Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 199280 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

#112068 Apr 25, 2014
thulium wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gathering these info from different sources. So bear with me. But this time you explained it better. kudos.
It's really amazing how man have learned to create synthetic elements. For instance the plutonium was created in a lab before it was discovered to exist in nature. Have you heard of Lene Hau a professor at Harvard? Very interesting experiment she did with light. Although the articles about it are exaggerated claiming she changed light into matter. lol
I had heard about her results without knowing her name. Fascinating material. No, she did not create matter from light. Instead, she imprinted the information carried in light on a beam of matter and then transfered it again to a light beam. Potentially quite useful for quantum computers.

The pair production that I was talking about is for much higher energy light. As the wavelength of the light decreases, the energy of each photon increases. Gamma rays have the shortest wavelengths and so the highest energies. X-rays are next down in energy, followed by ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, etc. it takes a high energy gamma ray to produce electron/positron pairs: almost a million times as much energy per photon as for visible light. To get more massive particles light pions or even protons, you have to increase the energy by another factor of a a thousand (approximately). This is associated with very high temperatures in the early universe.

Hau's work is on the other end of things: very low temperatures and very low energies.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112069 Apr 25, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Parts of the Bible are clearly myth.
Most Christians agree.
Perhaps you would like to learn how we know that parts of the Bible are mythical.
Well all of those "mythical"parts of the Bible (Moses and the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus turning water into wine, Jesus healing the sick, feeding thousands of people from only a few fishes and loaves of bread, etc...etc...), science and technology are only just making reality today. Transubstantiation - the changing of a chemical into another (e.g. water into wine)- is what scientists/technologists will make reality within a few years from now (but we all know that Jesus did it a couple of thousand years ago, don't we??).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112070 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> No,no,no. What I am saying is if us humans (intelligence) would one day, be able to create life from non-life (highly unlikely), then doesn't that imply that someone intelligent (i.e. God) made us??
Only if the fact your grandma has a plant in a plant pot proves that every plant on planet Earth needed an intelligent planter.

In reality of course, plants get along fine without us.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#112071 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is ... Spontaneous self assembly of amino acids, sugars and hydrocarbons proves NOTHING.
The Bible does not say how it happened.
So the Bible can be ignored in this investigation. Even if the claim of 'who' is correct, the question of 'how' is still open. And that means there is no progress on the basic question of how life arose. All you have done is claim an intelligence is required. You have done so without proposing a mechanism that this intelligence used, without showing that intelligence exists, and without describing the laws governing that intelligence.

That isn't an explanation. That is a whitewash.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112072 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is ... Spontaneous self assembly of amino acids, sugars and hydrocarbons proves NOTHING.
The Bible does not say how it happened.
Yes it does. It says magical poofing. It just doesn't provide any scientific mechanisms for how magical poofing works.

Therefore evidence CAN'T back up the Bible because there are no specfics on how to observe any of the mechanisms involved.

Explain orthology Hooter.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112073 Apr 25, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, there is no scientific evidence for creation. And even creation "scientists" know this simple fact.
Again, perhaps I can help you to learn why this is so.
Well, the "simple fact " is that scientific evidence CLEARLY confirms the Creation theory, and that Evolution is actually the theory which is a construct of man's imagination. It actually takes a GREATER leap of faith to believe Evolution than it does Creation. Also, Evolution says everything is going on an UPWARD path (EVOLVING), whereas Creation says the EXACT OPPOSITE - that everything is DETERIORATING - going in a DOWNWARD path. Entropy is INCREASING, right?? The world these days is more WICKED, more SELFISH, more CORRUPT, more IMMORAL etc...than it was 100, 50, 10, or even only 5 years ago. Creation is right. But hey, you have your own opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112074 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> I think at one stage, the ToE tied itself to abiogenesis "but NOT anymore" they say.
You think wrongly.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
And I suppose if a Creationist like myself tries arguing another point, you Evos will say "Ah, but Evolution doesn't have anything to do with that either".
Because it doesn't. Hooter is even now trying to tie evolution with the Big Bang. He's wrong too, but then he always is.(shrug) Fact is that evolution doesn't care if life started:

1 - via natural processes.

2 - by an invisible magic Jewish wizard.

3 - by aliens.

4 - by some other way that nobody's thought of yet.

Just like the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain the origin of mass for it to work, the theory of evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life for it to work. All it needs to do is make observations on currently observable phenomena and make successful testable scientific predictions from it. And it does. In short, all evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Fact. In order to demonstrate otherwise, someone needs to prove that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck to them.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
You Evos are constantly shifting the goalposts that I think one day, you'll end up confusing yourselves!!
Hardly. It's mostly just creationists who get confused, or anyone else who hasn't had much education in science.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Creation - like God - stays constant. It never changes.
Exactly. Science on the other hand adapts to new evidence as it is discovered. That is what distinguishes science from religious dogma. It shows the weakness of religious dogma and the strength of science - that science will change its conclusions if new evidence requires it to do so. Religion won't.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
That way the Creos such as myself, at least have a point of reference.
Science also has points of reference. It's just that it has more. LOTS more. Because science is not simple. It's complicated. Creationism is just "Goddidit with magic" and that's it.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
On your second point, if the humans didn't plant them, who did??
A "who" simply wasn't necessary. Plants do just fine without humans interfering Sure, some plants have their seeds spread by insects, or eaten then pooped by animals. Others just float on the wind elsewhere and just grow themselves. Your assumption that a "who" is always necessary for everything is flawed. Science accepts that as a possibility, but not as a necessity.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112075 Apr 25, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Only if the fact your grandma has a plant in a plant pot proves that every plant on planet Earth needed an intelligent planter.
In reality of course, plants get along fine without us.
Yeh, Iguess the plants would get along just fine without us. Enjoy your day, man!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112076 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Sure Dan. You can believe the lie the Devil is feeding you.
The devil? You mean this guy?

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2006112011...

Of course it's equally possible that the devil is feeding YOU, but your ego tricks you into thinking you're immune.

But can you provide any objective scientific evidence that passes the scientific method that shows such a being even exists?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112077 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> No,no,no. What I am saying is if us humans (intelligence) would one day, be able to create life from non-life (highly unlikely), then doesn't that imply that someone intelligent (i.e. God) made us??
No, creating a "life" (depending on definition) in a lab wouldn't and doesn't automatically indicate even the existence of a god - intelligent or otherwise, and most certainly not your god with a capital G.
Easy fix. Try replacing the flush valve. If that doesn't work replace the ballcock. A whole kit shouldn't cost more than $20.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Fluidmaster-Comple...
You're welcome.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112078 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> So you're a Christian Evolutionist I take it. Well, according to me, you cannot 'fuse' Christianity with Evolution. They're as different as chalk and cheese.
But your opinion ain't worth the poop it's written on.(shrug)

Unless you can provide scientific evidence of God's limits showing that God is incapable of evolution. So far though you can't even show it exists.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Let's say you are right about the abiogenesis thing though. OK, that's cool with me. Now, can you tell me what the FULL title of Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species" is??
Yes, "On The Origin Of SPECIES" and NOT "On The Origin Of LIFE".

The theory of evolution doesn't rely on abiogenesis.
NOISY TOILET wrote:
Doesn't it ALSO say something about the superiority of certain races over others?? Oh yeah, the KKK would LOVE a book like THAT!! Maybe you're a Klan member (not that I should assume that). Was Charlie Darwin a racist??
Doesn't matter if he was, we tackled that on PAGE ONE of this thread. Newton could have been too, but the theory of gravity still works.

Oh and by the way, the KKK are a CHRISTIAN group. They use the Noah story about Ham to justify slavery etc and the superiority of the white master race.

Also don't forget that the Bible itself starts with TWO "perfect" human beings. Probably white. Not that it matters WHICH ethnic group they belonged to, black, white, chinese, whatever you like - as ALL others are all due to the result of "The Fall". The Genesis story is PROFOUNDLY racist.

Oh and God's probably white and so was Jesus, despite him being born smack bang in the middle of the Middle East.
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112079 Apr 25, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You think wrongly.
<quoted text>
Because it doesn't. Hooter is even now trying to tie evolution with the Big Bang. He's wrong too, but then he always is.(shrug) Fact is that evolution doesn't care if life started:
1 - via natural processes.
2 - by an invisible magic Jewish wizard.
3 - by aliens.
4 - by some other way that nobody's thought of yet.
Just like the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain the origin of mass for it to work, the theory of evolution doesn't need to explain the origin of life for it to work. All it needs to do is make observations on currently observable phenomena and make successful testable scientific predictions from it. And it does. In short, all evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Fact. In order to demonstrate otherwise, someone needs to prove that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck to them.
<quoted text>
Hardly. It's mostly just creationists who get confused, or anyone else who hasn't had much education in science.
<quoted text>
Exactly. Science on the other hand adapts to new evidence as it is discovered. That is what distinguishes science from religious dogma. It shows the weakness of religious dogma and the strength of science - that science will change its conclusions if new evidence requires it to do so. Religion won't.
<quoted text>
Science also has points of reference. It's just that it has more. LOTS more. Because science is not simple. It's complicated. Creationism is just "Goddidit with magic" and that's it.
<quoted text>
A "who" simply wasn't necessary. Plants do just fine without humans interfering Sure, some plants have their seeds spread by insects, or eaten then pooped by animals. Others just float on the wind elsewhere and just grow themselves. Your assumption that a "who" is always necessary for everything is flawed. Science accepts that as a possibility, but not as a necessity.
Say what you like Dude, but in the end you'll be kissing your own ass. You talk about the strength of science. I totally agree. BUT, you erroneously think that science is on the side of Evolution. It is not. But, to be fair to you, science is ALSO not on Creation's side either. It must be remembered that science is a TOOL. It is merely there to present the FACTS. But I believe in the end, science will confirm and corroborate that CREATION is indeed the right theory over EVOLUTION. The jury is still out though. I just wish this almighty Tug-Of-War between you Evos and us Creos would end soon!!!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112080 Apr 25, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that goes boom is the atomic bomb of stupidity you set off constantly! The concept that livescience is referring to is the one you stated is no problem to answer. Funny,...all their geniuses can't do it, but the all knowing Dude has the knowledge, you are one mother fukkking liar ,and always have been . Get back and check your debating points that you and the other puddle gooists live by.
I did refute it. I pointed out that entropy doesn't prevent evolution, and if it worked the way you thought it did none of us would be born. So again your criticism was invalid and based purely on your own ignorance.

And you calling me a liar is deliciously ironic, especially since it's only me who's caught you out lying out of the two of us.

Sorry Bozo.(shrug)

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112081 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text>The book is not myth, bro.
well, yeah. It pretty much is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112082 Apr 25, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to have a helluva lot of faith to believe that
Not really. Everything about biological organisms ultimately boils down to chemical reactions. Plants self-assemble all the time. No Intelligent Planter needed.

Doesn't mean there ain't no God, just means there's no evidence. And that God is not necessary for any explanation of anything, since it's incapable of EXPLAINING anything.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#112083 Apr 25, 2014
NOISY TOILET wrote:
<quoted text> Say what you like Dude, but in the end you'll be kissing your own ass. You talk about the strength of science. I totally agree. BUT, you erroneously think that science is on the side of Evolution. It is not. But, to be fair to you, science is ALSO not on Creation's side either. It must be remembered that science is a TOOL. It is merely there to present the FACTS. But I believe in the end, science will confirm and corroborate that CREATION is indeed the right theory over EVOLUTION. The jury is still out though. I just wish this almighty Tug-Of-War between you Evos and us Creos would end soon!!!
Science is actually a body of knowledge, not a "tool." Creationists are "tools."

"I just wish this almighty Tug-Of-War between you Evos and us Creos would end soon!!!"

As I've always said, "Keep religies away from The Button."
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112084 Apr 25, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The devil? You mean this guy?
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2006112011...
Of course it's equally possible that the devil is feeding YOU, but your ego tricks you into thinking you're immune.
But can you provide any objective scientific evidence that passes the scientific method that shows such a being even exists?
Hokey Dokey. What do you think of NDEs (Near Death Experiences)?? Tell me, WHY do so many people who have had an NDE say they are not atheists any more (if they were previously) and that the NDE has had a PROFOUND EFFECT on their lives?? Why don't they just pass it off as just an hallucination, or a good/bad dream?? Why is that?? By The Way, your "Devil" photo made me laugh (hee-hee).
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112085 Apr 25, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No, creating a "life" (depending on definition) in a lab wouldn't and doesn't automatically indicate even the existence of a god - intelligent or otherwise, and most certainly not your god with a capital G.
Easy fix. Try replacing the flush valve. If that doesn't work replace the ballcock. A whole kit shouldn't cost more than $20.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Fluidmaster-Comple...
You're welcome.
Whatever, ChromiuMan. Actually, come to think of it, it's best that we humans have NEVER - and most likely NEVER WILL - produce life in the lab, because then, that would essentially make us think we can take the place of God i.e. that He does NOT exist. So, I'm glad HE has the upper hand. BTW, thanx 4 the toilet fixing advice, but we've gotten so used to our loud flushing loo that we can't be stuffed fixing it (LOL!!).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112086 Apr 25, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an absolute fool,...
Yet unlike me, you are unable to articulate what I'm wrong about or why I'm wrong.(shrug)

You uh, DO know how debate etiquette on a debate forum is supposed to work, right?
NOISY TOILET

Tauranga, New Zealand

#112087 Apr 25, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is actually a body of knowledge, not a "tool." Creationists are "tools."
"I just wish this almighty Tug-Of-War between you Evos and us Creos would end soon!!!"
As I've always said, "Keep religies away from The Button."
Yeah, we Creos are tools (hee-hee-hee!!). Don't worry - us religies won't unleash the Big Nuke!!

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 Turns You Off (Jun '11) 5 min stacked and proud 7,422
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 6 min stacked and proud 15,842
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 11 min andet1987 32,392
Just start naming actors and actresses (Sep '11) 15 min andet1987 5,214
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 17 min andet1987 44,153
Light does not exist 19 min Bremen Redneck 1
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 29 min andet1987 18,017
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 48 min Sparky 192,796
News Man arrested after 'putting his PENIS on superm... 1 hr Rev Cash Dollar 24
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Mega Monster 56,819
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 2 hr sounds average to me 7,200
True False Game (Jun '11) 5 hr andet1987 12,397
More from around the web