• Sections
Evolution vs. Creation

# Evolution vs. Creation

There are 217095 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 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#103926 Oct 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>

The flagellum is relatively simple.
Google "flagella 2013" and email all those authors your proud statement, may as well tell the world, "it's simple - time did it!!" Your mindless time God is pretty smart.

Judged:

4

4

4

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#103927 Oct 30, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
Don't ya just love this stuff...lol...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/computer-sci...
When GÃ¶del died in 1978, he left behind a tantalizing theory based on principles of modal logic -- that a higher being must exist. The details of the mathematics involved in GÃ¶del's ontological proof are complicated, but in essence the Austrian was arguing that, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived. And while God exists in the understanding of the concept, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, he must exist.
Even at the time, the argument was not exactly a new one. For centuries, many have tried to use this kind of abstract reasoning to prove the possibility or necessity of the existence of God. But the mathematical model composed by GÃ¶del proposed a proof of the idea. Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
Thanks for the article, enjoyed it. French mathematician Emile Borel worked on some of the same lines. As he stated once the improbabilities become to vast and the specifications too tight, chance is eliminated and design is implicated . He proposed 10-50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded ..that is any specified event as improbable as the origin of life could not be attributed to chance. It's logical

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#103928 Oct 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Google "flagella 2013" and email all those authors your proud statement, may as well tell the world, "it's simple - time did it!!" Your mindless time God is pretty smart.

Your continued idiocy shows that you have no clue. Your idiocy has been debunked.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#103929 Oct 30, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the article, enjoyed it. French mathematician Emile Borel worked on some of the same lines. As he stated once the improbabilities become to vast and the specifications too tight, chance is eliminated and design is implicated . He proposed 10-50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded ..that is any specified event as improbable as the origin of life could not be attributed to chance. It's logical
Sorry, that article did not even touch upon abiogenesis. At best your "It's logical" is simply an argument from ignorance. You probably could not even put in simple English what Godel proved mathematically. It really did not have much to do with the existence of god. Much less the disproved version of god that you believe in.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103930 Oct 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Google "flagella 2013" and email all those authors your proud statement, may as well tell the world, "it's simple - time did it!!" Your mindless time God is pretty smart.
Why don't you call them and have a heartfelt chat with them. Then report back here with anything you can make up. You know. The usual.

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#103931 Oct 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have to, as there's no evidence to demonstrate it even existed at that time. But if you WANT to beat up a straw-man instead of the real thing you're doing a terrific job.
<quoted text>
This being a perfect example. Jackpots aren't necessary. All you need is for something to survive and its progeny to change a little bit, and for that to survive. Many won't, but some will. Therefore a little change again, same thing happens all over again. Eventually change accumulates. This is observed.
<quoted text>
Streaming out big words while talking about a subject you don't have the slightest clue about only demonstrates to the entire world that you're bullshitting. I mean it's not as if anyone here doesn't know it.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Denton thinks you're full of crap. We've known this for decades, but your side still hasn't bothered to update their books - meaning they are either seriously misinformed, or lying.
(and still seriously misinformed)
You don't make any sense in your claims to me, big talk no substance and little understanding of the technological challenges involved here. Your claim of bacteria changing is wrong. In 20 years and 40,000 generations studied here they failed at effecting change in e.coli and gave up, so where has anyone observed adding parts to bacteria, no more a complex proton powered engine! Many of these functions have not emerged until of late, not "decades ago" as you claim. More researchers are admitting how little they really know about how these motors work and millions are being committed to more study. Of late one team detected a motion feedback sensor in the stator coils that synchronizes the other motors in multi-flagella type bacteria, more and more complexity analogous to mans most complex machines or better. So who here is "seriously misinformed"? Go get a book on Faraday and take some elect. ed before you dig yourself any deeper on this subject. You seem to be parroting other ignorant sources that are more concerned with feeding the evo faithful fake gobbleygoop.

Judged:

4

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103932 Oct 30, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>They call it "breakbone fever".
I have heard it called such, but I am not sure of the origin of that name unless it refers to the pain of the afflicted.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#103933 Oct 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, that article did not even touch upon abiogenesis. At best your "It's logical" is simply an argument from ignorance. You probably could not even put in simple English what Godel proved mathematically. It really did not have much to do with the existence of god. Much less the disproved version of god that you believe in.
STFU! I'm not talking to idiots tonight, I'll mock you tomorrow, no wait I'll start tonight,... relatively simple? a flagellum? what a fu-king no nothing idiot you are,trapped in the 1800's still believing that life is a simple puddle of goo! hence your faith!

puddle gooiest! all together now!

Blessed be the goo!
the goo that ye came through,
if it wasn't for the goo,
there'd be no me and you!
so all our voices raise,
to the goo we give our praise..!

and when in this life we die,
and waiting in the goo,
for the miracle of life anew!

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103934 Oct 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't make any sense in your claims to me, big talk no substance and little understanding of the technological challenges involved here. Your claim of bacteria changing is wrong. In 20 years and 40,000 generations studied here they failed at effecting change in e.coli and gave up, so where has anyone observed adding parts to bacteria, no more a complex proton powered engine! Many of these functions have not emerged until of late, not "decades ago" as you claim. More researchers are admitting how little they really know about how these motors work and millions are being committed to more study. Of late one team detected a motion feedback sensor in the stator coils that synchronizes the other motors in multi-flagella type bacteria, more and more complexity analogous to mans most complex machines or better. So who here is "seriously misinformed"? Go get a book on Faraday and take some elect. ed before you dig yourself any deeper on this subject. You seem to be parroting other ignorant sources that are more concerned with feeding the evo faithful fake gobbleygoop.
You seem to be parroting ignorant, fundie, creationist sources that are more concerned with feeding the faithful fake gobbleygoop. You do very well at spreading this gobbleygoop in your own right.

Judged:

3

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103935 Oct 30, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU! I'm not talking to idiots tonight, I'll mock you tomorrow, no wait I'll start tonight,... relatively simple? a flagellum? what a fu-king no nothing idiot you are,trapped in the 1800's still believing that life is a simple puddle of goo! hence your faith!
puddle gooiest! all together now!
Blessed be the goo!
the goo that ye came through,
if it wasn't for the goo,
there'd be no me and you!
so all our voices raise,
to the goo we give our praise..!
and when in this life we die,
and waiting in the goo,
for the miracle of life anew!
You are too talking to SBT.

Judged:

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#103936 Oct 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your continued idiocy shows that you have no clue. Your idiocy has been debunked.
Like the 6 million \$ man spoof or your Revell magic model instructions? The evos send you a few pics and your convinced its all so simple? Youre smarter than this. Institutions and people are spending millions and lifetimes unraveling the cell and things like this little motor; its not simple. The word evolution is showing up less and less the last few years in these papers, that's because these boys are seeing way to much convergent technology and information controlling it in the images and deep research. The backroom talk is getting to these guys.

Judged:

3

3

3

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#103937 Oct 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, that article did not even touch upon abiogenesis. At best your "It's logical" is simply an argument from ignorance. You probably could not even put in simple English what Godel proved mathematically. It really did not have much to do with the existence of god. Much less the disproved version of god that you believe in.
Abiogenesis is a crock. Science, even in sterile lab conditions cannot make life come from non-life.

They always say we are conducting these test in what we believe is the same conditions of early earth when life began and we think we are getting close. I LMAO at that. In a sterile lab that is like early earth?!?! Early earth just by common sense with life starting in a muddy soup would be anything but sterile.

Judged:

3

3

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103938 Oct 30, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the 6 million \$ man spoof or your Revell magic model instructions? The evos send you a few pics and your convinced its all so simple? Youre smarter than this. Institutions and people are spending millions and lifetimes unraveling the cell and things like this little motor; its not simple. The word evolution is showing up less and less the last few years in these papers, that's because these boys are seeing way to much convergent technology and information controlling it in the images and deep research. The backroom talk is getting to these guys.
How do you sit down and make all this crap up. You aren't in the know among cutting edge science. Evolution as a term and in reference to the theory remain in heavy rotation dude. How does saying that it is falling out of use support your views on the flagellar motor? It doesn't. Just meaningless drivel attached to your BS argument. You aren't even that smart.

Judged:

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103939 Oct 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is a crock. Science, even in sterile lab conditions cannot make life come from non-life.
They always say we are conducting these test in what we believe is the same conditions of early earth when life began and we think we are getting close. I LMAO at that. In a sterile lab that is like early earth?!?! Early earth just by common sense with life starting in a muddy soup would be anything but sterile.
If there was no life started, I think it would be sterile. The other point is that the experiments have to be free of life or you wouldn't be able to say you were successful. Further, they are talking about controlled conditions.

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#103940 Oct 30, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If there was no life started, I think it would be sterile. The other point is that the experiments have to be free of life or you wouldn't be able to say you were successful. Further, they are talking about controlled conditions.
Are you trying to get my attention again Chester from Smithville? LOL

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#103941 Oct 30, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you trying to get my attention again Chester from Smithville? LOL
Never have been interested in your attention. It has no value.

What I am doing is pointing out your stupid statements. Do you somehow think that the conditions of early Earth before life was present contained living things? You seem to. Do you not realize that the scientist don't want present life in their experiments as a contaminant? You don't seem to understand that would confound the results of the experiments and make them pointless. Do you not understand that experiments are run under controlled conditions? You don't seem to.

You do need attention, but it is of psychiatric kind and I am not qualified and if I were, I would not be interested in providing it.

You can continue your childish effort in answering my posts with that stupid response. I know you so very well that you believe it has some impact beyond just observing it for what it is. It amuses me that you think so.

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#103942 Oct 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And i add, since the earth for now, is the only habitable planet, lets keep our fingers and hopefor others. I hope you know, you are indirectly applying the principles of faith here?
The reason I seldom bother to discuss things with you is that you fail on even the most basic logic and comprehesion.

Do you even understand the difference between

habitable

And

Known to be inhabited ?

Say there is a house down your street. You dont know if its inhabited, but you do know its habitable.

We already know some discovered planets are habitable by life. We dont know if they are inhabited. As the discovered planets are a tiny tiny proportion of what we expect to exist in the universe we can already infer that billions of planets are likely to be habitable by life. Another phrase is "capable of supporting life".

As we do not yet have the means to explore them closely, most being many lightyears away, we may not know whether some are inhabited for a while to come. That does not make earth the only habitable planet.

I know you will respond inanely and i probably wont bother to answer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#103943 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
STFU! I'm not talking to idiots tonight, I'll mock you tomorrow, no wait I'll start tonight,... relatively simple? a flagellum? what a fu-king no nothing idiot you are,trapped in the 1800's still believing that life is a simple puddle of goo! hence your faith!
puddle gooiest! all together now!
Blessed be the goo!
the goo that ye came through,
if it wasn't for the goo,
there'd be no me and you!
so all our voices raise,
to the goo we give our praise..!
and when in this life we die,
and waiting in the goo,
for the miracle of life anew!
You are as foolish as SBT.

You only make clear that you have no understanding of evolution. You have no ability to argue against it. All you can do is to rant hysterically at people who can show that you are wrong.

Judged:

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

#103944 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is a crock. Science, even in sterile lab conditions cannot make life come from non-life.
They always say we are conducting these test in what we believe is the same conditions of early earth when life began and we think we are getting close. I LMAO at that. In a sterile lab that is like early earth?!?! Early earth just by common sense with life starting in a muddy soup would be anything but sterile.
Yet people who know the subject far better than you have no problem researching. They keep getting closer and closer to an answer.

Though not as totally brain dead idiotic as either SBT or bohart you are getting close when you make as foolish of a post as this.

You do realize that time is a problem. They don't have the time it would have taken life to form naturally in the lab to run an experiment from from only the basic ingredients to life itself. Let's be kind and say it took only a million years for life to form naturally. How are they going to reproduce those million years in the laboratory.

It is moronic in the extreme to claim that just because they have not reproduced the whole nonlife to life in the laboratory to claim that abiogenesis is a crock.

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#103945 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text> It is moronic in the extreme to claim that just because they have not reproduced the whole nonlife to life in the laboratory to claim that abiogenesis is a crock.
Same as it is moronic to claim God does not exist.

Tell me what kind of test would science run to see if God does exist? How do you test what you can't see, explain or understand?

Judged:

2

2

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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

What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 min Enzo49 10,669
The stunning facial inkings of a little known t... 2 min beatlesinthebog 39
Gemstone Quiz 3 min Enzo49 5
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 min Foreign Approach 67,291
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 6 min ImFree2Choose 1,753
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 9 min Lelouch0 48,322
A six word game (Dec '08) 11 min ImFree2Choose 20,712
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 29 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,538
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 34 min help 207,313

#### Weird News

More Weird News from Topix »

More from around the web