Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204911 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: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104665 Nov 4, 2013
SierraCool wrote:
Religion is not true.
okay

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104666 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for a rebuttal based on logical evidence rather than your condescending stereotyping. I truly believe that this little motor was designed and planted for several reasons,
1.We need it to maintain and reproduce life, and
2.To absolutely and finally destroy the notion of Darwinian evolution at the peak of man's foolishness in these days.
Rebuttal to what? How it works? If you want a rebuttal on how it was formed you might want to consider posting some evidence in support of design, because so far you haven't.

1. Evolution of the motor doesn't alternate its importance and value in living organisms.

2. It hasn't. What has happened, as shown in references you have been given, is that evolution has explained it.

All you have done, as pointed out by many, is ramble on about the function and how incredulous you are about that function. That is does not refute evolution either.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104667 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh! ha,ha,ha, I don't understand abiogenesis! Your the dumbass that disagreed with the definition of the word in your own LINK!
Your psycho , just as you accused me of lying when it was you who lied!
You accuse me of not knowing what abiogenesis is when it's YOU who can't even understand the term you posted!
even with the definition in front of you!
Yes you moron, it has a clear error in it. Unlike you, I am honest. If I post a link with an error in it I will tell you what the error is.

And now you have broken down into complete imbecility. I understand the link I gave. That is why I can identify its error. You on the other hand are a moron and could not find the error if your life depended on it.

So boahrt, do you think you can find the error that I can? Or am I right when I insult what little intelligence that you have.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#104668 Nov 4, 2013
SierraCool wrote:
Religion is not true.
Actually, "Religion" is a fact.

What much of religion claims to be true, is NOT.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104669 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I need a laugh...
what is the scientific term for spontaneous generation from inorganic matter?
How technical do you want to get? Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation if you want to get specific.

You asked for the scientific term, that means you want to get technical and the only term for "spontaneous generation" is "spontaneous generation".

Please note when I expanded abiogenesis to include at least replaytime's idea of how life started I made it clear by defining it conditionally, not technically.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104670 Nov 4, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I posted a challenge and predicted you could never get started. I was right.
You folks are providing lots of words and no logical, reasonable answers to any of my arguments, just say "straw man", "proved long ago" etc., etc., "you can keep your insurance", "I never said that" rebuttals, who are you kidding! Call all Humpty Dumptys Stargazers into open debate and then the next rhyme will read "see Johnny run!
The Japanese never mention evolution in any of the papers I read directly from them. But oh, to pass objective unbiased USA "per review", Berg chimes in with his evo piece. This is twice the Japanese have schooled his team scientifically in a year, they recently issued another paper breaking ground on the sodium ion-powered flagella.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/...
I posted a challenge, explain the evolution of only one of the 11 coils in the motor and why it runs only on protons or giveup. And by they way, I'll warn you, none these folks have yet to figure out how the motor even starts, so good luck.
All you have done is talk about how it has really cool parts and this really cool power source and how you think it is really cool. Then you claim it is designed and prove it isn't because you think it is really cool. You haven't made an argument against evolution. You have made an argument that you think the flagellar motor is really cool.

I told you once before that protons are not the only power source for flagellar motors.

You are making this claim, it would be nice of you to support it rather than go on the way you are. If it is such a piece of cake, you shouldn't have to go through this dog and pony show.
Professor

Owensboro, KY

#104671 Nov 4, 2013
Both

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104672 Nov 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How technical do you want to get? Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation if you want to get specific.
You asked for the scientific term, that means you want to get technical and the only term for "spontaneous generation" is "spontaneous generation".
Please note when I expanded abiogenesis to include at least replaytime's idea of how life started I made it clear by defining it conditionally, not technically.
So bohart has the shift for tonight.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104673 Nov 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, "Religion" is a fact.
What much of religion claims to be true, is NOT.
Did you catch bohart's answer above. He is giving you a run for you money in the factual answer department. LOL!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104674 Nov 4, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So bohart has the shift for tonight.
Yup. I think that replaytime is recovering from last night.

Sadly I was looking forward to discussing the evolution of the rotator flagellum with SBT. I started to get serious about it, but he ran away.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#104675 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I need a laugh...
what is the scientific term for spontaneous generation from inorganic matter?
"Spontaneous generation" is an obsolete concept. It has been shown to be false.

You are probably referring to Abiogenesis.

"Abiogenesis means "origin by abiotic processes ". The concept refers to the "generation of living beings that start as inert systems, by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes".

end quote

http://www.biocab.org/Abiogenesis.html

Note that this definition does NOT exclude the possibility that God was the orchestrator of these abiotic processes. If you want to assign God as the director of abiogenesis, have at it.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104676 Nov 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. I think that replaytime is recovering from last night.
Sadly I was looking forward to discussing the evolution of the rotator flagellum with SBT. I started to get serious about it, but he ran away.
I imagine he is.

I am reading up on the flagellar motor. Thanks for posting that link to the review by the way. Very helpful. I don't know, but I think SBT has a few more posts to discuss how cool he thinks it is and to talk about motors like he invented them.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104677 Nov 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How technical do you want to get? Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation if you want to get specific.
You asked for the scientific term, that means you want to get technical and the only term for "spontaneous generation" is "spontaneous generation".
Please note when I expanded abiogenesis to include at least replaytime's idea of how life started I made it clear by defining it conditionally, not technically.
Damn! that wasn't funny, it was comically stupid, what happened to all your peer reviewed links?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104678 Nov 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Spontaneous generation" is an obsolete concept. It has been shown to be false.
You are probably referring to Abiogenesis.
"Abiogenesis means "origin by abiotic processes ". The concept refers to the "generation of living beings that start as inert systems, by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes".
end quote
http://www.biocab.org/Abiogenesis.html
Note that this definition does NOT exclude the possibility that God was the orchestrator of these abiotic processes. If you want to assign God as the director of abiogenesis, have at it.
Damn, how you been drinking the Sucking bone water?
" you said, generation of living beings that start as inert systems by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes"

Also known as:

the process through which biological life arises from inorganic matter, spontaneous origination . Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes.

I agree with you on one thing,...the whole damned idea is an obsolete concept. Only the cultists hang on to it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104679 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn! that wasn't funny, it was comically stupid, what happened to all your peer reviewed links?
We are not directly discussing science you idiot.

Still, you have been outed as a hypocrite, again.

Of course we all know that creatards are hypocrites. Why they believe their nonsense nobody knows.

bohart, can you tell me why you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you choose to believe?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104680 Nov 4, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, how you been drinking the Sucking bone water?
" you said, generation of living beings that start as inert systems by means of inorganic autocatalytic processes"
Also known as:
the process through which biological life arises from inorganic matter, spontaneous origination . Abiogenesis is a theory that attempts to explain the origin of life through random natural processes.
I agree with you on one thing,...the whole damned idea is an obsolete concept. Only the cultists hang on to it.
And yet you are still quoting a definition that is terribly flawed.

Moron, if you read that my post where I linked that article you would have seen that I did not link it for its definition. Even a flawed article can have some use. But a moron like you could not understand that.

Let's see if you can find a valid definition of abiogenesis. The problem with many dictionary writers is that they do not understand science so they will write poor or incorrect definitions.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104681 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
The claim "'Goldilocks' earth is not special", certainly sounds like an unscientific fairytale based on faith, not fact.
There is plenty of 'evidence' for a creator. A philosophy, the Copernican principle, is used to negate observation.
Not at all.

There are an estimated 10^24 planets in the observable universe. We can only detect the closest ones of course but so far it looks like planets orbiting stars is the rule, not the exception. Why should the region we can observe be special? No reason to assume so.

You can make all kinds of rare earth assumptions...lets go. For example...

right temperature range 1/100
long lived star in a stable region 1/100
planet with enough water 1/10
magnetic field 1/10
tectonic plates 1/100
anything else you like 1/100

that's combined 1/(100 x 100 x 10 x 100 x 100)= 10^-9 or one in a billion.

Apply it to the known universe and lets just divide it by another 1000 for kicks so now its 1/10^12

That still leaves 1,000,000,000,000 or one trillion planets that are probably well suited to life.

There is no evidence at all that the Earth is in a special place in the universe, that our solar system is rare, that the Milky Way is unusual, or that other distant regions of space follow different laws of physics.

So the claim that the earth is unique is one based on ignorance, not any sober reflection of the facts we can observe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104682 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Even all the researchers that have ever published anything on prebiotic cells have no clue why their hypothesis can NEVER be replicated in the lab. BOO HOO!
'Goldilocks did it' is falsified with every lab failure whilst 'God did it' is further validated.
I love it when you guys talk about NEVER and IMPOSSIBLE when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been achieved, and may never be".

Unless you can prove that every potential pathway from non-life to life violates some physical law then you are lying.

In the meantime, actual biological researchers will continue to investigate i.e. do science, while you flap about with your irrelevant metaphysical claims.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104683 Nov 4, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me for interupting your rant, but..... ranting does not change what the word 'observation' refers to.
What is observed is galaxies moving away from the milkyway as if it is central to the universe. What BB offers is a mess that satisfies a philosophy, the Copernican principle, and uses mysteries to explain 97% of itself.
What is observed is all galaxies (except those within local clusters) moving away from each other, with the speed of recession proportional to the distance from any given point.

Its obvious to anyone that understands this, that there is absolutely no justification based on the observable evidence that we are in a privileged position regarding the universal expansion.

The BB idea was founded on this observation, but far from being a "mess", it turns out that the BB made several specific predictions that were borne out in observation too. Such as the CMBR, the current ratios of lithium/helium/hydrogen, and many other more arcane but specific predictions that you can always look up i you are interested in learning instead of beating your anti-science drum.

And what "philosophy" is the BB supposed to satisfy? In fact the concept was not popular with scientists originally (but won through preponderance of evidence), and certainly not essential to the theory of evolution, which preceded it by decades.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104684 Nov 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not directly discussing science you idiot.
Still, you have been outed as a hypocrite, again.
Of course we all know that creatards are hypocrites. Why they believe their nonsense nobody knows.
bohart, can you tell me why you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you choose to believe?
Go lay down you irrelevant psychotic idiot , your stupidity has been exposed over and over .

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
Play "end of the name"... (Jun '15) 5 min Judy 123 1,715
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 5 min revilot2 5,158
Word association (Jun '07) 6 min revilot2 5,249
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 8 min Old Sam 9,114
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 10 min Hatti_Hollerand 146,522
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 11 min Old Sam 8,334
Word Association (Mar '10) 11 min Calisportsgirl 21,100
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 13 min Sublime1 33,211
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min Suezanne 197,423
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 50 min Melt down 8,832
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr 8541 MARINE 59,796
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 5 hr Denny CranesPlace 20,021
More from around the web