Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 169128 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 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96018 Aug 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that Germ Theory is going to be reversed at any point?
Do you believe that Gravitation Theory is going to be reverse at any point?
Do you believe that the Thermodynamic Theory is going to be reverse at any point?

"Still a theory" implies that it is an unfounded guess.

That's not the case. A scientific theory unifies existing evidence and mechanisms and makes accurate predictions about future evidence.

There has never, in the history of science, been a more comprehensive and effective theory than Evolution.

Nothing anywhere even comes close.
Do you believe QM should still be a theory?

Do you believe GR should still be a theory?

Do you believe String Theory should still be a Theory?

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

__________
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96019 Aug 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that Germ Theory is going to be reversed at any point?
Do you believe that Gravitation Theory is going to be reverse at any point?
Do you believe that the Thermodynamic Theory is going to be reverse at any point?

"Still a theory" implies that it is an unfounded guess.

That's not the case. A scientific theory unifies existing evidence and mechanisms and makes accurate predictions about future evidence.

There has never, in the history of science, been a more comprehensive and effective theory than Evolution.

Nothing anywhere even comes close.
Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.

__________

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...
and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96020 Aug 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that Germ Theory is going to be reversed at any point?
Do you believe that Gravitation Theory is going to be reverse at any point?
Do you believe that the Thermodynamic Theory is going to be reverse at any point?

"Still a theory" implies that it is an unfounded guess.

That's not the case. A scientific theory unifies existing evidence and mechanisms and makes accurate predictions about future evidence.

There has never, in the history of science, been a more comprehensive and effective theory than Evolution.

Nothing anywhere even comes close.
Chapter 3: Accomplishments and Failures of String Theory 43

Whether this resilience of string theory will translate someday into proof that

the theory is fundamentally correct remains to be seen, but for the majority

of those working on the problems, confidence is high.

As you can read in Chapter 17, this popularity is also seen by some critics

as a flaw. Physics thrives on the rigorous debate of conflicting ideas, and

some physicists are concerned that the driving support of string theory, to

the exclusion of all other ideas, isn't healthy for the field. For some of these

critics, the mathematics of string theory has, indeed, already shown that the

theory isn't performing as expected (or, in their view, as needed to be a fun-

damental theory) and the string theorists are in denial.

Considering String Theory's Setbacks

Because string theory has made so few specific predictions, it's hard to dis-

prove it, but the theory has fallen short of some of the hype about how it will

be a fundamental theory to explain all the physics in our universe, a "theory

of everything." This failure to meet that lofty goal seems to be the basis of

many (if not most) of the attacks against it.

In Chapter 17, you find more detailed criticisms of string theory. Some of

these cut to the very heart of whether string theory is even scientific or

whether it's being pursued in the correct way. For now, I leave these more

abstract questions and focus on three issues that even most string theorists

aren't particularly happy about:

Because of supersymmetry, string theory requires a large number of

particles beyond what scientists have ever observed.

This new theory of gravity was unable to predict the accelerated expan-

sion of the universe that was detected by astronomers.

A vastly large number of mathematically feasible string theory vacua

(solutions) currently exist, so it seems virtually impossible to figure out

which could describe our universe.

The following sections cover these dilemmas in more detail.

More.....
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96021 Aug 4, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe that Germ Theory is going to be reversed at any point?
Do you believe that Gravitation Theory is going to be reverse at any point?
Do you believe that the Thermodynamic Theory is going to be reverse at any point?

"Still a theory" implies that it is an unfounded guess.

That's not the case. A scientific theory unifies existing evidence and mechanisms and makes accurate predictions about future evidence.

There has never, in the history of science, been a more comprehensive and effective theory than Evolution.

Nothing anywhere even comes close.
Part 2

The universe doesn't have enough particles

For the mathematics of string theory to work, physicists have to assume a

symmetry in nature called supersymmetry, which creates a correspondence

between different types of particles. One problem with this is that instead of

the 18 fundamental particles in the Standard Model, supersymmetry requires

at least 36 fundamental particles (which means that nature allows 18 par-

ticles that scientists have never seen!). 44 Part I: Introducing String Theory

In some ways, string theory does make things simpler -- the fundamental

objects are strings and branes or, as predicted by matrix theory, zero-

dimensional branes called partons. These strings, branes, or possibly partons

make up the particles that physicists have observed (or the ones they hope to

observe). But that's on a very fundamental level; from a practical standpoint,

string theory doubles the number of particles allowed by nature from 18 to 36.

One of the biggest possible successes for string theory would be to experi-

mentally detect these missing supersymmetric partner particles. The hope of

many theoretical physicists is that when the Large Hadron Collider particle

accelerator at CERN in Switzerland goes fully online, it will detect super-

symmetric particles.

Even if successful, proof of supersymmetry doesn't inherently prove string

theory, so the debate would continue to rage on, but at least one major

objection would be removed. Supersymmetry might well end up being true,

whether or not string theory as a whole is shown to accurately describe

nature.

Dark energy: The discovery string

theory should have predicted

Astronomers found evidence in 1998 that the expansion of the universe

was actually accelerating. This accelerated expansion is caused by the dark

energy that appears so often in the news. Not only did string theory not pre-

dict the existence of dark energy, but attempts to use science's best theories

to calculate the amount of dark energy comes up with a number that's vastly

larger than the one observed by astronomers. The theory just absolutely

failed to initially make sense of dark energy.

Claiming this as a flaw of string theory is a bit more controversial than the

other two, but there's some (albeit questionable) logic behind it. The goal of

string theory is nothing less than the complete rewriting of gravitational law,

so it's not unreasonable to think that string theory should have anticipated

dark energy in some way. When Einstein constructed his theory of general rela-

tivity, the mathematics indicated that space could be expanding (later proved

to be true). When Paul Dirac formulated a quantum theory of the electron, the

mathematics indicated an antiparticle existed (later proved to actually exist).

A profound theory like string theory can be expected to illuminate new facts

about our universe, not be blind-sided by unanticipated discoveries.

Of course, no other theory anticipated an accelerating expansion of the uni-

verse either. Prior to the observational evidence (some of which is still con-

tested, as you find out in Chapter 19), cosmologists (and string theorists) had

no reason to assume that the expansion rate of space was increasing. Years
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96022 Aug 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>LOL I would have said ToE may be modified , but chances it will be overturned ...are so slim you can bank on it. Pretty much confirmed by every new test.
GR is close , and was confirmed several times with new tests of frame dragging. So some just a theory are solid as rocks.
GR. LOL

You mean rocky.

Wikipedia:
If anyone finds a case where all or part of a scientific theory is false, then that theory is either changed or thrown out.

A scientific theory in one branch of science must hold true in all of the other branches of science.

From Nova:

"For decades, every attempt to describe the force of gravity in the same language as the other forces—the language of quantum mechanics—has met with disaster

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: You try to put those two pieces of mathematics together, they do not coexist peacefully.
The laws of nature are supposed to apply everywhere. So if Einstein's laws are supposed to apply everywhere, and the laws of quantum mechanics are supposed to apply everywhere, well you can't have two separate everywheres.

BRIAN GREENE: In the years since, physics split into two separate camps: one that uses general relativity to study big and heavy objects, things like stars, galaxies and the universe as a whole...

...and another that uses quantum mechanics to study the tiniest of objects, like atoms and particles. This has been kind of like having two families that just cannot get along and never talk to each other...
There just seemed to be no way to combine quantum mechanics...

and general relativity in a single theory that could describe the universe on all scales.

So here's the question: if you're trying to figure out what happens in the depths of a black hole, where an entire star is crushed to a tiny speck, do you use general relativity because the star is incredibly heavy or quantum mechanics because it's incredibly tiny?

Well, that's the problem. Since the center of a black hole is both tiny and heavy, you can't avoid using both theories at the same time. And when we try to put the two theories together in the realm of black holes, they conflict. It breaks down. They give nonsensical predictions. And the universe is not nonsensical; it's got to make sense.

BRIAN GREENE: It's a little known secret but for more than half a century a dark cloud has been looming over modern science. Here's the problem: our understanding of the universe is based on two separate theories. One is Einstein's general theory of relativity—that's a way of understanding the biggest things in the universe, things like stars and galaxies. But the littlest things in the universe, atoms and subatomic particles, play by an entirely different set of rules called, "quantum Mechanics"

These two sets of rules are each incredibly accurate in their own domain but whenever we try to combine them, to solve some of the deepest mysteries in the universe, disaster strikes.

Take the beginning of the universe, the "big bang." At that instant a tiny nugget erupted violently. Over the next 14 billion years the universe expanded and cooled into the stars, galaxies and planets we see today. But if we run the cosmic film in reverse, everything that's now rushing apart comes back together, so the universe gets smaller, hotter and denser as we head back to the beginning of time.

As we reach the big bang, when the universe was both enormously heavy and incredibly tiny, our projector jams. Our two laws of physics, when combined, break down.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96023 Aug 4, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>I was referring to now disproved claims of creation concerning humans. I do believe in GOD precisely because we still have no answers as to "why" origins of everything, including time!
There is no proof discrediting creation.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96024 Aug 4, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>Your comment about science is incorrect and you assume those make believe horror movies are approved by scientists. LOL!
Oh? So science is not working on trying to create life? Science has not done any work on the building blocks of life? Science never mentions the primordial soup?

You sure I'm wrong?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96025 Aug 4, 2013
Dak-Original wrote:
<quoted text>A Tzar, you just playing a game here. it was you who stated about "Frankecell" !
Science believes in Frankencell.
Science believes in the primordial soup.
Science believes in spontaneous self generating life forms.
Science believes it can create life.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#96026 Aug 4, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>Believing in an anthropomorphic deity >because< of lacking data and knowledge is irrational.
Cause and effect is a meaningless concept in the absence of time. "Prior to" the origin of time is null, not zero or negative time.
Nothing can exist with out time.
Nothing can change with out time.
Nothing can happen with out time.
Per science time started 13.7 billion years ago. Where did time come from?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#96027 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science believes in Frankencell.
Science believes in the primordial soup.
Science believes in spontaneous self generating life forms.
Science believes it can create life.
Sorry to catch you in the middle of a mindless, childish rant, but I am still waiting for you to explain where time comes from.

I am sure there is something out there for you to cut and paste on this thread.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#96028 Aug 4, 2013
Oh CraP! The universe ran out of particles? When did that happen?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#96029 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in the Big Bang so using your theory as wild as it is just tell me where does Time come from?
Nothing can exist with out time.
Nothing can change with out time.
Nothing can happen with out time.
Space, matter, energy all require Time.
Science claims The Universe is 13.7 billion year old. Not infante but 13.7 billion year old. So where did Time come from 13.7 billion years ago?
When did I say what I believe. I haven't made any such statement. So how is it you know what I believe. Oh, that is right. You assume and have absolute knowledge because of you belief system making you a superior person and better than those that disagree with you. I forgot.

In other words, you have nothing and haven't found anything to cut and paste.

Since you know what I believe and know with bothering to ask, why bother to ask me about time?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#96030 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe in the Big Bang so using your theory as wild as it is just tell me where does Time come from?
Nothing can exist with out time.
Nothing can change with out time.
Nothing can happen with out time.
Space, matter, energy all require Time.
Science claims The Universe is 13.7 billion year old. Not infante but 13.7 billion year old. So where did Time come from 13.7 billion years ago?
Still waiting for an answer to where time comes from. Still waiting for any evidence that indicates you understand anything about science.

I imagine I will be waiting a long, long, long time.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#96031 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no proof discrediting creation.
You became sure of that when? This morning after copying and pasting ..

Considering String Theory's Setbacks - For Dummies

Or you were convinced all that sciency stuff was evil on Sunday mornings?

But now we must answer this question, If creation is impossible, then why do words appear in these little boxes and how do they get from one box to another. I'm gonna have to think about this for awhile.:/

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96032 Aug 4, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You must think Don Rickles was a genius. I disagree, buy using the tone you used, you lost the debate period. I know the other person did not start that tone. You are just a hot head. It is no wonder you (have) to go online to chat.
Answer the question. Do you believe arguing against something that you have no knowledge of is a good way to argue?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#96033 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing can exist with out time.
Nothing can change with out time.
Nothing can happen with out time.
Per science time started 13.7 billion years ago. Where did time come from?
no time, no cause and effect. No cause and effect, no need for a "place" for time to "come from", a "being" to "create" it or a "cause" to "start" it. Your reasoning is stuck on and in time.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96034 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong, evolution starts with the first life form to today, I would call that a pretty complete tale of the origin of life on this planet.
Correct. Evolution STARTS with the first life... it doesn't matter how that first life started.

Stick with stupid... it's what you do best.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96035 Aug 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya see?
There you go again. Just when we thought you had it correct.
Evolution does not start until the first living organism.
NOT in the development of that organism, but AFTER that critter got going!
He's to wrapped up in being stupid that he just can't admit the obvious things staring him in the face

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#96036 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing can exist with out time.
Nothing can change with out time.
Nothing can happen with out time.
Per science time started 13.7 billion years ago. Where did time come from?
"Nothing can exist with out time."

Nothing you know of can anyway, but how do you know "nothing" can exist. And why would "nothing" need time to exist?

"Nothing can change with out time."

Bingo, nothing can happen that we can observe without an elapsed time counting it. But if time were frozen right now , for an instant does anything exist in the duration, within the instant of frozen time?

"Nothing can happen with out time."

Time was frozen for an instant, can time resume?
If it cannot , nothing will happen again, but does it still exist?
If time cannot resume after the instant, then nothing ever existed.

Q- Can "nothing" exist? Answer the questions The Almighty Tzar.

Can "nothing" exist? What is nothing? Can nothing begin?
Can nothing start?
Dak-Original

Slough, UK

#96037 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no proof discrediting creation.
2003 Genome Project was the last nail!

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
News Doc Told Hundreds of Healthy People They Had Ca... 2 min Must be Muckwheat 8
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) (Dec '14) 9 min andet1987 786
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min CJ Rocker 165,626
Add a Word, Drop a Panty game 15 min andet1987 539
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 18 min andet1987 15,584
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 24 min CJ Rocker 948
News Police seek help after nut theft, post mug shot... 26 min Mullahing It Over 1
News Parents order a 'Frozen' Elsa birthday cake and... 33 min Mullahing It Over 1
" Tell me a secret"...... (Oct '14) 35 min CJ Rocker 372
Rebel vs American Flag 1 hr Denny CranesPlace 74
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Lady Liberty 41,501
More from around the web