Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 195129 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114401 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read a story(I will try to find the link) that states that reservoirs hidden beneath the Earth's crust holds as much water as all of the oceans. I read a story the other day about another huge ocean of water found beneath earths crusts. Posted it to kab in that thread.
Perhaps you read it, I can guarantee that you did not understand it.

What sort of reservoirs do you think they were talking about?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#114402 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
After conducting research for decades, scientists have discovered that a vast water reservoir might be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the Earth's crust. The amount might be enough to fill the Earth's oceans three times over.
http://www.gizmodo.in/indiamodo/Vast-Reservoi...
Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge-ocean-di...
There are more links on others but to be sure there is no misunderstanding here, none of that means a world wide flood is/was possible. All I am saying is there is more water under us than we ever thought.
I see that I was correct in my previous post.

Those articles do not say that a world wide flood is possible.

You did not understand what you read. Or else you read articles that were simplified too much.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114403 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you shifting your burden of proof to me?
How about I back my claims up (which I do) and you back your claims up?
Which you don't.
Is looking for evidence that someone said something, the same as looking for evidence that a vehicle has passed a particular spot?

Do words have the same effects as tire tracks?

Do words leave impressions on the ground like tire tracks?

Do we not know that when looking for evidence of things, it is the nature of the thing that determines how that thing will/can be investigated?

Shifting burden of proof?

Surely you misconstrue.

I asked you to describe the nature of (my) God, because I became worried.

That idea YOU possess of what (a) "god" is, is absolutely different from mine.

So there is no way you could make certain assumptions or draw particular conclusions about (my) God; BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM/IT.

I asked you to expalin etc how scientific method does not have the limit I presented.

Because unless you were a data storage device, I utterly fail to see how your mind can be stuck in such a way that you have information but cannot acknowledge a simple fact.

Are you afraid of something?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114404 Jun 17, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Then please explain why. I'll wait.
How do you identify an intention?

And recall that the absence of verbal, written etc does not represent the absence of intention.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114405 Jun 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Better take that cigarette out of your mouth before you try to jump that hurdle.
A moderately interesting and data-less opinion you have.
Liar.

I have made an observation, not an opinion.

Will:
"—used to express desire, choice, willingness, consent, or in negative constructions refusal <no one would take the job>>>"

[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]

Disposition:
"2. a natural or acquired tendency, INCLINATION, or habit in a person or thing"
[http://dictionary.reference.c om]

"in·cli·na·tion
: a feeling of wanting to do something : a tendency to do something"
[http://www.merriam-webster.co m/dictionary]

THEREFORE:

Both "will" (intent) and "disposition" (natural tendency, such as natural selection) REPRESENT INCLINATIONS.

And since we are of nature and exist in nature, both human will and disposition of the world express the "inclination" of nature.

We are nature, being natural products of it and remaining in it; therefore whatever terms can be applied to man can be applied to nature.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#114406 Jun 17, 2014
... and a description of man is a description of nature.
THE LONE WORKER

Duluth, GA

#114407 Jun 17, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I have seen some of these reports. It is an old search, but it is a bit early for you to jump on the bandwagon. Even if does provide the additional 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, it doesn't address the amount of other solid evidence against the flood. At best you would score 1 out of 30, so don't get your hopes up just yet. More evidence will help sort this out, but it isn't a nail in the coffin for science.
Don't forget, the evidence that shows that areas of the Atacama desert have not seen water for 100,000's of thousands of years. Or the ice caps that still exist when they would have been destroyed by a global flood. Or the heat put out by all that rain in 40 days that would have boiled the earth and Noah and company. Or the fact that in all the fossil evidence that you claim is the result of the flood there are no people until the very top where evolution indicates they should be. Or...and so on.
Well at least we scored a point with this little discussion. Stay tuned for more of the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114408 Jun 17, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation and evolution are two separate concepts.
creation is a process of reproduction.
Exactly. That was what i was trying to explain to the Dude. Look it up!
They are really not seperate, they are part of the other.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#114409 Jun 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Are we all clones? If not then evolution happens.
It's up to you if you wish to consider evolution to be an opposite to "creation" or not.(shrug)
Cloning?
What is your point?
Reproduction like i said, is a process of creation and not evolution.
Are you a cloned being?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114410 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the universe have the capacity for intelligence?
Does water burn?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114411 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have said I do a lot of reading and in every article I have ever read they mention the environment influence of mutations.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/env...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Variat...
Yes, the environment affects the *rate* of mutations. But it doesn't determine which exact mutations will arise in any population. If a cosmic ray hits slightly off, then there would be a very different mutation. If a mutagenic chemical reacts with a different stretch of DNA, there will be a different mutation. In that sense, which mutation arises is random.

The problem is that which mutation arises has NOTHING to do with whether that mutation is beneficial or not. It has nothing to do with whether it would help the species to survive or not.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114412 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok no two individuals have the same mutations. So are you saying that in a population, different mutations can cause the same evolution of the population? Like you can get 100 by adding up several different numbers, ie different mutations in different individuals can still lead up to the same changes in the population?.
No, that is NOT what I am saying. If a different collection of mutations happens, then the species would evolve in a different direction. It would still become more adapted to the environment, but in a different way.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114413 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
On your dice analogy. the blank dice will always give the same roll, now add numbers (the effect of the roll) and it becomes random. That is why I ask/say the mutation is not random, they happen all the time and are influenced by environmental factors. It is the effect of the mutation that is random for it seems that the effects of a mutation differ for each individual.
It is almost like you don't quite grasp what a mutation is. Ultimately, a mutation is just a change in the DNA. This can happen in a variety of ways. But changes in different parts of the very large DNA molecules will have different effects. That there will be a mutation is highly likely, just like the averages on the dice. But *which* mutations happen is random.

Let's take an easy case. Suppose we have a fairly short DNA molecule of 'only' one million base pairs. Let's say that this DNA molecule codes for 1000 different proteins, each with its own specific structure and function. Now, suppose there is a mutation. It matters to survival whether that mutation happens in a stretch that codes for a structural protein, or instead one that codes for eye color. The first could be quite detrimental to survival. A different stretch could code for something like the amount of time the arm is allowed to grow: so it could lead to longer arms. If a cosmic ray (the environment) hits a piece of DNA coding for arm length, it could be beneficial (depending on other aspects of the environment), while if it hits a gene coding for eye color, the effect may not be so large.

So what causes mutations? Anything that will change the DNA: chemicals that interact with the chemical aspects of the DNA; radiation which interacts by breaking the DNA strand; etc. These will affect *anywhere* on the DNA. Where exactly they act cannot be determined by simply saying that they happen. In that sense the mutations are random.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114414 Jun 17, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You said in a earlier post that no 2 will have the exact mutations so again it seems that different mutations in individuals can lead to the same outcome/effect of the different mutations.
Why would you say that?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#114415 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does natural selection happen before or after mutation?
1) gametes (sperm or ovum) > when produced: mutations in their DNA
2) sperm meets ovum, conception > DNA of both recombined, along with all caught mutations
3) from the very moment of fertilization, natural selection kicks in: when the combined mutations in the recombinated DNA is already fatal for the basic metabolism of the fertilized ovum, the egg will die at instance
4) if certain mutations are deleterious in later stages of gestation of the embryo (due to being on genes that express in that later stage), the embryo will die at that very moment

A compromised DNA has found to be a major factor in still birth. Of all conceptions in humans, we know only 15% leads to life birth of a viable newborn (although there are other causes of stillbirth as well, e.g. infections, malnutrition etc.).

5) if a viable life birth has occurred, natural selection just continues. In 'natural state', without all the technology, medicine etc. 25-50% of all newborn will die before 12 years of age. That is - naturally spoken - NORMAL. In other species this may pile up to 90% or even 99%.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114416 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
But my interest is in the point where a phenomena is real, yet cannot be observed nor tested.
How do we treat such cases?
Just conclude that since we cant detect and measure them they are of questionable value?
Or do we examine our methods to find the primary element which makes it reliable, and try to apply it in investigating those phenomena?
Clearly we attempt to find some sort of interaction that will reliably detect the phenomenon in question.
Outstanding!
But by what principle or standard available to us can we measure the "real"?
And based on what will we be able to conclude on any degree of reality of anything?
We measure the real by observation. That is what determines what is real and what is not.
Ah.
But does deductive reasoning indeed require an "axiom"?
Yes.
It is the conclusion which verifies the premises in any line of logic; such that a conclusion is valid even if the premises describe that which has no existence.
Wrong. In deductive logic, it is the hypotheses that verify the conclusion, not the other way around. Inductive logic, on the other hand, attempts to verify the hypotheses based on the conclusions being verified. But inductive logic has many logical holes and is not fully reliable.
I would suggest that it is the will to "have general axioms" (I admit science will lead to such), that leads us to form hasty generalizations.
WHich is why testing via observation is necessary.
I prefer to rely on the direct relationship between what is postulated and what is concluded to determine the validity of a deduction; because I suspect that it is a mistake to take for granted that any "axiom" is reliable.
There is *never* such a direct relationship. Anything we ever detect is via our senses and they are indirect. Even our reasoning is indirect. So you suggest an impossibility.
I agree.
Yet the implications of any assumption (or the absence of implications) will be observable in the system for which the assumption is made.
For example:
If I assume that wind was blowing heavily before I arrived at a place, there will be signs that wind blew heavily... etc etc.
But what happens at the point where we are performing the thought experiment on something for which only its effect on the world can be observed; and the thing itself cannot be detected by the senses?
Then we form hypotheses about how it affects the world, make predictions based on those hypotheses, test those predictions via observation, and throw out systems that fail to predict correctly. In other words, use the scientific method.
Do we disregard these phenomena as unreal, meaningless etc..?
If there is interaction, that interaction gives a possibility of observation. If there is no possibility of observation, even in theory, then there is no interaction and the existence is invalidated.
But here is where logic is indispensable, and proves that only it (logic, reason, intuition) is reliable (or available).
Intuition can be helpful for arriving at new ideas, but it is seldom reliable in itself. It must be tested because intuition is often completely wrong.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114417 Jun 17, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
What about physics?
What about physics? Mathematics and physics are very different subjects. Math provides the *language* of physics, but there are many things in math that have nothing at all to do with physics. Also, any mathematical model proposed for a physical situation must be tested against observation to be verified.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114418 Jun 17, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
Do you consider the School of Divinity at major universities to be a legitimate academic pursuit? Because from where I sit you seek to destroy that area of education.
Let me state clearly right here that I do NOT consider it a legitimate area of academic pursuit. At *best* it is philosophy and can be integrated into that curriculum. At worst it is simply promoting superstitions and should be eliminated entirely.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#114419 Jun 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Do waves of energy travel throughout our Earth as well? Theoretically, could the Earth outer core be a liquid like salt water and the inner core be just ionized molecules from it's pressured movement about in the outer core? The statement in scripture about the fountains of the great deep as well as other claims about the Earth being made of water, leads me to believe water is under the crust in abundance.
yes, energy waves move through the earth. That is part of how we know there is a core at the center. No, the inner core could NOT be simply ionized molecules. First, the pressure is too large for that. Second, the refraction from the quakes shows it isn't. The outer core is 'liquid' but certainly not salt water. More like liquid iron.

Your scripture is wrong.

“Denny Crain”

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#114420 Jun 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, energy waves move through the earth. That is part of how we know there is a core at the center. No, the inner core could NOT be simply ionized molecules. First, the pressure is too large for that. Second, the refraction from the quakes shows it isn't. The outer core is 'liquid' but certainly not salt water. More like liquid iron.
Your scripture is wrong.
Good morning Poly. Thank you gain for your clear simple explanations that help a non math person to understand :)

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) 2 min CJ Rocker 188,976
News Officials: New Jersey man skipped $12,000 in EZ... 20 min 8541 MARINE 3
Word Association (Mar '10) 21 min Mega Monster 19,886
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 24 min Lost and Found 55,635
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 25 min beatlesintheblog 144,029
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 27 min Dont_You_Dare 1,953
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 28 min Dont_You_Dare 7,840
Offbeat's Cutest Couple (Sep '13) 52 min CJ Rocker 588
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 1 hr beatlesintheblog 1,676
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 1 hr streetglidehoney 5,256
More from around the web