Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163866 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.

FREE SERVANT

United States

#108371 Jan 27, 2014
MAAT wrote:
The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator.
Over the years, many theoretical papers have advanced particular metabolism first schemes, but relatively little experimental work has been presented in support of them. In those cases where experiments have been published, they have usually served to demonstrate the plausibility of individual steps in a proposed cycle. The greatest amount of new data has perhaps come from Günter Wächtershäuser and his colleagues at the Technische Universität München. They have demonstrated portions of a cycle involving the combination and separation of amino acids, in the presence of metal sulfide catalysts. The energetic driving force for the transformations is supplied by the oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution. A "smoking gun" experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach.
That's the difference between science and pseudoscience: science requires experimental validity. Creationists have harped for years on the low probability of life's spontaneous emergence in the universe. Meanwhile, scientists have been fashioning, testing, junking, redeveloping, and once again fashioning more and more plausible scenarios, not content to rest in comfortable ignorance.
It seems to me the 'comfortable ignorance' is in those who do not try to understand the significance of systems and their importance in nature. I have been called an idiot and other ill-chosen names for suggesting life rest on the simple SCPID principles of which a third grade school child can comprehend, but I am not here for self-grandizement, and I am not bothered in the least by such accusations when the truth of which I seek will stand the test of time.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108372 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It seems to me the 'comfortable ignorance' is in those who do not try to understand the significance of systems and their importance in nature. I have been called an idiot and other ill-chosen names for suggesting life rest on the simple SCPID principles of which a third grade school child can comprehend, but I am not here for self-grandizement, and I am not bothered in the least by such accusations when the truth of which I seek will stand the test of time.
hmmm...grin
Trust those seeking truth,
distrust those claiming TRUTH.

In the meantime you are also in the same waiting room.

Science will not look for the improbable , as in the I. D'er.

So i would call it a sceptical armchair approach.

As long as you are aware of occupying that position, or being perceived as such, you should be aware that criticism will be wafted unless it's pertinent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108373 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
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,
1 - Because everything life is ultimately boils down to chemistry.

2 - Actually yes it is confirmed, unless you have evidence of life prior to abiogenesis. And the chemicals were already present here on Earth, just as there's lots of chemicals on every other planet. We can go back even further (risking infinite regression of course) but this is effectively moving the goalposts back to the formation of the Earth itself. However like the theory of evolution not relying on abiogenesis, abiogenesis is not required to explain the formation of planets themselves.

3 - This does not address my point three. So far it is still correct. If you are still looking for "proof", you might want to study math. Especially in light of your constant plagiarising of bogus creationist numbers against abiogenesis.

4 - Didn't claim it to.

5 - Plain and simply wrong on your part. To the contrary, chemistry is ALL that's observed to create life, period. To say otherwise is a lie.

6 - Except for the predictions abio made that I pointed out in point 3:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

7 - How is complexity measured, Bo? You've not been able to answer this one for a few years now. Don't you see how that is a problem since your entire position hangs on this premise?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108374 Jan 27, 2014
Friday Jan 24, Dude said: 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.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dumb Dud, like in the movie, if an obelisk was discovered on the moon, would that be proof of complexity or just caused by random forces, take your time
An obelisk is a very simple object, is it not? Pure black rectangular cuboid with 6 sides. I suppose you COULD argue for the complexity of whatever the heck was IN it, but then we never really found out, did we.

Just as WE never found out - how this 2001 reference tells me how complexity is measured and how to measure the difference between a paper plane and a space shuttle.

Take your time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108375 Jan 27, 2014
Late to the party wrote:
I wanna start by saying everyone should YouTube EVOLUTION VS GOD..it's only 38 minutes long.the documentary is from a Christian but puts the shoe on the Darwin's foot ...the question throughout the documentary asks one simple question...If one believes in Darwins THEORY of evolution (mind u it is just a theory) "show me one(just one) change in kind (meaning one specious changing/morphing) into anther specious??) The Narrorater in this video interviews Drs, Professors as well as students in science ,biology,etc from many colleges/universities asking the question "Show me a change in kind,again meaning one species to another..........Ironic hiw one professor says to believe in evolution. It takes "faith" to bieves I. Evolution ......I advise all opened mind folks to watch the video evolution vs God...also bill bye the so called "scienc guy "is debating a crate ironist on feb 4 ...should b interesting
That god lost. Creationists worship a wimp.

Bill Nye won't do well though. He's participating in a public event with a master liar and PR man. Which is not really what this whole thing is about.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108376 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
MAAT is thus a God of the goo adherent
Bo, how do you measure complexity?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108377 Jan 27, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a fact...
Sure it is. You fundies always feel threatened unless your the controlling majority:

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108378 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha, banning science. You have all the objectivity of the Taliban.
Really? Is that why your current IDCreationist movement has links to JR Rushdooney?

And how come you guys have been flagrantly violating the First Amendment for DECADES by teaching kids outright lies in public schools?

Yet you don't have a problem with this at all. That's why American creationists are called the *Christian* taliban.
bohart wrote:
<quoted text> Because you are just as religious.
Hardly. We've accepted abio as an unproven hypothesis from the beginning. However no alternative hypothesis has ever been presented.

And yet here you are, ranting against abiogenesis and hoping to counter it with invisible Jewmagic, while on a forum about a subject which does not depend on abiogenesis anyway.
bohart wrote:
Why don't you tell those kids how a warm puddle of lifeless goo came to life using the scientific method. if you can't you are teaching a belief, not science.
I doubt very much that abio would even get a mention beyond its proper context - a scientific hypothesis currently under research. But if they do that then you think you're allowed to teach Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and David Barton:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_scie...

And the Constitution can go to hell, because who gives a f ck about the US of A anyway?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108379 Jan 27, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is making that claim but you mate!
Ah, I see you're a latecomer.

Very late in fact.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108380 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Some experts may disagree with your assertions that life was not in variety from the start.
Except for the fact that if they did they wouldn't be experts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108381 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
A theory such as SCPID
ShitsCrapsPoopsIntelligentDesi gn.

Still don't care.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108382 Jan 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Some useful information: "Life is distinguished by it's great degree of organization"
Explain to Dude that mans it's complex
Oh.

That's nice.(shrug)

How is complexity measured then?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108383 Jan 27, 2014
replaytime wrote:
Post four
It was still spam when it was post one. Four times is only you being determined to show everyone you're an absolute d ck.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6976169728/h83A4...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#108384 Jan 27, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>All these systems which are involved with life on earth have endogenous or built in self sustained adjusting capabilities. This is an intelligent set up.
Equilibrium is not evidence of intelligent design. Neither is it intelligent design when you stop seeking knowledge because you've been distracted by the cuteness quotient of a lemming.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Hometown

#108385 Jan 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
That's nice.(shrug)
How is complexity measured then?
Organization of animate or living things is based off of 5 levels. The cells, tissues, organs, organ systems and organisms.

In general usage, complexity tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement. The study of these complex linkages is the main goal of complex systems theory.

Complex systems present problems both in mathematical modelling and philosophical foundations. The study of complex systems represents a new approach to science that investigates how relationships between parts give rise to the collective behaviors of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment.

The equations from which models of complex systems are developed generally derive from statistical physics, information theory and non-linear dynamics, and represent organized but unpredictable behaviors of natural systems that are considered fundamentally complex. The physical manifestations of such systems are difficult to define, so a common choice is to identify "the system" with the mathematical information model rather than referring to the undefined physical subject the model represents. One of a variety of journals using this approach to complexity is Complex Systems.

Such systems are used to model processes in computer science, biology,economics, physics, chemistry,and many other fields. It is also called complex systems theory, complexity science, study of complex systems, sciences of complexity, non-equilibrium physics, and historical physics. A variety of abstract theoretical complex systems is studied as a field of mathematics.

The key problems of complex systems are difficulties with their formal modelling and simulation. From such a perspective, in different research contexts complex systems are defined on the basis of their different attributes. Since all complex systems have many interconnected components, the science of networks and network theory are important aspects of the study of complex systems. A consensus regarding a single universal definition of complex system does not yet exist.

One of the problems in addressing complexity issues has been formalizing the intuitive conceptual distinction between the large number of variances in relationships extant in random collections, and the sometimes large, but smaller, number of relationships between elements in systems where constraints (related to correlation of otherwise independent elements) simultaneously reduce the variations from element independence and create distinguishable regimes of more-uniform, or correlated, relationships, or interactions.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#108386 Jan 27, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Organization of animate or living things is based off of 5 levels. The cells, tissues, organs, organ systems and organisms.
In general usage, complexity tends to be used to characterize something with many parts in intricate arrangement. The study of these complex linkages is the main goal of complex systems theory.
Complex systems present problems both in mathematical modelling and philosophical foundations. The study of complex systems represents a new approach to science that investigates how relationships between parts give rise to the collective behaviors of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment.
The equations from which models of complex systems are developed generally derive from statistical physics, information theory and non-linear dynamics, and represent organized but unpredictable behaviors of natural systems that are considered fundamentally complex. The physical manifestations of such systems are difficult to define, so a common choice is to identify "the system" with the mathematical information model rather than referring to the undefined physical subject the model represents. One of a variety of journals using this approach to complexity is Complex Systems.
Such systems are used to model processes in computer science, biology,economics, physics, chemistry,and many other fields. It is also called complex systems theory, complexity science, study of complex systems, sciences of complexity, non-equilibrium physics, and historical physics. A variety of abstract theoretical complex systems is studied as a field of mathematics.
The key problems of complex systems are difficulties with their formal modelling and simulation. From such a perspective, in different research contexts complex systems are defined on the basis of their different attributes. Since all complex systems have many interconnected components, the science of networks and network theory are important aspects of the study of complex systems. A consensus regarding a single universal definition of complex system does not yet exist.
One of the problems in addressing complexity issues has been formalizing the intuitive conceptual distinction between the large number of variances in relationships extant in random collections, and the sometimes large, but smaller, number of relationships between elements in systems where constraints (related to correlation of otherwise independent elements) simultaneously reduce the variations from element independence and create distinguishable regimes of more-uniform, or correlated, relationships, or interactions.
You should probably cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems for most of that.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#108387 Jan 27, 2014
HillStart wrote:
<quoted text>
You should probably cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems for most of that.
exact match.

http://www.academia.edu/4488700/Structural_fu...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108388 Jan 28, 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?
One thing can lead to the other. At least from your comment you have learnt something.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108389 Jan 28, 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?
And again, lets learn to face the truth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108390 Jan 28, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why are they known solely as the English?

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 Murder Suspect's Bizarre Online Videos Emerge 23 min Sublime1 1
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 31 min _FLATLINE-------- 8,076
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 32 min _FLATLINE-------- 3,493
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 33 min Sublime1 14,236
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 35 min _FLATLINE-------- 79,137
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 36 min _FLATLINE-------- 8,387
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 43 min Cyan in CA 18,764
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 44 min CJ Rocker 162,850
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Wictor 40,706
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 18,223
Poll Middle East Solutions 3 hr thank you 29
*Sad music/sad themes Thread* 5 hr Nicholas Van Orton 182
More from around the web