Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220719 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.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#108245 Jan 23, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the universe is a closed or open system?
If there exists no space nor time outside of the universe, one cannot assert that there is anything for the universe to be 'isolated from'?

An infinite universe may be open or closed, but we can never know which. Like infinity divide by infinity, the answer is indeterminate. For that matter, we can never prove whether the universe is finite or infinite. We can only postulate finite and infinite models and determine which model is the best fit to our observations.

There may be a universe beyond what we can ever detect, but our universe is somewhat more limited than that. Our universe consists of detectable matter, energy, space and time. We can only speculate about what lies beyond our universe. From unexplained phenomena in our universe, we may infer the existence of something else.

In thermodynamics, a closed system has no inputs or outputs of mass or energy. The space that we live in is expanding. Expansion of space increases the distance between galaxies, increasing the gravitational potential of our universe. So our universe has an input of unexplained "dark energy". Our universe is, therefore, an open system, and we may infer that dark energy comes from a greater universe outside of our universe.

The question remains whether dark energy brings with it entropy or exergy. Without an input of exergy, it seems inevitable that our universe will die after a few billion years. Perhaps it should have died already, if not for an input of exergy via dark energy.

If I'm not mistaken, which I could be, the 'open or closed' system discussion in regards to the universe usually refers to whether or not the universe has enough mass with the rate of expansion decreases and ultimately the universe begins coming back upon itself by gravity or not.

A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.

Keep in mind thermodynamics does not define a system. We define the system. Thermodynamics helps us predict the processes a system defined by us can undergo.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#108249 Jan 23, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is your position, open or closed?
We don't know enough to call it either way. We don't know if the expansion is internal or being drawn from external forces. We don't know enough about dark energy. We don't know what lies on the other side of black holes. We cannot see the ends, so to speak of the universe to see if it is finite or infinite nor do we know if it will keep expanding or collapse upon itself. So based on what we see and know with not knowing if there is anything beyond our universe, the universe should be considered a closed system IMO.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#108250 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
There are only hypotheses as to what happened before the Big Bang. We may never know. But at least we can be honest about that.
We may also never be absolutely sure how life came about. But we are coming VERY close to providing viable, natural pathways that life could have come about. That is the realm of biochemistry, and an exciting field. You are aware, for example that complex organic compounds have been detected, along with liquid water, in deep space, right?
Now with that in thought that does not mean life just came to be. What it means is that man is trying to re-creates life from organic compounds. Man re-creating life still does not answer if a creator was needed for first life or not for if not for man re-creating it, it would not happen..

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108251 Jan 23, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So your position is the universe is a closed system, correct?
Universe likely closed, but we may never know for sure.

LOCALLY (our solar system -- which is much more relevant for this discussion), it *IS* OPEN.

Dude, seriously....the SLoT?

Really?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108253 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now with that in thought that does not mean life just came to be. What it means is that man is trying to re-creates life from organic compounds. Man re-creating life still does not answer if a creator was needed for first life or not for if not for man re-creating it, it would not happen..
The scientists studying the beginning of life only simulate the conditions and compounds that were present for early earth. They are not 'building' the organisms themselves. The prebiotic compounds (not yet life) that HAVE been produced in these experiments self-assembled from these conditions and compounds.

We're getting close. VERY close.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#108254 Jan 23, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is this 'we' you keep talking about?
Bottom line is you are a coward and afraid to take a position.
"We" is mankind, past and present. "We" is science, past and present. "We" are the people that study it all, past and present. Being a coward is thinking you have all the answers. I gave you an answer. You just cannot understand it for it does not plug into your thinking of putting a square peg into a round hole.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#108256 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientists studying the beginning of life only simulate the conditions and compounds that were present for early earth. They are not 'building' the organisms themselves. The prebiotic compounds (not yet life) that HAVE been produced in these experiments self-assembled from these conditions and compounds.
We're getting close. VERY close.
Then again when you say simulate the conditions and compounds that were present for early earth is all based off of philosophy, belief and thought.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108257 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Certainly!
Everything comes down to the four fundamental forces of nature:
Electromagnetism
Strong nuclear force
Weak nuclear force
Gravity
No matter what "System" or "Cycle" or "Pattern" (or combination thereof), only the above forces are being used.
Without the evidence of this designer, all you have is PHILOSOPHY, and the default SCIENCE position is that of a designerLESS existence.
The burden of proof for this Designer falls upon those making the argument FOR this Intelligent Designer.
Are you saying that these four forces created life?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108258 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not claiming God. I am asking you what scientific evidence exists that set the universe (before BBT) in motion and life in motion (before abiogenesis).
Point being no one has a clue when it all comes down to how the universe and life were set into motion. The start of both are based off of philosophy, belief and thought.
I don't see how anyone can deny that

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#108260 Jan 23, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the memo, your steady state model was abandoned in 1964.
So take that with ya,
I told you my answer I explained why I think it. Now step up and tell your answer and explain why you think that or as the common phrase goes STFU!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108261 Jan 23, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that these four forces created life?
These four fundamental forces created the conditions and the elements needed for life to come about.

So essentially....yes. The four fundamental forces (Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear, Electromagnetic, and Gravity) were by definition the base forces required for life to begin.

....unless you have EVIDENCE for another, BETTER answer.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108262 Jan 23, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
It tells me science can only study what it sees and only try to understand what it sees. Science cannot study what it cannot see or understand what it cannot see and in a since is not concerned with what it cannot see or understand.
Precisely. I couldn't have said it better myself. Kudos!
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>Just because something cannot be seen or understood does not mean it is not there.
Yes. I agree here as well. Which is the EXACT reason why science does NOT make a statement for or against the existence of a deity.

Science is SECULAR, not "ATHEISTIC". Once the existence for a Supreme Being is made evident, and we are able to study this entity, He/She/It will no longer be *SUPER*natural, it will be part OF nature, and within the realm of science.

You guys have some work to do.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108263 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
These four fundamental forces created the conditions and the elements needed for life to come about.
So essentially....yes. The four fundamental forces (Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear, Electromagnetic, and Gravity) were by definition the base forces required for life to begin.
....unless you have EVIDENCE for another, BETTER answer.
Please explain how they did , and what evidence you have?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108265 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
There are only hypotheses as to what happened before the Big Bang. We may never know. But at least we can be honest about that.
We may also never be absolutely sure how life came about. But we are coming VERY close to providing viable, natural pathways that life could have come about. That is the realm of biochemistry, and an exciting field. You are aware, for example that complex organic compounds have been detected, along with liquid water, in deep space, right?
Now here is the greatest lie of the evo puddle people, and no one calls them on it." We are becoming v-e-r-y close to knowing how life came about" That's a lie, they are no closer than they have been since the dawn of time. Think! for the love of God think! What did you say? hey we've found water and other compounds! That is not evidence that life self assembled and then made that galactic leap to life. Aren't you supposed to have evidence for that? or is yours merely a belief

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108266 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely. I couldn't have said it better myself. Kudos!
<quoted text>
Yes. I agree here as well. Which is the EXACT reason why science does NOT make a statement for or against the existence of a deity.
Science is SECULAR, not "ATHEISTIC". Once the existence for a Supreme Being is made evident, and we are able to study this entity, He/She/It will no longer be *SUPER*natural, it will be part OF nature, and within the realm of science.
You guys have some work to do.
Science could be said to be atheistic in the sense that one does not believe what one does not have evidence for. There is no evidence for Russell's Magic Teapot, I don't believe in it. There is no evidence for a deity, I don't believe in one.

Show me some evidence and I will change my mind.

Sadly it seems all of the theist here are working on the level of the Babelfish proof of the nonexistence of God.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108267 Jan 23, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
These four fundamental forces created the conditions and the elements needed for life to come about.
So essentially....yes. The four fundamental forces (Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear, Electromagnetic, and Gravity) were by definition the base forces required for life to begin.
....unless you have EVIDENCE for another, BETTER answer.
So you are the one making the claim,...you said ..".So essentially yes.

You are making the claim

explain in scientific terms using the scientific method how it happened..

or,..... just tell us your beliefs

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108268 Jan 23, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Now here is the greatest lie of the evo puddle people, and no one calls them on it." We are becoming v-e-r-y close to knowing how life came about" That's a lie, they are no closer than they have been since the dawn of time. Think! for the love of God think! What did you say? hey we've found water and other compounds! That is not evidence that life self assembled and then made that galactic leap to life. Aren't you supposed to have evidence for that? or is yours merely a belief
Why must you lie? You know that scientists have advance way past that point.

They have not answered the question yet, but they have shown many of the necessary steps for life to form. Do you need to lie because you are threatened by how far they have actually advanced?

And you are in effect admitting that evolution happened by moving the goal posts all of the way to abiogenesis. Evolutionists will be quick to point out that evidence indicates that life arose naturally, but evolution itself does not rely on where and how life first arose.

So thanks for the admission of defeat bohart!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108269 Jan 24, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why must you lie? You know that scientists have advance way past that point.
They have not answered the question yet, but they have shown many of the necessary steps for life to form. Do you need to lie because you are threatened by how far they have actually advanced?
And you are in effect admitting that evolution happened by moving the goal posts all of the way to abiogenesis. Evolutionists will be quick to point out that evidence indicates that life arose naturally, but evolution itself does not rely on where and how life first arose.
So thanks for the admission of defeat bohart!
First , you accuse me of lying, then you admit! science has not answered the question I raised! You are an imbecile incapable of rational thought

Lie # 2 life arose ,naturally , what sci fi book have you gotten that evidence from.! I wondered what pit of illogic reasoning you had plunged into recently.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#108270 Jan 24, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
First , you accuse me of lying, then you admit! science has not answered the question I raised! You are an imbecile incapable of rational thought
Lie # 2 life arose ,naturally , what sci fi book have you gotten that evidence from.! I wondered what pit of illogic reasoning you had plunged into recently.
Another moron.

Yes, you lied you idiot. You understated what science has accomplished. It seems those accomplishments scare you since you will not admit the obvious.

And yes, the evidence only supports that life arose naturally. Before I give you some of it let me ask you a question. What evidence do you have that supports your beliefs? Besides your complete and utter inability to reason of course.

I am demanding that you go first since creatards are long on promises, but short on results.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108271 Jan 24, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but Portugal doesn't *OWN* Portuguese any more than England OWNS English.
Your definition of the word OWN is flawed.
NOBODY, nor any government, or group of people OWN a language.
Can you find ANYONE in the history of the internet that says otherwise, except for yourself?
Thanks Kong. Atleast you agreed that English originated in England unlike some liars here.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 min Awnold 73,432
A to Z songs by title or group! 3 min andet1987 1,256
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 9 min positronium 21,483
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 12 min andet1987 5,164
The letter E (Jun '13) 14 min andet1987 1,562
2words into 2new words (May '12) 19 min andet1987 7,835
News Teens wearing leggings barred from United fligh... 39 min Protoham 12
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 42 min Laura B S 6,901
Memorable Movie Scenes. 1 hr lightbeamrider 86
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Sharlene45 213,276
More from around the web