Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 187278 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79824 Mar 9, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Lmao!
Ya right that would be a first !!!!
"So Koder was correct."
LOL
Going by what was given in the linky, Koder *is* correct.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79825 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so you actually have that much faith that you would believe that science could tell that there was 2% land mass on the earth 2.5 billion years ago?...without margin of error greater that 1%?
talked about brained washed...lol
I already pointed out that the link gave no scientific reference so I never actually made a commentary on how valid it was either way. I just pointed out how you were dishonestly cherry-picking what was convenient. THEN I pointed out that YOUR error margin was greater than SIX THOUSAND percent. So I worry very little about whatever ad-homs you throw my way, all things considered.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79826 Mar 9, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, yeah,yeah why don't you just provide a wiki link to the abiogenesis myth, click your heels three times , and repeat life created itself, life created itself, life......
No need. You've been debunked in that area hundreds of times already. Just like you ran away every time you were demonstrated incorrect re your baseless opinions on abiogenesis, you ran away here and changed the subject again. Ah well, at least you are safe in knowledgeability of how to have a good time at a creationist country music festival. In that case I would certainly defer to your expertise.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#79827 Mar 9, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>There was one beginning of life according to my understanding and those living things before all others were killed in the great flood. Noah replenished the earth with chosen species and the birds were used to reseed the earth. With God all things can be done and he arranged this and new life came to be.
You do know that we have/know the timeline of when various animals came and went in the history of earth?

You do know that this timeline doesn't quite match what you are saying about our history?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79828 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have sense of spirituality you would understand why we die.
Yup. The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Cybele wrote:
Get a clue, or a soul.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79829 Mar 9, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
In the garden-story god is not all knowing and the jewish interprtation is about free-will. Free to accept religion.
or like moses would say: by seeing the grace of our ways others are free to accept.
Ideas of all-knowing/present/mighty etc. came with christianity.
But exactly those ideas can easily be disproved. Christine M going into history on this board with E=mc^2. And kittenkoder with evolution having no direction.
Ah, but (a) God would not be bound by Einstein's equations, as it would exist in some sort of multiverse (heaven perhaps?) while making our universe, and perhaps others. Scientists already suspect that if other universes exist they could have different laws of physics at play in each. And as for evolution having no direction, well that's not a problem either. God could either be guiding it in a manner we're unaware of, or it could simply be playing dice.

Of course the nature of (a) God is still nothing more than philosophical speculation and can't be considered scientific until the fundies manage to come up with a falsifiable concept.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79830 Mar 9, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you comparing,....what for it,.....ice? with the creation of life? Damn you puddle goo people will grasp at anything.
Not really. Both have been scientifically observed to rely on chemistry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79831 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
well the obvious point was...if the steady state theory was the basis of your argument...it would simply nullify the idea of a the universe having a beginning...where as, the big bang theory is basically 'creation' without god.
Actually like all scientific concepts, the Big Bang makes no theological claims. Which is why many Christians have no problem with accepting the Big Bang, they just think that God was ultimately responsible for it.
xxxooxxx wrote:
To imply that the formation of, and the on going processes of the universe, has nothing to do with evolution is quite unrealistic.
Not really. We understand your point that one event leads to another (eventually that is). But the validity of scientific concepts is not troubled by separating them from other areas. For example, the theory of gravity works without referencing the origin of mass (the Big Bang). And the germ theory of disease works without having to reference the origin of germs (abiogenesis). So no, the theory of evolution does not have to explain the Big Bang either. Nor abiogenesis for that matter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79832 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We didn't evolve from apes.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Our common ancestor with the chimpanzee would be called an ape today and we also are still classified as apes.
So I suppose you could say we did not evolve "from" apes since we still are apes.
We evolved from other apes, and we are still a part of the Great Ape family. Therefore we have not yet evolved "out" of apes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79833 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
whatever...if you tell me to think rationally and logically...and then tell me that the universe created itself virtually out of nothing...then your presenting a oxymoron.
Not really. Particle-anti particle pairs have been observed to spontaneously appear out of nothing. These are called quantum fluctuations. And they don't violate conservation of energy (which as you would understand it would violate laws of classical physics where something cannot come from nothing) because ultimately the net energy of the quantum fluctuation is still zero. Since these are observed some scientists have proposed a runaway quantum fluctuation being responsible for the universe. It is only one of a number of hypotheses though.

People who object to it do so because they don't understand that quantum physics is highly counter-intuitive due to it relying on a different set of assumptions than classical Newtonian "cause and effect" physics. That doesn't render it invalid though.
xxxooxxx wrote:
I find that it's more than likely, on a psychological level that scientists have developed a hypothesis that supports the only view in which they can exclude any type of intelligence behind the process of the creation of the universe.
and why do I think this?
Because the fundamentalist ego has trouble with differing opinions as they think their religion is all important. Therefore it "must" apply to everybody.

Of course the reality is that the scenario described above STILL does not necessarily rule out intelligent intervention. Plus also there are still other hypotheses which fit more in line with cause and effect. And they too don't necessarily rule out intelligent intervention either. In fact the ONLY problem with intelligent intervention is that it can't be scientifically modelled, hence without a model it cannot make scientific predictions.
xxxooxxx wrote:
...because scientists copy processes from the universe to advance their own knowledge, the same as if they had found an advanced alien space ship and incorporated into their own design....and then readily deny that any kind of intelligent exist behind these processes.So basically you have no problem acknowledging the space ship as an advanced concept...but at the same time you deny the obvious alien intelligence that is implied.
And your problem is here that (as usual) your argument for intelligence relies on a flawed analogy instead of direct evidence. An alien spacecraft is direct evidence of alien intelligence. You have no direct evidence of "obvious" intelligent "design" of the universe.

As noted by every single evasion whenever it is asked for.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79834 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
besides, I watched the videos on the subject before.
I'm not buying.
I know "political" science when I see it.
No you don't. That's why you buy IDC.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79835 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
like I said before... a true void would contain no laws of physics.
so your argument of physics, producing anything out of a true void is a contradiction.
If a "void" contains no laws of physics then there are no laws to prevent "something coming from nothing".

And your God STILL violates cause and effect.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#79836 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation is a on going process. Or haven't you notice? God is continually creating and expanding the diversity of life...God abhors vacuum.
Why did he leave one between your ears?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79837 Mar 9, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
How could all matter on earth be created, it can't just pop out of thin air. Animals couldn't of just popped out air and the universe.
Explain to me how space, not earth, space could be created without a god.
Unknown at this time.

Explain to us how the universe could be created WITH a God.

I'll save you the time and trouble and point out that no-one knows that either.

Therefore we note that "God" is useless as an explanation.
Carchar king wrote:
dust couldn't do it, it can't pop out of thin air and do all this.
So explain.
There are numerous possibilities for the initial formation of the Big Bang responsible for our universe. As I've previously discussed, one possibility is that the initial singularity is the result of a runaway quantum fluctuation. Things cascaded from there which led to the Big Bang.

Another is that the universe is one of an infinite string of universes that expanded and collapsed, each time creating a new universe, and possibly a different set of physical laws each time. This would make energy eternal.

Another possibility is that universal forces are not enough to overcome universal expansion. Eventually all the energy in the universe cools off and dies out. As the remnants of the universe continue to expand the physical bonds between all matter and atoms break down until they can no longer hold coherence. This causes a violent reaction known as the Big Rip (the opposite of the Big Crunch which is the result of universal collapse) and the result is the birth of a new universe.

Unfortunately none of these ideas can be determined until scientists are able to come up with a unified theory of quantum gravity.

None of these are necessarily consistent or inconsistent with the existence of (a) God - that all depends on what limitations your theology places on your creator. But since the existence of such a being cannot pass the scientific method it remains in the realm of philosophical speculation. It is also entirely possible that no such being exists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79838 Mar 9, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
How typical of you , Succubus wench .He asked for you to explain, and you , as usual , bathed in denial ,duck, cover and run.
Go boom.

Irony meter duz it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79839 Mar 9, 2013
d-pants wrote:
Darn biology proving a worn out 150 year old theory wrong. I love it though, people still want to argue something with no fossil record to prove it, and when they look at the human gene compared to any other animal, they still think the burden of proof isn't on them. Darwinism must support some political beliefs of theirs.
Actually you are incorrect. The burden of evidence IS upon scientists to demonstrate evolution scientifically. And they have passed:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

You will note that it makes use of both genetic and fossil evidence.

You on the other hand claim biology has falsified evolution. Now the burden of evidence is upon you to demonstrate your claim. And if possible, provide an alternative explanation which does a better job of explaining the evidence.

Thanks in advance.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79840 Mar 9, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Irrelevant.
Without the brain, there is no science nor technology.
Irrelevant.
Charles Idemi wrote:
God created the brain not man, technology or science.
Baseless assertion.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79841 Mar 9, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Interesting!
Now tell me what your noise makings have done to stop the reality of God? None!
There may be one or two points against the bible but that does not makes the bible to be false.
Actually if just one of those points stand it calls the whole book into question.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

#79842 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but (a) God would not be bound by Einstein's equations, as it would exist in some sort of multiverse (heaven perhaps?) while making our universe, and perhaps others. Scientists already suspect that if other universes exist they could have different laws of physics at play in each. And as for evolution having no direction, well that's not a problem either. God could either be guiding it in a manner we're unaware of, or it could simply be playing dice.
Of course the nature of (a) God is still nothing more than philosophical speculation and can't be considered scientific until the fundies manage to come up with a falsifiable concept.
It's rather pointless to attempt to scientifically explain a God or to explain why a God wouldn't be bound to the same laws and rules we are. If a God did create everything, he also created the constraints that we humans need to abide by and interpret in order to understand our surroundings. As a glass blower creates his work, he is not constrained to creating a cup to drink from or a vase to put flowers in or even a globe for a lamp. He is free to create all that he wants. But once his work is created and he sells it to us, we are somewhat constrained to what we can use it for. Sure we can use a glass cup as a vase or maybe even invert it to cover a light bulb, but we understand it to be completely different then the use.

You do not need the existence of a multiverse or even understand that on a quantum level, physics behave a lot differently then we observe outside that realm. The meager fact that a creator is in control of its creation is sufficient. But we also know that God made man masters of their domain (earth and life on it) so it would also make sense that God made a way for Man to understand and utilize that domain. Einsteins equations, evolution, all that and more could simply be a creation in order to allow the creation to understand and utilize it's world around it. So science could be a created discipline with roots directly to God itself creating or enabling it for the sole purpose of understanding and stewarding our world around us.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79843 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so your trying to use an example of cause and effect to show that a effect can and happen without a cause?
Radioactive decay.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roger Waters Calls Donald Trump ‘Pig-Ignorant’ 2 min Tastykake 70
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 4 min andet1987 2,029
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 7 min andet1987 15,613
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 13 min andet1987 58,636
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: (Apr '15) 20 min Mechanic 5,815
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 21 min andet1987 4,130
7 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter 23 min andet1987 706
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr DWB 181,591
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 4 hr UnderstandPeople 31,284
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 10 hr Feel The Bern 54,244
More from around the web