Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205063 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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120846 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, I think I was pretty much spot on.
You are a legend in your own mind!

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#120847 Aug 26, 2014
I don't believe in reincarnation, but I did in a previous life.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120848 Aug 26, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
I don't believe in reincarnation, but I did in a previous life.
It's bad luck to be superstitious.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120849 Aug 26, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a legend in your own mind!
True, I'm one of my most ardent admirers. In particular, I appreciate my modesty.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120850 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>This is getting a bit tiresome, but if you think I support Creationism you haven't been reading my comments on the subject. I am not religious.
Further, the self-satisfied notion that an "intelligent" trigger has been debunked is not evidence of an open mind. Like so many others, you speak with a sense of smug certainty about issues where there is as yet no basis for certainty.
Years of looking for an intelligent cause, 150+ years of whining about evolution not needing a deity's action ... it's not smugness, it's also not certainty. It's confidence that if what we have learned through scientific methodology is wrong, it's not some arm-chair Creationist who insists he's not a Creationist who is going to figure it out. It's going to be other scientists who will continue looking, searching, and explaining the world around us without needing to invoke the actions of a capricious deity.

So far, what has required a deity for an adequate and useful explanation? Nothing, has it? Be honest, if you can.

Oh yes, there are things we do not know and there are things we might never know with any degree of certainty. But a supernatural answer has yet to work for anything. You can keep calling yourself some other label besides a Creationist; however, you act like one, you post like one and you respond like one when challenged ... you might not be one, but a difference that makes no difference is no difference.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120851 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I think you've gone off course a bit. We are speaking of what might have triggered the so-called Big Bang. That is the energy source to which I allude. Of course the question then becomes, where did that "trigger" come from? And so on ad infinitum.
And you are assuming there *is* such an energy source. To have a trigger, there must be a previous time. But in the standard BB theory, time *begins* at the same point as the universe.
Abiogenesis has never produced molecules that showed a survival instinct, thus it cannot be considered a reflection of how actual organic life began.
No molecule has a survival instinct, not even the ones in living things. So your objection is irrelevant. The question is whether *collections* of molecules undergoing reactions can show a tendency to maintain internal state. We know that such is possible because we see it everyday in living things: certain collections of molecules will maintain internal state through a variety of mechanisms (homeostasis). That *is* the 'survival instinct'. The question is how that tendency originally came about.
Also, when you speak of abiogenesis, you are speaking about a different question. Abiogenesis seeks to learn how life began, while the trigger of the Big Bang seeks to discover how anything began.
And neither is directly relevant to the theory of evolution, which considers how species change over time and not the origin of life.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120852 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Your link is to a book, which I don't have access to at present.
There are free versions on the web.
I've seen theories that involve quantum mechanics. But in my opinion quantum mechanics makes a better case for a "god" than it does for atheism.
And how does it do that? Certainly, no deity assumption is present in quantum mechanics. It also undermines the common assumption that everything must have a cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120853 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I would argue that the "nothing" from which spontaneous things can emerge is actually "something". We simply don't know what it is.
That is an assumption that you have no evidence for.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#120854 Aug 26, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Your bronze age mythology doped mind seems not to know much about geology.
I already knew more about it as a 12 year old boy, judged by this crap.
You think that in order to find old fossils or old earth layers you always have to dig thousands of feet. It isn't so. The ignorance gulps like goo out of your troubled mind.
Go and read a geology 101 level book before you making an utter fool out of yourself.
And who was the other idiot who voted "brilliant"?
Why does creationism lead to inane and insane idiocy?
And yet you add nothing of interest to what I said. Just your normal name calling.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#120855 Aug 26, 2014
Woolly mammoths still lived when the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed. The pyramid was completed in 2540 BC.. The last known population of woolly mammoths remained on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until 4,000 years ago.
TheHotDaylight

Los Angeles, CA

#120856 Aug 26, 2014
This monastery will not remain unlit.
"Now scientists think that even this extravagant census of the universe might be as out-of-date as the five-planet cosmos that Galileo inherited from the ancients. Astronomers have compiled evidence that what we’ve always thought of as the actual universe—me, you, this magazine, planets, stars, galaxies, all the matter in space—represents a mere 4 percent of what’s actually out there. The rest they call, for want of a better word, dark: 23 percent is something they call dark matter, and 73 percent is something even more mysterious, which they call dark energy."

“We have a complete inventory of the universe,” Sean Carroll, a California Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said,“and it makes no sense.”

Go ahead,
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/...

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120857 Aug 26, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an assumption that you have no evidence for.
Quite right.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#120858 Aug 26, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a legend in your own mind!
Hi, Ooog.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120859 Aug 26, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are free versions on the web.
<quoted text>
And how does it do that? Certainly, no deity assumption is present in quantum mechanics. It also undermines the common assumption that everything must have a cause.
My take on quantum mechanics is that it seems to defy the known laws of physics. Of course it doesn't assume a deity, but it deepens the mystery of what we think we know.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120860 Aug 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you add nothing of interest to what I said. Just your normal name calling.
Yes it did, it refuted it directly and frontal.
So you are talking obvious nonsense.
Next time you have no answer to it, stay tacit.
I shall repeat it: the idea that old earth strata (hence fossils) are only to be found in deeper layers, is plain nonsense and only demonstrates a profound ignorance of even the most elementary of geology. And I already DID know that when I was only 12 years old.
In other words: your tattle about the 10 million years old mastodon is plain nonsense.
No wasn't that any of interest to what you say?

NEXT time read a book on geology and don't make such a fool out of yourself.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120861 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I think you've gone off course a bit. We are speaking of what might have triggered the so-called Big Bang. That is the energy source to which I allude. Of course the question then becomes, where did that "trigger" come from? And so on ad infinitum.
OK, clear.
I don't think it's sensible to discuss the question what was beyond the Planck epoch. At least not with our current understanding. Nobody knows. NOT that that investigation has to stop - on the contrary. But the current state of affairs is that we just don't know.

The creationist may invoke God.

But I am not of that branch. the reason it is that since we stopped to stick our heads all day in the holy bronze age books and started to look around and observe what really happens, science began to flourish and our tangible understanding of the universe, world and life increased dramatically. From this I conclude that invoking the magic isn't quite the best way to understand. I don't think that there is one valid reason to abandon the scientific approach every time we stumble upon the boundaries of our knowledge. Never change a winning team so to say.

To invoke Goddidit is even an obstacle. Because people stop to think about alternatives as soon as they invoked God. They tend to content with it and close their minds. Nobody else than Neil deGrasse Tyson worded this better:“I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”,
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis has never produced molecules that showed a survival instinct, thus it cannot be considered a reflection of how actual organic life began.
Also, when you speak of abiogenesis, you are speaking about a different question. Abiogenesis seeks to learn how life began, while the trigger of the Big Bang seeks to discover how anything began.
I am perfectly aware of the difference between abiogenesis and cosmology.

Pertaining the molecules without survival instinct, I already addressed that.
I can't remember you addressing that.
So, go back to that post ans answer it.
Basically, molecules do not show survival instinct.
I also said that bacteria and other organisms do not even have a survival instinct because they lack the nervous system for that. For those organisms we talk about self-preservation.
As Polymath added, molecules also do not possess any survival instinct or self-preservation when they are part of a living organism. It is the specific organisation of those molecules in combined biochemical processes that yields an survival instinct.
And self-preservation is linked to natural selection and adaptation. I also demonstrated that natural selection already is a biochemical, hence a-biotic trait of macromolecules, as proven in an experiment.
I think that the natural selective traits of macromolecules are the foundation of self-preservation and, in organisms with a nervous system, survival instinct. It is just the same as homeostasis as mentioned by Polymath.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120862 Aug 26, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, clear.
I don't think it's sensible to discuss the question what was beyond the Planck epoch. At least not with our current understanding. Nobody knows. NOT that that investigation has to stop - on the contrary. But the current state of affairs is that we just don't know.
The creationist may invoke God.
But I am not of that branch. the reason it is that since we stopped to stick our heads all day in the holy bronze age books and started to look around and observe what really happens, science began to flourish and our tangible understanding of the universe, world and life increased dramatically. From this I conclude that invoking the magic isn't quite the best way to understand. I don't think that there is one valid reason to abandon the scientific approach every time we stumble upon the boundaries of our knowledge. Never change a winning team so to say.
To invoke Goddidit is even an obstacle. Because people stop to think about alternatives as soon as they invoked God. They tend to content with it and close their minds. Nobody else than Neil deGrasse Tyson worded this better:“I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rzjuSjJF9QYXX
<quoted text>
I am perfectly aware of the difference between abiogenesis and cosmology.
Pertaining the molecules without survival instinct, I already addressed that.
I can't remember you addressing that.
So, go back to that post ans answer it.
Basically, molecules do not show survival instinct.
I also said that bacteria and other organisms do not even have a survival instinct because they lack the nervous system for that. For those organisms we talk about self-preservation.
As Polymath added, molecules also do not possess any survival instinct or self-preservation when they are part of a living organism. It is the specific organisation of those molecules in combined biochemical processes that yields an survival instinct.
And self-preservation is linked to natural selection and adaptation. I also demonstrated that natural selection already is a biochemical, hence a-biotic trait of macromolecules, as proven in an experiment.
I think that the natural selective traits of macromolecules are the foundation of self-preservation and, in organisms with a nervous system, survival instinct. It is just the same as homeostasis as mentioned by Polymath.
Good points. But I do think we need to be open enough, and humble enough to consider, that while science should continue its pursuit, any "ultimate' answer may be beyond the reach of science. Please understand that in my saying this, I am not suggesting a religious alternative.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120863 Aug 26, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, clear.
I don't think it's sensible to discuss the question what was beyond the Planck epoch. At least not with our current understanding. Nobody knows. NOT that that investigation has to stop - on the contrary. But the current state of affairs is that we just don't know.
The creationist may invoke God.
But I am not of that branch. the reason it is that since we stopped to stick our heads all day in the holy bronze age books and started to look around and observe what really happens, science began to flourish and our tangible understanding of the universe, world and life increased dramatically. From this I conclude that invoking the magic isn't quite the best way to understand. I don't think that there is one valid reason to abandon the scientific approach every time we stumble upon the boundaries of our knowledge. Never change a winning team so to say.
To invoke Goddidit is even an obstacle. Because people stop to think about alternatives as soon as they invoked God. They tend to content with it and close their minds. Nobody else than Neil deGrasse Tyson worded this better:“I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rzjuSjJF9QYXX
<quoted text>
I am perfectly aware of the difference between abiogenesis and cosmology.
Pertaining the molecules without survival instinct, I already addressed that.
I can't remember you addressing that.
So, go back to that post ans answer it.
Basically, molecules do not show survival instinct.
I also said that bacteria and other organisms do not even have a survival instinct because they lack the nervous system for that. For those organisms we talk about self-preservation.
As Polymath added, molecules also do not possess any survival instinct or self-preservation when they are part of a living organism. It is the specific organisation of those molecules in combined biochemical processes that yields an survival instinct.
And self-preservation is linked to natural selection and adaptation. I also demonstrated that natural selection already is a biochemical, hence a-biotic trait of macromolecules, as proven in an experiment.
I think that the natural selective traits of macromolecules are the foundation of self-preservation and, in organisms with a nervous system, survival instinct. It is just the same as homeostasis as mentioned by Polymath.
I'll put it as plainly as I can. As I see it, It is reasonable to assume that primordial life had the instincts of fear, and the need to defend itself, thus an instinct for survival. Abiogenesis demonstrates none of those traits. Therefore it is not an adequate replication or explanation of the original life process.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#120864 Aug 26, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I'll put it as plainly as I can. As I see it, It is reasonable to assume that primordial life had the instincts of fear, and the need to defend itself, thus an instinct for survival. Abiogenesis demonstrates none of those traits. Therefore it is not an adequate replication or explanation of the original life process.
I suppose that might be true if it were all accomplished in a single step. I am not fully versed in the theory and work in abiogenesis, but what I have seen isn't proposed to occur in a single step.

I don't think fear or instinct for survival are accurate descriptors of the responses of such nascent life. It would be life on the order of bacteria or even less complex and would probably show simple response to stimuli. In any event, response, fear, survival instinct are emergent properties of life and wouldn't be required to initiate the process.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120865 Aug 26, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now let's examine Ted's post again: "I think you are making an assumption as if it were a fact. Yes, intelligence can arrange signals into information. However you are assuming that ONLY intelligence can create information. Check Koglomorov Complexity for a more mathematical explanation.
What SETI is looking for is patterns. The patterns MIGHT indicate intelligence. So far SETI has found many patterns in the radio signals, further research has so far assigned them a low probability as being produced by an intelligence."
ANYONE here who sees the relationship between Ted's post and Bobo's answer?
Do you happen to see Kolgomorov Complexity being addressed? Do you see Ted's notion that intelligence is not the only source of information being answered? Do you see his point that we found many patterns in the SETI radio signals being addressed?
Neither do I.
I DO see a VERY interesting thing: "information is not matter nor energy , its information"
Well, tell that to your fellow creationist wafflers who invariably tattle about DNA - a macromolecule - being INFORMATION.
DNA carries information, where did it come from?

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min It aint necessari... 18,571
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min Chimney1 43,234
Questions about first life 4 hr Upright Scientist 15
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Dogen 151,483
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 10 hr ChristineM 915
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 11 hr One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 18 hr FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web