Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218731 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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79892 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Micro, macro, it's all the same. And all been demonstrated.
<quoted text>
Gravity doesn't explain origin. But both theories work.
<quoted text>
... and?
Why do you like to use another theory to support the validity of another theory? You love using the example of existence of gravity and its laws/theory that is as valid as the theory of evolution. If so, how does the theory of gravity support the theory of evolution? In your logic, the string theory is a fact because gravity is fact.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79894 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
are you telling me evolution explains origin ??.. Y/N
The theory of evolution does not rely on explaining the origin of life.

The theory of gravity does not rely on explaining the origin of mass.

The germ theory of disease does not rely on explaining the origin of germs.

Yet all three theories work. This is because all they rely on is making successful scientific predictions based on currently observable phenomena.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79895 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
like I said before...a true void would not contain laws...unless your suggesting that there are eternal laws that stand apart from time and space...such as God?
So now you are saying there was a void at one time? What do you base this presumption on? Also, if everything else demands a creator, then so does your god, what created your god in that case?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79896 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not presumed, observed. Take ring species for instance.
observed? where? Did scientists observe one species become another? You are making ridiculous claims now. Evolution in bacteria (e. coli) did not make it non-bacteria. It's still a bacteria. lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79898 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to compare evolution junk science to creationism, is like trying to claim the homosexuals are born that way but the environment and socialization are the major factors. They fail.
Really? Then where is the evidence for creationism? Scientists have given a ton such evidence for evolution, so far creationists offer nothing. So where is the evidence that your nothing is true?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79899 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
Exactly. They want God to pass the scientific method. How absurd is that? Why would God that created the entire universe become a science experiment? Even if science could provide evidence and can show it to be testable, it would still not have scientific explanation for its entire being. God is beyond the realm of science and human logic.
So is Star Wars.
Cybele wrote:
Science can only get a glimpse of it but not be able to fully explain it.
Actually it can't glimpse it at all.
Cybele wrote:
In fact, we can't even use the scientific method for the origin of all the universes because the laws of physics that we know are bounded in our planet.
I think you mean bound to our universe.
Cybele wrote:
We can't even apply the same laws of physics in Pluto and yet we try to explain blackholes and the big bang with these current laws.
Actually Pluto works fine under Einstein's theory of relativity.
Cybele wrote:
We do know that elements are manufactured in the stars, but can it be testable?
Yes, with the field of spectroscopy.

You are free to deny it but then you would have to deny the claim that our sun is a star. And other stars may as well be nothing more than pinpricks of light through a covered sheet.
Cybele wrote:
Then why would they come up with excuses that there are no intelligent life in other planets or galaxies because we can't possibly reach them and yet they have scientific theories for how stars are formed despite the fact that there is no way we can get to even the nearest star in a lifetime.
Because people who claim that are apologists. Alien life is VERY possible. But the barriers to contacting them are very real.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79900 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Origins of different species or the origin of life itself? The answer to the first is yes, the answer to the second is no. The origin of life itself is the study of abiogenesis, a separate but related subject. By the way, technically even creationists believe in abiogenesis.
either way .. the origin of life .. all life = triune

energy / matter and ...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79901 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
apparently science had been keeping that one kinda low key...I wonder why?
If so you wouldn't have been able to link to them.
xxxooxxx wrote:
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily
When The Earth Dried Out
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/...
Many geologists agree with this scenario, Moores said. What is controversial is how quickly the Earth changed from a planet covered in water with a few mountainous islands to one with large continental landmasses. According to Moores' theory, the continents emerged quite suddenly, over about 200 million years, at the same time that the supercontinent Rodinia was forming.
Cool.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79903 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
The theory of evolution does not rely on explaining the origin of life . The theory of gravity does not rely on explaining the origin of mass . The germ theory of disease does not rely on explaining the origin of germs . Yet all three theories work. This is because all they rely on is making successful scientific predictions based on currently observable phenomena
this may be true .. however .. if evolutionists are claiming that there is no creation .. then somewhere .. evolution is going to have to explain the origin of life ... am I not correct ??

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#79904 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are saying there was a void at one time? What do you base this presumption on? Also, if everything else demands a creator, then so does your god, what created your god in that case?
A god outside of time and space, is not limited, or subject to time and space... this is why god is eternal.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79909 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, there is a macro and micro. It is the dividing point in which people claim a species evolves as it's own and when a species evolves into another. The bubble theory of evolution states something of the sorts that the RNA sequent were created like bubbles of foam in the wave action of the ocean. If you tested the foam, it wouldn't be the same 10 meters apart and the primordial soup that generated life was created similar to that. This means that all species are formed at one time and did not evolve from other species outside of semantics used to segregate the timeline of evolution. In other words, a species did not evolve from common ancestors but from unique ancestors and all the diversity in life we see comes from microevolution of the same species created in the same or similar events.
Sounds like the crackpot thoughts of Dr Perrenian Senapathy.
adif understanding wrote:
Of course this is just theory as well as the evidence of panspermia events that could cause the same things to happen.
There is no "just theory" in science. "Theory" in science is not "wild guess". Scientific theories are a collection of facts and hypotheses that form a scientific model capable of making scientific predictions.
adif understanding wrote:
The macro evolution or speciation as the creationist and atheist like to call it, has not been observed directly and there is no transitional fossils without employing semantics (manipulation of language) to make findings fit. There is no one universal definition for species and all speciation events attempt to employ up to 5 different ones in order to make the claims.
Semantics is not necessary. The only "problem" with language you are seeing is a problem with language, not the science. Because reality doesn't care about the arbitrary pigeon holes we use as labels to describe things with language. That is why there are times we have problem describing what species an organism might be, just like we would have to make an arbitrary decision between calling a specific colour "more red" or "more orange" on a colour gradient.

We have the same problem with describing planets, which resulted in a new definition which now makes Pluto a "dwarf planet". But that doesn't mean we know less about planets. And what IS observed in biology is clear evolutionary progression:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
adif understanding wrote:
There was an interesting discussion a while back which included some prominent evolutionist. It came down to the diversity of dogs in which there are so many different species that if we did not have a living specimens to go by and all we had was a fossil record, applying these same rules would have required the majority of breeds of dogs to be classified as different species yet because they are live and well among us, we treat them as breeds or types of the same species.
Yes, a label problem. Not an evolution problem.
adif understanding wrote:
And as I said in another post, in science, the lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, not that something did not happen, could not happen, or would not happen- only that we do not know if it did or will happen.
Or if it ever happened. You always seem to leave that part out.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79910 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So is Star Wars.
<quoted text>
Actually it can't glimpse it at all.
<quoted text>
I think you mean bound to our universe.
<quoted text>
Actually Pluto works fine under Einstein's theory of relativity.
<quoted text>
Yes, with the field of spectroscopy.
You are free to deny it but then you would have to deny the claim that our sun is a star. And other stars may as well be nothing more than pinpricks of light through a covered sheet.
<quoted text>
Because people who claim that are apologists. Alien life is VERY possible. But the barriers to contacting them are very real.
Star Wars is beyond Science and human logic? Lame. A writer imagined it.

When I say star, I did not mean the Sun (I would strictly call it Sun). I meant the stars in the constellations such as the big dipper or the Orion.

So the theory of relativity encompasses all the current laws of physics? really?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#79911 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If so you wouldn't have been able to link to them.
<quoted text>
Cool.
well apparently those who claim to know so much about science on this thread was not aware of such an important science theory that is dated 2002...would make one wonder.

my only point is that everyone seems to be agreeing that the earth was once cover with water...regardless of the time frame.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79912 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You better look again. And this time, stay away from those atheist it's all fact sites.
The bubble theory of evolution is not mainstream, panspermia is not mainstream, but they exist and they are part of the scientific debate on evolution. If you can't grasp that in your little head, then go sit with the creationists in the dunce cap section.
Actually it's a part of the scientific debate on abiogenesis, not evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Bubb...

Although the way you initially described it made it sound like it was referring to multiple independent abiogenesis events, thus an impediment to common ancestry. If that was the case, then it's crank stuff, if not then I apologise for misreading.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79913 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
like I said before...a true void would not contain laws...unless your suggesting that there are eternal laws that stand apart from time and space...such as God?
As I said before, your "void" is irrelevant.
Babylon

United States

#79915 Mar 9, 2013
Science cannot see outside of whats here.
science knows nothing of whats outside of the universe.
God, Eternity.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79916 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
A god outside of time and space, is not limited, or subject to time and space... this is why god is eternal.
some people think of eternal as a really really really long time ... however I believe that eternal is actually a dimension where time does not exist ... where God exists .. time is not relevant or maybe does not exist at all ... evolutionist put that in your test tube ... ha !!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79917 Mar 9, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you like to use another theory to support the validity of another theory? You love using the example of existence of gravity and its laws/theory that is as valid as the theory of evolution. If so, how does the theory of gravity support the theory of evolution? In your logic, the string theory is a fact because gravity is fact.
I don't use gravity to support evolution, I use biology to support evolution.

His contention is (shared by many creationists) that if evolution cannot explain the origin of life then evolution is seriously flawed. In which case the theory of gravity and germ theory of disease are also both fundamentally flawed as neither of those explain their respective origins either. I then point out that in reality this is not the case. Since all theories work. Evolution works using biology, gravity works using mass, and germ theory works using germs. The respective origins aren't essential to the theory as we have the relevant phenomena existing for the mechanisms of each theory to operate on.

If there is no life there is no evolution. If there is no mass there is no gravity. If there are no germs there is no germ theory.

But we HAVE them. We have life. We have mass. We have germs. Therefore each theory works. It doesn't matter if the respective origin for each was magic, aliens, or something else we haven't even thought of yet - it's a separate line of enquiry. And enquire we do. But, so far at least, it does not affect the validity of those three theories.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79918 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Trying to compare evolution junk science to creationism, is like trying to claim the homosexuals are born that way but the environment and socialization are the major factors. They fail.
Why do you hate kittens?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79920 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
either way .. the origin of life .. all life = triune
energy / matter and ...
Go ahead. Finish your foolish claim. We are waiting.

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
What Turns You Off? 3 min Poppyann 93
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) (Jul '15) 4 min andet1987 1,874
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 4 min Hoosier Hillbilly 3,893
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 5 min streetglidehoney 20,694
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 6 min While You Are Cou... 2,103
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... (Aug '15) 6 min Poppyann 1,613
Words "with more than one meaning" (Sep '12) 8 min andet1987 751
A to Z songs by title or group! 22 min Poppyann 583
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 50 min Sublime1 68,050
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 1 hr Sublime1 386
More from around the web