Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222780 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 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105495 Nov 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a hypothesis? Lets take this a step at a time this way no gets lost this time.
I would say that natural aboigenesis is a conjecture and that there are various hypoyheses about how it might happen. Such as RNA first, or protein first, or even metabolic processes first. These competing hypotheses might be half right, one might be right, a combination might be right, or they could all be wrong. None has been confirmed or rejected yet.

So you are right to make the point though its a bit nitpicky.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#105496 Nov 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when does citing a quote have to refer to a person or people? To think it does you must have a person or people in mind. Do share your thoughts.
Oh please! That is so inane.

You have made an assertion that some people claim to know everything. You are basing your arguments around this unsupported assertion. Now either back it up with evidence or drop it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105497 Nov 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a hypothesis? Lets take this a step at a time this way no gets lost this time.
We have already been over it. You used the idiots definition, in case you didn't remember. Here is the definition, one more time:

A hypothesis is the proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105498 Nov 9, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh please! That is so inane.
You have made an assertion that some people claim to know everything. You are basing your arguments around this unsupported assertion. Now either back it up with evidence or drop it.
Yes, he has implied more than once that just because we don't know everything we can't know anything. The moron's approach to science or even simple learning. We can always learn more, if we try. We can always know more, if we are successful. And we will always have idiots who find it easier to deny than to learn.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105499 Nov 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> These things entail a bit more than decimal places, they came with the need to explain the behavior of substances near absolute zero, and characteristics that could not be explained with the methods and terminology of the day.
Not just. For example, the heat capacity of gases is determined by quantum effects and the classical treament simply failed.

The plum pudding model of the atom, which was required by classical descriptions of electromagnetism, was shown wrong by Rutherford's experiments. That required a complete restructuring of the way atoms work.

The Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to find the motion of the earth through the ether, which would have been detectable if Newtonian physics was correct. But that next decimal point showed that the classical description was wrong and so relativity was required.

The problem is that the models were working quite well at some level of approximation, but not at the next level. Adding a decimal point required a complete change in the underlying theories.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105500 Nov 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A 50,000 year old arrow/spear head shows intelligence and I don't believe it can be produced naturally,,, well not naturally to the working design.
Exactly. The investigation of early tool use requires understanding what sorts of chipping in rocks happens naturally from falls and what sort is only produced by conscious remodeling.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#105501 Nov 9, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
i ddin;t say I had evidence of it.i am saying without this maic it would.....
yep you are incoherent
still can't decide if this creator of yours is life or not? why is this question so hard for you?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#105502 Nov 9, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just. For example, the heat capacity of gases is determined by quantum effects and the classical treament simply failed.
The plum pudding model of the atom, which was required by classical descriptions of electromagnetism, was shown wrong by Rutherford's experiments. That required a complete restructuring of the way atoms work.
The Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to find the motion of the earth through the ether, which would have been detectable if Newtonian physics was correct. But that next decimal point showed that the classical description was wrong and so relativity was required.
The problem is that the models were working quite well at some level of approximation, but not at the next level. Adding a decimal point required a complete change in the underlying theories.
Well you just made my point perfectly. But the increased accuracy of measure was brought by the need to explain, not the other way.
Which was my point, that our ability to measure is our strong point
in science, that does improve. I suppose it may be hasty to say 1 second error in 3.7 billion years is near absolute, this could be improved to 1 second in 7 billion, or 1 sec in 14 billion, but reveling the accuracy now is not all that arrogant.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105503 Nov 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no point. Behe's claims on the blood clotting cascade were wrong. It still works without some of the factors. It does not work as well. Blood clotting evolved along with life. It didn't happen all at once. The various articles and videos linked to you tried to explain that. You ignored them. Why should we read Behe's nonsense when you won't read the material that proves him wrong. And since our material proves him wrong why should we read him anyway? Wouldn't that be a massive waste of time?
So you explained how the circulatory system and blood originated, w
"witches brew" - your quote, that nothingness just stirred it all together and poof, we have blood with all it's complexities and clotting systems. How simple, next please.., any witch can brew it but not Miller, maybe he should take lesson's. Course the heart is no big deal, specialists only spend half their life in training before leading an operation, but your boys just say "circulatory system" and "snap" it all came to be.. Same for the Foraman Ovale, used only once at birth via a very complex transfer of pressure differentials and like clotting, if one step in the sequence is skipped, well the worst happens,(clotting is needed in the transfer also), but no worry's, evo figured out a way all to continue life while mutations and a plan-less throw of the dice took care of the process for us. Any transitional forms out there? No. Wow, I don't have to even think, evolution answers everything for me, including of all the orderly data needed in the DNA, think i will go get a beer and check on my food stamp balance...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foramen_ovale_%2...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105504 Nov 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he was refuted. Both in the scientific literature AND in court.
That's why he tours the church circuit instead of writing peer-reviewed papers backing up his silly claims which he said in his own words - "would not be fruitful". And so far no budding young creationist geniuses have bothered to take his mantle, which he was unable to attain in the first place.
I notice you also still haven't been able to address the fact that his position still vastly contradicts your own. But then, internal consistency has not been a concern of creationists for thousands of years.(shrug)
Read up on clotting to the point where you can understand the process and imagine yourself debating Behe in front of an unbiased audience. It's complicated and no where in the biological world is it in any form simple. This is the basic question of ID, the existence of complex processes/organisms makes good sense for ID and the burden of proof rests on evolution to explain your side, like MO-1, your done before your start.

On Behe, how can you know his position, today? I will tell you from first hand knowledge, your sources are wrong or outdated.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105505 Nov 9, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So you explained how the circulatory system and blood originated, w
"witches brew" - your quote, that nothingness just stirred it all together and poof, we have blood with all it's complexities and clotting systems. How simple, next please.., any witch can brew it but not Miller, maybe he should take lesson's. Course the heart is no big deal, specialists only spend half their life in training before leading an operation, but your boys just say "circulatory system" and "snap" it all came to be.. Same for the Foraman Ovale, used only once at birth via a very complex transfer of pressure differentials and like clotting, if one step in the sequence is skipped, well the worst happens,(clotting is needed in the transfer also), but no worry's, evo figured out a way all to continue life while mutations and a plan-less throw of the dice took care of the process for us. Any transitional forms out there? No. Wow, I don't have to even think, evolution answers everything for me, including of all the orderly data needed in the DNA, think i will go get a beer and check on my food stamp balance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foramen_ovale_%2...
Please, don't lie about what I said. If you want to discuss an article link the article.

Behe's fundamental claim that the blood clotting cascade will not work if one element of it is missing has been debunked. By observation and by experiment. It will not works as well but it still works.

Of course there is a reason that there are no honest creationists. Honest creationists quickly become evolutionists.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105506 Nov 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, don't lie about what I said. If you want to discuss an article link the article.
Behe's fundamental claim that the blood clotting cascade will not work if one element of it is missing has been debunked. By observation and by experiment. It will not works as well but it still works.
Of course there is a reason that there are no honest creationists. Honest creationists quickly become evolutionists.
Yes, God doesn't make junk and you quoted an oversimplistic stmt that suggested blood was as simple as witches brew, the same garbage I got in H.school when evo was the only way - simplify generalize, scientificize and just believe, and worse, toss out God with it. Years later I ran into my Phys Sci instructor, started to challenge him about that but too late, he was now a believer, made me a little mad. Told him the summary effect but what the heck do you do.. Still have my earth origins bk/white comp book from that class..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105507 Nov 9, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, God doesn't make junk and you quoted an oversimplistic stmt that suggested blood was as simple as witches brew, the same garbage I got in H.school when evo was the only way - simplify generalize, scientificize and just believe, and worse, toss out God with it. Years later I ran into my Phys Sci instructor, started to challenge him about that but too late, he was now a believer, made me a little mad. Told him the summary effect but what the heck do you do.. Still have my earth origins bk/white comp book from that class..
Funny that you cannot find the link that would support your claim.

There is a rule that creationists have to follow since they lie constantly. Any claim they make has to be backed up by links. If they don't, it is a lie.

Have you no shame?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105508 Nov 9, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Read up on clotting to the point where you can understand the process and imagine yourself debating Behe in front of an unbiased audience. It's complicated and no where in the biological world is it in any form simple. This is the basic question of ID, the existence of complex processes/organisms makes good sense for ID and the burden of proof rests on evolution to explain your side, like MO-1, your done before your start.
On Behe, how can you know his position, today? I will tell you from first hand knowledge, your sources are wrong or outdated.
You misstate the problem. In various animals, crustaceans for example, the blood clotting cascade is simpler. Again, you should read the articles that I linked. Behe was made to look like a fool in the Dover trial. I am trying to find a particular video, it is a reenactment, it is directly based upon the transcript of the trial. The Dover Trial exposed Behe for the fool that he is.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105509 Nov 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you just made my point perfectly. But the increased accuracy of measure was brought by the need to explain, not the other way.
The two play off of each other. Sometimes the increased accuracy drives theory and sometimes theory drives the increase of accuracy. In the cases I described, increased accuracy lead to puzzles that were explained both by new theory and further increases of accuracy to verify the predictions of the new theory.
Which was my point, that our ability to measure is our strong point
in science, that does improve. I suppose it may be hasty to say 1 second error in 3.7 billion years is near absolute, this could be improved to 1 second in 7 billion, or 1 sec in 14 billion, but reveling the accuracy now is not all that arrogant.
And I agree to a point. But again, that next decimal place may well provide puzzles that can only be explained by changing our viewpoints. And then we hope for further accuracy to see how far the new ideas can be pushed. By concern is that a 'rest on our laurels' mentality can develop that is ultimately unhealthy.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105510 Nov 10, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The revealing part of this post is the honesty takes place in backrooms, not in public.
No one understands it, yet it's presented as truth
That means they are not being truthful, imagine that
It's like Nazi Germany out there. They fear the establishment, loss of their jobs and grants. It's a reality they have had to deal with for years. We don't have to live in that counter-universe of deception.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105511 Nov 10, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>My family owned three Chargers, two with 440's, a Challenger with a 340 and Plymouth Fury with a 383. I like the Chargers for power, style and room, but that Challenger was the most fun to drive. The Hemi is a great engine, not only in myth, but in reality, but it is a detuned race engine and the 440 was more well behaved in daily driving. The Hemi had a thicker block and was about 100 lbs heavier than the 440. I nearly bought a 426 Hemi engine from a family friends auction, but missed it by a smile. Didn't know it was on the block until too late. My old adviser had and probably still has two 392 Hemis. I should get in touch with him come to think of it. If a person wanted a big Mopar to restore and drive, I would recommend the 440 for its temperament, power, price, availability and maintenance costs. I have only ridden in and not driven a Hemi-powdered car, a 1970 Superbee. I thought I was going to end up in the trunk. Sorry, I am meandering and reflecting.
No one here is refuting Behe's work on the basis that it is fashionable. That is ridiculous and I am surprised to hear that. I shouldn't be, but I am. I do believe you were the one that brought it up, but it doesn't really matter, because it is another example of irreducible complexity that failed.
Talkorigins is a very well supported source of information, but you are assuming none of us have read Behe's work and again that would be the wrong conclusion.
I have no issue with a person's religious beliefs. I have my own, but they are not science. Trying to supplant science with religion in a poorly veiled facade of science is not the answer.
All good. even w only 20 miles of road at the time we had a super cool AUTO shop in school and an even better teacher. It was a 2 hour class so in my last year I took them back to back - 4hours/day. overhauled engines etc.. Did a vet 327 and a 440 once. I have found that when you press Scripture into the original language its surprising what you get out of it. That's why I like Adam Clark, he was an language master and studied with the Rabbi's to double check his understanding.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105512 Nov 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he was refuted. Both in the scientific literature AND in court.
That's why he tours the church circuit instead of writing peer-reviewed papers backing up his silly claims which he said in his own words - "would not be fruitful". And so far no budding young creationist geniuses have bothered to take his mantle, which he was unable to attain in the first place.
I notice you also still haven't been able to address the fact that his position still vastly contradicts your own. But then, internal consistency has not been a concern of creationists for thousands of years.(shrug)
Seen anyone on your side step up an debate him in public? I saw a youtube on that, didn't go to well. Have a copy of a letter where your side determined not to debate our side anymore. The general public just doesn't "understand" evolution, the simple is now too complicated with bigger microscopes and telescopes coming into play and www providing everyone with full color pics to ponder.
Jim Sylvester

Sun City, CA

#105514 Nov 10, 2013
Evolution happened! Get over it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105515 Nov 10, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Seen anyone on your side step up an debate him in public? I saw a youtube on that, didn't go to well. Have a copy of a letter where your side determined not to debate our side anymore. The general public just doesn't "understand" evolution, the simple is now too complicated with bigger microscopes and telescopes coming into play and www providing everyone with full color pics to ponder.
No, the fact is that your side too often lies in debates. Have you ever watched Kent Hovind? The Ninth Commandment means nothing to him. Since debates are timed events lying can be a "winning" strategy. It takes much longer to correct a lie than it takes to make it.

In the past it was thought to be a bad idea to debate people who openly lied. Now we know that we have to deal with creatards, lies or not. The important thing to do is to show people like Hovind and Cumfart are liars and cannot be trusted.

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
News Your Life Story In 6 Words (Feb '08) 3 min September Daze 10,300
Woman appreciate a man that.........? (Mar '15) 25 min September Daze 199
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 28 min Dear Missus 27,390
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 47 min Parden Pard 9,446
What's your tip for the day? (Jul '14) 1 hr Parden Pard 2,347
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Dear Missus 223,412
"2" TWO word FUN game*** (Mar '13) 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 1,657
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 11 hr Poo Bears 6,064
Things that make life eaiser... (Apr '15) 11 hr TheJerseyDevil 969
More from around the web