Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201498 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.

thulium

Perris, CA

#111986 Apr 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is also somewhat confused. Plasmas are typically mixtures of charged particles. They typically consist of free electrons and either bare nuclei (at high temperatures) or highly charged atoms (at lower temperatures). Unless there is pair formation from gamma rays, new electrons are not formed. The came from the original atoms that became the plasma.
<quoted text>
Sheesh. A Lorentz factor is a basic concept when dealing with relativistic situations. How about a Lorentz transformation? Much easier to use and has a lot more information.
So this is based on cosmic microwave background? According to the BBT, the young universe began with hydrogen plasma. When the universe expanded, plasma and its radiation got cooler and protons and neutrons combined to form neutral atoms. This is called the recombination epoch followed by photon decoupling.

Now why would it be called hydrogen plasma if according to your assertion, plasma is a hot state composed of particles (and not hydrogen). Is that from another theory other than the big bang? How does your theory create an electron if not through the process of ionization? You are describing something different than plasma state.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#111987 Apr 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already you show your ignorance of what the Big Bang theory actually says. Do you have *any* idea what the evidence for the BB is? Do you know *anything* about the physical underpinning of that theory? have you actually studied *anything* about general relativity or thermodynamics? Do you know the difference between an 'explosion' and the expansion of the universe?
Clearly not.
<quoted text>
Funny, I thought the Big Bang theory was based on general relativity and thermodynamics, which is pretty well established physics.
<quoted text>
I am saying that situations that are far from equilibrium very often show increases of complexity.
I am not sure which extrapolation you are meaning here. Any specific incidence of complexity on the large scale (as opposed to simply on the Earth) that you wish to discuss?
<quoted text>
Who is clinging to an archaic religion and who is looking at facts? YOU are the one holding to the religion to the place that your ignore the facts. You are ignorant about many basics and don't seem to want to learn enough to replace your ignorance with actual knowledge.
Your smokescreen doesn't fool me, Polymath.
You blather on and on about your supernal knowledge of physics, pretending that your minuscule understanding grants you the prerogative to instruct others of the origin of the universe. You pretend that your limited expertise in math and physics extends into the complexities of biology. of which you obviously know very little about.

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate through your knowledge of physics how complexity can arise without intelligence, and how that observation can be realistically extended to encompass the complexities of biology. I want to see your mathematical justification that millions of years will overcome any obstacle.

Your religion has been assaulted. Rather than logically defend it, you resort to stupid innuendos and insults.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111988 Apr 24, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Evolutionists cannot make life from non-life. And even if they could, wasn't there an intelligence (humans) behind the making of that life (inferring that God is intelligent)?? Just asking.
A couple of things you're missing here.

BIOCHEMISTS have a bigger stake in determining the origin of life. Not "Evolutionists" (which I might take to be referring to Biologists, or Evolutionary Biologists).

Secondly, any tests designed to produce pre-biotic compounds are not "assembled" by those Biochemists. What *IS* done is to re-create the environment that the Earth was supposed to have had that led up to the formation of the very first living organisms. Such that the compounds SELF assembled into a life form all by themselves.

BIG difference.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111989 Apr 24, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Evolutionists cannot make life from non-life. And even if they could, wasn't there an intelligence (humans) behind the making of that life (inferring that God is intelligent)?? Just asking.
Wait - are you saying that humans are capable of creating intelligent life because they created YHWH, or that humans have not been capable of creating intelligent life because there is no such thing as YHWH?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111990 Apr 24, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
So this is based on cosmic microwave background? According to the BBT, the young universe began with hydrogen plasma.
This is wrong.

The universe did not *begin* with a hydrogen plasma.

There was a stage before the formation of protons (hydrogen nuclei) that is called the 'quark soup' where the temperature was high enough that protons and neutrons were not able to condense.

Next, the nuclear plasma stage (just before nucleosynthesis) consisted primarily of neutrons which then decayed into the protons and electrons. This was not a purely hydrogen plasma (which would consist only of protons and electrons) in that most of the particles at that time were neutrons. The protons *are* hydrogen nuclei. But there was also a formation of other light nuclei like deuterium (hydrogen-2), helium-3, helium-4, lithium-7, etc.
When the universe expanded, plasma and its radiation got cooler and protons and neutrons combined to form neutral atoms. This is called the recombination epoch followed by photon decoupling.
This is confused.

During nucleosynthesis, the neutrons decayed into protons and electrons; the neutrons and protons combined to form nuclei of the light elements. At this stage there were not any neutral atoms because it was still to hot for the electrons to form stable orbits around the nuclei. The nuclei are all positively charged. To become neutral, the nuclei have to capture electrons.

The recombination stage was when things had cooled to the place that electrons could be in stable orbits, but that was approximately 300,000 years after the stage of nucleosynthesis. And it was NOT when protons and neutrons combined.
Now why would it be called hydrogen plasma if according to your assertion, plasma is a hot state composed of particles (and not hydrogen). Is that from another theory other than the big bang? How does your theory create an electron if not through the process of ionization? You are describing something different than plasma state.
Electrons are formed from the decay of neutrons into protons and electrons. And no, this is standard Big Bang cosmology. if you wish, you can read about it in Weinberg's book about cosmology. At a more elementary level, there is a book 'The First Three Minutes', also by Weinberg, that covers nucleosynthesis.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#111991 Apr 24, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
What *IS* done is to re-create the environment that the Earth was supposed to have had that led up to the formation of the very first living organisms. Such that the compounds SELF assembled into a life form all by themselves.
BIG difference.
How can molecules "self assemble" to create life?
I'm not asking for wishful thinking.
What laws of chemistry are you referring to?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111992 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't know the difference between an 'explosion" and 'expansion'. What is the difference?[/UOTE]
An explosion is a violent movement of material through space from a central point. This is NOT what happened in the Big Bang. Instead, it is space itself expanding and carrying the matter and energy with it. There is no 'center' of the expansion: every place sees distant objects as moving away.

[QUOTE]Yes, the Big Bang is based on general relativity and thermodynamics, FALSELY extrapolated to 13.7 billion years in the past. All you can do is say that the universe looks like it's expanding from an original point. That does not prove anything. All you have is a flimsy hypothesis.
No, it does *not* look like it is expanding from an original point. Instead, it looks like the expansion of space that is predicted when general relativity is applied to the universe as a whole. You claim that to be a false extrapolation, but the observations agree with what the theory predicted. In particular, there is no center for the expansion: it is an expansion of space itself.

Second, thermodynamics can be applied at the same level and makes very specific predictions about things like the background radiation. The fact that those predictions are verified by actual observations shows ti is *not* a false extrapolation. In fact, the level of detail in how the theory and observation agree is amazing.
What examples can you give of "situations far from equilibrium" that very often show increases in complexity? How can you extrapolate those observations into assuming that man can evolve from a microbe?
Do you want to shift from the Big bang to biology? or should we finish the cosmology discussion first?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111993 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your smokescreen doesn't fool me, Polymath.
You blather on and on about your supernal knowledge of physics, pretending that your minuscule understanding grants you the prerogative to instruct others of the origin of the universe.
My study of this material at the graduate level means I can instruct concerning what modern science claims and correct misunderstandings in that. I can also point out the evidence backing up the theories and what alternatives have been tested and failed.

You, on the other hand, think that your belief in a deity allows you to instruct us on the possibilities of how life originated, the origin of the universe, and a variety of other subjects without actually presenting any evidence in support of your positions.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111994 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>How can molecules "self assemble" to create life?
I'm not asking for wishful thinking.
What laws of chemistry are you referring to?
Does it take "intelligence" to slap together two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom to make a water molecule?
thulium

Perris, CA

#111995 Apr 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is wrong.
The universe did not *begin* with a hydrogen plasma.
There was a stage before the formation of protons (hydrogen nuclei) that is called the 'quark soup' where the temperature was high enough that protons and neutrons were not able to condense.
Next, the nuclear plasma stage (just before nucleosynthesis) consisted primarily of neutrons which then decayed into the protons and electrons. This was not a purely hydrogen plasma (which would consist only of protons and electrons) in that most of the particles at that time were neutrons. The protons *are* hydrogen nuclei. But there was also a formation of other light nuclei like deuterium (hydrogen-2), helium-3, helium-4, lithium-7, etc.
<quoted text>
This is confused.
During nucleosynthesis, the neutrons decayed into protons and electrons; the neutrons and protons combined to form nuclei of the light elements. At this stage there were not any neutral atoms because it was still to hot for the electrons to form stable orbits around the nuclei. The nuclei are all positively charged. To become neutral, the nuclei have to capture electrons.
The recombination stage was when things had cooled to the place that electrons could be in stable orbits, but that was approximately 300,000 years after the stage of nucleosynthesis. And it was NOT when protons and neutrons combined.
<quoted text>
Electrons are formed from the decay of neutrons into protons and electrons. And no, this is standard Big Bang cosmology. if you wish, you can read about it in Weinberg's book about cosmology. At a more elementary level, there is a book 'The First Three Minutes', also by Weinberg, that covers nucleosynthesis.
So the basic idea is particle decay. Now you're describing radioactive nuclei, before you were talking about electromagnetic radiation. lol

waaa!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111996 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How can molecules "self assemble" to create life?
I'm not asking for wishful thinking.
What laws of chemistry are you referring to?
Furthermore, were you aware complex organic compounds have been found in deep space and in meteorites?

"Meteorites flecked with amino acids, which make proteins, have fallen to Earth from space. In faraway galaxies and stellar nurseries, astronomers have detected complex organic sugar and hydrocarbon molecules that are key components in chlorophyll in plants and RNA. Bergin expects to detect tens if not hundreds of these kinds of compounds - some of which have never been found before outside the Earth."

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3122/the...

Chemistry, bub....chemistry
right

New Hyde Park, NY

#111997 Apr 24, 2014
wrong
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#111998 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How can molecules "self assemble" to create life?
I'm not asking for wishful thinking.
What laws of chemistry are you referring to?
Go ask a tree.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#111999 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't know the difference between an 'explosion" and 'expansion'. What is the difference?
Yes, the Big Bang is based on general relativity and thermodynamics, FALSELY extrapolated to 13.7 billion years in the past. All you can do is say that the universe looks like it's expanding from an original point. That does not prove anything. All you have is a flimsy hypothesis.
What examples can you give of "situations far from equilibrium" that very often show increases in complexity? How can you extrapolate those observations into assuming that man can evolve from a microbe?
Precisely the point, Hooter. You don't know. And that is your only basis for rejection.

And remember YOU started out as a microbe yourself.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112000 Apr 24, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Evolutionists cannot make life from non-life.
Irrelevant. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
And even if they could, wasn't there an intelligence (humans) behind the making of that life (inferring that God is intelligent)?? Just asking.
You mean your mom having a plant in a plant-pot proves that all plants needed humans to plant them?

No, not necessarily.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112001 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your smokescreen doesn't fool me, Polymath.
You blather on and on about your supernal knowledge of physics, pretending that your minuscule understanding grants you the prerogative to instruct others of the origin of the universe. You pretend that your limited expertise in math and physics extends into the complexities of biology. of which you obviously know very little about.
The theory of evolution does not rely on the Big Bang.

And let's face it, considering the doozys you've come out with, it's quite obvious that you know very little about biology.
HTS wrote:
I'm waiting for you to demonstrate through your knowledge of physics how complexity can arise without intelligence,
Take a look at the ENTIRE universe.

Now present ALL locations of evidence of intelligence.

I think you'll find that so far that said phenomena is restricted to a single planet called Earth.
HTS wrote:
and how that observation can be realistically extended to encompass the complexities of biology. I want to see your mathematical justification that millions of years will overcome any obstacle.
Your religion has been assaulted. Rather than logically defend it, you resort to stupid innuendos and insults.
Irony meter go boom.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112002 Apr 24, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it take "intelligence" to slap together two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom to make a water molecule?
Yes. It is a code. Therefore Godmagic.
thulium

Perris, CA

#112003 Apr 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How does that negate my statement that gamma rays can produce new matter? Electrons *are* matter.
Now I see why we disagree.

It takes a radioactive atom to produce particles which you just mentioned in particle decay. The radioactive atom emits particles from its nuclei and it then becomes nucleus of another element. Scientists call that transformation.

Spontaneous decay can produce particles (as in alpha, beta or positron emissions). Emissions in gamma rays only release energy and does not result in transformation.

Gamma rays have no mass, and are not particles but waves.

Does that make sense?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#112004 Apr 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My study of this material at the graduate level means I can instruct concerning what modern science claims and correct misunderstandings in that. I can also point out the evidence backing up the theories and what alternatives have been tested and failed.
You, on the other hand, think that your belief in a deity allows you to instruct us on the possibilities of how life originated, the origin of the universe, and a variety of other subjects without actually presenting any evidence in support of your positions.
Experimental physics does not produce the answers as to how, when,/or if the universe was created.
I do not pretend to instruct you or anyone on the origin of the universe.
I am merely pointing out that what you are peddling is not science.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#112005 Apr 24, 2014
HTS wrote:
Experimental physics does not produce the answers as to how, when,/or if the universe was created.
Sure it does.

Otherwise we would not HAVE nuclear power plants.
HTS wrote:
I do not pretend to instruct you or anyone on the origin of the universe.
The only thing you could instruct people on is how to stab somebody with a needle.
HTS wrote:
I am merely pointing out that what you are peddling is not science.
No, you are merely offering your baseless opinion that you cannot back up.(shrug)

As usual.

Explain orthology for us.

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
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 2 min Parden Pard 59,563
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 3 min Lucy the First 8,517
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 33 min Emerald 2,733
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 36 min eleanorigby 58,066
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 37 min Dont_You_Dare 18,455
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 38 min Dont_You_Dare 25,455
Bill Clinton at the DNC 40 min Emerald 8
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 194,468
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr F_R_E_D 7,839
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 7 hr Knock off purse s... 190
More from around the web