Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223358 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104043 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You say people believe in abiogenesis and have evidence to support that. You have said many times there is evidence to support that. You have been asked many times to show said evidence. Why is it you have never produce evidence of abiogenesis?
Is abiogenesis as elusive as God is?
I have shown it to you. You have ignored it. I have admitted that there is not enough evidence to make us sure of how abiogenesis happened, so it is not "proven" by any means yet.

Why do you ignore evidence after it is give to you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104044 Oct 31, 2013
Arggh, that should say "Why do you ignore evidence after it is given to you/"

A simple example of evidence that supports abiogenesis was the very first successful experiment taken on abiogenesis. The Miller Urey experiment. They showed that amino acids could form naturally in an early Earth atmosphere.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104045 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown it to you. You have ignored it. I have admitted that there is not enough evidence to make us sure of how abiogenesis happened, so it is not "proven" by any means yet.
Why do you ignore evidence after it is give to you?
You have gave nothing but your words. That is not scientific evidence.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104046 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown it to you. You have ignored it. I have admitted that there is not enough evidence to make us sure of how abiogenesis happened, so it is not "proven" by any means yet.
Why do you ignore evidence after it is give to you?
It is not proven yet you say. Don't you also say science does not go by proofs? It goes by evidence for or evidence against? That proof is for whiskey.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104047 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not proven yet you say. Don't you also say science does not go by proofs? It goes by evidence for or evidence against? That proof is for whiskey.
Please notice that I put the word proof in quotes.

Do you know what that means when someone does that?

This is not time for you to slip back into stupid.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104048 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You have gave nothing but your words. That is not scientific evidence.
And you are caught in a lie again.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104049 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are caught in a lie again.
Show me peer reviewed scientific evidence of abiogenesis. Either you can or you can't. It is that simple.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104050 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor fool. Does anyone who accept the theory of evolution and believes that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation believe in a random process?
No, of course not. That means that any idiot who implies that we do does not understand what the hell he is talking about.
Ladies and Gentlemen I present you that idiot, he goes by the name of "bohart."
<quoted text>
And by not supplying a proper link bohart shows that he is lying once again.
It is amazing how little shame creatards have about breaking the Ninth Commandment. They insult Jesus by assuming that he is as big of an idiot as they are and that it will be okay with him that they can lie for him.
<quoted text>
Perhaps that is because, as I already pointed you, that you quote mined the whole thing at best and perhaps even openly lied.
So moron, do you have anything besides your various lies? Quote mining and straw man arguments are both a form of lying.
Puddle gooiest defense mechanisms

You are lying!
quote mining !
strawman!
insults!

But never a scientific rebuttal, why because your religious myth isn't based on any known science.

the mechanism of abiogenesis, by the puddle gooists

put your inanimate material in a puddle
stir
wait millions of years
Life!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104051 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me peer reviewed scientific evidence of abiogenesis. Either you can or you can't. It is that simple.
He has peer reviewed evidence, it's just been reviewed by Dude, Woodtick , and Mike F.

Ha,Ha,Ha,...

You of course are correct, there is no evidence what so ever. Lying about it is just his last defense

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104052 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me peer reviewed scientific evidence of abiogenesis. Either you can or you can't. It is that simple.
So you have retreated back to stupid.

I see I have to repeat myself. The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104053 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Puddle gooiest defense mechanisms
You are lying!
quote mining !
strawman!
insults!
But never a scientific rebuttal, why because your religious myth isn't based on any known science.
the mechanism of abiogenesis, by the puddle gooists
put your inanimate material in a puddle
stir
wait millions of years
Life!
No you total moron. When you lie you should expect to have your lies pointed out to you. You are such a sick piece of human excrement that you do not even know when you are lying. It is rather sad when you think about it.

And we have given you scientific rebuttals in the past. You were too stupid to understand them. Don't worry, when you are ready to understand them we will be here to help you.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104054 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have retreated back to stupid.
I see I have to repeat myself. The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis.
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,...oh boy!

Even you don't believe that,a dubious amino acid experiment 60 years ago? Since then? absolutely nothing! the real truth of those experiments show the impossibility of life creating itself . Only a religious nutcase would believe it.

Take all your amino acids, add proteins , chemicals and compounds together in the proper proportions , now what is the mechanism that causes it to come to life? Use your famous Scientific peer reviewed articles! Show us the magic!

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104055 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have retreated back to stupid.
I see I have to repeat myself. The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis.
What amino acids did they end up with? There are About 500 amino acids are known. They state "considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids and we have results of over 20, maybe even up to 30." So did their study produce the amino acids used in life or the other 475 that we don't use?

Why do they not list the ones they say their experiment produced?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104056 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No you total moron. When you lie you should expect to have your lies pointed out to you. You are such a sick piece of human excrement that you do not even know when you are lying. It is rather sad when you think about it.
And we have given you scientific rebuttals in the past. You were too stupid to understand them. Don't worry, when you are ready to understand them we will be here to help you.
You absolutely can't stand it can you? When the truth of abiogenesis is pointed out to you, that it is based on the presumption that given enough time and chance life can assemble and begin on its own.

Why don't you call it by it's proper title

The astronomical luck theory.

Sucking Bone science at its best

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104057 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,...oh boy!
Even you don't believe that,a dubious amino acid experiment 60 years ago? Since then? absolutely nothing! the real truth of those experiments show the impossibility of life creating itself . Only a religious nutcase would believe it.
Take all your amino acids, add proteins , chemicals and compounds together in the proper proportions , now what is the mechanism that causes it to come to life? Use your famous Scientific peer reviewed articles! Show us the magic!
You are still an utter moron.

When you grow up enough to understand scientific evidence we can discuss the experiment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104058 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What amino acids did they end up with? There are About 500 amino acids are known. They state "considering that all life uses just 20 different amino acids and we have results of over 20, maybe even up to 30." So did their study produce the amino acids used in life or the other 475 that we don't use?
Why do they not list the ones they say their experiment produced?
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:

'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '

Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104059 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:
'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '
Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.
The general view is that this early atmosphere would’ve consisted of carbon dioxide, water vapor and nitrogen. If you reproduce the experiment under these conditions you get cyanide and formaldehyde.

Although these are organic molecules, they certainly do not support living cells, rather having a completely opposite effect. Formaldehyde is so toxic that it’s not even allowed in many labs. Just opening a bottle can destroy proteins. Cyanide gas has been used through history to execute prisoners by gassing them to death. Mixing the two together creates embalming fluid.

In 1995 Science magazine said that most experts now dismiss the experiment because “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller Urey simulation”.

Another objection to this experiment was the continuous cycle that the elements were put through. Although it is believed that the early Earth did have frequent lightning storms, it would not have produced the amount of amino acids that the Miller experiment did, however, it still could have produced amino acids.

http://www.evolutionorigin.com/icons-of-evolu...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104061 Nov 1, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
That's as foolish as one ant saying to another ant that he is certain there are no other colonies because he has not seen another and cannot prove that other colonies exisit. Only difference is there are billions of billions more potential life-bearing planets in the universe than there are ant colonies on Earth. Open your eyes Mr. Idemi...
Likewise. No firm evidence to your assertions to date. Go on with your speculations.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#104062 Nov 1, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Asked and answered.
The answer to my question, is no.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104063 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my, the stupid is thick on you tonight. You do not even understand the basic purpose of the whole experiment. It was an astounding success. I don't know if they found all 20 amino acids we use, nor did he have to. Here is a statement that was made about the experiment:
'In an interview, Stanley Miller stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids." '
Eleven out of twenty in the first crude experiment run..The experiment was an amazing success. This was at a time when creatards like bohart said that even the formation of amino acids was impossible.
However, as noted, the atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor.[9] However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere.[10] Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.[9] When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki10...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min avon5735 228,594
conversation using song lyrics (Aug '13) 1 hr liam cul8r 2,796
SUSPENSE ! ! A-Z Start a sentence but don't fin... 3 hr wichita-rick 18
Word Association (Mar '10) 3 hr Mechanic 22,899
Word Association (Jun '10) 3 hr Mechanic 32,876
2words into 2new words (May '12) 3 hr wichita-rick 9,203
Two rhyming words! (Jun '12) 3 hr quilterqueen 556
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) (Jan '15) 6 hr quilterqueen 1,550
More from around the web