Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172070 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.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#105070 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> But despite their concepts, they are used to determine real things. So, by that, they are real.
As concepts they are real, but as physical, tangible things they are not.

Iceland for instance is an island and as such surrounded on all side by water. Disregarding wave and tidal action, you can see where the land and the sea meet. It is a boundary established by nature on physical principles and we can see it. Longitude, latitude, and political borders are not physically real, but the concepts they represent are real. I think in the sense of concepts you see them as real, but in the sense of an actual line somewhere, they are not. These were all established by people and don't represent some natural line that we somehow found or tuned in on. We could just as easily pick a different set of lines and use those.

Don't forget, a map is just a metaphor and metaphors are never perfect.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#105071 Nov 6, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
How could she eat anyway if she's missing the lower half of her face? Wouldn't she starve to death? Oh, Wait...
She must have seen something so shocking her jaw dropped. But that is a good point. Poor little zombie waif must be starving.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105072 Nov 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no theory. There is a hypothesis which you are unable to present a valid criticism.
Where is your hypothesis? how did Dud's universe start and how did life begin.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105073 Nov 6, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
It's you who is not taken seriously Bohart. Many intellegent posts have been aimed specifically at you, yet this "lying, dodging ducking, accusing, and even distorting the meaning of words" are the typical responses from you. Time and time again, just like this post of yours I'm quoting. Frankly I'm suprised Subduction Zone even takes the time to reply to you, knowing full well your response will be simply uneducated sarcasm, typical of a troll.
Oh no! perhaps you can help Subby find a dictionary that has word definitions he can agree with, or maybe you can help him write his own dictionary. You see, he's the one who's having trouble with distorting words.

What is your hypothesis of how life began? and what evidence do you have to support it?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105074 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.
So here we are.
We do not know if life started in a 'puddle', in a deep sea vent, inside a mica crystal, or in some other environment. In that, you are correct. But we *do* know that chemicals naturally polymerize and become more complex in such environments and in the way that is necessary for life to develop.

And, once again, we *know* that life is a chemical process. We know that none of the chemicals involved in life are themselves alive. We know that the basic components of the chemicals in life are common in the universe and would have been common on the early earth.

Now, what exactly is your alternative explanation? That a supernatural being, for which we have no evidence, breathed a breath of life, for which we have no evidence, into a bit of mud and humans came out of this alive and fully formed? Exactly what is the process involved in this transformation? What physical properties existed at each stage? How did the chemistry of life get started in your version of events?

For that matter, how can you suggest an 'explanation' that is based on the existence of a supernatural realm for which we have no evidence, whose properties are unknown and untestable, which has a being that we cannot fathom, with motives that cannot be understood by us, and that can overturn any law of physics at a whim? How is that an explanation at all? If anything, it is the complete avoidance of an explanation: it has no testability, it has no solid predictions of the properties of life, it is based on no known properties of the being proposed, etc. As an explanation, it it totally worthless (except to calm the fears of a two year old).

So yes, to say that life, which is chemically based, and which is made from basic chemicals that are common, could have arose from natural chemical processes is a FAR more justifiable explanation than what you propose.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105075 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh no! perhaps you can help Subby find a dictionary that has word definitions he can agree with, or maybe you can help him write his own dictionary. You see, he's the one who's having trouble with distorting words.
What is your hypothesis of how life began? and what evidence do you have to support it?
You poor moron. If you had half of a brain you would want to know WHY the definitions had problems. Instead you are happy to play the idiot.

It is early in the morning and I feel generous to idiots for now. What was wrong with the first definition is that it called abiogenesis a "theory" where we know that it is a hypothesis.. If it was a "theory" that would mean the problem was fairly well solved so that we could predict how early life would react at different points in its development, just as the theory of gravity allows us to plot orbits, use GPS systems etc.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105076 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.
So here we are.
Actually we do have evidence. He even listed some of it for you. Unfortunately for you, you do not know what qualifies as scientific evidence. And yet idiots like you were why scientific evidence has the definition that it now has.

That is irony for you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105077 Nov 6, 2013
fossils wrote:
I love the fact there is no real fossil record of man from the apes to man. Well unless you take into account the ones made up of ape bones and a lot of plaster. Leakey proved that game true.
You have been running your mouth a lot without providing any evidence that supports your claim.

Let's see your evidence for your Leakey claim and I will gladly provide evidence for the various fossils.

By the way, you could not even get what the fossils represent correctly. Since men are apes the fossil record shows a transition from one ape species to another. Biologists knew that man was an ape long before Darwin came along. In fact it was a creationist who first recognized this fact.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105078 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn Tick! have you been infected by the evo lying bug too?
where did I say that?
so if a god or creator is just energy. and you say this creator made life from life, aren't you saying energy is life?

is there some way your god or creator could be not just energy?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105079 Nov 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they did in my day too. It is still an old man's game.
excuse me? golf an old man's game? i've been playing since i was six. my grandson plays and he is three.(well, he prefers to just hit the heads off his mom's old barbie dolls in the back yard, but he has a hell of a natural swing..)

golf is anything but an old man's game.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#105080 Nov 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>excuse me? golf an old man's game? i've been playing since i was six. my grandson plays and he is three.(well, he prefers to just hit the heads off his mom's old barbie dolls in the back yard, but he has a hell of a natural swing..)
golf is anything but an old man's game.
Psychopath in the making?

I'd keep a close eye on that boy....

;-)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105081 Nov 6, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Psychopath in the making?
I'd keep a close eye on that boy....
;-)
full disclosure...it was me that thought to put the old doll into the clothesline pipe in the ground, and knock the head off it. i think i laughed harder than he did when it flew so far...

Bwa ha ha ah haaaaw......

ya gotta make things fun for little kids to keep them interested.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105082 Nov 6, 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/...
For your EDUCATION!:

Scientific theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a general treatment of theories, see theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]

Now STFU!

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#105083 Nov 6, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>For your EDUCATION!:
Scientific theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a general treatment of theories, see theory.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
Now STFU!
To bad you are too stupid to even see that we were talking about hypothesis. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing. So STFU yourself.

Go do something you have never done before,,, make a difference in something.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105084 Nov 6, 2013
Damn... wrong place for that last post. Stupid windows

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105085 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad you are too stupid to even see that we were talking about hypothesis. Swing and a miss but thanks for playing. So STFU yourself.
Go do something you have never done before,,, make a difference in something.
Yeah... I just noticed I posted it in the wrong place. My apologies.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#105086 Nov 6, 2013
TerryL wrote:
Damn... wrong place for that last post. Stupid windows
BAHAHAHAHA Trying to blame the computer. You had to click reply and type your comment. What an idiot. LMAO

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#105087 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
BAHAHAHAHA Trying to blame the computer. You had to click reply and type your comment. What an idiot. LMAO
Nope... just got confused as to which reality denying idiot I was posting to. Since you guys are all pretty much the same it's an easy mistake to make.

And I did apologize for it... not that you're familiar with that type of behavior

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105088 Nov 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Scientists have had lab experiments running for millions and millions of years?
can i visit this lab?
It won't do you any good. Perhaps you could get the first species from the 3 domains of life to send some DNA to your researchers through a time loop so they don't have to keep adding to the great garbage bin of evolutionary delusions past....

Review Article Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution

Top of pageAbstractEvolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. The connection between these processes is also a major source of conflict between science and religious belief.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n72...

I prefer to rest my opinion on data, as flawed and biased as it is, still supports a creationist paradigm. IOW man and ape do not have the same molecular machinery and therefore do not show continuity and are of different genesis/creative events.

"In PNAS, the team reports cloning the human and chimpanzee hydroxylase cDNAs, and identifying a mutation in the coding region of the human cDNA that regulates hydroxylase activity. The same gene in apes codes for a hydroxylase enzyme which adds this atom to the sialic acid molecule, but due to a mutation at some point in human evolution, the human gene lacks this coding section, accounting for the structural difference in the molecule."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105090 Nov 6, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>For your EDUCATION!:
Scientific theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For a general treatment of theories, see theory.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative.[5]
Now STFU!
I suppose over a century of claimed empirical evidence for human knuckle walking ancestry falsified on the back of one single fossil, Ardi, is reflective of TOEs credibility. Using the same fossils to support 2 scenarios is truly an amazing work. Well done!

IOW, TOE has NO predictive ability and is virtually unfalsifiable. However, having a documented creative account gives a scenario to predict, validate or falsify that TOE is lacking.

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
Topix Time 3 min Unknown Grave 8
" Tell me a secret"...... (Oct '14) 3 min Mister_ E 538
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 6 min Alain Vain 10,220
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 8 min Alain Vain 2,122
Word association (Jun '07) 9 min Alain Vain 3,408
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 10 min Alain Vain 9,182
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min CJ Rocker 167,478
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 18 min Chilli J 42,142
Answer a question with a question 27 min Mr_FX 533
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 56 min Jennifer Renee 12,822
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 1 hr DILF 1,981
More from around the web