Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201767 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.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120063 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
the first part is correct , the second is not
You think that there's no bearing on whether God created everything or everything created itself? Really! There's no bearing on society, science or mankind?
In case you didn't know: we just DON'T CARE about the opinions of a layman how he conceives the ways science organizes itself in disciplines with different subjects, methodologies and theories.

If you are not able to distinguish between biology and cosmology and between evolution theory and abiogenesis, go read something instead of your annoying and endless tattles about things you have no single understanding of.

The second part of your post proves you even have no idea of what Chimney tried to say.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120064 Aug 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is telling to see how you dodged all my posts and answer the only one you THINK you are able to address. That's how cowards work. And to anticipate your predictable answer: no they weren't stupid (your excuse for dodging) otherwise you wouldn't have had the slightest problem to refute them - and you won't had let it go too.
Now we both agree that life is a biochemical process we go to abiogenesis.
Zero evidence?
You wish it were true.
But you are totally wrong.
I think you never took the effort to go into the literature of abiogenesis.
Hence I am asking myself how you manage to draw conclusions about things you have no single understanding or knowledge of.
As Polymath already said, there have been numerous experiments done that have showed that:
1) complex organic molecules can emerge from prebiotic environments in varying simulations of early earth conditions
2) already several pathways form those basic molecules to macromolecules is on its way and very promising. Among those are several amino acids (the building blocks of proteins as well as proteins and all nucleotides of RNA, as well as the phosphate and sugar parts of it
3) the self-replication of RNA in prebiotic conditions with no proteins around and even showing natural selection to occur
4) the emergence of metabolism is also on its way with a bunch of experiments.
All those lines 1 - 4 comprise dozens of experiments.
Creationists only refer to the Urey-Miller experiments. That was almost 60 years ago. For everything that happened since then they are COMPLETELY ignorant of. It is as if nothing happened in physics after Newton. But we ALL KNOW hoe creationism works.
A nice line of research is the engineering existing prokaryotic (bacterial) cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life are reached. Than we may build up the line of events from the other side to arrive at that point.
Hence: the emergence of (complex) organic molecules is already pretty much understood. The emergence of self-replication is pretty much on its way and major steps have been taken. The next step will be how biological reactions were incorporated behind and contained within cell walls. This research also started and is on its way. the same applies to metabolism.
But these lines are still different building blocks, many of them not complete and even others lacking and neither of them integrated in one construction.
But NOBODY claimed we already finished the job.
But to say that there is "zero evidence" is just PLAIN LYING.
Also a notorious trait of creationism.
Now instead of "go and play on the road", I have a better advice for you: go and read a book about the things BEFORE you start TATTLING about them.
Yep same ole shit you puddle goo people have been saying for years

can emerge
on its way,......that's a good one
very promising
pretty much understood!....ha.ha.ha.

These are the tactics of the lie!

because its You who are lying, there is zero evidence , none! giving you the benefit of the doubt that all the proteins, phosphates organic compounds, sugar all the so called building blocks come together you know what you have? lifeless matter that will begin to decay. Biogenesis states that life can only come from existing , it never has been seen to come from anywhere else, ever! That is a biological law , never refuted. To claim that life happened on its on once is in the eyes of science a miracle , since experimentation , evidence and history is against it., it is as I said pseudo science.....only your belief keeps it alive
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120065 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence of a creator is ....self evident, intelligent people and scientists for hundreds of years have known it, because the alternative is.......
the universe created itself, and no rational ,thinking and reasoning being could believe that.
Sure, the evidence of evolution is as well.
All intelligent people, especially all biologists and other earth scientists for last 150 years have known it. And, as we already noted, the more intelligent and the more knowledge a person possesses, the more atheistic he is. didn't you forget the results of the polls among scientists?
Yes you did. You don't pay attention to facts and evidence. You just think that phenomena are "self-evident" while NOBODY EVER came up with ANY normal evidence for them.

VERY WELL DONE.

In science we have a very healthy attitude: if facts and doctrine contradict, OFF goes doctrine.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120066 Aug 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did your mind know what your fingers were typing?
Spare me of this unsubstantiated, senseless posts.
I don't have the time for them to read.
You are really chicken shit, a coward who's afraid to answer
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120067 Aug 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is telling to see how you dodged all my posts and answer the only one you THINK you are able to address. That's how cowards work. And to anticipate your predictable answer: no they weren't stupid (your excuse for dodging) otherwise you wouldn't have had the slightest problem to refute them - and you won't had let it go too.
Now we both agree that life is a biochemical process we go to abiogenesis.
Zero evidence?
You wish it were true.
But you are totally wrong.
I think you never took the effort to go into the literature of abiogenesis.
Hence I am asking myself how you manage to draw conclusions about things you have no single understanding or knowledge of.
As Polymath already said, there have been numerous experiments done that have showed that:
1) complex organic molecules can emerge from prebiotic environments in varying simulations of early earth conditions
2) already several pathways form those basic molecules to macromolecules is on its way and very promising. Among those are several amino acids (the building blocks of proteins as well as proteins and all nucleotides of RNA, as well as the phosphate and sugar parts of it
3) the self-replication of RNA in prebiotic conditions with no proteins around and even showing natural selection to occur
4) the emergence of metabolism is also on its way with a bunch of experiments.
All those lines 1 - 4 comprise dozens of experiments.
Creationists only refer to the Urey-Miller experiments. That was almost 60 years ago. For everything that happened since then they are COMPLETELY ignorant of. It is as if nothing happened in physics after Newton. But we ALL KNOW hoe creationism works.
A nice line of research is the engineering existing prokaryotic (bacterial) cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life are reached. Than we may build up the line of events from the other side to arrive at that point.
Hence: the emergence of (complex) organic molecules is already pretty much understood. The emergence of self-replication is pretty much on its way and major steps have been taken. The next step will be how biological reactions were incorporated behind and contained within cell walls. This research also started and is on its way. the same applies to metabolism.
But these lines are still different building blocks, many of them not complete and even others lacking and neither of them integrated in one construction.
But NOBODY claimed we already finished the job.
But to say that there is "zero evidence" is just PLAIN LYING.
Also a notorious trait of creationism.
Now instead of "go and play on the road", I have a better advice for you: go and read a book about the things BEFORE you start TATTLING about them.
I've been reading abut abiogenisis and I get most of it - Y'all better get ready for some hardcore biochemistry, astrobiology, theoretical astrophysics AND astronomy.
We're sending telescopes and probes into space right now to try to answer the questions of where and how life came to be here and out there.../\
We have probes that fly next to comets, probes around the outer planets and their icy water laden moons, yet as far as I know..... no touchdown(contact) of any space vehicle or probe but the one landed on titan some time ago. No reports of life there, Organic compounds,
liquid and frozen methane on its surface. When are we gonna land on one of the ice moons?
What are all the ruddy dirty stains in the white ice of Europa? Looks kinda of familiar.
What are we stalling about when we've got at least two probes looking at those moons now?
Yes I know, Funding.(money)
It's definitely a hedge fund to mankinds' good continuance and prosperity to do this and more.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120068 Aug 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
In case you didn't know: we just DON'T CARE about the opinions of a layman how he conceives the ways science organizes itself in disciplines with different subjects, methodologies and theories.
If you are not able to distinguish between biology and cosmology and between evolution theory and abiogenesis, go read something instead of your annoying and endless tattles about things you have no single understanding of.
The second part of your post proves you even have no idea of what Chimney tried to say.
Well ....explain to me Einstein how the universe caused itself and then caused life,..I mean hell ,I am a layman, not a bonified super genius like you Wylie Coyote

Your pretty damn helpless super genius without a youtube video.....I guess relying on your own abilities to debate is a dry well.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120069 Aug 13, 2014
I've been reading abut abiogenisis and I get most of it - Y'all better get ready for some hardcore biochemistry, astrobiology, theoretical astrophysics AND astronomy.
We're sending telescopes and probes into space right now to try to answer the questions of where and how life came to be here and out there.../\
We have probes that fly next to comets, probes around the outer planets and their icy water laden moons, yet as far as I know..... no touchdown(contact) of any space vehicle or probe but the one landed on titan some time ago. No reports of life there, Organic compounds,
liquid and frozen methane on its surface. When are we gonna land on one of the ice moons?
What are all the ruddy dirty stains in the white ice of Europa? Looks kinda of familiar.
What are we stalling about when we've got at least two probes looking at those moons now?
Yes I know, Funding.(money)
It's definitely a hedge fund to mankinds' good continuance and prosperity to do this and more.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120070 Aug 13, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, the evidence of evolution is as well.
All intelligent people, especially all biologists and other earth scientists for last 150 years have known it. And, as we already noted, the more intelligent and the more knowledge a person possesses, the more atheistic he is. didn't you forget the results of the polls among scientists?
Yes you did. You don't pay attention to facts and evidence. You just think that phenomena are "self-evident" while NOBODY EVER came up with ANY normal evidence for them.
VERY WELL DONE.
In science we have a very healthy attitude: if facts and doctrine contradict, OFF goes doctrine.
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe

Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120071 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep same ole shit you puddle goo people have been saying for years
can emerge
on its way,......that's a good one
very promising
pretty much understood!....ha.ha.ha.
These are the tactics of the lie!
because its You who are lying, there is zero evidence , none! giving you the benefit of the doubt that all the proteins, phosphates organic compounds, sugar all the so called building blocks come together you know what you have? lifeless matter that will begin to decay. Biogenesis states that life can only come from existing , it never has been seen to come from anywhere else, ever! That is a biological law , never refuted. To claim that life happened on its on once is in the eyes of science a miracle , since experimentation , evidence and history is against it., it is as I said pseudo science.....only your belief keeps it alive
Go stick your head back into to your bronze age mythology book.
Zero evidence?
I only have to repeat my own post, that suffices.

As Polymath already said, there have been numerous experiments done that have showed that:
1) complex organic molecules can emerge from prebiotic environments in varying simulations of early earth conditions
2) already several pathways form those basic molecules to macromolecules is on its way and very promising. Among those are several amino acids (the building blocks of proteins as well as proteins and all nucleotides of RNA, as well as the phosphate and sugar parts of it
3) the self-replication of RNA in prebiotic conditions with no proteins around and even showing natural selection to occur
4) the emergence of metabolism is also on its way with a bunch of experiments.
All those lines 1 - 4 comprise dozens of experiments.
Creationists only refer to the Urey-Miller experiments. That was almost 60 years ago. For everything that happened since then they are COMPLETELY ignorant of. It is as if nothing happened in physics after Newton. But we ALL KNOW hoe creationism works.
A nice line of research is the engineering existing prokaryotic (bacterial) cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life are reached. Than we may build up the line of events from the other side to arrive at that point.
Hence: the emergence of (complex) organic molecules is already pretty much understood. The emergence of self-replication is pretty much on its way and major steps have been taken. The next step will be how biological reactions were incorporated behind and contained within cell walls. This research also started and is on its way. the same applies to metabolism.
But these lines are still different building blocks, many of them not complete and even others lacking and neither of them integrated in one construction.
But NOBODY claimed we already finished the job.
But to say that there is "zero evidence" is just PLAIN LYING.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120072 Aug 13, 2014
OOOOhhh IT's Hot n' Heavy on the evolution debate!
Sorry for dubl post.
carry on ;-)
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120073 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are really chicken shit, a coward who's afraid to answer
What are you talking about?
I respond to posts, YOU don't.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#120074 Aug 13, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been reading abut abiogenisis and I get most of it - Y'all better get ready for some hardcore biochemistry, astrobiology, theoretical astrophysics AND astronomy.
We're sending telescopes and probes into space right now to try to answer the questions of where and how life came to be here and out there.../\
We have probes that fly next to comets, probes around the outer planets and their icy water laden moons, yet as far as I know..... no touchdown(contact) of any space vehicle or probe but the one landed on titan some time ago. No reports of life there, Organic compounds,
liquid and frozen methane on its surface. When are we gonna land on one of the ice moons?
What are all the ruddy dirty stains in the white ice of Europa? Looks kinda of familiar.
What are we stalling about when we've got at least two probes looking at those moons now?
Yes I know, Funding.(money)
It's definitely a hedge fund to mankinds' good continuance and prosperity to do this and more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_landings_on_extraterres trial_bodies
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120075 Aug 13, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landings on extraterrestrial bodies
That is SO Cool, thank you!
That did verify that there have been no landings or impacts on any of the moons round Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune besides the Huygens Probe landing on Titan.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120076 Aug 13, 2014
The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and nitrogen-rich organic smog. The climate—including wind and rain—creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle is viewed as an analogy to Earth's water cycle, although at a much lower temperature. On June 23, 2014, NASA announced strong evidence that nitrogen in the atmosphere of Titan came from materials in the Oort cloud, associated with comets, and not from the materials that formed Saturn earlier. On July 2, 2014, NASA reported the ocean inside Titan may be "as salty as the Earth's Dead Sea".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_ (moon)

The ocean INSIDE Titan?
:-O, learn something new every day.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#120078 Aug 13, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe
Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
You don't know the theory of evolution or of punctuated equilibrium. Why do you persist on showing how limited and ignorant you are. What makes you so hateful and angry if you are such a great Christian?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120079 Aug 14, 2014
KeepCalmNcarryON wrote:
The atmosphere of Titan is largely nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and nitrogen-rich organic smog. The climate—including wind and rain—creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes, seas (probably of liquid methane and ethane), and deltas, and is dominated by seasonal weather patterns as on Earth. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan's methane cycle is viewed as an analogy to Earth's water cycle, although at a much lower temperature. On June 23, 2014, NASA announced strong evidence that nitrogen in the atmosphere of Titan came from materials in the Oort cloud, associated with comets, and not from the materials that formed Saturn earlier. On July 2, 2014, NASA reported the ocean inside Titan may be "as salty as the Earth's Dead Sea".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_ (moon)
The ocean INSIDE Titan?
:-O, learn something new every day.
Titan's mantle consist of frozen ice in different crystal states. Beneath it there is a liquid form of water, mixed up with ammonia. The ice is drifting on the deeper oceans.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120080 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Stephen J Gould realized the fossil record ,,,DID NOT support the current theory of gradual change over time . Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened quickly then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe
Polls? no I don't pay any attention to polls, unlike you I think
The very next TATTLE.
Oi oi oi, DID NOT support the current theory. WOW! All evolutionist tremble of sheer anxiety.

Now stick back your ignorant head into the bronze age mythology book and don't annoy us with this crap about things you don't understand, plucked from your cults website full of deceit and further ignorance.

I shall substitute this terrible claptrap by another instance of innovation in science: Einstein constructing a new concept of gravity. Did Einstein jettisoned Newton on gravity?
Why should he. Well here it goes:

"Really if the facts and doctrine contradict off goes the doctrine? Albert Einstein realized several celestial bodies ,,,DID NOT support the current Newtonian theory of gravity. Did he jettison the doctrine ? no! He simply said it must have happened according to general relativity then,..Why? because its what he wants to believe".

So let's analyse your deceit and humbug.
"He simply said..." simply? After a decade of study?
"... it must have happened quickly then,.." No he didn't say so.
"Why? because its what he wants to believe" No he and Eldredge based their new ideas on meticulous study of the fossil record, pulmonate gastropods and phacopsid trilobites to be precise. The discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of their initial 1977 publication.

Little tiny secret: gradual change over time still stands. And Gould and Eldredge agree.

And now the polls thing. So you don't pay any attention to polls, unlike me, you think?
Well tell us then, where did you get YOUR information from when you FALSELY asserted that among the mentioned disciplines of science there are ever more ones who support creation?
TELL US.

As said before: you don't care about facts.
THAT we know from creationists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120081 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay dumbass, empty your drool bucket,...the chemistry of EXISTING life is understood. Only the comically stupid goobers on this thread will tell you that the chemicals that the universe somehow created then coalesced and created life. That's you
There is zero evidence that inorganic matter,...nonliving, can self organize and create life.
Zero! so it is you who are the fool,
now go play in the road
Sure there is. It's just you do this whole denial thing every time somebody on here points it out.

By the way, the theory of evolution still doesn't rely on abiogenesis.

And abiogenesis is still not atheism.

What you really want is to be in the atheism forum, because that's what your real beef is:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120082 Aug 14, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I love God with all my heart and secondly I am as concerned for my neighbors as I am for myself. I'll keep praying for you guys.
Whatever makes ya happy.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120083 Aug 14, 2014
bohart wrote:
the first part is correct , the second is not
Bub, let's face it, you don't reall have the ability to tell right from wrong.
bohart wrote:
You think that there's no bearing on whether God created everything or everything created itself? Really! There's no bearing on society, science or mankind?
You mean beyond religion being a socio-cultural-political construct? Absolutely no bearing at all whatsoever, as far as can be determined. I mean it WOULD, if you could demonstrate your deity exists. But since you can't the effects of religion are similar to that of astrology (though the latter to a somewhat lesser extent).
bohart wrote:
The evidence of a creator is ....self evident
Ah, "self-evident" - the last vestige of the fundie who knows he has nothing.

If it really WAS as evident as you claim you would be able to provide evidence. I would say gravity is self-evident, but on the other hand we can provide evidence. Something like evolution however is not so much self-evident, but on the other hand we can still provide evidence. Just like infra-red or microscopic stuff is not self-evident, yet we can provide evidence of that also.

So all you need to do Bo, is present objectively verifiable evidence.
bohart wrote:
intelligent people and scientists for hundreds of years have known it, because the alternative is.......
the universe created itself, and no rational ,thinking and reasoning being could believe that.
Or other alternatives are that the universe has a cause which wasn't necessarily intelligent. Or that the universe was uncaused. Which you have no right to have a beef with consider the fact you claim your God was also uncaused. And this is why your arguments are not only totally lacking in evidence, they are stupendously flawed, and rife with hypocrisy. Which is why you constantly resort to dishonesty by avoiding our arguments and beating up straw-men.

The existence of the universe is evidence of the existence of the universe. It's not evidence of the universe AND invisible magic Jewish wizards. That is why we reject your logical fallacy of "If not A then it must be B!"

That doesn't mean there's definitely no evidence of a 'god'(whatever that means) or that there cannot ever be any, it's just that you've presented diddly. Feel free to provide something of substance for once. Any time you like.

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) 1 min CJ Rocker 194,710
A six word game (Dec '08) 5 min Aussie Kev 19,500
Favorite lines from a song (Mar '08) 7 min wichita-rick 3,649
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 13 min Aussie Kev 3,552
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 16 min Aussie Kev 35,629
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 16 min Humhainna 13,822
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 52 min Jack 146,100
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 54 min wichita-rick 18,524
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Knock off purse s... 7,895
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Calisportsgirl 58,217
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 3 hr dod 8,539
More from around the web