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 (Page 4,977)

Showing posts 99,521 - 99,540 of111,873
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105042
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Which is why science cannot consider the question.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105043
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> But other intelligent animals, can not think like this. True or false?
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105044
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And yet, your almighty science is limited. Oops!
Nobody claims science is almighty. Just that its a better way to understand what we can about the world than some dusty old claims by primitive ancients that the Lord of the Universe was whispering in their ears.

Science is humble and knows its limits, unlike religion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105045
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

bohart wrote:
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.
Of course there is. The research over the last couple of centuries shows that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. So, a collection of chemicals *does*'come to life' because you and me are alive and are collections of chemicals.
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.
The difficulties are those of organization of the chemicals, not whether life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. Life *does* in fact come from non-life. Absolutely none of the atoms in your body are alive. Absolutely none of the molecules in your body are alive. But the collection of them, appropriately arranged *is* alive. For that, there is a consensus.

So the question is how the simple chemicals that existed in the early universe became more complex over time and gained the complexity we see in life. That is a HUGE problem, but we know that those simple chemicals do, in fact, combine spontaneously to form more complex chemicals. We know that they can spontaneously form cell-like structures that have chemicals internally that catalyze reactions such as the breakdown of glucose. Again, these are not controversial.

We also know from the other end that the complex interaction between proteins and nucleic acids was not the original basis for life. Instead, a nucleic acid based chemistry (possibly with some help from amino acids and proteins)was the central mechanism for life. So we know that today's complex life originated from much less complex forms of life.

Is there still a gap? Yes, of course. But every piece of research points towards the narrowing of that gap. Are there still fundamental questions? Of course. We do not know in detail the environment(s) of the early earth and how much of the basic chemical composition came from comets versus being formed here. We do not know how the transition from the RNA world to the DNA-protein world occurred. We do not know where exactly to place that life between life and non-life. But the gap is narrowing on a yearly basis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105046
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Precise definitions!,..scientific terminology!,..multiple options! ha,ha,ha,ha,. I need a laugh
What exactly is the Dud theory for how life began,..
thrill us all with your insight!
There is no theory. There is a hypothesis which you are unable to present a valid criticism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105047
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sucking bones illegitimate brother?, descended from a homo stupidicus line mother.
Your ad-homs aren't adequate enough to address my posts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105048
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope dud following would be what you do. I follow no one. I make my own path.
You have followed the fundies into reality-denial and stupidity.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105049
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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!
Yes. English belongs to England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105050
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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 have not answered the questions either.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105051
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105052
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105053
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105054
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105055
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105056
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105057
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105059
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105061
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105062
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105063
Nov 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 99,521 - 99,540 of111,873
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••