Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221438 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

#104921 Nov 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. That is the idea.
How does it happen?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104922 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Thesaurus: hypothesis (noun) Synonyms - theory ∑ premise ∑ suggestion ∑ supposition ∑ proposition ∑ guess
http://www.bing.com/search...
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...
Quit playing games. Your whole rant has been nothing more than trying to reduce scientific theories and hypotheses to mere guesses.

You spent one hell of a lot of time quibbling over terminology rather than anything of substance. Weren't you the one admonishing everyone else about wasting time? You seem to do a pretty good job of it yourself.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#104923 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?
It could. What would be evidence for a God? The problem is that for science to investigate this question, it needs to be defined much more precisely. What, exactly, do you mean by the term 'God'?

Some people identify God with the universe. In that case, there is a God since the universe exists. Some people identify God with the laws of physics. In that case, again, God exists since the laws of physics exist.

Some people identify God with the 'first cause' for the universe. Whether there *was* such a first cause (or even, any cause at all) for the universe is undecided, but that definition allows for God to be quantum fluctuation.

And some people require God to have intelligence and a plan that was put into effect that gave rise to the universe. THIS idea of God has absolutely no evidence in favor of it. In fact, it is self-contradictory in many ways.

So what *exactly* do you mean by the word 'God'? If it is precisely defined enough, then science *could* consider it. If it stays vague and ill-defined, then science has no say.
Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.
On the contrary, it was the default position until a couple of centuries ago. Then it was found to not actually provide any testable positions, so the hypothesis was discarded as meaningless. if you want to provide some meaning in the form of testable consequences of the hypothesis, then science can address those tests and their conclusions.

So, let me turn this around. What would be acceptable evidence that there is *no* such thing as God? What possible evidence or collection of evidence would convince you that the God hypothesis is incorrect? If there is no such possible evidence, then the whole hypothesis is meaningless and of no utility to actual understanding.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104924 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is NOT a theory, dumbass.
And the hypothesis makes no pronouncement on god whatsoever.
Stupid is not realizing that abiogenes1s could have been caused by a god or not.
Maybe a genius like you can find a definition of abiogenesis that doesn't say it is a theory about how natural processes started life! I've looked through plenty.There's no mention of God in the abiogenesis definitions,...or you could just be lying.

All the definitions of abiogenesis do have one thing in common

they are scientifically unsupportable.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104925 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are assuming I don't believe/like science.
I'm not assuming anything. It's my hypothesis.
replaytime wrote:
As I have always said science is an awesome tool.
I'm beginning to wonder who the tool is.
replaytime wrote:
Oh and I don't use GPS. I am not too lazy to look at a map or follow road signs.
Uh-huh.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#104926 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it happen?
We do not know the details. That is why it is a hypothesis instead of a scientific theory. The general outline is that the basic chemicals that were present in the solar system when it was formed polymerized and those polymers were able to catalyze basic metabolic reactions (decomposition of glucose in response to energy from the sun, etc). The complexity increase due to concentration of the chemicals (probably either in crystals or at deep sea vents) and life originated as a consequence of the energy flows in the chemicals of the environment.

We have details of early stages of this process and of later stages, but not many of the intermediate stages. On the other hand, there have been no fundamental issues that require supernatural forces at work instead of basic natural forces as existed on the early earth.

Do we have all the answers? No, of course not. But is it reasonable to assume a complex collection of chemical reactions that we call life originated from less complex collections of chemical reactions that we would not consider to be alive? Yes. part of the problem is deciding where, exactly, the line is to be drawn between life and non-life. At the boundary, it isn't so clear what the distinction is.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104927 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe a genius like you can find a definition of abiogenesis that doesn't say it is a theory about how natural processes started life!
Piece of cake, BlowHard, from Wiki:

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the hypothetical natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds."

See the word "theory" in there anywhere, dipstick?
bohart wrote:
I've looked through plenty.There's no mention of God in the abiogenesis definitions
Why would you expect so?
bohart wrote:
...or you could just be lying.
Nah. If I said you had a brain, I would be lying.
bohart wrote:
All the definitions of abiogenesis do have one thing in common they are scientifically unsupportable.
Funny that actual scientists - and me - think your full of crap.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104928 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit playing games. Your whole rant has been nothing more than trying to reduce scientific theories and hypotheses to mere guesses.
You spent one hell of a lot of time quibbling over terminology rather than anything of substance. Weren't you the one admonishing everyone else about wasting time? You seem to do a pretty good job of it yourself.
I gave you links that say the same. If that up sets you go blow your nose and wipe your eyes.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#104929 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Were going off the rails in a crazy train!
What the hell is that? the Frank Zappa theory of the universe?
The universe created us? ha,ha,ha,ha. Chesterton was right ,youy people will believe in anything
You are in some other universe?

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104930 Nov 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It could. What would be evidence for a God? The problem is that for science to investigate this question, it needs to be defined much more precisely. What, exactly, do you mean by the term 'God'?
Some people identify God with the universe. In that case, there is a God since the universe exists. Some people identify God with the laws of physics. In that case, again, God exists since the laws of physics exist.
Some people identify God with the 'first cause' for the universe. Whether there *was* such a first cause (or even, any cause at all) for the universe is undecided, but that definition allows for God to be quantum fluctuation.
And some people require God to have intelligence and a plan that was put into effect that gave rise to the universe. THIS idea of God has absolutely no evidence in favor of it. In fact, it is self-contradictory in many ways.
So what *exactly* do you mean by the word 'God'? If it is precisely defined enough, then science *could* consider it. If it stays vague and ill-defined, then science has no say.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, it was the default position until a couple of centuries ago. Then it was found to not actually provide any testable positions, so the hypothesis was discarded as meaningless. if you want to provide some meaning in the form of testable consequences of the hypothesis, then science can address those tests and their conclusions.
So, let me turn this around. What would be acceptable evidence that there is *no* such thing as God? What possible evidence or collection of evidence would convince you that the God hypothesis is incorrect? If there is no such possible evidence, then the whole hypothesis is meaningless and of no utility to actual understanding.
To make this short. I have always said I don't know how one could prove or disprove God. There is no test that can do either.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104931 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not assuming anything. It's my hypothesis.
<quoted text>
I'm beginning to wonder who the tool is.
<quoted text>
Uh-huh.
When it comes to science the evolutionist say the glass is half full whereas creationists say the glass is half empty. When it comes to God the creationist say the glass is half full whereas evolutionists say the glass is half empty, well pretty much empty.

There is plenty of evidence in just about everything science has studied either in a hypothesis form or a theory form. Does it mean it is correct? No it doesnít. It means it is correct in what we believe at this time but can change at any moment if something comes along different. There is so much we have no clue about, so much that we donít even know of, so much we will never know.

How we choose to classify the glass is only a choice. I see science as science, a glass with water in it. I see God as God, a glass with water in it. Now some can tell me God say it is half full and some can tell me science says it is half empty. Until someone can show me absolute reason and fact that the level of water means more than how I view it, it will remain just a glass with water in it.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104932 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not assuming anything. It's my hypothesis.
Yes your guess or assumption that I don't believe/like science. For in reality you really don't know whether I do or do not for sure but So you guess or assume or propose or think I don't which again that is what a hypothesis is.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104933 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you links that say the same. If that up sets you go blow your nose and wipe your eyes.
You attach far too much importance to yourself.

And you're still wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104934 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When it comes to science the evolutionist say the glass is half full whereas creationists say the glass is half empty. When it comes to God the creationist say the glass is half full whereas evolutionists say the glass is half empty, well pretty much empty.
Very nice. Meaningless but nice.
replaytime wrote:
There is plenty of evidence in just about everything science has studied either in a hypothesis form or a theory form. Does it mean it is correct? No it doesnít. It means it is correct in what we believe at this time but can change at any moment if something comes along different. There is so much we have no clue about, so much that we donít even know of, so much we will never know.
Thanks, Mr Obvious. We all know that.
replaytime wrote:
How we choose to classify the glass is only a choice. I see science as science, a glass with water in it. I see God as God, a glass with water in it. Now some can tell me God say it is half full and some can tell me science says it is half empty. Until someone can show me absolute reason and fact that the level of water means more than how I view it, it will remain just a glass with water in it.
I'm sure you think you're you're being quite profound. I don't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104935 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes your guess or assumption that I don't believe/like science. For in reality you really don't know whether I do or do not for sure but So you guess or assume or propose or think I don't which again that is what a hypothesis is.
I only know what you post. And you bitch about science a lot. If that's not your intention then you need to rephrase your comments.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104936 Nov 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know the details. That is why it is a hypothesis instead of a scientific theory. The general outline is that the basic chemicals that were present in the solar system when it was formed polymerized and those polymers were able to catalyze basic metabolic reactions (decomposition of glucose in response to energy from the sun, etc). The complexity increase due to concentration of the chemicals (probably either in crystals or at deep sea vents) and life originated as a consequence of the energy flows in the chemicals of the environment.
We have details of early stages of this process and of later stages, but not many of the intermediate stages. On the other hand, there have been no fundamental issues that require supernatural forces at work instead of basic natural forces as existed on the early earth.
Do we have all the answers? No, of course not. But is it reasonable to assume a complex collection of chemical reactions that we call life originated from less complex collections of chemical reactions that we would not consider to be alive? Yes. part of the problem is deciding where, exactly, the line is to be drawn between life and non-life. At the boundary, it isn't so clear what the distinction is.
Interesting, I've googled all the articles on ,origin of life and none are as optimistic as you. You are wrong on many fronts in your statement, your..( we have details of the early stages of this process?) really! no one else seems to, it's all unsupported guesses, the ..(no fundamental issues that require supernatural forces at work instead of basic natural forces?) It's all problems of a fundamental nature! Is it reasonable to assume? that a collection of chemicals came to life! You may argue it , but there's nothing scientific or reasonable about it. An astrobiologist from the University of Arizona last year stated that there isn't even a concensus on how to even approach the problem of creating life or how it began
Scientific American had an article about the subject and spoke of an incomprehensible gulf between life and non life, where hypothesis and theories crash and burn.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104937 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Piece of cake, BlowHard, from Wiki:
"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the hypothetical natural process by which life arises from simple organic compounds."
See the word "theory" in there anywhere, dipstick?
<quoted text>
Why would you expect so?
<quoted text>
Nah. If I said you had a brain, I would be lying.
<quoted text>
Funny that actual scientists - and me - think your full of crap.
Whoa! I thought you said abiogenesis could have been caused by a God or not!

That's not the definition!

You were wrong.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104938 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is NOT a theory, dumbass.
And the hypothesis makes no pronouncement on god whatsoever.
Stupid is not realizing that abiogenes1s could have been caused by a god or not.
Yep! here it is Abiogenesis could have been caused by God? That's not the definition of abiogenesis,...it's natural processes,..so you didn't know the meaning of the word?

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104939 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I only know what you post. And you bitch about science a lot. If that's not your intention then you need to rephrase your comments.
You only see it as me bitching about science because you worship science. Same as the creationist see it as you bitching about God because they worship god.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#104940 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! here it is Abiogenesis could have been caused by God? That's not the definition of abiogenesis,...it's natural processes,..so you didn't know the meaning of the word?
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It hasn't passed the guessing, assuming stages.

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
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 3 min SweLL GirL 16,667
Word Association (Jun '10) 6 min SweLL GirL 32,361
Word Association (Mar '10) 9 min SweLL GirL 22,199
True False Game (Jun '11) 11 min SweLL GirL 14,773
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 16 min SweLL GirL 33,075
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 21 min KellyP in Jersey 6,549
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. (Oct '16) 23 min KellyP in Jersey 3,011
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr KellyP in Jersey 217,000
News Sea lion grabs girl, pulls her into water 2 hr Geezer 11
Where are you from? 4 hr Charlie 43
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 4 hr TheJerseyDevil 4,005
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 hr TheJerseyDevil 75,155
More from around the web