Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172002 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104053 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Puddle gooiest defense mechanisms
You are lying!
quote mining !
strawman!
insults!
But never a scientific rebuttal, why because your religious myth isn't based on any known science.
the mechanism of abiogenesis, by the puddle gooists
put your inanimate material in a puddle
stir
wait millions of years
Life!
No you total moron. When you lie you should expect to have your lies pointed out to you. You are such a sick piece of human excrement that you do not even know when you are lying. It is rather sad when you think about it.

And we have given you scientific rebuttals in the past. You were too stupid to understand them. Don't worry, when you are ready to understand them we will be here to help you.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104054 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have retreated back to stupid.
I see I have to repeat myself. The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis.
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,...oh boy!

Even you don't believe that,a dubious amino acid experiment 60 years ago? Since then? absolutely nothing! the real truth of those experiments show the impossibility of life creating itself . Only a religious nutcase would believe it.

Take all your amino acids, add proteins , chemicals and compounds together in the proper proportions , now what is the mechanism that causes it to come to life? Use your famous Scientific peer reviewed articles! Show us the magic!

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104055 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have retreated back to stupid.
I see I have to repeat myself. The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis.
What amino acids did they end up with? There are About 500 amino acids are known. They state "considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids and we have results of over 20, maybe even up to 30." So did their study produce the amino acids used in life or the other 475 that we don't use?

Why do they not list the ones they say their experiment produced?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104056 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No you total moron. When you lie you should expect to have your lies pointed out to you. You are such a sick piece of human excrement that you do not even know when you are lying. It is rather sad when you think about it.
And we have given you scientific rebuttals in the past. You were too stupid to understand them. Don't worry, when you are ready to understand them we will be here to help you.
You absolutely can't stand it can you? When the truth of abiogenesis is pointed out to you, that it is based on the presumption that given enough time and chance life can assemble and begin on its own.

Why don't you call it by it's proper title

The astronomical luck theory.

Sucking Bone science at its best

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104057 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,...oh boy!
Even you don't believe that,a dubious amino acid experiment 60 years ago? Since then? absolutely nothing! the real truth of those experiments show the impossibility of life creating itself . Only a religious nutcase would believe it.
Take all your amino acids, add proteins , chemicals and compounds together in the proper proportions , now what is the mechanism that causes it to come to life? Use your famous Scientific peer reviewed articles! Show us the magic!
You are still an utter moron.

When you grow up enough to understand scientific evidence we can discuss the experiment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104058 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What amino acids did they end up with? There are About 500 amino acids are known. They state "considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids and we have results of over 20, maybe even up to 30." So did their study produce the amino acids used in life or the other 475 that we don't use?
Why do they not list the ones they say their experiment produced?
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:

'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '

Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104059 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:
'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '
Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.
The general view is that this early atmosphere would’ve consisted of carbon dioxide, water vapor and nitrogen. If you reproduce the experiment under these conditions you get cyanide and formaldehyde.

Although these are organic molecules, they certainly do not support living cells, rather having a completely opposite effect. Formaldehyde is so toxic that it’s not even allowed in many labs. Just opening a bottle can destroy proteins. Cyanide gas has been used through history to execute prisoners by gassing them to death. Mixing the two together creates embalming fluid.

In 1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment because “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller Urey simulation”.

Another objection to this experiment was the continuous cycle that the elements were put through. Although it is believed that the early Earth did have frequent lightning storms, it would not have produced the amount of amino acids that the Miller experiment did, however, it still could have produced amino acids.

http://www.evolutionorigin.com/icons-of-evolu...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104061 Nov 1, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
That's as foolish as one ant saying to another ant that he is certain there are no other colonies because he has not seen another and cannot prove that other colonies exisit. Only difference is there are billions of billions more potential life-bearing planets in the universe than there are ant colonies on Earth. Open your eyes Mr. Idemi...
Likewise. No firm evidence to your assertions to date. Go on with your speculations.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104062 Nov 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Asked and answered.
The answer to my question, is no.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104063 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:
'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '
Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.
However, as noted, the atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor.[9] However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere.[10] Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.[9] When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104064 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:
'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '
Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.
From the first link "In 1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment because “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller Urey simulation”.

From the second link "Arrhenius and many other researchers dismiss the experiment itself because they contend that the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation. Basically, Miller and Urey relied on a "reducing" atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an "oxidizing" atmosphere."

From the third link "However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere.[10] Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.[9] When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment."

See anything similar there Sub?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104065 Nov 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulation, Chuckles. You've just out stupided yourself.
The time in London can never be the same with that of New York. Nuts. Time must change because that time is subject to adjustment.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104066 Nov 1, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
It's pretty useless arguing with his as he goes into "LA LA LA LA LA" mode and ignores any argument that is not aligned with his belief.
Likewise.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104067 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But we don't care.(shrug)
Likewise.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104068 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>sure it can. astronomers use GMT, or UT, all the time....same time everywhere.
GMT or UT are assigned times by man. Using man assigned times you can make it the same time at any two locations across the globe. Using solar time it can never be the same time in London as it is in New York.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104069 Nov 1, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The time in London can never be the same with that of New York. Nuts. Time must change because that time is subject to adjustment.
Charles you are using the wrong argument. All time settings are by man, even GMT, UT or what ever.

Your argument should use solar time. By solar time it can never be the same time in London as it is in New York.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104070 Nov 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps. But this...
<quoted text>
...is your dogmatic bullshit.
To say life may be possible on other planets is reasonable based on what we know. To say it is impossible is uneducated crap from a known fool.
Until then, Stop projecting. Buffoon.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104071 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The existence of the universe is evidence only that the universe exists.
Whether or not it was made by an invisible magic Jew has yet to be determined.
Projections. No evidence to counter that.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104072 Nov 1, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as there is no firm evidence that you are actually as limited in thought as you seem, your statements may be assumed to be feigned stupidity for your own amusement.
I am glad you used the word, " Assumption".

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#104073 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:
'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '
Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.
Let me shorten it up for you Sub. Based on scientific evidence, from the links I gave they say;

From the first link "1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment”.

From the second link "Arrhenius and many other researchers dismiss the experiment”

From the third link "However, in current times, geochemists have concluded …..thus nullifying the experiment."

The Miller–Urey experiment has been nullified and dismissed by most researchers/scientists. Hope that doesn’t hurt your feelings Sub. lol

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) 17 min DanFromSmithville 142,665
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 3 hr GTID62 289
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr dirtclod 20,647
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 3 hr Paul Porter1 52
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 6 hr Paul Porter1 38
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) Sat Chimney1 248
evolution is correct. prove me wrong Fri Paul Porter1 9
More from around the web