Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223191 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.

The Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#113647 Jun 9, 2014
***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Jehovah: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Jehovah".

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113648 Jun 9, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
NO.
They are in no way identical.
The POTENTIALS attributed to "God" imply that He/It could have done it by evolution.
Besides, even if we assume that the easter bunny and santa clause had the capacity or potential to lay eggs supernaturally; it would be the agreement between the premise and the conclusion that would determine its value. Not your personal disposition.
<quoted text>
Wait a minute.
And the idea that all of the life and intricacies of the universe came about by mindless forces acting randomly is what; rational?
First, you have to present that a supernatural being exists before you can aver that IT is capable of anything whatsoever. Aside from the existence of a popular book - which remains nothing more than a popular book, regardless of any emotional protestations you might have - you have failed to do so. You have failed to distinguish any difference between the existence of a/any god and a baseless personal disposition. You have failed to establish that intelligent design is anything other than a rather vapid (if not mindless, then at best machiavellian) device concocted to legitimize scripture (creationism) with disinformation and pseudoscience.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113649 Jun 9, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Jehovah: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Jehovah".
I have no idea where to begin with this. Sound like gibberish.

Please define the "power of equality".

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113650 Jun 9, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
...and some people propose that "God" (aka "YHWH/Jehovah/the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty,...") blew kangaroos from Mt Ararat to Australia via volcano. Woefully short on credibility, fantastically long on allegation.
The Hand of God wrote:
/QUOTE]
Wait a minute.
And the idea that all of the life and intricacies of the universe came about by mindless forces acting randomly is what; rational?
In these discussions, only the Creationists dwell on the erroneously applying the term "random."
Do you not realize that defending the ridiculous with a display of ignorance and sarcasm is not rational?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113651 Jun 9, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea where to begin with this. Sound like gibberish.
Please define the "power of equality".
All things are equally equal if they are equally made and influenced by God and therefore Jehovah is? The JW "logic" inevitably fails. Miserably.
The Dude

London, UK

#113652 Jun 9, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
Seriously?
That particular claim is justifiable. I do know God more than many people, because I have actually studied Him/It and I am continuing to do so.
Via what method?
The Hand of God wrote:
Wait.
Lets move from simple to complex.
God is metaphysical while dark matter is physical so its right up your avenue.
Demonstrate dark matter.
It passes the scientific method by correctly predicting positions of astronomical phenomena.
The Hand of God wrote:
Try reading my post again.
Okay. Equality of what?
The Hand of God wrote:
"... A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested..." [Wikipedia.com]
With that said...
The conformity of all things to the power of equality as evidence for the specific "God" Jehovah: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Jehovah".
Like it?
I am indifferent to it.
The Hand of God wrote:
How in the Sam Hill did you get that in here?
Explain "Because it would equally apply to Zeus. Or Ra. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
Of what relevance is that to the discussion?
They are all deities not amenable to the scientific method. Therefore equally as likely.
The Dude

UK

#113653 Jun 9, 2014
The Hand of God wrote:
NO.
They not in any way identical.
The POTENTIALS attributed to "God" imply that He/It could have done it by evolution.
Besides, even if we assume that the easter bunny and santa clause had the capacity or potential to lay eggs supernaturally; it would be the agreement between the premise and the conclusion that would determine its value. Not your personal disposition.
Irony meter go boom.
The Hand of God wrote:
Wait a minute.
And the idea that all of the life and intricacies of the universe came about by mindless forces acting randomly is what; rational?
Yes, since we never claim all forces act randomly randomly. Remember intelligence is not the opposite of random.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113654 Jun 9, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea where to begin with this. Sound like gibberish.
Please define the "power of equality".
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea where to begin with this. Sound like gibberish.
Please define the "power of equality".
Always do the substitute trick:
"***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Allah: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Allah". "
or:
***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Zeus: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Zeus".
or:
***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Thor: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Tor".
Ad finitum.
If you are able to substitute ad random the discourse in this fashion, without affecting its eloquence or import, you know it is gibberish.
You can't do it with a discourse like "atavistic hind limbs on a pelvis that is detached from its spinal cord is evidence of land ancestry of Dorudon". If you substitute "hind limbs" with "front limbs" it immediately makes no sense because the absence or presence of front limbs is not the discriminating factor. If you substitute "land ancestry" with "air borne" is neither makes sense because marine animals are not air borne. If you substitute "Dorudon" with "Mosasaur", it is also nonsense because the case was not cetaceans descended from reptiles but from mammals.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113655 Jun 9, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Always do the substitute trick:
"***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Allah: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Allah". "
or:
***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Zeus: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Zeus".
or:
***The conformity of all things to the power of equality IS evidence for the specific "God" Thor: as equality is taken to be communicated by the influence of "Tor".
Ad finitum.
If you are able to substitute ad random the discourse in this fashion, without affecting its eloquence or import, you know it is gibberish.
You can't do it with a discourse like "atavistic hind limbs on a pelvis that is detached from its spinal cord is evidence of land ancestry of Dorudon". If you substitute "hind limbs" with "front limbs" it immediately makes no sense because the absence or presence of front limbs is not the discriminating factor. If you substitute "land ancestry" with "air borne" is neither makes sense because marine animals are not air borne. If you substitute "Dorudon" with "Mosasaur", it is also nonsense because the case was not cetaceans descended from reptiles but from mammals.
We are in agreement then. Gibberish.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113656 Jun 9, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Gravity is a LAW proven by science
Whao there! Just what, exactly, do you think the 'law of gravity' says? Ity is a *fact* that masses will attract each other. But there are several *theories* about how that happens. For example, Newton's 'Law' of Gravity turns out to be wrong in detail and was replaced by Einstein's general *theory* of relativity. Some people propose other alternatives, such as Tensor, Vector, Scalar gravity (TeVeS).
Evolution is a THEORY unsubstantiated and unproven.
Wrong again. Evolution is a fact based on the evidence that species change over time. There is also a theory of evolution describing some mechanisms for such changes.
There is a big difference
Not nearly as much difference as you might think.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113657 Jun 9, 2014
Evolutionisstupid wrote:
<quoted text>
It's either the way you use gravity here, or the way you use evolution that is very misleading.
Gravity requires no interpretation, or very little.
Definitely false.
We can see that things are pulled to the earth.
But that is, at best, one instance and not the general case. For example, is the force that 'pulls things to earth' the same force as the one that keeps the moon in orbit? Or the planets in orbit around the sun? Or that deflects light as it goes by other massive objects?

The point is that there are many phenomena that *could* be gravity and we must *interpret* them as gravity. We then need to *hypothesize* how the gravity works *in detail* and test it to see if our ideas work. The simple fact that the earth attracts some things does not prove that our ideas about gravity are correct.
Evolution on the other hand does not have that observational benefit. Not where it matters.
False. it can, and does, predict the types of fossils we will see in the future and often where to look for them. It can, and does, have ways of testing at the genetic level. it can, and does, help to collect a host of observations in biology into one overarching view.

We know that species change over time: that *is* evolution.
Even common descent, which is far more supported than its other aspects, does not equate to gravity in its potency of evidence. If you want to compare it to anything, the shape of the earth would be a much better example as far as putting it in the right category of proof, but it would still be lacking in comparison due to the amount of interpretation required for it.
Again, simply wrong. The complexity of the underlying data is greater in biology, but the fact that evolution unifies many different observations is very similar to the way our theories of gravity unify many different observations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113658 Jun 9, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Newtons laws still apply , the math (theory) was changed to more accurately follow why.
There were several discrepancies that arise when using Newtons formulas that are better explained using Einsteins. That's why Newtons laws still apply and laws only describe what we see. While theory explains what we see.
The Universal Law of Gravitation say's
Any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
This above is still true while the explanation below
F = Gm1m2 /r ^2
Was replaced by Einstein.
Actually, of course, this is part of how science works. We have hypotheses about how things work that produce testable predictions. When a theory has been well-verified in many different cases, it gets general acceptance.

But, it is still possible for that theory to fail in cases that were not initially tested. If that happens, a *new* theory needs to be found that encompasses ALL the observations where the old theory worked *and* any new observations where it doesn't. When that happens, we regard the old theory as a 'good approximation' but understand it isn't perfectly accurate.

This is what happened with Newton's 'Law' of Gravity. It works quite well for speeds that are not too fast or masses that are not too large. But for larger masses or higher speeds, it needs to be replaced. This is what general relativity did: it explains and describes the effects of gravity even in situations where Newton's Laws do not. So, if you have things going close to the speed of light, Newton's laws don't even give a good approximation. But for speeds and masses like what we see in our solar system, Newton's laws give a 'good enough' approximation for most situations. They are also easier to work with the general relativity, so the reduction is work is often a good reason to use the 'wrong' Newtonian Laws as opposed to the 'correct' Einsteinian Theory.

It is good to look at the 'errors' that are enough to overturn something like Newton's laws. The orbit of Mercury was off by 43 seconds of arc *per century* from the observations. This is about 1/100 of a degree off over the course of 100 years. Einstein's theory explains that discrepancy (as well as others).

So, yes, Newton's Law of Gravity is *wrong*. It is, however, a very, very good approximation for most situations.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113659 Jun 9, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Newton's Law of Gravitation is not replaced by any of the theories of gravity, it remains a factor within or without them.
Not quite correct. Newton's law of gravity was *replaced* by general relativity. it is seen as a 'good approximation', but not completely accurate. Now, for small speeds and medium size masses, Newton's laws *do* approximation Einstein's. But there are measurable differences and Newton's are wrong in detail. They are easier to work with, so are often used when they give 'good enough' approximations, but they are, in fact, wrong.

But this is how science works. A working theory will be replaced by a new theory when the old one fails in observations. But the new one and the old one will agree *to a point* for those situations where the old one was tested.

So, while our current understanding of evolution may be wrong in detail, any new theory will have to explain at least as much as the current one does. In particular, that species change over time will not be replaced by a newer theory of biology, just refined further. Neither will the fact that planets orbit the sun be replaced, even if the details are understood differently.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#113660 Jun 9, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Irony meter go boom.
<quoted text>
Yes, since we never claim all forces act randomly randomly. Remember intelligence is not the opposite of random.
Boom went the Satire too Intellect and awakened feel spurts at times as they come could be consider pretty random or if all in Fate then we shall all to tell a tale...and to claim it to be a one but crosses are built torn and burned...

Knowl;edge Kneel Klown ishly when the laughters of one become an extreme please wheel YO self in tight as a kite string all wound...

Alright happy Science fair...

Air is free and here for the breathing...

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#113661 Jun 9, 2014
Rip Gibster....

LOL

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#113662 Jun 9, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite correct. Newton's law of gravity was *replaced* by general relativity. it is seen as a 'good approximation', but not completely accurate. Now, for small speeds and medium size masses, Newton's laws *do* approximation Einstein's. But there are measurable differences and Newton's are wrong in detail. They are easier to work with, so are often used when they give 'good enough' approximations, but they are, in fact, wrong.
But this is how science works. A working theory will be replaced by a new theory when the old one fails in observations. But the new one and the old one will agree *to a point* for those situations where the old one was tested.
So, while our current understanding of evolution may be wrong in detail, any new theory will have to explain at least as much as the current one does. In particular, that species change over time will not be replaced by a newer theory of biology, just refined further. Neither will the fact that planets orbit the sun be replaced, even if the details are understood differently.
I bow to your superior knowledge base, but while lacking the details I am aware of refinements - which is why I wrote "within and without." My point was not about the specifics of attractive forces or their nature but about the pompous ignorance of creationists.
Einstein had not published a "Law of Gravity" so it is safe to say that The HoG's reference was to Newton's inverse square law regarding gravitation (NOT gravity) and not to the Theory of General Relativity.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#113663 Jun 9, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, of course, this is part of how science works. We have hypotheses about how things work that produce testable predictions. When a theory has been well-verified in many different cases, it gets general acceptance.
But, it is still possible for that theory to fail in cases that were not initially tested. If that happens, a *new* theory needs to be found that encompasses ALL the observations where the old theory worked *and* any new observations where it doesn't. When that happens, we regard the old theory as a 'good approximation' but understand it isn't perfectly accurate.
This is what happened with Newton's 'Law' of Gravity. It works quite well for speeds that are not too fast or masses that are not too large. But for larger masses or higher speeds, it needs to be replaced. This is what general relativity did: it explains and describes the effects of gravity even in situations where Newton's Laws do not. So, if you have things going close to the speed of light, Newton's laws don't even give a good approximation. But for speeds and masses like what we see in our solar system, Newton's laws give a 'good enough' approximation for most situations. They are also easier to work with the general relativity, so the reduction is work is often a good reason to use the 'wrong' Newtonian Laws as opposed to the 'correct' Einsteinian Theory.
It is good to look at the 'errors' that are enough to overturn something like Newton's laws. The orbit of Mercury was off by 43 seconds of arc *per century* from the observations. This is about 1/100 of a degree off over the course of 100 years. Einstein's theory explains that discrepancy (as well as others).
So, yes, Newton's Law of Gravity is *wrong*. It is, however, a very, very good approximation for most situations.
Yes that's exactly what I said, in different words.
The description however is still a law ....though but the explanation changed.
You can't falsify the words, but you can prove the way he calculated it inaccurate
There is another discrepancy with Newtons calculations.
The speed of light can progress into infinity. But you cant call Newton wrong, not even now. But you can say Einstein is more accurate, but he still not without flaw.
We have yet to be able to describe everything , even with the help of them both.
There are still discrepancy not yet explained.
I'm comfident we eventually will, unlike the theist the scientist will never stop trying to learn why.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#113664 Jun 9, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite correct. Newton's law of gravity was *replaced* by general relativity. it is seen as a 'good approximation', but not completely accurate. Now, for small speeds and medium size masses, Newton's laws *do* approximation Einstein's. But there are measurable differences and Newton's are wrong in detail. They are easier to work with, so are often used when they give 'good enough' approximations, but they are, in fact, wrong.
But this is how science works. A working theory will be replaced by a new theory when the old one fails in observations. But the new one and the old one will agree *to a point* for those situations where the old one was tested.
So, while our current understanding of evolution may be wrong in detail, any new theory will have to explain at least as much as the current one does. In particular, that species change over time will not be replaced by a newer theory of biology, just refined further. Neither will the fact that planets orbit the sun be replaced, even if the details are understood differently.
The law of gravity has not been replaced, that's why it's still there.
Newtons calculations were replaced, by GR. But since GR is a radical departure in thinking from treating gravity as a force, we consider the Law of Gravity superseded by GR. You simply cannot falsify this statement, which is the law of gravity.

"Any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

This is still true in relativity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113665 Jun 9, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The law of gravity has not been replaced, that's why it's still there.
Newtons calculations were replaced, by GR. But since GR is a radical departure in thinking from treating gravity as a force, we consider the Law of Gravity superseded by GR. You simply cannot falsify this statement, which is the law of gravity.
"Any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
This is still true in relativity.
No, actually, it is not true in relativity. In fact, in general relativity, there is no 'force' at all. There is simply curvature of space-time and planets take optimal paths in that curved space. There *is* an electromagnetic force, for example, and that force *is* described accurately by the Lorenz force law even in general relativity. Attempting to do gravity under special relativity is what lead to general relativity.

For one thing, in general relativity, there is no well-defined concept of the spatial distance between two objects independent of some coordinate system. So even that basic requirement to *state* the law is void.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113666 Jun 9, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes that's exactly what I said, in different words.
The description however is still a law ....though but the explanation changed.
You can't falsify the words, but you can prove the way he calculated it inaccurate
If you do accurate calculations with F=GMm/r^2, you will get results that disagree with observations. This is true even if you use the relativistic modifications of the force laws.

That is enough to show that this 'Law' is wrong in detail.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 20 min LIMnologist 32,374
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 33 min Denny CranesPlace 24,627
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 1 hr Rider on the Storm 2,757
~Things YOU Love Game~ (Oct '12) 1 hr razz58 4,036
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Sublime1 226,050
Let's Play Song Titles With Only Three Words,... (Dec '13) 2 hr Rider on the Storm 777
First Word That Comes To Mind ....... (Apr '10) 2 hr Rider on the Storm 13,348
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 10 hr quilterqueen 150,854
More from around the web