Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223360 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.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116283 Jun 29, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Has the average human life span gone up or down since the enlightenment? Why?
I see you beat me to the punch.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116284 Jun 29, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all going to die, this generation, the next generation, the next generation and so on. Man can prolong death a little and sometimes for the short time being even cheat death for a few years. But death will always win. One would think after millions and millions and millions of years evolution, which is all about survival, would have came up with something to to beat death but it has produced nothing in that area.
Natural selection is not unlimited. Extended lifespan is not a survival component that can't be protected by natural selection unless the organism was reproductive all the way to day and the longer lifespan meant contributed to a greater fitness. This does not mean that there aren't phenotypes that are selected that also result in longer lives, it is just that the longer life is not the trait being selected. It also not an indication that lifespan cannot be increased for a population or an individual. We have already nearly doubled life expectancy in the last 200 years.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#116285 Jun 29, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your opinion.
Do you have alternative definitions?
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#116286 Jun 29, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Given the evidence we have those are reasonable conclusions. Living things contain chemical reactions and are comprised of organic compounds so why is it such a shocking idea to think that is how it started?
Why is it such a hard thing to see that life was made in kinds from the beginning? The Bible claims that there is nothing new under the sun and living things all multiply after their own kind. No real transition is or has occurred from one kind to another or we would see it everywhere. I know there has been oddities and deformed creatures that may look like something other than their own kind, but they do not reproduce to become a totally new kind.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#116287 Jun 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite. The stages where the chemical reactions were still fairly simple would not be considered life. it is only when the reactions get to a certain level of complexity and are self-sustaining that we have life.
Life *is* a certain class of complex chemical reactions that are inter-related and self-sustaining given the right environment and for at least a period of time.
Why would it be so hard to accept the way man came into being ? As in GENESIS 2: 6&7 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. We know that Carbon would be the dust of the earth and water is also very much in the makeup of the human body.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#116288 Jun 29, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Natural selection is not unlimited. Extended lifespan is not a survival component that can't be protected by natural selection unless the organism was reproductive all the way to day and the longer lifespan meant contributed to a greater fitness. This does not mean that there aren't phenotypes that are selected that also result in longer lives, it is just that the longer life is not the trait being selected. It also not an indication that lifespan cannot be increased for a population or an individual. We have already nearly doubled life expectancy in the last 200 years.
"We have already nearly doubled life expectancy in the last 200 years".
You are right to say "we have" because it was not evolution and was not natural selection. Man is upsetting the natural balance to everything in nature and calls it advancement and achievement. Man causes disease and death with man-made chemicals, Man destroys land and foliage killing many numbers of a species. Man sent many species into extinction. Man is destroying the very planet that sustains his life.
I said it before and I will say it again,,, Man will go extinct by his own hands. We are like a big virus that has taken over earth and will eventually destroy it and everything on it.
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#116289 Jun 29, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
After his reply that he could not believe we thought that, Male and female were 'created" thousands to hundreds of thousands years apart. I concluded you may as well be trying to correspond with goldfish or a parakeet. He hasn't the ability to solve the riddles of life.
life is not a riddle. Complex instructions are given to each kind of creature in the form of patterns and they follow these patterned instructions which unfold rhythmically and through circuits which are systematic cycles in nature.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116290 Jun 29, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank Mattel.
O-M-G! Did you make a funny? Lol.
You may have a sence of humor after all.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116291 Jun 29, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If you force an outcome you aren't following the scientific method.
It happens all the time.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116292 Jun 29, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
"We have already nearly doubled life expectancy in the last 200 years".
You are right to say "we have" because it was not evolution and was not natural selection. Man is upsetting the natural balance to everything in nature and calls it advancement and achievement. Man causes disease and death with man-made chemicals, Man destroys land and foliage killing many numbers of a species. Man sent many species into extinction. Man is destroying the very planet that sustains his life.
I said it before and I will say it again,,, Man will go extinct by his own hands. We are like a big virus that has taken over earth and will eventually destroy it and everything on it.
Well said.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116293 Jun 29, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
We are all going to die, this generation, the next generation, the next generation and so on. Man can prolong death a little and sometimes for the short time being even cheat death for a few years. But death will always win. One would think after millions and millions and millions of years evolution, which is all about survival, would have came up with something to to beat death but it has produced nothing in that area.
The Hayflick limit. A cell can only divide so many times before it stops.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116294 Jun 29, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
It happens all the time.
It does happen. I don't know how often. I don't know what the impact of the occurrences are on overall science. You state it as if you know all the occurrences and know exactly that the outcome has an overall negative impact. Sounds more like belief than fact to me.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#116295 Jun 29, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>life is not a riddle. Complex instructions are given to each kind of creature in the form of patterns and they follow these patterned instructions which unfold rhythmically and through circuits which are systematic cycles in nature.
Do you know what you are saying here?
We have a name for this kinda stuff you know?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#116296 Jun 29, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Why would it be so hard to accept the way man came into being ? As in GENESIS 2: 6&7 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. We know that Carbon would be the dust of the earth and water is also very much in the makeup of the human body.
And that gets you how far? How about proteins, which also require nitrogen and oxygen, not to mention the hydrogen (which is at least in the water)?

And then comes the question: what are the *chemical* steps that happened when 'God breathed into the nostrils'? Give details and show exactly what happened that made the non-living dirt become living.

And then, of course, compare that to the basis we have for abiogenesis today: quite a lot of chemical evidence for how and when amino acids form, similarly for nucleic acids, similarly for lipids, proteins, etc. We have data showing how RNA can serve both as a genetic material and as a replacement (more likely a precursor) for proteins. We have the cells in our bodies showing the ancient mechanisms involving RNA.

And then, of course, we have the long period of time between when life arose on Earth (3.8 billion years ago) and the fairly recent arrival of humans (1-200,000 years ago). Not so conducive to your story.

So, the problem is that your idea has no evidence to support it, the available evidence actually shows it to be implausible, and it actually allows no real understanding of the process anyway. So why would we want to adopt it?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116297 Jun 29, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
"We have already nearly doubled life expectancy in the last 200 years".
You are right to say "we have" because it was not evolution and was not natural selection. Man is upsetting the natural balance to everything in nature and calls it advancement and achievement. Man causes disease and death with man-made chemicals, Man destroys land and foliage killing many numbers of a species. Man sent many species into extinction. Man is destroying the very planet that sustains his life.
I said it before and I will say it again,,, Man will go extinct by his own hands. We are like a big virus that has taken over earth and will eventually destroy it and everything on it.
Humans have had a larger environmental footprint since we became organized, sedentary and developed agriculture. That is at least for the last 10,000 years. It is largely since the development of science that we have been aware of this impact and what it means. We are not the only thing on earth that has such global impact on the environment. We are the only thing on earth that has the ability to know it and respond intelligently.

I don't have such a pessimistic view of things.

“Me Me Me!”

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#116298 Jun 29, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It does happen. I don't know how often. I don't know what the impact of the occurrences are on overall science. You state it as if you know all the occurrences and know exactly that the outcome has an overall negative impact. Sounds more like belief than fact to me.
I'm as sure of it as you are.:)

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116299 Jun 29, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Why is it such a hard thing to see that life was made in kinds from the beginning? The Bible claims that there is nothing new under the sun and living things all multiply after their own kind. No real transition is or has occurred from one kind to another or we would see it everywhere. I know there has been oddities and deformed creatures that may look like something other than their own kind, but they do not reproduce to become a totally new kind.
What is a kind? Is it a type, a species, a family and order? What?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116300 Jun 29, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Why would it be so hard to accept the way man came into being ? As in GENESIS 2: 6&7 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. We know that Carbon would be the dust of the earth and water is also very much in the makeup of the human body.
The evidence shows we evolved. This does not alter the overall sentiment of Genesis, but the observed facts don't match the claim of Genesis.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#116301 Jun 29, 2014
Cali-girl20 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm as sure of it as you are.:)
The evidence I have is that it occurs, but is a small proportion of all work conducted. It is not the norm. So it is unfair and inaccurate to say "it happens all the time".
FREE SERVANT

Tucker, GA

#116302 Jun 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And that gets you how far? How about proteins, which also require nitrogen and oxygen, not to mention the hydrogen (which is at least in the water)?
And then comes the question: what are the *chemical* steps that happened when 'God breathed into the nostrils'? Give details and show exactly what happened that made the non-living dirt become living.
And then, of course, compare that to the basis we have for abiogenesis today: quite a lot of chemical evidence for how and when amino acids form, similarly for nucleic acids, similarly for lipids, proteins, etc. We have data showing how RNA can serve both as a genetic material and as a replacement (more likely a precursor) for proteins. We have the cells in our bodies showing the ancient mechanisms involving RNA.
And then, of course, we have the long period of time between when life arose on Earth (3.8 billion years ago) and the fairly recent arrival of humans (1-200,000 years ago). Not so conducive to your story.
So, the problem is that your idea has no evidence to support it, the available evidence actually shows it to be implausible, and it actually allows no real understanding of the process anyway. So why would we want to adopt it?
What do we have when a body decomposes? Carbon dust is the main element and when we take away the water, the body returns back to the dust just as the Bible claims also. This is one reason why we should consider creation as given to us in the Bible, plausible.

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
Tally Ho is a Potential Rapist 4 min Jackie 3
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 5 min Jackie 7,148
2words into 2new words (May '12) 6 min wichita-rick 9,181
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 29 min skybobbie 6,429
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 32 min skybobbie 228,396
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 38 min aka Deja Blue 151,107
News This bizarre anti-masturbation video can't be r... 55 min RedhorseWoman 584
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr Sublime1 34,760
More from around the web