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
99,461 - 99,480 of 115,224 Comments Last updated 26 min ago

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105051 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are, being so stupid that you remind me of subby. If God starts the universe and begins life it's called...wait for it .creation!
As opposed to creationism that postulates that such a process happened 10,000 years ago or so.

The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, or about a third the age of the universe. A *lot* happened between the formation of the universe and the formation of the earth. Life appears to be a phenomenon that started on the earth (although there is some dispute here).

So the question of how the universe formed and the question of how life formed in that universe are two very different questions. They are approached by different methods, have different ways of testing, and are not directly related to each other (except that the formation of life requires the chemicals that were formed after the universe got started).
If the universe came into existence on it's own , and a primordial soup coalesced on it's own and came to life , that's abiogenesis.
Wrong.

Abiogenesis does not address how the universe came about. It deals with the natural processes that formed the first life. Those processes were clearly much later than the formation of the universe since the very early universe was inhospitable to life (way too hot).

So, it is quite possible that some deity formed the universe and that *later* life began through the natural processes that the deity started at the beginning. That would still be abiogenesis: the formation of life through natural processes. So creation and abiogenesis are quite compatible.

Now, there is no evidence that this, in fact, happened. It is *possible* that the universe was created by a multi-dimensional teenager as a high-school art project. That would still be 'creation', but it certainly wouldn't correspond to your ideas of 'God'.

It is *possible* that some race of intelligent beings in the multi-verse learned how to create universes and that ours is one of the universes they created. It is even *possible* that this creation was a mistake by a scientists that was investigating something else.
You are just so hostile to the very concept of God, you will believe any and all things , no matter how stupid.
I am not 'hostile' to the idea of a God. I simply find the evidence for such a being to be sorely lacking. The actual range of natural possibilities has not been thoroughly investigated, so it is quite premature to proclaim an intelligent designer or even a creator (different concepts--see the scientists above).

You claim the universe was designed and created, for which we have no evidence. You then claim that there was a further intervention when life formed, without any evidence. You then claim that there were yet other interventions to a very specific small planet during a very short period of time and that the designer of the universe *also* has given moral laws to the inhabitants of this one planet.

And you say *I* am being stupid?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105052 Nov 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dumbass. It is a natural process. If a god set it in motion is an open question.
To you have to very hard work at being stupid or does it come naturally to you?
"A" god could have written the laws of physics. "The God" hasn't even displayed an aptitude for arithmetic.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105053 Nov 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the degree of abstract thinking has evolved in us. No reason why it should evolve in everyrhing. So true, but still not evidence that God is a necessary hypothesis to explain it.
Still beating around the bush.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105054 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is not evidence. That has been made clear many many times. Oh wait!! You all mean the creationists can't use it as evidence but you all can. I see. Carry od idiot.
The Bible can be used to show that it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with what we see in the real world. THAT shows that it is unreliable and so cannot be used for further knowledge.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105055 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are, being so stupid that you remind me of subby. If God starts the universe and begins life it's called...wait for it .creation!
No shit.
bohart wrote:
If the universe came into existence on it's own , and a primordial soup coalesced on it's own and came to life , that's abiogenesis.
The universe coming into existence on its own is a separate issue from abiogenesis. In any event, the possibilities of an initial cause remains an open question.
bohart wrote:
Webster has a fine dictionary, check it out.
I do quite often. Though I tend not to misread the entries as you do.
bohart wrote:
You are just so hostile to the very concept of God, you will believe any and all things , no matter how stupid.
On the contrary, I am not at all hostile to the concept of a god. I *am* hostile to smug jackasses who make a lot of stupid and pointless comments on Topix. AKA BlowHard.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105056 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say you bitched about God. I said the creationist see you as bitching about God. Try reading the post again before you jump to a conclusion and put words in my mouth that I did not say.
Talk about splitting hairs! GEEZ!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#105057 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have not answered the questions either.
Says who?

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105059 Nov 6, 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?
Since the whole UNIVERSE is natural then according to you couldn't be caused by God then.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105061 Nov 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is why you always fail. You come up with these ridiculous stories instead of presenting evidence. The 5th graders would probably think either of those stories were boring and run off to recess.
You live in a fantasy world. I can't imagine you are much older than a 5th grader. Don't you have any self respect?
Now how about some evidence to support your wild ass claim instead of some poor and pointless what if story about you and your classmates.
He apparently suffers from engineerinosis.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105062 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.
Leakey reference please.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105063 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.... primarily because when a new life is formed, it is given genetics with telomeres of a predetermined length, consistent with the overall life expectancy of a naturally occurring organism and optimized for the time needed for that species to reach maturity and produce a strategically diverse selection of offspring. As cells replicate, the telomeres become shorter until the body's cells simply stop replacing themselves.
As the species intellectually progresses, more time is needed for reaching maturity. As the chemistry of the body becomes fine tuned, life expectancy can also be expected to be extended as the species is not expected to "experiment" as much with a diversity of environments.
Since humanity is now far less dependent on the natural vitality of the body and far more dependent on the intellectual abilities of the species to control medical science and the environment, it's natural to assume that life expectancy will dramatically increase in the near future.
The only real biological question is whether or not the species will find its niche in social stability or in constant conflict with itself. The simplest of truths is that death is fast becoming something that we actually do have a choice about, but the weight of the question is more about just how many years does one really want to have to explore one's own limited physical identity. At what point would altering one's physiology take away one's sense of "eternal soul" and reason for living?
Perhaps part of the cycle of life is accepting a death with dignity and to allow the one thing that makes life worth living, the unpredictability of the future.
Anyway, you're still a tired old bigot! English is not owned by England. Your literal views of the Bible are childish! Just saying!
You just caused Charles' head to explode. Well done.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105064 Nov 6, 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
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.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105065 Nov 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I am losing the ability to suspend disbelief. I started watching a show tonight called "Walking Dead". Some mystery contagion has swept the world turning most of the population into flesh-eating zombies. It is a pretty good story, with decent acting and effects. I began watching shortly after the program had started and there was a scene with one of the main characters, a sheriff, confronting what he thought was a scared little girl. She turns around and you can see she doesn't have the lower half of her face. Now the first thing I think is how can this thing composed of necrotic tissue function. All the biochemical pathways have broken down, cell membranes have degraded. If the organs are dead, none of the necessary functions are being carried out. Not to mention the host of microbial flora that are starting to take over the body from within and without. I mentioned that they are flesh-eating, but I can't imagine what good that would do them or why they would need to eat.
I really don't think I have lost the ability to suspend disbelief for the pleasure of entertainment. I just don't have the same ignorance I did as a child. I don't attribute supernatural origins to every phenomenon I encounter, but don't fully understand. It doesn't frighten me when there are real, concrete answers to questions that cross into my belief system.
How could she eat anyway if she's missing the lower half of her face? Wouldn't she starve to death? Oh, Wait...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#105066 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Still beating around the bush.
You have presented exactly zero evidence for the existence of God.

You have this strange idea that if you can ask a question that science cannot answer, then somehow that is evidence of God or it should make us believe in God. That is false, empty reasoning.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105067 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise. You can not provide answers to the posted questions. Bingo!
Yes I can and have, several times, as has several other people. Not my problem if those answers donít fit in with your delusions

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105068 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and no. Some base it on fear. Some base it on hope. Some base it on belief. Some fear going to hell. Some hope to get out of this hell and go to heaven. Some just believe and hope for the best.
So to make a long story (1700 pages, more or less) short, religion is a coping mechanism.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105069 Nov 6, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
As opposed to creationism that postulates that such a process happened 10,000 years ago or so.
The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, or about a third the age of the universe. A *lot* happened between the formation of the universe and the formation of the earth. Life appears to be a phenomenon that started on the earth (although there is some dispute here).
So the question of how the universe formed and the question of how life formed in that universe are two very different questions. They are approached by different methods, have different ways of testing, and are not directly related to each other (except that the formation of life requires the chemicals that were formed after the universe got started).
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Abiogenesis does not address how the universe came about. It deals with the natural processes that formed the first life. Those processes were clearly much later than the formation of the universe since the very early universe was inhospitable to life (way too hot).
So, it is quite possible that some deity formed the universe and that *later* life began through the natural processes that the deity started at the beginning. That would still be abiogenesis: the formation of life through natural processes. So creation and abiogenesis are quite compatible.
Now, there is no evidence that this, in fact, happened. It is *possible* that the universe was created by a multi-dimensional teenager as a high-school art project. That would still be 'creation', but it certainly wouldn't correspond to your ideas of 'God'.
It is *possible* that some race of intelligent beings in the multi-verse learned how to create universes and that ours is one of the universes they created. It is even *possible* that this creation was a mistake by a scientists that was investigating something else.
<quoted text>
I am not 'hostile' to the idea of a God. I simply find the evidence for such a being to be sorely lacking. The actual range of natural possibilities has not been thoroughly investigated, so it is quite premature to proclaim an intelligent designer or even a creator (different concepts--see the scientists above).
You claim the universe was designed and created, for which we have no evidence. You then claim that there was a further intervention when life formed, without any evidence. You then claim that there were yet other interventions to a very specific small planet during a very short period of time and that the designer of the universe *also* has given moral laws to the inhabitants of this one planet.
And you say *I* am being stupid?
and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.

So here we are.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#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 have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#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.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 5 min Simply_Red 13,229
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min -Lea- 18,590
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 7 min Brandiiiiiiii 1,839
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 11 min Old Sam 25,823
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Old Sam 145,181
What's your tip for the day? 20 min honeymylove 804
I cyber ice-bucket challenge ...in recognition ... 21 min SLY WEST 7
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 51 min Adrian DeVine 28,498
Fergson Police Dept. 2 hr CNN Don Queer Lemon 364
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••