Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107942 Jan 14, 2014
Patriot wrote:
Christine M, take into account the law of biogenetics which states life comes from life.
I think you ACTUALLY mean Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis.

Which was basically pointing out that fully-formed organisms (such as maggots in dead bodies) did not spontaneously appear, as was once previously thought. It has NOTHING to say about the gradual development of life via natural chemical processes. Something which happens every day all over the planet.

In short it's an argument against creationism.

Notice again how you got both the NAME of the concept wrong, as well as the concept wrong.
Patriot wrote:
The creaton account invalidates that
Your mythical fairy-tales do not invalidate science just like Harry Potter doesn't invalidate history.
Patriot wrote:
since life was created from nonliving matter
Again, happens all over the world every day. EVERYTHING that makes up your body is formed out of matter that was previously NOT alive. Your parents ingested non-living material and converted it into living material.

The problem you are unable to grasp is that ALL the way through the process, it's all chemistry. Life is chemistry. The non-living processes previous to life are also chemistry. So your claim is that chemistry makes chemistry, but chemistry definitely can't make chemistry. Don't worry, I know all this is going totally above your little head but at least everyone else will understand.

Oh, and according to your own rules, your own god breaks those exact same rules. A lifeform which does not come from a previous lifeform. A lifeform which isn't even a biological organism. A lifeform which doesn't even inhabit our universe, like every single other lifeform ever known does. So while the science will obviously fly straight over your head, I'm sure that even YOU can recognise your own hypocrisy here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107943 Jan 14, 2014
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>God is spirit and living
But living beings are not spirits. They are biological organisms.

You say that all life must come from previous life because that's what is observed? Then I say that all lifeforms are biological organisms made of living matter, because that's all that's observed.

Cue special dispensation for invisible Jew magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107944 Jan 14, 2014
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>You are treading on thin ice by stating God's inspired word is BS.
You are treading on thin ice by stating that Zeus's inspired Word is BS.

Pascal's wager is NOT good for you.
Patriot wrote:
If you would read it and know what is says you and your friends on here will be much better off than following whatever it is(man made ideas) that guides you.
You don't care what the Bible says, otherwise you would be a Biblical literalist and claim that the Earth was a flat square circle at the center of the universe which all revolves around the Earth. Instead when the Bible says something like that you claim it says something else because there was an error in translation, thanks to the work of creationist "scholars" who did all the work for you, because you can't read it in the original Hebrew or Aramaic. And those in turn can't read it in the original either since the original document doesn't even exist anymore.

But it's all true! Despite the fact you can't verify a single word of it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107945 Jan 14, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> non living matter via God.
Right. So life can't come from non-life, unless Goddidit, in which case you have NO argument against abiogenesis. Since it's pretty silly saying that it can't happen when your claim is that God made it happen anyway.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107946 Jan 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. So life can't come from non-life, unless Goddidit,
If God did it then it is life from life in line with biogenesis.

Gen. 1:1

In the beginning [Time]
God created the heavens [Space]
and the Earth [matter]

From matter God creates man.

Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
in which case you have NO argument against abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is an ad hoc exception which violates known laws of Science. It cannot be duplicated or observed. Inert matter insufficient cause to effect life no matter the time or circumstance unless there is a life form to direct the process which would be in line with biogenesis.
Since it's pretty silly saying that it can't happen when your claim is that God made it happen anyway.
Far more of a reasonable assumption then all of the diversity of life happening through non intelligent non directed causes whatever that may be. It is painstaking to observe the length atheists will undertake to delete God out of the picture.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#107947 Jan 14, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If God did it then it is life from life in line with biogenesis.
Gen. 1:1
In the beginning [Time]
God created the heavens [Space]
and the Earth [matter]
From matter God creates man.
Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
<quoted text> Abiogenesis is an ad hoc exception which violates known laws of Science. It cannot be duplicated or observed. Inert matter insufficient cause to effect life no matter the time or circumstance unless there is a life form to direct the process which would be in line with biogenesis.<quoted text> Far more of a reasonable assumption then all of the diversity of life happening through non intelligent non directed causes whatever that may be. It is painstaking to observe the length atheists will undertake to delete God out of the picture.
Except that "abiogenesis" doesn't violate any natural laws and there is no truth in the statement that it cannot be duplicated or observed, only that it has not yet been duplicated/observed in a controlled setting.
Didn't you then mean to say that it is tedious to what lengths people will go to rationalize their presupposed and personally preferred bronze age mythology?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#107949 Jan 14, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that "abiogenesis" doesn't violate any natural laws and there is no truth in the statement that it cannot be duplicated or observed, only that it has not yet been duplicated/observed in a controlled setting.
Didn't you then mean to say that it is tedious to what lengths people will go to rationalize their presupposed and personally preferred bronze age mythology?
Lord! abiogenesis doesn't violate any natural laws?....uh, biogenesis? that life only comes from existing life? ever heard of it? or perhaps using the scientific method you can give us one, just ONE example of inanimate matter coming to life on it's own.
I like your faith based statement that it hasn't been duplicated or observed yet, this speaks well of your beliefs that are based on your faith rather than evidence.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#107950 Jan 14, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If God did it then it is life from life in line with biogenesis.
Gen. 1:1
In the beginning [Time]
God created the heavens [Space]
and the Earth [matter]
From matter God creates man.
Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
<quoted text> Abiogenesis is an ad hoc exception which violates known laws of Science. It cannot be duplicated or observed. Inert matter insufficient cause to effect life no matter the time or circumstance unless there is a life form to direct the process which would be in line with biogenesis.<quoted text> Far more of a reasonable assumption then all of the diversity of life happening through non intelligent non directed causes whatever that may be. It is painstaking to observe the length atheists will undertake to delete God out of the picture.
Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
FULL STOP!

1. While the man was sleeping, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
2. In the cool of the evening, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking around in the garden.
3. The Lord God made clothes from animal skins for the man and his wife and dressed them.

Doesn't sound so "outside" of time and space to me.
It does sound like a fairy tale to right on up to complete and utter bullshit to me.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107951 Jan 15, 2014
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>The "law" of rational reason states one draws conclusion from availible evidence, if one such as scientists draw conclusions lacking evidence(speculations) their reasoning is not rational. Also scientists ignore that laws such as gravity, thermodynamics etc in order to be a law it must have a writer of the law, laws do not write themselves. The universe for example has 1, to always have existed, 2, created itself 3, or outside power create it. by laws such as thermodynamics invalidate the first 2 options, scientists say the universe is winding down, in order to be winding it must have been fully wound sometime in the past.
Patriot wrote:
Christine M, take into account the law of biogenetics which states life comes from life. The creaton account invalidates that since life was created from nonliving matter
There is no such thing as a law of rational reason so stop lying.

Say what? So physical, verified, falsifiable and peer reviewed evidence obtained from multiple diverse sources as used in science is not valid yet mythological, unverifiable and unfalsifiable guesswork of bronze age ex slaves is? Go figure.

Of course their reason is rational, and they can provide evidence to prove it. However it is unfortunate for you that the evidence shows that the bronze age guess of goddidiit by magic one Thursday afternoon just over 6000 years ago is exactly that, a guess without evidence and you consider guesswork without evidence to be rational?

It also seems that you are mot aquatinted with the meaning of “scientific law”.

Scientists have proposed the laws of gravity because of the repeatable results caused by the physical phenomenon of gravity, Those laws in no way effect gravity but help to describe it.

The laws of thermodynamics were proposed by scientists to describe reputably observed effects. Those observations show that the laws of thermodynamic did not begin to resolve until 10^-32 of a second AFTER the BB event and were not fully resolved until 10^-20th of a second after the event.

1 Einstein predicted it which was later verified with the Hubble equations, red shift of distant galaxies and WMAP data which all show that this universe is expanding. That’s one prediction and 3 completely separate, provable and independent findings that show the universe is expanding and so logically was smaller in the past.

2 Firstly: as is proven the laws of thermodynamics did not exist at the time of the BB event so those very laws state they were irrelevant to the event itself. Secondly: there is no scientific reason to suggest that the universe did not come from nothing. Note you should try reading the babble and getting your head around the word “void”

3 Unknown, there is no evidence of an outside power but you are welcome to guess if that’s what helps you sleep at night.

So the laws of thermodynamics do not invalidate the first 2 options, the problem is that you are unwilling to entertain or understand the first two options because they invalidate the third option and that would destroy your faith in jew magic.

And now you are feeding in more lies, The universe has been subject to the laws of thermodynamics since the laws of thermodynamics resolved, in that sense entropy has been winding down the universe for the last 13.7 billion years. However the universe is expanding and will continue to expend until in somewhere between 3 and 7 trillion (that’s TRILLION) years when those very laws of thermodynamics you are so keen on quoting (with little understanding) predict there will be nothing but scattered photons

I do love the way godbots put forward specious, un-researched arguments and then attempt to discredit them with lies before concluding, without evidence that they “must” be right. Your “must” is opinion, not fact

Also note that is no such thing as a “law of biogenetics”
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107952 Jan 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If God did it then it is life from life in line with biogenesis.
Gen. 1:1
In the beginning [Time]
God created the heavens [Space]
and the Earth [matter]
From matter God creates man.
You misunderstand.

You are claiming life can't develop naturally from dead matter but God can do it. You are claiming that it violates physics unless God does it. That's hypocrisy.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
Yes it does. With zero evidence.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Abiogenesis is an ad hoc exception which violates known laws of Science.
Except it doesn't violate science at all. It violates your baseless religious opinions, but they don't matter because you are scientifically clueless, period.
lightbeamrider wrote:
It cannot be duplicated or observed.
Duplication is not necessary. Science has a pretty good idea of how stars are formed but it can't duplicate it. That's because they developed a theory which made predictions based on observable phenomena, then later on observed those predictions.

As for observation, it IS observed - Four billion years ago there was no life. Three and a half billion years ago we see the beginnings of life. Ergo it is observed. It is also in line with precisely what abiogenesis would expect. The first lifeforms are microbial/bacterial in nature, protocells and the like. They are NOT large mammals that spontaneously appeared in adult form. Ergo it is precisely what we would expect if life developed gradually via chemical processes. Note how it made a successful prediction your magic wizard hypothesis couldn't.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Inert matter insufficient cause to effect life no matter the time or circumstance unless there is a life form to direct the process which would be in line with biogenesis.
Lifeforms do not direct inert matter. In fact, the matter required for life is NOT inert at all. That is the point. Chemistry is VERY active. And "dead" matter (not inert) creates living matter all the time. Everything that makes up your body was once a bunch of NON-living chemicals, converted into living matter via natural chemical processes. Ergo we have life from non-life.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Far more of a reasonable assumption then all of the diversity of life happening through non intelligent non directed causes whatever that may be.
Except for the fact you have zero mechanisms and zero evidence, while we don't, as I've just demonstrated. Not to mention the points I made to Patriot which STILL apply to you too. Your position requires lots of special exceptions that ours does not. We only require ONE exception - that life CAN come from non-life. Something which is not only demonstrated by the evidence, but also a necessity, since both the Earth and the universe are finite. Everything you propose is ignored thanks to Occam's Razor.
lightbeamrider wrote:
It is painstaking to observe the length atheists will undertake to delete God out of the picture.
Atheism? Hey Dimbeam, NOTHING I have claimed is relevant to atheism. There is NOTHING in there that claims that God DIDN'T do it using abiogenesis and evolution. God isn't even IN the picture because it has no colours to paint with - it has no evidence. Therefore there is no reason to consider it. There is no need to deny what you yourself cannot demonstrate and already admitted was a supposition based on some old religious book we know to be inaccurate.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#107953 Jan 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
Lord! abiogenesis doesn't violate any natural laws?....uh, biogenesis? that life only comes from existing life? ever heard of it?
Debunked both on this page AND the previous page. Go get your eyes checked.
bohart wrote:
or perhaps using the scientific method you can give us one, just ONE example of inanimate matter coming to life on it's own.
Uh, Bo, I've been pointing out to you for YEARS that abiogenesis does NOT deal with IN-animate matter.

So are you just lying (again) or just stupid?

Answer - YES.
bohart wrote:
I like your faith based statement that it hasn't been duplicated or observed yet, this speaks well of your beliefs that are based on your faith rather than evidence.
On the contrary, the Earth is finite. Therefore there is no choice BUT for life to come from non-life, according to the evidence. Hence this is not a matter of faith.

Now tell us again why magic Jews that make universes for a hobby CAN'T be responsible for abiogenesis? And why such a being should care what you think?

And while you're at it you could also provide just ONE piece of evidence that this magic Jew of yours even exists.

I guarantee you won't be able to do so until we meet again in the next life.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#107954 Jan 15, 2014
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Before you call someone a Jack*** you better first look at the mirror
"At"? Are you accusing mirrors of being jackasses?
Level 5

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#107955 Jan 15, 2014
I believe only in creation!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#107956 Jan 15, 2014
Spirit67_ wrote:
I believe only in creation!
Good for you, do you believe in jew magic too?

Have you read the babble?

What do you make of Genesis 1:2

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

Do you not find it contradictory?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107957 Jan 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If God did it then it is life from life in line with biogenesis.
Gen. 1:1
In the beginning [Time]
God created the heavens [Space]
and the Earth [matter]
From matter God creates man.
Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
<quoted text> Abiogenesis is an ad hoc exception which violates known laws of Science. It cannot be duplicated or observed. Inert matter insufficient cause to effect life no matter the time or circumstance unless there is a life form to direct the process which would be in line with biogenesis.<do quoted text> Far more of a reasonable assumption then all of the diversity of life happening through non intelligent non directed causes whatever that may be. It is painstaking to observe the length atheists will undertake to delete God out of the picture.
so, your supposed god is life? and he is just energy, right?

so just energy creating life is life from life...

good to know...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107958 Jan 15, 2014
Spirit67_ wrote:
I believe only in creation!
that would explain why you are just a frog and not an intelligent being...
Level 5

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#107959 Jan 15, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Good for you, do you believe in jew magic too?
Have you read the babble?
What do you make of Genesis 1:2
“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Do you not find it contradictory?
Nope, I don't think it's contradictory at all!

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107960 Jan 15, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Genesis 1:1 presupposes God outside time space and matter.
FULL STOP!
1. While the man was sleeping, the Lord God took out one of the man’s ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
2. In the cool of the evening, the man and his wife heard the Lord God walking around in the garden.
3. The Lord God made clothes from animal skins for the man and his wife and dressed them.
Doesn't sound so "outside" of time and space to me.
It does sound like a fairy tale to right on up to complete and utter bullshit to me.
That might have something to do with Omnipresence. Refer Isaiah 40:21 > to end of chapter.

Level 2

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#107961 Jan 15, 2014
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so, your supposed god is life?
Yes and the source of all life.
and he is just energy, right?
so just energy creating life is life from life...
good to know...
Life and sufficient Cause to effect all life. That is the theory. Whereas inert matter absent Intelligence is insufficient cause. It better explains the origins than does alternative non God theories. Not hard to understand ifone can look at with dispassion. That is a big problem with many non believers. Negative emotional reactions.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#107962 Jan 15, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> That might have something to do with Omnipresence. Refer Isaiah 40:21 > to end of chapter.
so again, energy creating life is not abiogenesis...

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
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 3 min Lumatrix 1,535
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min wichita-rick 161,809
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 42 min wichita-rick 818
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 10,908
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 1 hr Princess Hey 552
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 1 hr Princess Hey 4,876
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr Enter Username 29,001
Things that make life eaiser... 2 hr ABERRANT 264
News Naked Couple Busted For Sex In Library Loo 4 hr Enzo49 23
More from around the web