Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223190 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 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108285 Jan 24, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
To clarify my statement: English *AS WE KNOW IT TODAY* originated in England.
The ROOTS of this language are from other countries.
But England STILL DOES NOT **OWN** the English language.
No country, person, group of people or government OWNS a language.
And apparently you cannot find ANYONE that has ever agreed with your statement that "England owns English".
In addition, all world languages have roots from many other world languages, English is not an exception. For the issue of ownership, it is your opinion. My stand is my stand, " ownership by origination ".

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#108286 Jan 24, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>SCPID stands for Systems Cycles and Patterns Intelligent Design .
Oh, great. Speaking of cycles, this topic is back.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108287 Jan 24, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Same can be said for the Universe and life. Of course your answer will be the BBT and abiogenesis but there had to be something that set those two into motion. What scientific evidence is there for what set those two it into motion? Show SPECIFICALLY how they both got set into motion.
What for? This is the evolution forum. The theory of evolution does not rely on the Big Bang or abiogenesis.(shrug)
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
And the default science position of a designerLESS existence is philosophy. When it comes down to it philosophy, belief and thought is all anyone has for evidence on how the universe and life got started.
It does not reject "designers" for the sake of philosophy, it rejects them simply due to the lack of evidence. For abiogenesis, science is actually quite open to a number of possibilities:

1 - invisible magic wizard(s).

2 - Aliens.

3 - Natural causes.

4 - Unkown fourth option which nobody's thought up yet.

As for the Big Bang, it is also open to more than one possibility -

1 - Caused (and within this again there are numerous options).

2 - Uncaused.

The only problem with the "designer" idea is that it doesn't make any specific predictions about any of these. So while science accepts that such an entity may even exist, it doesn't bother to entertain the notion as it is a non-scientific unfalsifiable concept which is incapable of making no scientific predictions.

This makes it, scientifically speaking, useless.

On the other hand it can be quite useful for psychological philosophical appeasement, and political manipulation.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#108288 Jan 24, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ofcourse!
You can never beat the truth. The official language of your country( Brazil) originally came from Portugal just like English from England. Ok?
Oh, thanks Charles, I was wondering where Portuguese came from...:|

But the question still remains - why, on a topic called, and I quote - "Evolution vs. Creation", do you continue with your incessant, irrelevant argument about the origins and ownership of the English Language? What the flock does that have to do with the topic at hand?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108289 Jan 24, 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.
However it can still speculate on what it cannot see - for example when evolution speculated the existence of transitional fossils.

Correctly.

Now in the case of the beginning of the universe, it cannot *currently* explore past the point of singularity. But it CAN make predictions on what might be found if they could, something which they are attempting by working out a complete theory of quantum gravity (which they do not have yet). Therefore they can speculate and make predictions based on different models. Which is why there are multiple options of what may be found depending on what model is used. At the moment all models share the same amount of evidence - none. So the criticism that what lays beyond the singularity is only philosophical at the moment is at least a PARTIALLY valid critique. However should they one day FIND evidence, or manage to come up with a complete theory of quantum gravity, they may be able to find out which model is correct (if any).

Problem with the God concept though is that doesn't matter what they might find. Any and all of it won't be a problem with compatibility of Godmagic because any and all problems can be solved by Godmagic. This makes evidence utterly irrelevant to creationism, as there is no outcome that can't be claimed as God ultimately being somehow responsible.
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because something cannot be seen or understood does not mean it is not there.
And just because you don't understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not mean it's not there.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#108290 Jan 24, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> In addition, all world languages have roots from many other world languages, English is not an exception. For the issue of ownership, it is your opinion. My stand is my stand, " ownership by origination ".
Are you by chance an English teacher?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108291 Jan 24, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think the universe is a closed or open system?
Why?

Why do you hate kittens?

:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108292 Jan 24, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is your position, open or closed?
Oh, the ENTIRE Kama Sutra! Perhaps you should consider learning more positions?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108293 Jan 24, 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.
Actually although Repro usually talks bollox, in this case he was talking some sense. So he was correct that when he said "we", he most certainly meant you too.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108294 Jan 24, 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..
Actually in the case of abio research it's not man creating life. It's man re-creating the right environment so that life can develop itself. Much like planting trees, we can put one in a plant pot. But that's not necessary for trees to reproduce themselves via natural causes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108295 Jan 24, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Another coward...
Leave the irony meters alone, rookie.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108296 Jan 24, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see how anyone can deny that
Oh hey Bo. How is complexity measured? How do I quantify the difference between a paper aeroplane and a space shuttle?

You said you were gonna be slow but I didn't realise you were gonna be THIS slow.***

.

.

***Okay I'm kidding, I did know. Just call me a prophet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108297 Jan 24, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how they did , and what evidence you have?
Do you have any evidence of any other forces which ultimately do not boil down to these four main fundamental ones?

By the way, you still never explained how you were able to derive your conclusion from 'evidence' of complexity when you don't even know how to measure the stuff. Why is that?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108298 Jan 24, 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
Hey Bo, why are you, a known and confirmed massive hypocrite and liar for Jesus accusing other people of lying?

How is complexity measured?

How do I measure the difference in complexity of the paper plane and the space shuttle?

How can you base your conclusion on a premise you do not even know how to articulate?

Keep dodging, Bo.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#108299 Jan 24, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> In addition, all world languages have roots from many other world languages, English is not an exception. For the issue of ownership, it is your opinion. My stand is my stand, " ownership by origination ".
Your "stand" is yours alone. I challenge you to find ANYONE who shares your illogical opinion.

Ownership implies rights to the Owner. England enjoys NO such rights for the English language.

Prove me wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108300 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.
This coming from a known hypocritical liar who has been avoiding my questions for YEARS, not even counting just the past couple of weeks.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
1 - Life arises every day all over the planet via natural chemical means.

2 - The earliest life forms are protocells made entirely of chemical elements. At this point once evolution takes over eventually producing prokaryotes then eukaryotes.

3 - natural chemical abiogenesis predicts that this is what would be observed post abio event, and not magically-poofed fully formed mammals and plants as the design claims.

4 - There is evidence of chemical changes in the atmosphere during this time recorded in the rocks.

5 - Organic chemistry has been observed and demonstrated to develop naturally, as well as being found in things such as meteorites, showing that the universe's conducivity for life is not necessarily confined to Earth.

6 - There's a complete lack of evidence that magic Jews exist, much less are necessary for, well, anything at all.

How is complexity measured, Bo?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108301 Jan 24, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> There is a God. The universe is a testimony to that. It did not come by chance or accident, it was intelligently made( created).
No, evidence of the universe is only evidence of the universe. It is NOT evidence of the universe AND magic Jews.

It may have been caused naturally. Or it may have had an intelligent cause.

Or it might not have had a cause at all.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108302 Jan 24, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, thanks Charles, I was wondering where Portuguese came from...:|
But the question still remains - why, on a topic called, and I quote - "Evolution vs. Creation", do you continue with your incessant, irrelevant argument about the origins and ownership of the English Language? What the flock does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Nothing at all. If Chuck turns up I just say Siberians own English then sit back and laugh at him for the next 20 pages. Works every time.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108305 Jan 24, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
This coming from a known hypocritical liar who has been avoiding my questions for YEARS, not even counting just the past couple of weeks.(shrug)
<quoted text>
1 - Life arises every day all over the planet via natural chemical means.
2 - The earliest life forms are protocells made entirely of chemical elements. At this point once evolution takes over eventually producing prokaryotes then eukaryotes.
3 - natural chemical abiogenesis predicts that this is what would be observed post abio event, and not magically-poofed fully formed mammals and plants as the design claims.
4 - There is evidence of chemical changes in the atmosphere during this time recorded in the rocks.
5 - Organic chemistry has been observed and demonstrated to develop naturally, as well as being found in things such as meteorites, showing that the universe's conducivity for life is not necessarily confined to Earth.
6 - There's a complete lack of evidence that magic Jews exist, much less are necessary for, well, anything at all.
How is complexity measured, Bo?
1, Why ,... fool do you continue to bring up reproduction in a life's origin debate?
2. That is certainly not confirmed and where did they come from , no answer
3. There is no proof of natural chemical abiogenesis, only your belief
4. So, atmosphere does not create life.
5. chemistry has not been shown to create life, to say otherwise is a lie
6. Then Jew magic and your beliefs have the same amount of evidence,

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108306 Jan 24, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Too many individual steps to fit into Topix word limitations, but essentially:
Gravity: Formation of the solar system (Sun which provides the power and the earth)
Strong/Weak nuclear forces:
Chemistry (buildup of compounds that led to the formation of life).
Hmm? you seem to have left out a quadrillion details. Let's see, undirected natural forces somehow led to compounds which somehow led to the spontaneous generation of life! A process for which there is no known mechanism , method , or even credible hypothesis. It is strictly a belief. When it comes to the beginning of life and the universe even Hawking said that the creationist and scientist both have only beliefs since there's no evidence. The only evidence you'll come across is from the lying puddle idiots on this thread

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) (Dec '14) 2 min Faerydust 6,458
True False Game (Jun '11) 10 min Faerydust 16,018
Poll How Long Have You Won in "Last Post Wins" thread? (Jan '09) 14 min quilterqueen 7,052
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min CJ Rocker 226,080
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 17 min Faerydust 7,235
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 17 min quilterqueen 18,028
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 18 min quilterqueen 34,394
Does anyone remember? (Apr '13) 2 hr Faith 1,976
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 2 hr Faith 6,753
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr F_R_E_D 32,415
More from around the web