Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204829 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

#104806 Nov 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
But I am NOT re-defining the theory. The laws of physics and chemistry are not random. Abiogenesis is the search for the origins of life based on natural laws such as those seen in physics and chemistry. Since life *is* a collection of chemical reactions, it is not unreasonable that the origin of life is chemical in nature.
What natural laws of physics and chemistry cause chemicals, enzymes ,proteins etc. to self assemble in the proper order, and proper amounts before the alleged burst to life started?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104807 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I read them all (well except maybe for Chuckles and Jimbo) and I'll disagree.
I understood his point to be it is unrealistic to expect a serious field of study of a process that took billions of years to be solved in far less than 100 years.
But yet science is what say they have/can.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104808 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Why don't you just tell him that "Followers of those various religions would disagree with you." Which is what you said when I told you who Allah was. lol
Actually he was rather clear on why he thought those sects are all incorrect.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104809 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes "assumptions" "assumed" "assume"
Oh no, replaytime has gone into babble mode.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104810 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope just like I said "assumes"
hypothetical - assumed by hypothesis.
hypothesis - assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument
And hypothesis are not assumed. That definition is incorrect.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104811 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A I have said nobody knows how life started. Those who believe in God assume he created life. Those who don't believe in God assume life created itself.
One is no more farfetched than the other. It all falls back on what you believe in or don't believe in.
Thanks for hitting the essence of the abiogenesis debate on the head. It is based on beliefs , either a creator did it, or it created itself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104812 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A I have said nobody knows how life started. Those who believe in God assume he created life. Those who don't believe in God assume life created itself.
One is no more farfetched than the other. It all falls back on what you believe in or don't believe in.
I disagree. There are countless claims of "god did it" that have been shown to be false. Where natural explanations have continued to grow. You have simply one more claim that will very probably be shown to be false in the near future.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104813 Nov 5, 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.
NO, no, no no no! GOD can't do abiogenesis!

Bo sez so.

Bo's in charge.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104814 Nov 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read only the first link?
I read them all. Nothing there about inanimate matter coming to life.

Now what they do say is science "created" this or that, science "creates" this or that but nothing of life forming from nonlife on it's own. Again all needing a "creator". End of story!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104815 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Go lay down you irrelevant psychotic idiot , your stupidity has been exposed over and over .
Man, you keep laying out the hate on those irony meters, don'cha?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104816 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope just like I said "assumes"
hypothetical - assumed by hypothesis.
hypothesis - assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument
Sorry, you are wrong. A hypothesis is NOT an assumption. It is a proposed explanation (subject to testing).

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#104818 Nov 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And hypothesis are not assumed. That definition is incorrect.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.

Proposed - make suggestion: to put forward something such as an idea or suggestion

Make suggestions -assume.

Where is it that you get confused?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104819 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
Perhaps you could provide some evidence that the pathway from non life to life is possible, and it does violate the known law of biogenesis.
That it? Hey bub, Mercury violates the law of gravity. So what?(shrug)

After all, it's not as if YOUR claim doesn't either.
bohart wrote:
That life comes only from existing life. The scientific method must be observable, never has been , repeatable, never, and testable, never again.Hmm? seems as though all the science is against your belief.
Seems as though you are wrong, since science unequivocally shows that there was no life before 3.8 billion years ago. And since the universe is finite that means there MUST be a time when life did not come from another life.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104820 Nov 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You could make a very very good case for all of the Abrahamic versions of god as a general case of not existing. If they are dependent upon the Old Testament it can be shown that their god is not real.
I do not know enough about the Hindu gods, but again a good case about their nonexistence could be probably argued too based upon the claims of their followers.
I will let you carry on the theological argument with replaytime.
Have fun.
Oh...we're quite clearly done here...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104821 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But yet science is what say they have/can.
That does not follow.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104822 Nov 5, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Technology goes with each age, true or false? God can do anything.
Not according to Bohart He can't.

Go take it up with him.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104823 Nov 5, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I know evos have many problems. They have yet to understand what 'the same' means and perhaps should go ask Alice is Wonderland which theory on abiogenesis she supports.
Oh hey Maz, I notice you still have not been able to overcome the insurmountable problems of creationist idiocy and are still talking out your azz.(shrug)

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104824 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, no, no no no! GOD can't do abiogenesis!
Bo sez so.
Bo's in charge.
Hey Fool! if God does it , its not abiogenesis! Damn you are stupid, you don't even know what the theory you believe in means.

remember the Jew magic?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104825 Nov 5, 2013
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.
A planetary gear system? Hm.

You uh, managed to solve your little flagella problem yet?

Look at it this way, it may save you an operation.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104826 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.
Good argument against intelligent design then.(shrug) When are you going to repent for your sins?

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
A six word game (Dec '08) 1 min Athena18 19,660
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 6 min Skye Towns 3,660
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 6 min Red_Forman 146,501
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 7 min Skye Towns 19,754
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 9 min Athena18 59,844
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 9 min Crystal_Clear722 8,821
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 15 min Ferrerman 612
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min Zamasu 197,360
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Pernicious Snit 59,727
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr LaBeth 20,015
More from around the web