Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99941 Sep 24, 2013
Mo = No

I guess I should have had coffee first...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99942 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>May I cut in?
Sure.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
I think abiogenesis is all-beef baloney.
Who cares what you think?(shrug)
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
It is a theory based on we don't know nothin'.
Actually it's a hypothesis based on evidence such as I described. No-one has a problem with chemistry producing life today since it happens millions and millions of times a day. However for some reason when it comes to the start of life on Earth all the fundies insist that chemistry must have worked totally different so as to make it impossible back then but not now, so divine intervention was required. Their opinions have nothing to do with science.

But if you are so concerned you're welcome to knock on the door of Harvard and tell them they're wasting their time because they haven't taken invisible Jewish magic into account.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99943 Sep 24, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You and others keep referring to magic wizardry, not I. I stated the writer described a process that we now know takes place in the ocean/sea 'deep'.
Then why did he describe lots of things that referred to magic wizardry which are plainly at odds with reality and have zero evidence to back 'em up? Such as your flood.

You can either accept that the Bible is not completely accurate or you can be correctly described as appealing to invisible Jewish magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99944 Sep 24, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say I had evidence. Others here claim they have evidence to prove what's an unprovable story didn't happen.
The story actually fits the theory of evolution. That an 'unknown' source created a single biological source being asexual that reproduced itself till a variant evolved so that being asexual was not a necessity anymore.
In the story we have an 'unknown' source that created a single biological source from whence a variant came forth so opposites were needed to reproduce life.
If it was describing evolution then why did it ACTUALLY describe magical poofing, so strongly in fact that fundie believers also agree that it was not describing evolution which they think is wrong because they think that God used magical poofing instead?

The Bible is not a science or history book.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99945 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you have all the experience you can possibly get in Oh let's say biology how will that help you when it comes to architecture when designing a building?
Well, if we want to sink to absolutely ridiculous arguments, you might have a point. If we stay in the real world - if that's not too much trouble for you - experience WILL have an influence on imagination and creativity.

To return to your silly example for a moment, someone with no knowledge or experience in architecture would be at a disadvantage in both imagination and creativity in building design.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99946 Sep 24, 2013
forreal wrote:
<quoted text>Reproductive cycle? LOLOLOL a Mayfly has only 15 mins to mate and you cant evolve after that, the only thing is that you will see it die!!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL 24 hours that all.LOLOLOLOLOL who care about the eggs under the water streams they cant evolve or mate down there!LOLOLOLOLOLOL another jackass bites the floor!LOLOLOL
Mayflies evolve on a generation by generation basis, hence the reason for there use in genetic research. You deliberate ignorance makes no difference to fact and will most certainly not make it go away.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99947 Sep 24, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a glitch in the story for pro and con. Both sides are 'assuming' that the earth at the time of the flood looked than geographically as it looks today topside and sea floor wise.
That the world just somehow flooded itself without any physical trauma as in volcanic action/earthquakes.
The writer actually describes something they should not have even been able to have guessed correctly that science has shown actually takes place on the sea floors today. "...all the fountains of the great deep broken up,.." The writer is actually describing water being pushed up by volcanic action through the crust of the earth through the sea/ocean/lake floors to add more water to what already exists topside.
The point shouldn't be whether an invisible being caused this to take place. The point to be wondered about is how the writer was able to describe volcanic activity that takes place miles to thousands of feet below ocean and sea water levels. A volcanic heated vent on the ocean floor large or small spills out vast quantities of heated water. Volcanic vents on land don't usually do this in the same manner as on the oceans floors that this writer would have been privy to have seen to have written about. So how did they make a best guess and guess it correctly?
No glitch, archaeological facts are involved here

How you interpret the authors writing is you own affair, It remains fact that geological action took place then as is does now. The experience of a tsunami or a volcano or other eruption in no way suggest that the writer had inside knowledge of the deep.

And of course 3,000,000,000 times more water than is known to exist using modern science and technology to estimate is a considerable amount more than the average geyser could eject.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99948 Sep 24, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We wont settle up for less than US gallons.
But if I had that much whiskey, we could float all your Majesty's Shops in it...:) heheheh
US Gallons? Short measure?

The imperial gallon was removed from the list of legally defined primary units of measure catalogued in the EU directive 80/181/EEC, US gallons did not even register

I don’t drink so much but when I do I prefer Cognac but a few trillion gallons of a good single malt would not go amiss
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#99949 Sep 24, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you have all the experience you can possibly get in Oh let's say biology how will that help you when it comes to architecture when designing a building?
Go ask the fundies.(shrug)

It's them who keep invoking engineers as an authoritive source on biology. Daft I know.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99950 Sep 24, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is nothing to say that the visible universe was created from anything or nothing. The very laws that describe our understanding of universe we inhabit did not begin exist until 10^-34th of a second after the event."
You should be ashamed of yourself for buying into your get out of jail free card.
Science MUST stick to the laws of the universe! what you wrote is religion.
No proof, no observable evidence.
Just a believe.
Say what? You consider scientific fact to be a get out of jail free card? Hey, only when said scientific fact blows a huge hole in your goddidit by magic routine and for sure it is not free.

Science sticks to the laws that are laws, no religion involved. Religion is faith (i.e. what you believe without evidence) Science is fact that can be falsified.

So

Plenty of evidence, there is the evidence of the hubble diagram, there is the evidence of the CMB, there is the evidence of the Sloan digital survey

There is evidence in the very laws that govern this universe. Using the methods listed above and observations takes us back to a point. At that point the material that makes this universe was too dense for even the laws to exist. Not until 10^-34th of a second after that point were conditions possible for the laws to begin resolving themselves and not until around 10^-20th of a second did the laws represent anything tangible in human terms.

All you need to do is spend a little more time (ok a lot of time) educating yourself and breaking the shackles of you indoctrination.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#99951 Sep 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask the fundies.(shrug)
It's them who keep invoking engineers as an authoritive source on biology. Daft I know.
If Salk had passed his Strengths of Materials courses, maybe we'd finally have a vaccine for rebar.

“Lets all play DantheDipshyts”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

game.of annoyance. It's fun.

#99952 Sep 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Go ask the fundies.(shrug)
It's them who keep invoking engineers as an authoritive source on biology. Daft I know.
It is funny that most of my comment shave nothing to do with religion but you work it into most of your comments in some way.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#99953 Sep 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
<quoted text>
Who cares what you think?(shrug)
<quoted text>
Actually it's a hypothesis based on evidence such as I described. No-one has a problem with chemistry producing life today since it happens millions and millions of times a day. However for some reason when it comes to the start of life on Earth all the fundies insist that chemistry must have worked totally different so as to make it impossible back then but not now, so divine intervention was required. Their opinions have nothing to do with science.
But if you are so concerned you're welcome to knock on the door of Harvard and tell them they're wasting their time because they haven't taken invisible Jewish magic into account.(shrug)
To describe me as a fundamentalist is as inaccurate as defending the abiogenesis theory. Scientists today are running away from abiogenesis theory like mad. Behind closed doors, many are trembling at having to face the notion that there may have been some sort of "creator" that started it all.

Even Charles Darwin concluded that the first living being was likely the result of a creator of some kind. To believe there might have been a "creative energy" that started the proverbial ball rolling need not have biblical or "fundamentalist" underpinnings. To believe otherwise strikes me as a bit smug.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99954 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text> Scientists today are running away from abiogenesis theory like mad.
Complete nonsense. Some form of abiogenesis is what most scientists in the field accept, although the details are still being worked out and we don't yet have a complete explanation or THEORY like we do for the subsequent evolution of species.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Behind closed doors, many are trembling at having to face the notion that there may have been some sort of "creator" that started it all.
Lying Christian BS and wishful thinking.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
Even Charles Darwin concluded that the first living being was likely the result of a creator of some kind.
Darwin wrote in 1865, LONG before we have computers, DNA, and kind of biochemical science, etc. We've come a long way since then.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>To believe there might have been a "creative energy" that started the proverbial ball rolling need not have biblical or "fundamentalist" underpinnings. To believe otherwise strikes me as a bit smug.
Science is not about "belief," but about having evidence for a proposition and accepting that evidence. We have a lot of evidence for abiogenesis so far, and NONE for the magical "Poofing!" of instant special creation as Christians allege.

So forgive us if we stick with the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.

To just "believe," essentially because Mommy and Daddy and Pastor Billy Bob SAY so, strikes me as WAY MORE than a little bit smug.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99955 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>To describe me as a fundamentalist is as inaccurate as defending the abiogenesis theory. Scientists today are running away from abiogenesis theory like mad. Behind closed doors, many are trembling at having to face the notion that there may have been some sort of "creator" that started it all.
I assume you have some poll or other data to back up your 'trembling' claim.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
Even Charles Darwin concluded that the first living being was likely the result of a creator of some kind. To believe there might have been a "creative energy" that started the proverbial ball rolling need not have biblical or "fundamentalist" underpinnings. To believe otherwise strikes me as a bit smug.
Darwin repeatedly categorized himself as a agnostic and said he was no authority on religion or the existence of a god.

Time for the Lady Hope story?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#99956 Sep 24, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete nonsense. Some form of abiogenesis is what most scientists in the field accept, although the details are still being worked out and we don't yet have a complete explanation or THEORY like we do for the subsequent evolution of species.
<quoted text>
Lying Christian BS and wishful thinking.
<quoted text>
Darwin wrote in 1865, LONG before we have computers, DNA, and kind of biochemical science, etc. We've come a long way since then.
<quoted text>
Science is not about "belief," but about having evidence for a proposition and accepting that evidence. We have a lot of evidence for abiogenesis so far, and NONE for the magical "Poofing!" of instant special creation as Christians allege.
So forgive us if we stick with the evidence and follow it wherever it leads.
To just "believe," essentially because Mommy and Daddy and Pastor Billy Bob SAY so, strikes me as WAY MORE than a little bit smug.
I'll ignore your patronizing tone and refer you to a paper by Jerry Bergman titled, "Why the Miller-Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis". I am aware that Bergman's work is not without its critics, but I find his work very persuasive.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99957 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I'll ignore your patronizing tone and refer you to a paper by Jerry Bergman titled, "Why the Miller-Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis". I am aware that Bergman's work is not without its critics, but I find his work very persuasive.
Bergman?!?!

*THIS* Bergman?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman

Gerald R.“Jerry” Bergman is a young earth creationist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a signatory to the CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation. He has a doctorate in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a nonaccredited correspondence school that was ordered to cease operations in California in 1999 by the Marin County Superior Court.[2] Bergman is a prolific writer with, according to Answers in Genesis, over 600 articles (none in peer-refereed scientific journals, of course,[3] but quite a few for Answers Research Journal) and 20 books to his name.

He considers himself one of the victims of persecution by "Darwinists", after he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University in 1978 “solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism”. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to take the university to court over religious discrimination.(It should be added that in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, he stated that “reverse racial discrimination was clearly part of the decision,” so even according to himself it cannot have been solely because of his religious beliefs.[4]) According to the courts, however, Bergman was terminated because of ethics, namely that he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he “had no psychological credentials.”[5]

Bergman is known to be a rather skilled at public debates, where he can Gish gallop at will and opponents don’t have the time or opportunity to debunk all of his claims, misrepresentations, and fundamental misunderstandings.

One of Bergman’s favorite tactics is to redefine words. For instance, Bergman claims that he has scientifically proven that there is no such thing as vestigial organs, therefore evolution is false. He accomplished this by redefining “vestigial” to mean “having no function at all”; thus, all he had to do was to demonstrate that alleged vestigial organs did or potentially did anything whatsoever.[6] Of course, this is not the definition of “vestigial”. That did not prevent Bergman from writing a book about it (with George Howe).

Bergman has predictably enough argued that evolution leads to Hitler.[7] In fact, one of his primary debate tactics is character-assassination of Darwin[8]. According to Bergman,“Charles Darwin’s major goal in developing his theory was religious, he wanted to “murder” god (his words).” The passage in which Darwin talked about “murder” is this:

At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.

It doesn’t quite appear to say what Bergman thinks it says. Among other things Bergman attributes to Darwin are:
He was active in “converting” all he could to his theory of origins.
Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas.
Darwin was a racist of the worst kind and believed the lower races (the blacks) would go extinct.
Darwin was opposed to helping the sick, but realized this idea would not go over well.
Darwin felt a wife was better than a dog (really!).
He was severely mentally and physically ill, likely an agoraphobic.
As a young man he was sadistic and loved to kill animals with anything he had: guns, sticks, even hammers!

His evidence for these claims is based on, shall we say, unconventional interpretations of passages from Darwin; and in addition, even if these claims were true, it is hard to see how they would undermine the scientific theory of evolution.

<END>

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#99958 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I'll ignore your patronizing tone and refer you to a paper by Jerry Bergman titled, "Why the Miller-Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis". I am aware that Bergman's work is not without its critics, but I find his work very persuasive.
Sure... it's persuasive for people looking for anything they can to support their unsupportable religious claims.

From RationalWiki:

"Gerald R.“Jerry” Bergman is a young earth creationist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a signatory to the CMI list of scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation. He has a doctorate in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a nonaccredited correspondence school that was ordered to cease operations in California in 1999 by the Marin County Superior Court."

Yeah... I'm sure he's a stellar example of the honesty/integrity of a typical creationists.

(yes... that last line is dripping with sarcasm)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#99959 Sep 24, 2013
HA! Beat ya to it, Terry!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99960 Sep 24, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I'll ignore your patronizing tone and refer you to a paper by Jerry Bergman titled, "Why the Miller-Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis". I am aware that Bergman's work is not without its critics, but I find his work very persuasive.
He is a fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationist.

We completely dismiss his crackpot ideas, which are based on the need to do fundie Christian APOLOGETICS, NOT to do actual SCIENCE.

Is Bergman what you meant when you made the grandiose nonsense claim that "Scientists today are running away from abiogenesis theory like mad"?

Because you'll have to do a WHOLE LOT better than that to demonstrate your silly claim.

"Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell
Researchers get genetic material to copy itself in a recreation of a simple protocell that could have existed eons ago"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

"Scientists create tiny RNA molecule with big implications for life's origins"
http://www.physorg.com/news186071435.html

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
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 11 min andet1987 7,755
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min _hellbilly_ 152,764
raaxeeye77 31 min raaxeeye77 1
Word Association (Mar '10) 57 min andet1987 16,189
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr andet1987 138,400
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 1 hr andet1987 7,612
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 1 hr jimmy krack korn 422
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 2 hr andet1987 1,127
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 2 hr andet1987 2,999
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 3 hr andet1987 30,058
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 7 hr BLOODY__FATALITY 25,838
More from around the web