Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221768 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.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104119 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And I see you are deep in denial, you ignored the other two links I gave. There are hundreds of studies that show there are amino acids in meteorites how many of those do you need to see.
Yes from meteorites over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. 19 of these amino acids are found on Earth. If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104120 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy.
http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/...
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...
I hope you don't consider Duke and Princeton creatard sites.
So where is this other evidence you speak of? All you ever give is Miller/Urey Experiment.
The Duke site does not agree with you. The Princeton site made a terrible mistake they assumed no hydrogen in the atmosphere. If you look at other sources the correct answer seems to be little hydrogen in the atmosphere, even with one percent the Miller/Urey experiment still works. What is widely agreed upon is that Miller had an unrepresentative high concentration of hydrogen in his experiment. It still works with a low concentration.
And second, and most important the data that makes Miller/Urey largely moot is that we have positively proven sources of amino acids for the Early Earth.
So one more time for the slow of thinking,( cough cough replaytime cough cough) A PROVEN SOURCE BEATS A HYPOTHETICAL SOURCE EVERY TIME. We have a proven source for amino acids. And at the very base Miller/Urey were still right. We now know that amino acids form naturally. The creatards used to claim that was impossible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104121 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes from meteorites over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. 19 of these amino acids are found on Earth. If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster what an ass!!

Amino acids are not life. Life arose on the Earth, at least that is the most likely source, though the amino acids MAY have come from elsewhere. So naturally arising amino acids in space does not mean that there is life in space.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104122 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The Duke site does not agree with you. The Princeton site made a terrible mistake they assumed no hydrogen in the atmosphere. If you look at other sources the correct answer seems to be little hydrogen in the atmosphere, even with one percent the Miller/Urey experiment still works. What is widely agreed upon is that Miller had an unrepresentative high concentration of hydrogen in his experiment. It still works with a low concentration.
And second, and most important the data that makes Miller/Urey largely moot is that we have positively proven sources of amino acids for the Early Earth.
So one more time for the slow of thinking,( cough cough replaytime cough cough) A PROVEN SOURCE BEATS A HYPOTHETICAL SOURCE EVERY TIME. We have a proven source for amino acids. And at the very base Miller/Urey were still right. We now know that amino acids form naturally. The creatards used to claim that was impossible.
From the Duke site;
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds MAY have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

From the Princeton site.

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.[

And there we have it. Ole Sub is even a better source of information and smarter than Princeton.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104123 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster what an ass!!
Amino acids are not life. Life arose on the Earth, at least that is the most likely source, though the amino acids MAY have come from elsewhere. So naturally arising amino acids in space does not mean that there is life in space.
That comment of mine was taken from the Duke site.

There we have it. Ole Sub is even a better source of information and smarter than Duke too!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104124 Nov 1, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
It was this tid-bit I found interesting...(parenthesis mine)
Its theorems and axioms --...-- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea(of the existence of God). Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
Getting back to this...
I've been going over the material on Gödel's so-called 'proof' and have several problem with it right off the bat.

First, the use of modal logic is itself problematic to me. It is considered a formal logic; however, it used modals such as "possibly" and "contingent". So while it may be considered logic, it is not mathematics. Therefore, it cannot be mathematically proven.

Second, the use of the use of classical modal logic operators may give the appearance of mathematics does not transform the axioms or definitions into actual mathematics. I believe this intentional.

I also find Gödel's reference to positive properties to be overly vague to the point of being meaningless.

We might note that Bertrand Russell considered modal logic to be bullshit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104125 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
From the Duke site;
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds MAY have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
From the Princeton site.
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.[
And there we have it. Ole Sub is even a better source of information and smarter than Princeton.
Not me, the other sites that I linked claim that Princeton, or at least that one source, which may have come from Princeton but it is doubtful if it represents Princeton, say that there still was hydrogen in the early atmosphere.

You try to twist the words I gave, which indicates that you are lying. The sources I found said that the Miller/Urey experiment had an unrealistic amount of hydrogen in it, but with a reasonable 1% it still would have worked.

And of course you ignore the point that shows you are totally full of shit, that we have known, proof positive sources of amino acids. That is why the Miller/Urey experiment is largely ignored today. We have no need for a hypothetical, but perhaps very real, source of amino acids when we have a known source of amino acids.

Is that concept too difficult for you to figure out replaytime?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104126 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
That comment of mine was taken from the Duke site.
There we have it. Ole Sub is even a better source of information and smarter than Duke too!
Oh the stoopid, it burns!!!

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104127 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not me, the other sites that I linked claim that Princeton, or at least that one source, which may have come from Princeton but it is doubtful if it represents Princeton, say that there still was hydrogen in the early atmosphere.
You try to twist the words I gave, which indicates that you are lying. The sources I found said that the Miller/Urey experiment had an unrealistic amount of hydrogen in it, but with a reasonable 1% it still would have worked.
And of course you ignore the point that shows you are totally full of shit, that we have known, proof positive sources of amino acids. That is why the Miller/Urey experiment is largely ignored today. We have no need for a hypothetical, but perhaps very real, source of amino acids when we have a known source of amino acids.
Is that concept too difficult for you to figure out replaytime?
I twist the words you gave? What a tard. I posted from those links I gave. NOT MY WORDS! But blame me if it makes you feel better. LOL

What other evidence do you have that makes the Miller/Urey experiment largely ignored today? Your mere words don't cut it as evidence.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#104128 Nov 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
And how about the whole of paleo-biologists/botansits agree that the atmosphere and oceans had a completely different makeup in the past, and some "event" changed them - wow, talkorigins - our trusted source for the latest in peer reviewed evolutionary thinking...!
The birth of the biosphere changed the Earth, starting with
stromatolites. The more we find out about the chemicals needed for life , the more it appears they're everywhere. The Earth itself pumps them out, they fall out the heavens and land on Earth and they are made in space in vast quantity.

The only thing left is to find the exact recipe that starts it. You creationists just can't wrap your heads around the fact, there may not have ever had to be any creator. Because everything life needs is produced naturally. What it certainly looks like is it takes some unnatural circumstances or highly specific circumstances to start.
But that doesn't say there has to be a designer, but it could be it is all in the universes own evolution that caused it to be.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104129 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I twist the words you gave? What a tard. I posted from those links I gave. NOT MY WORDS! But blame me if it makes you feel better. LOL
What other evidence do you have that makes the Miller/Urey experiment largely ignored today? Your mere words don't cut it as evidence.
I gave you the evidence several times. I explained it to you several times.

Do you really think you will get it if I do so again?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104130 Nov 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
And how about the whole of paleo-biologists/botansits agree that the atmosphere and oceans had a completely different makeup in the past, and some "event" changed them - wow, talkorigins - our trusted source for the latest in peer reviewed evolutionary thinking...!
Well yes, an atmosphere of free oxygen when previously there was none would shake things up around here. Keep in mind that this is recorded in the rocks.

But then none of this is relevant to you because to you evidence is not relevant.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#104131 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the evidence several times. I explained it to you several times.
Do you really think you will get it if I do so again?
It's the typical fundie douche-bag tactic (actually, it's their only tactic). Go round and round and round with the same crap... ignoring everything you post only to start the cycle again. The day you throw your hands up in disgust because you've been "down that road repeatedly" and stop responding (because you're tired of endlessly repeating yourself) is the day they knock over all the chess pieces, crap all over the board and claim victory.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104133 Nov 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
Amazing how when one escapes from reality that reason a logic fly off with it.
Indeed, but as a creationist you can't help it.
SBT wrote:
You folks have bought unto the evo pyridine hook line and sinker.
Well perhaps if you were better at science and less good at lying. Wait, you suck at lying too since you always get caught.
SBT wrote:
So you think you have the right to judge me and truth? you are wrong.
Of course I have the right. Our hosts don't judge and you are refuted by facts. Ergo YOU are wrong. Twice.
SBT wrote:
Your mindless, self-making, unplanned accidental nothingness is exactly that, its a delusion, a lie, untrue and a deception.
I agree. That is because that's the straw-man you have created in order to avoid dealing with reality.
SBT wrote:
I apply the rules of reason and logic in technology and create real equipment that mankind uses everyday across the planet.
Except for the part where you already admitted your position is invisible Jewmagic. Remember? It was only a couple of weeks ago, recorded on this very thread.
SBT wrote:
What my friend do you or any of your group here really do?, except to mock, judge and put people down?
And correct your constant lies, you forgot that.
SBT wrote:
Good at that for sure!
Yes we are.
SBT wrote:
That's a reality test my friend and the analogy is the same as applied to the biological world, including that little tiny proton powered motor that you can't describe nor understand
Actually we described it better than you did. That's why you've been whining about how mean we are to you rather than address our posts that eviscerated your claims. Fact is you know zip about science. Especially biology.
SBT wrote:
yet you arrogantly mock in ignorance
Except it's not us who are ignorant, is it? That's why you're so easy to debunk. And the only thing we mock is you, and your lies. And your pathetic martyr complex that pops up every time you get caught lying and you're upset you can't get away with it.
SBT wrote:
but in truth when you call it evolved you are actually mocking Almighty God
Actually your claim here is the very height of hubris. If such a being exists the likelihood it is anything like you think it is is EXCEEDINGLY slim. Plus since reality supports OUR position, if such a being exists, you are actually mocking God. Since God used evolution.

Or God is a liar. And is mocking both of us.
SBT wrote:
and I am not so foolish.
On the contrary, you are astoundingly foolish - you claim reality isn't real because Jews are magic. Then you lie. Then you cry about it like a big jessie-wuss wuss when you get caught. Then you keep lying again.

Fool is not only your first, middle and last names, but apparently written in your personal genome.

Now would you like Bohart to give you a hug?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104134 Nov 1, 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?
If we have never produced evidence of abiogenesis then why is it we've produced evidence of abiogenesis and you never bother to address it?

Seriously, do you WANT to be in the same league as SBT and Bo? Exceedingly dumb and exceedingly dishonest?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104135 Nov 1, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Knew you would be an astronomical luck proponent.
Again, no mechanisms , or hypotheses of how it happened, just give it enough time and anything can happen.
If you wish to defend your faith , fine. just don't call it science. that's magic.
There is no evidence magic is needed. 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago we have early life. Before that we don't. Ergo science says there was no life, then there was life.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104136 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you the evidence several times. I explained it to you several times.
Do you really think you will get it if I do so again?
You mean these links were your other evidence?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you go tard, some peer reviewed science just for you:
http://scholar.google.com/citations...
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
You will like the last one. All 20 amino acids used by life have been found.
And of course when creatards try to lie about how past research was wrong we can always rely on TalkOrigins to clear it up:
http://tinyurl.com/3cna2r4
So this is your evidence?

The first one talks about amino acids and meteorites but not about producing them in a lab of early earth like conditions.

The seconds one discusses amino acids/proteins but not about producing them in a lab of early earth like conditions.

The third one is just talking about the errors of Jonathan Wells's book Icons of Evolution.

You say I will like the third one because "All 20 amino acids used by life have been found." I never once said they hadn't. So what is your point?

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104137 Nov 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If we have never produced evidence of abiogenesis then why is it we've produced evidence of abiogenesis and you never bother to address it?
Seriously, do you WANT to be in the same league as SBT and Bo? Exceedingly dumb and exceedingly dishonest?
Get caught up sunshine

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104138 Nov 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...
You will like the last one. All 20 amino acids used by life have been found.
Sure we have. You want the names of them all? Here you go.

Here are the 20 we use/need for life; Alanine, Arginine, Asparagine, Aspartic acid. Cysteine, Glutamic acid, Glutamine, Glycine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Phenylalanine, Proline, Serine. Threonine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Valine.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104139 Nov 1, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Get caught up sunshine
I have. The evidence has been there for 3.5 billion years. Before then there was no life. Ergo abiogenesis. Pointing out that scientists haven't figured out the riddle of abiogenesis yet is NOT a refutation of abiogenesis. Far from it in fact.

When you want to start being honest do let us know.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 6 min Rosa 23,925
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 8 min Chilli J 5,841
News Florida Man Shoots Neighbor, Drives Dead Body t... 16 min Chilli J 15
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 17 min Dr S Niper 4,554
A six word game (Dec '08) 42 min Hoosier Hillbilly 21,138
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 46 min Hoosier Hillbilly 4,045
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 56 min Hoosier Hillbilly 38,142
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Mister_ E 220,679
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 3 hr Mister_ E 2,113
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Rich and Happy 76,666
More from around the web