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
99,161 - 99,180 of 114,533 Comments Last updated 35 min ago

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104732
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Course they have not isolated all the controlling mechanisms of MO-1 as of yet. Biochemists can't be busied with such things nor understand the type of gearing they are looking at.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104733
Nov 5, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No one takes you seriously, you are sad. Lying, dodging ducking, accusing ,and even distorting the meaning of words.
Get help cultist
Your post is an astounding example of projection. I already informed you the definition was erroneous. In fact I've been doing that for around, uh, oh, say a year now. LONG before that linky was ever brought up. And anyone can even go back as far as they like and check my posting history if they want. But YOU insist on continuing to beat up your "random chance" straw-man.

So who is being dishonest here? Yup, that's right - that would be you.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104734
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is evidence this happened.
Starting with stromatolites , the biosphere was created.
The mystery begins with "How did Cyanobacteria evolve?"
From self replicating molecules that formed into RNA chains.
We have been able to make organic matter form into self replicating molecules. It only need time to form into Cyanobacteria. While we haven't been able to quite make what is considered life, we are close...very close, and the evidence is that this is how it happened. The organic matter is there , and we have found several ways it could have made the jump to living.
It won't be long before we do, find out how it happened.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr...
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/rib...
Life is a complex factory of reproduction and metabolism. Scientists have every possible environment able to be reproduced in the lab. They can muck around with genes. Yet, after all this time and funding the fact is they have NOT made a living life form.

Speaking of 'several ways' that life theoretically could have made the jump is really just another way of saying, scientists cannot do it.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104735
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.

By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.

The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?

You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, canít exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be". Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or canít exist.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104736
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex factory of reproduction and metabolism. Scientists have every possible environment able to be reproduced in the lab. They can muck around with genes. Yet, after all this time and funding the fact is they have NOT made a living life form.

*Speaking of 'several ways' that life theoretically could have made the jump is really just another way of saying, scientists cannot do it.
That's very fcking funny, when the paper YOU cited as proof of creationism, was actually about the possibility of other microorganisms and alternate bio-systems alien to our that could still exist. You prove yourself to be totally clueless to wtf you are talking about yet again. It was exactly about multiple possible avenues of the abiogenesis of microorganisms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104737
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the MO-1 machinery in action. This will keep your theorists busy for a long time. 7 motors and 24 flagella integrated unto a planetary gear system. The gearing is interlocked so the exact flagella counter-rotates in perfect synchronization with it's counterpart. The mindless Time Gods are pretty clever.
"Try not to make foolish claims in the future".
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/22/...
http://creation.com/germ-7-motors-in-1
You made another foolish claim.

How it evolved is very well understood. How it works is still being worked on. We do not need to know how it works, the current problem all of your papers are working on solving, to know how it evolved.

SBT will probably not understand the difference between the two.

I started to try to go through with you how it evolved. Why did you run away from that discussion?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104738
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.
By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.
The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?
You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, canít exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be". Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or canít exist.
No, you are misstating what we say.

It seems you are more reasonable than most and realize that life did evolve from a single cell. So even though you do not like the word "abiogenesis" you are still accepting an abiogenesis event. The problem with claiming that "God did it" is that you need evidence to make that claim. One thing that scientists have learned is that "God did it" is a mental dead end and has been shown be wrong every time that it has been claimed in the past. So if you are going to make assumptions the reasonable one to make is the one that has been shown to be right in the past. In the past natural processes have won every time there was a debate.

So we have two very good reasons to assume that abiogenesis was a natural process. All other events have been shown to be the results of natural processes, never have we observed something where "God did it" was the right answer. And "God did it" is a mental dead end. You end up with an unsolvable question, something scientists do not like at all.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104739
Nov 5, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.
By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.
The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?
You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, canít exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be". Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or canít exist.
well,rational people say the god of the bible has been proven false, because it has been. the gods of other religious mythologies have also been proven false.

and as to date, there isn't one shred of evidence to suggest any god, gods or goddesses exist. i don't know of any rational people that say they can prove no god exists.

just as you say, until every avenue of life arising from the known compounds of the universe has been explored, you cannot say it couldn't happen.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104740
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, a football is a sphere. Pretty much.
If Americans played FOOTball they wouldn't be spending 97% of the game carrying it in their hands.
A football is pretty much a sphere! LOL

Can you show me how a football which is oblong, longer in length than it is across, bigger in the middle and tapers down as it goes to the ends is pretty much a sphere?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104741
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex factory of reproduction and metabolism. Scientists have every possible environment able to be reproduced in the lab. They can muck around with genes. Yet, after all this time and funding the fact is they have NOT made a living life form.
Speaking of 'several ways' that life theoretically could have made the jump is really just another way of saying, scientists cannot do it.
One more variation of the old "We don't know everything so we don't know anything" argument. Well done.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104742
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are misstating what we say.
It seems you are more reasonable than most and realize that life did evolve from a single cell. So even though you do not like the word "abiogenesis" you are still accepting an abiogenesis event. The problem with claiming that "God did it" is that you need evidence to make that claim. One thing that scientists have learned is that "God did it" is a mental dead end and has been shown be wrong every time that it has been claimed in the past. So if you are going to make assumptions the reasonable one to make is the one that has been shown to be right in the past. In the past natural processes have won every time there was a debate.
So we have two very good reasons to assume that abiogenesis was a natural process. All other events have been shown to be the results of natural processes, never have we observed something where "God did it" was the right answer. And "God did it" is a mental dead end. You end up with an unsolvable question, something scientists do not like at all.
You are misstating what I say.

So for you lets put it in question form.

1. is abiogenesis the "assumption" of natural process by which life arises from organic compounds.

2. do you "assume" life in some form always existed before or/after the BBT?

3. has every potential pathway for God to exist been explored?

4. If your answer to 2 is no. Then where/when did nonlife become life?

5. if your answer to 3 is no. Then you can't state God does not exist or is impossible. Unless you only go by absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which could be used in several scientific theories as well.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104743
Nov 5, 2013
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Life is a complex factory of reproduction and metabolism. Scientists have every possible environment able to be reproduced in the lab. They can muck around with genes. Yet, after all this time and funding the fact is they have NOT made a living life form.
Speaking of 'several ways' that life theoretically could have made the jump is really just another way of saying, scientists cannot do it.
Scientists have had lab experiments running for millions and millions of years?

can i visit this lab?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104744
Nov 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>well,rational people say the god of the bible has been proven false, because it has been. the gods of other religious mythologies have also been proven false.
and as to date, there isn't one shred of evidence to suggest any god, gods or goddesses exist. i don't know of any rational people that say they can prove no god exists.
just as you say, until every avenue of life arising from the known compounds of the universe has been explored, you cannot say it couldn't happen.
Why is it you always and most only attack God issues? I noticed you completely ignored the abiogenesis parts of that comment.

You have a problem with God other than just in a scientific way for that is all you ever attack and you always claim you have proof but always fail to show such proof. A poorly written book by man is not evidence of God being false.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104745
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
One thing everyone is leaving out of their definition of abiogenesis is "assume" (hypothetical/hypothesis). They "assume" it is natural process by which life arises from organic compounds. Just like they used to "assume" spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter.
Since there has never been any evidence of a non-natural process, to make the assumption it is natural is both reasonable and prudent.
The spontaneous generation reference is a red herring.
replaytime wrote:
By saying abiogenesis is not life from an inanimate source/inorganic compounds then you must "assume" life, in some form, always existed since/or before the BBT.
Hold on, who said that?
[QUOTE who="replaytime"]The word assume is taken seriously in much of science but if someone assumes God exists then he must be crazy right?
Not necessarily. But some of them are a little whacky.
replaytime wrote:
You guys talk about God as impossible, proven false, canít exist when your only honest claim can be "has not yet been shown and may never be".
Yeah. So?
replaytime wrote:
Unless you can show that every potential pathway for God to exist has been explored then you are lying by saying God is impossible, proven false or canít exist.
"You" is a rather broad term. There are some here - Skeptic comes to mind - that have made that claim. I and others have not. While I see no reason to believe a god (a vague term) exists, I allow for the possibility however remote.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104746
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A football is pretty much a sphere! LOL
Can you show me how a football which is oblong, longer in length than it is across, bigger in the middle and tapers down as it goes to the ends is pretty much a sphere?
Europe, RP. Different football.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104747
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
4. If your answer to 2 is no. Then where/when did nonlife become life?
That is the question at hand, is it not?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104748
Nov 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Scientists have had lab experiments running for millions and millions of years?
can i visit this lab?
How did you come up with that our of their comment?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104749
Nov 5, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Europe, RP. Different football.
Yes Mike. I should have took into consideration that they call a soccer ball a football.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104750
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misstating what I say.
So for you lets put it in question form.
1. is abiogenesis the "assumption" of natural process by which life arises from organic compounds.[QUOTE]

No.

[QUOTE]
2. do you "assume" life in some form always existed before or/after the BBT?
What do you mean by the "BBT"? Is that supposed to be the Big Bang Theory? That seems to be a very foolish question. On the Earth we are very sure that there was no life when the planet was first formed. It was too hot, there was no liquid water. One thing that life has always shown that it needs is liquid water.
3. has every potential pathway for God to exist been explored?
Another foolish question. The obvious answer is no. Why should we try to do this? It seems to be a from of research that would produce no usable results. How would you go about doing that in the first place? And for what purpose?
4. If your answer to 2 is no. Then where/when did nonlife become life?
The best estimate is about 3.5 billion years ago.
5. if your answer to 3 is no. Then you can't state God does not exist or is impossible. Unless you only go by absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which could be used in several scientific theories as well.
I never did. Atheists do not need to disprove God to be an atheist. Assuming that you are a Christian that is a hypocritical standard to set. Do you have evidence that all of the other gods that people believe in are false? Atheists, as a rule, do not believe that there is evidence that god does not exist, they believe, and are supported by science to date, that there is no evidence that supports the existence of god. It is illogical to believe in something that you do not have evidence for.

I am not a "radical Atheist" that claims that God does not exist. If there was evidence for god's existence then I would happily admit that I was wrong. Until then I will treat the existence of god as any other crazy idea that has no evidence to support it. I will say that I don't believe it, but will admit that my mind could be changed.

Now the reasons NOT to believe in any one specific god is another topic and we could get into that, but I don't want to get into a theological debate here.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104751
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by the "BBT"? Is that supposed to be the Big Bang Theory? That seems to be a very foolish question. On the Earth we are very sure that there was no life when the planet was first formed. It was too hot, there was no liquid water. One thing that life has always shown that it needs is liquid water.
<quoted text>
Another foolish question. The obvious answer is no. Why should we try to do this? It seems to be a from of research that would produce no usable results. How would you go about doing that in the first place? And for what purpose?
<quoted text>
The best estimate is about 3.5 billion years ago.
<quoted text>
I never did. Atheists do not need to disprove God to be an atheist. Assuming that you are a Christian that is a hypocritical standard to set. Do you have evidence that all of the other gods that people believe in are false? Atheists, as a rule, do not believe that there is evidence that god does not exist, they believe, and are supported by science to date, that there is no evidence that supports the existence of god. It is illogical to believe in something that you do not have evidence for.
I am not a "radical Atheist" that claims that God does not exist. If there was evidence for god's existence then I would happily admit that I was wrong. Until then I will treat the existence of god as any other crazy idea that has no evidence to support it. I will say that I don't believe it, but will admit that my mind could be changed.
Now the reasons NOT to believe in any one specific god is another topic and we could get into that, but I don't want to get into a theological debate here.
On 1 you say "no". Wrong abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds.
Hypothetical=assumed by hypothesis. Hypothesis=assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument.

On 2 you say "no" which means there was no life.

On 3 you say "no and why should we" Then you cannot claim God is false or not real if you haven't taken the steps to se if God is real or not.

On 4 you say 3.5 million years ago. My mistake for asking "when/where" in the question. I should of put "how/where did nonlife become life".

On 5 you say a lot but is short you are saying "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••