 2013
Energy has always existed. It just takes another form - from non-living to living and from living to non-living. There is no such thing as NOTHING.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70694 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Energy has always existed. It just takes another form - from non-living to living and from living to non-living. There is no such thing as NOTHING.
You are way over simplifying it. Energy muse be coherent and structured to be considered part of a living thing, once your brain and body die, all the energy in them dissipates, all that is not potential energy anyway. Thus it loses coherence and structure, grounding is what we call it.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70696 Jan 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are way over simplifying it. Energy muse be coherent and structured to be considered part of a living thing, once your brain and body die, all the energy in them dissipates, all that is not potential energy anyway. Thus it loses coherence and structure, grounding is what we call it.
The physical make up of your brain and body only decays and then it is recycled in nature. But the energy takes on another form.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#70697 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The physical make up of your brain and body only decays and then it is recycled in nature. But the energy takes on another form.
The energy goes back to the world too, and even faster. Electricity is the same, whether in a living organism or in a computer. All that changes is how it's utilized.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70698 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what makes no sense is how we existed without an external agent. Just because you have no proof of God, doesn't mean there is none. Which is why that makes him more of a God because your little brain can't comprehend it. You don't make a good detective. lol
Goodness. I never get tired of religious people acting as if they have somehow discovered the ultimate truth, a truth that is so inscrutable that it only reveals itself to those willing to really "feel" it, and a truth for which there is not a shred of evidence. Of course.

I must admit, I have never heard the "he's more of a god because no one can find him" line. That's pretty hilarious.

Our existence is a profound mystery - one that, if I think about it too much, literally leaves me in a stupor - and honestly, in my opinion, you diminish the beauty of it all by reducing it to "goddidit."

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70699 Jan 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are you for or against the issue of racism?
What has gay rights got to do with the rights of human beings?
is it because they were negroes?
And I for or against racism? That is an awkwardly worded question.

Anyways, charles, if you can't figure out how I feel about both civil rights and gay rights from my previous comment, I don't think there's any point in explaining it to you.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70700 Jan 12, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on how you define life. Inanimate objects doesn't have the life like humans or animals. In accounting, everything has life. Companies buy an asset, that asset will soon depreciate and be used up, thus why accountants calculate their useful life.
If you think energy is not equal to life, then what is the source of life?
Energy does not equal life. That's not my opinion, that is a fact. Life is life, and we are made of matter, which is condensed energy. That doesn't mean that the energy itself is life though, it's the arrangement of the matter/energy that makes life, not the matter itself. By your logic, literally everything in the universe is alive.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#70701 Jan 12, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The energy goes back to the world too, and even faster. Electricity is the same, whether in a living organism or in a computer. All that changes is how it's utilized.
Our brain is like a computer. It has electrical synapses for electrical activity that are released between neurons.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70702 Jan 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Are you for or against the issue of racism?
What has gay rights got to do with the rights of human beings?
is it because they were negroes?
Also, it almost sounds as if you were implying that gays aren't human...

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 Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 13 min Chimney1 1,666
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 49 min yoo 895
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,847
No Place For ID? 9 hr Denisova 71
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 18 hr Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 18 hr Kong_ 178,596
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 19 hr Zog Has-fallen 3
More from around the web