Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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.

“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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79844 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Indeed. But by the same token we could all be trapped in the Matrix. Both claims are just as valid.
adif understanding wrote:
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.
Except "God" is not a fact. It so far doesn't even rise to the level of testable hypothesis.
adif understanding wrote:
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.
Or it is possible that no such being exists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79845 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
the concept of a true void in not really that hard to grasp...but a true void being impossible in the universe seems very plausible.
In the same light... I find the claim of an effect, without a cause very unplausible...
That is because you are simply incredulous. Quantum fluctuations have no events that precede them as a "cause". Does this go against all assumptions of classical Newtonian physics? Yes. Is it counter-intuitive? Yes. Is it incorrect? No.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79846 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.
Especially Henry:

http://je.yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79847 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.
If all things can be done with God then God could have used evolution.

The evidence He left indicates He did.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79848 Mar 9, 2013
intelligence is now proven

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#79849 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually if just one of those points stand it calls the whole book into question.
Ok, following your reasoning, since there are one or two points (and there are more!) that Darwin was wrong on (ie racism, totally linear evolution), then you should just call his whole theory into question, correct?

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79850 Mar 9, 2013
can someone tell me the difference between a rock and an Indian arrowhead
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79851 Mar 9, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, following your reasoning, since there are one or two points (and there are more!) that Darwin was wrong on (ie racism, totally linear evolution), then you should just call his whole theory into question, correct?
The theory of evolution is always in question. As is the theory of gravity. And the germ theory of disease. That is why we have scientific researchers in all these fields all over the world. Otherwise research would have stopped years ago and the labs would all be gathering dust. Evolution has progressed in the 150 years since Darwin, however his basic premise of common ancestry remains, although undoubtedly the theory has grown in complexity since the 19th century.

As for Darwin on race, we can just go back to page one of this ver thread. Which of these are wrong:

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

?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79852 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
intelligence is now proven
... to be inherent in biological organisms with developed nervous systems.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79853 Mar 9, 2013
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, following your reasoning, since there are one or two points (and there are more!) that Darwin was wrong on (ie racism, totally linear evolution), then you should just call his whole theory into question, correct?
And we have questioned his theory. It was never accepted because it sounded good. It has been tested thousands if not millions of times since he wrote it.

Guess what?

It passed the tests.

So, if you want to disprove evolution find a way to test it and show that the results of the test don't agree with the theory.

That is how science works.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79854 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
intelligence is now proven
Sadly it is not for the creationists. If anything they seem to have a negative intelligence. If you mean there are some intelligent people out there that can look at the world and give a good account of how life came to the state it is now you would be correct. And of course the proven winner is evolution.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79855 Mar 9, 2013
I'm sot a science person .. but if even I can understand this .. anyone can . . . all life is triune .. matter / energy and ...

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
motorcycle traveling stories 9 min Farmer Joe Eh 636
Things that make life eaiser... 14 min Gerbilocity 88
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 16 min I Am No One_ 764
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 17 min I Am No One_ 161,361
Favorite Oldies Songs (Jun '10) 18 min -ThatsAllFolks- 18,800
Word Association (Jun '10) 18 min I Know The Answer 27,330
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 22 min Doug77 5,479
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 42 min Thugs Wear Badges 93
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 1 hr Ferretman 8,331
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 6 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 18,190
More from around the web