Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
102,821 - 102,840 of 114,560 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108518
Jan 31, 2014
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>OK. So if we start with the idea that there was a point where there was no life on Earth and now there is life, scientists are naturally curious about how that changed. All the Earth had to work with was inanimate matter. There was organic matter, proteins and lipids and such (I am not a biologist so forgive me if my language is less than precise), but nothing that would be considered alive.

Now we know chemistry is an essential element to life. Chemistry is responsible for metabolism, digestion, breathing, etc. Chemical interactions are at the core of all living processes.

So if you take a lifeless planet abundant in chemicals and organic matter (or pre-organic if that is a more accurate term) it is really that much of an unrealistic notion that a chemical process is responsible for getting the ball moving. Maybe it is incredibly rare, but it only needed to happen once.

The point is, we are curious to know what happened. Maybe it was chemical organization, maybe it was something else. The research continues. But it seems to me that some people are dead set against any scientific investigation into the matter, that any scientific explanation for life will be considered unacceptable. It is an important question that deserves attention and study, and hopefully an eventual answer.
Sounds like you are a little confused here.
First you go with the assumption that life has an origin. Not sure why you accept this, universal laws in science or other reasons.
Then you suggest an organization of matter (chemical) theory. Uniformity in Nature? You willing to accept that?
Lastly you've stated that it need only happen once. That claim seems to mean that those searching for life outside of our planet are waisting their time.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108519
Jan 31, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeezoos fooking christ on a crutch Chaz – WTF is wrong with you?
Tell me are you British?
Well I am and I live here in England and I am not ‘solely’ English, I am British as it says on my officially transcribe by the British government birth certificate, NI, driving licence and passport
So stop trying to diminish my nationality with your pig ignorant silly bugger stupidity.
You are making enemies of British people simply because you have a frigging moronic idea based on ignorance, it’s pathetic and does nothing other than highlight your stupidity
If you don't know, " all British are not English ". This is a fact.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108520
Jan 31, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Godbots have their opinion on that.
Just about every one else does not have any such an opinion, they actually know the facts as shown by many separate and independent lines of evidence.
You see this is the difference between opinion and fact
Please provide any (ANY) evidence for you claimed creative power. And by evidence I mean real evidence than can be falsified as opposed to the great god Charles Idemi saying so
Likewise. Your opinion as well.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108521
Jan 31, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nickers
Try telling a guy from North Vietnam to follow the rules as laid down by the US, after they had stopped laughing the chances are they would simply shoot you.
For that matter try telling someone from the UK or Mexico or Canada.
You seem to have a very distorted opinion of the influence your country has on the rest of the world.
But even though, politically they hated the US, they all recognised that fact that, it started in the US?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108522
Jan 31, 2014
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes so that means that the people of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are British – OK
The British (note that title) government* seems to think so, the British people seem to think so, all other governments who recognise Britain as a sovereign state (note that all other governments) seem to think so
Therefore I guess you, not being a British citizen or a member of any government are in a minority of one.
* also note that an English government does not exist
Politically, you are right to avoid England's dominance. But culturally you are WRONG.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108523
Jan 31, 2014
 
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll.
Troll.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108524
Jan 31, 2014
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiocy is to continue making an irrelevant argument about an irrelevant subject.
Unless you can actually state how ownership of the English language matters to this debate, you are just wasting people's time.
And that does not change the truth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108525
Jan 31, 2014
 
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>It's still you, Chucky... but it is what you shine at, and that will always be amusing... in a pathetic sort of way
That is why truth is bitter.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108526
Jan 31, 2014
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
I just laid out an argument on why you are wrong. Rebut or retract.
Don't applaud your self yet, D. Because England are solely called the English. So, i am still right on that stand.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108527
Jan 31, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if you don't mean ownership, stop saying ownership.
As long as there are still people called the English i am justified by my statement.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108528
Jan 31, 2014
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept the fact life had a beginning,
Okay then.
bohart wrote:
what I and any reasoning sentient being
You are not a reasoning sentient being, and neither is anyone who shares your position. Your argument stems from incredulity. This is a logical fallacy.
bohart wrote:
cannot accept is that
What you can personally accept is irrelevant. You are simply not that important.
bohart wrote:
dead lifeless matter self assembled into an organized fashion and sprang to life
This contradicts your first sentence. If life had a beginning (as the evidence indicates) then at some point lifeless matter was assembled and became life. If not then life must stretch infinitely into the past, but there is zero evidence of this. In fact evidence points against it due to life having a beginning around 3.5 billion years ago, and the universe having a beginning around 13.71 billion years ago.

The other part you ignore is that everything that makes up our bodies was once non-living matter. This shows your argument that lifeless matter cannot become alive is irrational to the core.
bohart wrote:
If you do please, using the scientific method show the observable ,repeatable , and testable experiment that proves it,
No problem. Examine any living organism and you will find it's comprised of elements which were at one time in the past not alive. Iron is not alive, yet it flows through your body. Carbon is not alive, yet you are a carbon based lifeform. We eat dead things, and this non-living fuel is converted into living matter via chemical processes, which go to make up part of the chemical bag around it or used to make another one, which we call a baby. You can even examine the geological record which indicates that life began around 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.
bohart wrote:
or you can just keep on squawking.
I'll leave that to you. I continue to point out the facts while you merely repeat fallacies I've debunked time and time again. Since you've never been able to modify your argument and present counter-rebuttals this explains your two or three year losing streak. You know this, I know this, the rest of this thread know this.

And this is why you don't even have the slightest clue how complexity is measured in the context you're using it. Otherwise you'd have been able to tell me how to measure the difference between a paper plane and space shuttle by now. You said you were gonna go slow in explaining it to me Bo, but turns out you went so slow you stopped.

And that's why your argument is a lie. Because you can't claim your complexity argument is valid if you don't even know how to validate it.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108529
Jan 31, 2014
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck with that. We've been telling him that for 2 years now.
You are ignorant.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108530
Jan 31, 2014
 
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Discord, it's a circular argument. You waste 2 months arguing with him just to end up back on square 1, and then someone else steps in and goes through the whole cycle again...
And again...
And so on.
It's becoming pretty obvious that he's just trolling the same bait, trying to get new bites. We've all bitten, several times. Troll me once...
Why do you hate the truth?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108531
Jan 31, 2014
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some romans would state picts and britons and more exotic names were used. 449 CE
It took till about 550 CE until the Angels, Saxons and Jute had some real foothold.
Using the name Brits would be going back to a former idea of unity, since that in fact never really happened. But this kind of souvereignity is a source of pride.
The lingo used now was as far as i know invented by BBC radio.
And that does not change the fact that English originated in England.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108532
Jan 31, 2014
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>And that does not change the fact that English originated in England.
Is that like Chinese originated in China?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108533
Jan 31, 2014
 
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you are a little confused here.
First you go with the assumption that life has an origin. Not sure why you accept this, universal laws in science or other reasons.
It's not an assumption, it's observed.

Of course it's always possible that either life had an earlier origin further back in time, for which there's no evidence, or stretches infinitely into the past, which contradicts evidence. Occam's Razor therefore would suggest that life's origin occurred about 3.5 billion years ago here on Earth.
EXPERT wrote:
Then you suggest an organization of matter (chemical) theory. Uniformity in Nature? You willing to accept that?
Problem? Also one must be careful that they don't use terms like "organisation" in a loaded way, such as implying that "organisation" requires intelligence. This doesn't apply to chemistry, because particular chemicals act and react with each other in particular ways, leading to predictable consequences. Which is why we know H2O makes water, and never platinum.
EXPERT wrote:
Lastly you've stated that it need only happen once. That claim seems to mean that those searching for life outside of our planet are waisting their time.
Not really. Life starting here has no bearing on whether or not life started anywhere else.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108534
Jan 31, 2014
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
BS!!! I have learned from experience in the last 4 years, especially in the last 6-8 months that if there is a god he doesn't care. Waiting on god to help is nothing but a dead end and you will die before it happens.
Even the Bible tells you that.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108535
Jan 31, 2014
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are ignorant.
BONG!!!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108536
Jan 31, 2014
 
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some romans would state picts and britons and more exotic names were used. 449 CE
It took till about 550 CE until the Angels, Saxons and Jute had some real foothold.
Using the name Brits would be going back to a former idea of unity, since that in fact never really happened. But this kind of souvereignity is a source of pride.
The lingo used now was as far as i know invented by BBC radio.
And named Britannia by the Romans centuries before the Angles arrived on these shores

I have heard that the only people who actually speak the queen’s English now hail from a small village in eastern Scotland

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108537
Jan 31, 2014
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Why then do we have Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish in that UK?
Because all of them speaks a different language.
Nope they don’t speak a different (first) language, they have different dialects on one language, in fact they have different dialects amongst the dialects,

And they are known as British because they are British you dumbo.

The Scottish are not English, but they are British (at the moment)

The Welsh are not English but they are British

The Northern Irish are not English but they are British

Britain in the for of Britannia was named long before part of it was named the land of the Angles, later shortened to England

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••