Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
95,641 - 95,660 of 113,207 Comments Last updated 3 min ago
CrimeaRiver

London, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101144
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not defending Noah's global flood or when it took place. But for the sake of the argument, there are cultures that speak of a 'global' flood and not just a 'local' flood.
Concerning the repopulation theory you reject, consider this. It's estimated the first people to come to this continent did it in a group about 15,000 years ago. It's been estimated by science minded individuals that this continent had upwards of 25 million people prior to Columbus.
Out of interest, what are your views on theories that Alien intervention sparked the evolutionary branch of Homo-Sapiens.

That would explain why we are the only Homo compared to the countless families of primates.

It might also explain Human's ability think and speak differently.

It would also lend credence to the idea of a celestial creator.

What do you think?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101145
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly.
There are about 300 billion of star in our galaxy alone. And we know what stars go around an extremely small proportion of them. So there could be millions or even billions of star systems with life in our galaxy alone.
And there are over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if you assume an extremely low percentage of stars with life there would still be trillions with life in the observable universe alone.
Why do you think we are alone in the universe?
Like a solar system, it seems that a galaxy has a goldilocks zone. Too close to the centre the star density is too high and radiation levels would be lethal to organic life. Too far away and there are not the heavier elements (iron, carbon, calcium etc) required for planet building and life, about 2/3rds of the way out seems to be just right.

Recent research suggest that just over 1% of stars are/have been capable of supporting planets with complex life.

1% of approximately 10^24 stars in the universe is still 10^22 stars capable of sustaining complex life in itís solar system. Thatís an awfully big number of potentials by anyoneís standards.

You may find these interesting.

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/habitablezones/ghz....

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424638/a...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101146
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Like a solar system, it seems that a galaxy has a goldilocks zone. Too close to the centre the star density is too high and radiation levels would be lethal to organic life. Too far away and there are not the heavier elements (iron, carbon, calcium etc) required for planet building and life, about 2/3rds of the way out seems to be just right.
Recent research suggest that just over 1% of stars are/have been capable of supporting planets with complex life.
1% of approximately 10^24 stars in the universe is still 10^22 stars capable of sustaining complex life in itís solar system. Thatís an awfully big number of potentials by anyoneís standards.
You may find these interesting.
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/habitablezones/ghz....
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424638/a...
The one thing here that always captures my attention, when people surmise about the conditions of life and it's possible niches in the universe and it's possible locations due to favorable positions temperate of it's necessities.

Is that it could be found these conditions maybe completely different for some other life drastically different from the chemistry we are composed of. Have you ever thought about that?
That there could be life so alien to our understanding that the rules we think of and impose on it in searching for similar type life forms may not even be necessary. One idea that has taken root in scientific circles is that water being a solvent and reducing agent , could in fact be replaced by some other liquid in the criteria for the formation of life.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101147
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
It doesn't matter what I believe or don't believe.
For the first time ever, you are correct.
No Surprise wrote:
I don't and never have believe
Ah yes, but as we have just established your beliefs are irrelevant. Reality is real no matter how much they don't like it.
No Surprise wrote:
life came from one or more life sources.
There are countless millions of life sources on the planet in existence today. Therefore tomorrow millions of more will be born. That's lots of life coming from lots of life sources.

As for life starting from a single lifeform, the evidence so far points to common ancestry via LUCA. So again you're in error.
No Surprise wrote:
We have absolutely not a single piece of circumstantial to factual evidence of this taking place.
Let's be honest, frankly you do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
No Surprise wrote:
On top of that I'm told after billions of years of trial and error it 'appears' the structuring and destruction and restructuring of matter finally got it right to produce life on this single solitary planet.
Yes, well it DID take 9 billion years and an entire universe. However since life IS here, that is pretty good evidence that it happened somehow either way.
No Surprise wrote:
I'm well and fine with the theories based on living and nonliving things we form the theory of evolution upon. But this believe it took billions of years of trial and error to finally create life as we now exist on one single solitary planet, yeah whatever I suppose.
Who said it was just this one solitary planet? It could have happened in TRILLIONS of other places, yet they'd still be so far away that we would never get to know about it. As always you presume too much.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101148
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The one thing here that always captures my attention, when people surmise about the conditions of life and it's possible niches in the universe and it's possible locations due to favorable positions temperate of it's necessities.
Is that it could be found these conditions maybe completely different for some other life drastically different from the chemistry we are composed of. Have you ever thought about that?
That there could be life so alien to our understanding that the rules we think of and impose on it in searching for similar type life forms may not even be necessary. One idea that has taken root in scientific circles is that water being a solvent and reducing agent , could in fact be replaced by some other liquid in the criteria for the formation of life.
Oh yes, which is why I specified organic life and iron, carbon, calcium etc. The possibilities of different chemical bases and composition for life are staggering.

Consider the wide differences in life on this planet, all from a common ancestor. How life would develop on other planets under different conditions is currently beyong the ken of anyone.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101149
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
My inability to deal with reality? We have no evidence for a global flood. Therefore we don't know what this planet would leave as a trace if it had been flooded at one time globally. It's only taken research for the last century for us to know what to look for of traces of world wide glaciers as they came and went. And parts of that evidence is disputed and argued about. Guesses have been made for how things would be if the planet had been flooded and guesses change with new theories/ideas.
What's funny is you defend the probability of life on another planet and state lack of evidence isn't an actual issue yet you state the exact opposite of a global flood....too funny really.
The probability of life on other planets is an extrapolation of life on this planet and the great variation in environments in which it thrives. In other words, if life arose on this planet and it is a natural occurrence, it is reasonable to conclude that it is possible to exist elsewhere under similar conditions.

And you still haven't caught on the the fact that there is evidence against a global flood. Not a lack of evidence for it but evidence against it.

You are correct that much of our understanding of the history of earth is relatively recent. And you seem to accept those conclusions. I remind you that it is the exact same science that has refuted a global flood. You can't pick and choose.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101150
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
An excellent post reaffirming my point. Thanks :)
Except for the fact that your logic was non-existent.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101151
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretend the comet Lovejoy and it's survival passing through the sun's corona is instead that wandering planet they found and instead of being gaseous, pretend it's a solid cold lifeless hunk of rock to it's center and science has shown it's on a course for the sun's center mass.
That's nice. Only astronomers will notice.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101152
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
My inability to deal with reality? We have no evidence for a global flood.
And that alone is a good reason not to take it seriously.

Couple with the fact that we have plenty of evidence AGAINST a global flood that's pretty good reason to think it is a fictional event.
No Surprise wrote:
Therefore we don't know what this planet would leave as a trace if it had been flooded at one time globally.
No, YOU don't know. The rest of us have deconstruted it in detail and provided linkys in the process. Your inability to comprehend anything said to you does NOT make the global flood possible.
No Surprise wrote:
It's only taken research for the last century for us to know what to look for of traces of world wide glaciers as they came and went. And parts of that evidence is disputed and argued about. Guesses have been made for how things would be if the planet had been flooded and guesses change with new theories/ideas.
And none of these debates are over rejecting other ideas due to flagrantly violating physics.
No Surprise wrote:
What's funny is you defend the probability of life on another planet and state lack of evidence isn't an actual issue yet you state the exact opposite of a global flood....too funny really.
Wrong. A LACK of evidence of life on other planets does not mean that life cannot exist elsewhere. A global flood not only suffers from a lack of evidence but TONS of evidence AGAINST it.

So far you've not been able to address it yet with anything but whining.

Give us evidence that physics will RADICALLY alter at whim then you will have something. Until then you're talking crap as usual.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101153
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking about fricking dense brains. a small tiny comet passed through the sun's corona, a part science long stated would burn up anything like a comet that were to pass through it AND IT WENT THROUGH the corona and continued on it's merry way. Are you that fricking ignorantly dense not to know if a tiny small comet survived the corona, then obviously something larger and more dense could penetrate even farther and maybe survive? And if it didn't what would be the effect? You're BS is like your ignorance when you prove you don't have a clue at all of what you speak of, good job...lol.
If I remember correctly, you didn't suggest that an object would survive an encounter with the sun but that it could disturb the position of the sun sufficiently to fry the earth. Not quite the same thing, is it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101154
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing is we're the last of our branch Homo to exist.
At the present time. If we don't cause our own extinction, there may be future splits in the line. H.G.Wells suggest this possibility over 100 years ago in "The Time Machine". The Eloi and the Morlocks.
No Surprise wrote:
That's amazing considering all the diversities that continue to exist in the present primate families.
Again, at the present time. There was more in the past and may be more in the future. We're just a snapshot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101155
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Talking about fricking dense brains. a small tiny comet passed through the sun's corona, a part science long stated would burn up anything like a comet that were to pass through it AND IT WENT THROUGH the corona and continued on it's merry way. Are you that fricking ignorantly dense not to know if a tiny small comet survived the corona, then obviously something larger and more dense could penetrate even farther and maybe survive? And if it didn't what would be the effect? You're BS is like your ignorance when you prove you don't have a clue at all of what you speak of, good job...lol.
Your comet's made of compacted ice passing through on a flyby. Each time this happens it will get a little smaller and a little smaller until eventually it evaporates, unless it hits the sun more directly in which case it will be destroyed. Rest assured it WON'T survive going direct into the center of it. "Survive" is a relative concept, for example when our sun expands it MIGHT reach the Earth and engulf it, however the charred body *might* survive and be left behind when the sun contracts again. Of course there won't be any more life to speak of. But bear in mind that the sun will have used up most its energy by that time and also gets cooler as it expands, possibly leaving the Earth a tiny bit of wiggle room for "survival".

But for a large DENSE object to ram the sun AND severely give us problems, you're gonna need something AT MINIMUM the size of a gas giant, which are gonna be quite rare to say the least, unless you're talking about the cold cores of long dead stars. In which case I would be more worried about the gravitational effects first, rather than the sun blasting great balls of fire our way.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101156
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing is we're the last of our branch Homo to exist. That's amazing considering all the diversities that continue to exist in the present primate families.
Yes, we're so smart we killed our closest competitors.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101157
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The Comet Lovejoy, before perihelion, the nucleus had been estimated to be between 100 and 200 meters in diameter. Since the comet survived perihelion, it is thought that the nucleus must have been larger, perhaps up to 500 meters.
Now lets take in consideration what if a comet the size of Comet Hyakutake with a nucleus of about 4.8 km (3.0 mi)(4800 meters) across was headed straight for the sun. Comet Lovejoy is less than 1/9th of its size and passed through and survived. Then one the size of Comet Hyakutake would be very damaging if it hit the sun. Not survivable for life on earth.
So the comet shrank by a factor of 2 or 3 just by passing through the sun's **atmosphere**. And you're worried about a comet **hitting the sun directly** just because it's 3 miles long?

**Maybe** a CME might turn a few lights off.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101158
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
Here's what science has taught me.
Nothing.

Because you're not even interested in learning about it.
No Surprise wrote:
We're one of the younger solar systems existing. And of all the solar systems we have searched we're the only planet that exists with the type of life that exists on it that we know of. That's what science has stated and proved over and over as they unsuccessfully try and prove life like ours might exist elsewhere. And the farther our telescopes etc allow us to see into the dark blackness of space, the more we prove we are the only planet that exists with life as it exists.
Despite your ignorance life could even exist in our own solar system, and still many places all over the universe. Based on how little we have actually explored the universe (which contains BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of galaxies) it is hardly surprising we haven't found much yet.
No Surprise wrote:
Actually using the mechanical evolution of the human mind within the last century as a base, if life had evolved elsewhere with life like ours since it's the example of what non life has supposedly became, I would think there would have been dozens of other solar systems containing life like ours with a sun aiding life. But they don't exist. So my point stands.
How do you know they don't exist? Just where exactly have you searched?

I'll tell you - Earth.

Meanwhile cosmologists are scouring the universe and are still more optimistic than you. Why? Because they know what they're talking about.

So no, your point DOESN'T stand.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101159
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what science has taught me. We're one of the younger solar systems existing. And of all the solar systems we have searched we're the only planet that exists with the type of life that exists on it that we know of.
True. Though only the tiniest of a fraction of them.
No Surprise wrote:
That's what science has stated and proved over and over as they unsuccessfully try and prove life like ours might exist elsewhere.
The 'search' has only been going on for an extremely short time. Even is we go back to Tesla, we still talking about less than 150 years. Not really enough time to do any kind of exhaustive search.
No Surprise wrote:
And the farther our telescopes etc allow us to see into the dark blackness of space, the more we prove we are the only planet that exists with life as it exists.
That's your interpretation. If you research it, it seems that we're finding planets that could possible harbor life. More planets. Not less planets.
No Surprise wrote:
Actually using the mechanical evolution of the human mind within the last century as a base, if life had evolved elsewhere with life like ours since it's the example of what non life has supposedly became, I would think there would have been dozens of other solar systems containing life like ours with a sun aiding life.
Again, you have a very poor understanding of the distance and time frames involved.
No Surprise wrote:
But they don't exist.
See last comment.
No Surprise wrote:
So my point stands.
Nope.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101160
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
This quote from that site is a popular opinion in circles of science minded individuals backing evolution they made a statement of.
No it isn't.

I'll tell you again, it's NOT a good idea to get your "science info" from reality-denying Young Earth-believing liars for Jesus.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101161
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...actually they think by research of what has already taken place the earth is capable of doing again what it already did do. You're a nut case and goofy to think otherwise than what scientists have stated.
I know what scientists have stated. Sadly, you do not. Maybe if you'd get over your arrogance, you might listen to them.

Cite one scientist that claims the earth can do anything it wants.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101162
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Not as an insult...lol. You believe in some connection to some higher power that reassures you what you claim of what the earth can't do is a fact. No scientist worth their degree would ever make such a claim as you have. I know of no scientist past or present that has made a claim to knowing as you for fact what the earth isn't capable of. But you have continued to make this claim and claim it fact. That aligns you with creationists. Understand?
Again, name on scientists that claims - as YOU do - that the earth can do anything it wants. Just one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101163
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case, I have nothing to explain. You're reading comprehension is much worse than mine apparently because you continually don't read what I wrote.
I'm not defending Noah's flood or it's time line.
Sure you are.
No Surprise wrote:
I stated the earth could have or still could globally flood itself. You are the one that's chanting 'impossible' because you think you know by some magic what the earth can do and what it can't.
Not magic. Science. Try it sometime.
No Surprise wrote:
By the way, explain the following since you're so obsessed with this deseret and it's dry state. Most of southern South America was covered in an ice sheet including much of Peru. As it melted that would have created glacial fed stream and river beds on your desert. All those streams and rivers should have a much more younger age than 100,000 years. Explain that as best as you can since certain scientists claim much of Atacama hasn't had water for 100,000 years.
Obsessed? Funny. You're that one obsessed with "the earth can do anything".

Please cite the ice age that occurred within this region and time-frame.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

55 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The letter E (Jun '13) 2 min Adrian DeVine 851
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 4 min curiouslu 54,034
The Letter "O" (May '09) 4 min Adrian DeVine 3,205
The Letter T (Dec '11) 7 min Adrian DeVine 2,376
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 9 min Adrian DeVine 5,738
Word Association (Mar '10) 10 min Adrian DeVine 15,808
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 13 min Adrian DeVine 25,295
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 39 min Mister_ E 141,637
Post how you feel (Oct '12) 1 hr Petal Power 366
Message to Obama 2 hr Petal Power 748
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr Petal Power 15,678
Tell Us Who or What You Really Are,...? (Apr '13) 3 hr Petal Power 1,582
•••
•••