Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222014 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111785 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, planets are round and much much larger in structure and guess what they float. I guess there is no mystery in that either. So what created gravity?
Planets do not 'float'. They orbit. Gravity is uncreated, like all physical laws. It makes no sense to ask how the fundamental laws arose because to describe their origin you need to refer to some laws.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#111786 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You still haven't done the math. If you are now going to claim that tectonic forces submerged the land masses you are adding a dimension of catastrophe that dwarfs 40 days and nights of rain and the "founts of the deep".
and...? Are you going to claim that birds carried the seeds of kangaroos to Australia and opossums to North America?
The "Genesis account" is bogus.
I don't claim to know what all the birds were or their kinds. I am just pointing out that the scriptures indicate that they were what was sent out to seed the earth.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111787 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there are a lot of discrepancies in the bible stories that contradict science. The problem with science is that the evidence from what we observe now is used to explain the Earth's past. You think the earth took a longer time to evolve (for example taking millions of years for a mountain to form) and yet scientists explain the beginning of the universe from a Big Bang which is supposed to be some violent explosion.
I'll ignore a few of the minor misunderstandings here.
First, the Big bang was NOT and explosion in the usual sense. It does NOT have material flung out from a central point into surrounding space.
Second, the solar system and the Earth formed about 9 billion years after the start of the universal expansion. In other words, the age of the Earth is only 1/3 the age of the universe. So you are comparing apples and oranges in terms of timing.
Third, the sun is a *third* generation star. It formed well after the 'violent' aspects of the initial expansion, or even those associated with galaxy formation had died down.
Fourth, you are confusing events that are happening at wildly different scales. When considering universal expansion, we need to consider distances between galaxies outside of 'local' galactic clusters. The solar system and planets are incredibly small on this scale. They are mere dots even in our galaxy, let alone our local cluster. The universal expansion doesn't apply within a galaxy because of gravitational effects.
If that theory is true then at the beginning was a violent event that spawned galaxies and everything in it. What makes you think that the evolution process of the present day is consistent with the past? If it is, the planets in our solar system would be highly unstable because it's so enormous that it takes a much more stronger force for it to form before it gets stable that they are now.
And this shows your confusion about the relative scales of the different phenomena. Our solar system and planets are very small on the scale of our galaxy, which is small on the scale of the universal expansion. A 'violent' phenomenon on the universal scale can be very 'calm' on the scale of the solar system. You are also confusing the times when these things happened: the solar system didn't form until quite a long time had passed. There were two generations of stars before our sun was formed: the very chemical elements we are made from didn't exist until the first generation of stars went supernova.
Imagine a moon forming inch by inch in millions of years? Have scientists thought about what conditions it would have caused?
Of course they have. And such conditions are in no way contradictory to the Big bang scenario. A cloud of dust and gas collapsing under gravity to form the planets and the sun is a very small scale event even in our galaxy.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111788 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>I don't claim to know what all the birds were or their kinds. I am just pointing out that the scriptures indicate that they were what was sent out to seed the earth.
And just to make it clear, the scriptures do not impress me because they are scripture.. Perhaps they'd carry more weight if they were factual, actual and true, but since they aren't, they don't.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111789 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't school me on elementary science, because you still don't understand. We know gravity is a fundamental force in the universe but you don't think it was created. So where did it come from?
I mentioned earth's physical laws because we depend on it and it's what we know. Do you think that aeronautics we learn in physics apply in a distant star system or how it works in a binary star?
I have no intention of wasting time schooling you on elementary science. You've had years to do that on your own if you were so inclined. I do have to touch base on it just to put your meanderings into a context I can address. Earth does not have any physical laws that don't exist everywhere else in the universe. Yes, if we built airplanes to fly over a planet in a distant star system, we would use the very same aeronautics we use to build airplanes to fly over this planet. What kind of rational answer do you expect for "God did it with magic" questions like "Where did gravity come from and what (who) created it?"
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#111790 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
And just to make it clear, the scriptures do not impress me because they are scripture.. Perhaps they'd carry more weight if they were factual, actual and true, but since they aren't, they don't.
Well, it is factual that birds have been known to plant seeds. I read somewhere that even the hot chilies have been planted by birds.
thulium

Perris, CA

#111791 Apr 21, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no intention of wasting time schooling you on elementary science. You've had years to do that on your own if you were so inclined. I do have to touch base on it just to put your meanderings into a context I can address. Earth does not have any physical laws that don't exist everywhere else in the universe. Yes, if we built airplanes to fly over a planet in a distant star system, we would use the very same aeronautics we use to build airplanes to fly over this planet. What kind of rational answer do you expect for "God did it with magic" questions like "Where did gravity come from and what (who) created it?"
Maybe I'm just this bored to even try to recreate this in my imagination. I'm no scientist so it's not my job to educate anyone. But I pick and choose what theories work for me and what doesn't.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111792 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't school me on elementary science, because you still don't understand. We know gravity is a fundamental force in the universe but you don't think it was created. So where did it come from?
Why do you think it 'came from' anywhere? The fundamental processes cannot come from anything more basic, so they must be 'uncreated'.
I mentioned earth's physical laws because we depend on it and it's what we know. Do you think that aeronautics we learn in physics apply in a distant star system or how it works in a binary star?
I think that the aerodynamic equations work for any fluid flow situation, if they are appropriately formulated. Some of the constants may be different (like the viscosity of the fluid), but the general law will hold. So yes, if there is a planet with an atmosphere, I would expect the general laws of aerodynamics to apply. In the interior of a star, some approximations may no longer be valid, but the more general laws would still hold. For binary stars, there doesn't appear to be a specific application of aerodynamics, but the laws would still be valid, even if not applicable to the specific situation.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#111793 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>The evidence may be overlooked if it does not line up with evolution. There is much evidence concerning many of the accounts that were written about also concerning the towers in Babylon and the spreading of falsehoods throughout the world as well, have you ever wondered why there are so many ancient pyramid structures around the world?. The great flood and the story about Noah and the part of the world where all language began adds up, but over thousands of years the evidence could have been deliberately hidden or destroyed for one reason or another. Christianity is about sinful mankind in need of a savior and his name is above all names and he is non other than Jesus Christ. If Jesus did not have power to do the miracles attributed to him and if he did not rise from the dead, then he was not who he claimed to be. I have my own reasons for knowing he was and is the truth and nobody can take that away from me.
That is special for you but has nothing to do with science. There is no evidence of a global flood. Flood stories permeate the history of most every culture throughout history, but stories similar to that depicted in Genesis are absent from many cultures including those in China, central Africa and many if not most North American pre-settlement cultures. The Gilgamesh stories predate the age of the depiction in Genesis and the story is practically identical save for it is a polytheistic version as opposed to the monotheistic version of the Bible.

Who would be able to deliberately hide evidence that should exist over the entire earth. You are just desperate for ideas because you are afraid that if you accepted the facts that Genesis is allegory, then it would diminish your beliefs. You have to ask yourself whether you believe in God or worship the Bible.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111794 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I'm just this bored to even try to recreate this in my imagination. I'm no scientist so it's not my job to educate anyone. But I pick and choose what theories work for me and what doesn't.
While scientists attempt to find general laws that work in as many situations as possible. So the laws of aerodynamics would still hold in a distant star system *if* they are correct laws.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#111795 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>There are seven land masses that may have broken apart and caused the water to cover the earth when they moved. The number seven was mentioned in the Genesis account also regarding the birds that were used to reseed the earth.
Good grief!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111796 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the theory of evolution, rocks formed in a given fixed amount of time assuming that evolution in our solar system have been consistent since the time of Big Bang.
Not even close to being correct.

First of all, the theory of evolution is a theory about *biology*, not cosmology. It describes how species change over time. it doesn't address cosmology. it doesn't address how life got started. It only addresses how species change over time.

Second, our solar system formed about 9 billion years after the Big Bang. That is about double the length of time since the Earth formed. To mix up the two events is sort of like saying that the Middle ages were chaotic in Europe, so democracies in Europe cannot happen.
If that was the case, imagine a small rock forming into a moon inch by inch in billions of years and that which it affects the planet its orbiting. What conditions might have been in during a slow process of evolution vs. a rapid and more violent event such as a supernova?
First, this is a misuse of the term 'evolution'. The gradual accretion of small rocks to form a planet is something we can observe in other stars systems today. Supernovas tend to destroy the central star of a system, although the shock wave can promote the collapse of nearby gas clouds into stars and planetary systems (again, we see the process happening today in places like the Eagle nebula).
I was just stating a possibility of a less stable environment therefore the time factor and speed would have been different in the past. It's like watching a movie in slow motion and believing its happening in real time. It doesn't make sense to me.
A supernova would leave very clear tell-tale signs because of the new isotopes being forced into the system. but even a collapse based on a supernova shock wave will take millions of years before the collapse into a star with planets will happen. The basic laws are the same here and now as they were in the past and far away. This is testable in a variety of ways and shows that your 'slow motion movie' is simply wrong.
THE LONE WORKER

United States

#111797 Apr 21, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Good grief!
Is that the best joke you can come up with? I was expecting you guys to throw something out about condors or stork eggs or something.:)

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#111798 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Do you even know what a miracle from God is? Creation itself was a miracle from the power of God. Why would a Christian deny that our Creator has this kind of great power, unless they are afraid for their livelyhoods or something?
Why would a Christian

That there IS the 64 million dollar question.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#111799 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, planets are round and much much larger in structure and guess what they float. I guess there is no mystery in that either. So what created gravity?
Mass
thulium

Perris, CA

#111800 Apr 21, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close to being correct.
First of all, the theory of evolution is a theory about *biology*, not cosmology. It describes how species change over time. it doesn't address cosmology. it doesn't address how life got started. It only addresses how species change over time.
Second, our solar system formed about 9 billion years after the Big Bang. That is about double the length of time since the Earth formed. To mix up the two events is sort of like saying that the Middle ages were chaotic in Europe, so democracies in Europe cannot happen.
<quoted text>
First, this is a misuse of the term 'evolution'. The gradual accretion of small rocks to form a planet is something we can observe in other stars systems today. Supernovas tend to destroy the central star of a system, although the shock wave can promote the collapse of nearby gas clouds into stars and planetary systems (again, we see the process happening today in places like the Eagle nebula).
<quoted text>
A supernova would leave very clear tell-tale signs because of the new isotopes being forced into the system. but even a collapse based on a supernova shock wave will take millions of years before the collapse into a star with planets will happen. The basic laws are the same here and now as they were in the past and far away. This is testable in a variety of ways and shows that your 'slow motion movie' is simply wrong.
Don't mind me poly, I just have super active imagination that I can't help but think of possible variables that could have taken place in the distant past such as a cosmic storm or alien colonization. And oh, I have been discussing cosmic evolution, not Darwinian theory. Anyways, I do give credit when it's due. Most scientific theories we have today are brilliant. You get my vote on teaching them in schools. We are in the information age so that's a great feat! But, anything about God should be a personal thing so stop attacking those who choose to have faith. Science and religion works differently in the brain, both can be beneficial in a given situation.
thulium

Perris, CA

#111801 Apr 21, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Mass

bwahahahaha! yes!

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#111802 Apr 21, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>Is that the best joke you can come up with? I was expecting you guys to throw something out about condors or stork eggs or something.:)
It wasn't a joke. No wonder you are a lone worker.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#111803 Apr 21, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
bwahahahaha! yes!
Where the heck is Penis, CA anyway? I guess it must be southern California.
thulium

Perris, CA

#111804 Apr 21, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Where the heck is Penis, CA anyway? I guess it must be southern California.
Oh haha.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Mister_ E 220,928
Passed with 927: Certpark Cisco 400-101 exam sa... 2 hr sidney 1
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 2 hr SweLL GirL 8,332
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 2 hr SweLL GirL 36,954
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 2 hr SweLL GirL 17,044
Word Association (Mar '10) 2 hr SweLL GirL 22,388
Replace one letter in word>>> (Oct '15) 2 hr SweLL GirL 185
A to Z songs by title or group! (Dec '16) 3 hr Mister_ E 2,161
What Turns You Off? (Jan '17) 5 hr Sublime1 985
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 7 hr Fish_sticks 24,068
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 7 hr Crazy Jae 4,670
More from around the web