Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 204704 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

#120148 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
how do you think the universe and life came to be. don’t give me BBT and/or abiogenesis. i want what you think and believe and what rational people believe. After all BBT and abiogenesis evidently just happened with out cause and reason.
First, the BBT is a description of the current phase of expansion. Whether there was anything before, or whether it even makes sense to talk about 'before' requires consideration of things beyond just general relativity. In fact, some sort of quantum theory of gravity is required.

At this point, we have two main types of theories of quantum gravity: string theory and loop quantum gravity.

In the string theories, our universe is one among many in a multiverse. it is produced from a quantum fluctuation and is, because of that, uncaused. Different universes in that multiverse will have different properties. The concept of time in the multiverse is problematic, with no necessary relation between time in our universe and whatever overall 'time' there is in the multiverse.

In loop quantum gravity, there was a previous, contracting universe before ours. Unfortunately, the time directions for the two universes are reversed, so it looks to us like the previous universe is moving backwards, and we would look to that other universe like *we* are moving backwards. The 'bounce' is a type of quantum event and avoids the singularities (infinities) that happen in general relativity.

It is also still possible that there is literally nothing 'before our universe' because time itself makes no sense at all outside of our universe. In that cause causality is also problematic.

As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120149 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that a creator, who is called by the name of God ,created the universe and all life. The immense complexity of the universe and of life cannot be caused by nothing, Abiogenesis and evolution are desperate grasps to explain the creation without a creator. That is why you see very few who will answer the question of whether the universe had a creator or created itself, they respond with everything but a yes or no answer .
That is because there are more possibilities than just those two. In fact, the phrase 'created itself' is self-contradictory. So there are more possibilities than just the one you are looking for.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120150 Aug 15, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
I didn't have a problem showing eight differences. I was stunned that someone who claims to be so scientific and well read gave me such an easy task which I did in minutes without having to resort to Google. I wasn't surprised though he didn't know how many differences in the genome there were.
.
Maybe you would like to take a stab at explaining why we are nor seeing the rapidity of change required to change from a common ancestor 6 million years ago?
We are seeing the required amount of change, therefore I cannot give you what you ask for here. It's the same reason why we can't give you a cat giving birth to a dog. We can give you evidence that evolution is occurring because it is. We can't give you evidence that evolution is not occurring because it is occurring. That is why you never get answers to your satisfaction.

Not our problem.(shrug)
messianic114 wrote:
You guys claim you are answering, but I don't see any data being presented. What I get is a quote or two (like I am supposed to take that as evidence).
Evidence is irrelevant to your position anyway. This is why all your posts are dishonest.
messianic114 wrote:
Additionally when I question the quote, I don't get data to support the quote. Sometimes I even get bad quoting like in the case where one claimed radiometric dating of the K-pg boundary. If an asteroid hit the earth and we measure the daughter products how does that tell us when the asteroid hit. It could have been flying around for billions of years before it hit.
Actually you do get data to support the quote. You never address it and you move the goalposts to a different point. This is why we remain unrefuted.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120151 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
What's the name of this thread?
Evolution vs creation. Not abiogenesis vs creation.
bohart wrote:
Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis?
Evolution vs creation! dumbass
okay dummy,....if there is no creator, then evolution is most certainly relying on abiogenesis!
you really are stupid
No, because if you'd had paid attention over the past year or so however long you've been here, you would have noticed that I worded my posts quite carefully. The THEORY of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the very same reason the the theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the origin of mass.

All the theory of gravity needs is for mass to be here. Mass IS here. Mass attracts. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that mass is in fact not here.

All the theory of evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact, NOT here.

Both theories are the same in that neither of them care if:

1 - their origins are due to natural forces.

2 - their origins are due to invisible magic Jews.

3 - their origins are due to alien intervention.

4 - their origins are due to something else no-one knows or has thought of yet.

Just as long as whatever the origins are, they result in mass and life respectively.

Come on Bozo, it's not as if you don't already KNOW this already. We've all been through it with you a hundred times over, and you do not, never have, and never will have a refutation for this. Now if you wanna claim that abiogenesis hasn't been figured out yet, then fine. We've already conceded that point and we have no problem with that. Since it STILL has no bearing at all whatsoever on the validity of the theory of evolution, which happens to be a theory which is correct according to all available evidence. The origin of life is an issue which can be examined separately.
bohart wrote:
No rational thinking person believes that the universe created itself then created life.
Irrational people such as yourself are not qualified to judge what is and what isn't rational. Until you actually learn rationality you will likely never have any valid points.

You never had so far.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120152 Aug 15, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Four is a stumbling block for many, as you well know.
Nitpick - it's not speaking that fundies have a problem with, it's speaking coherently.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120153 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
We been here before, you are such a lying fool ,you still bring up the same old lies.
There is zero evidence life has ever self assembled itself!!!!
To say so is lying for the goo.
Life has never ,ever, ever been shown to come from anything but already existing life, to claim otherwise or to say you know how makes you an idiotic lying S.O.B
If that were true you would have the ability to address my words systematically instead of responding with your usual rhetorical response. I have explained WHY you're wrong, so in turn you need to COUNTER that and explain WHY I am wrong. I am not lying about the fact that your body is made of materials that were once NOT alive. I am not lying about the fact that plants, trees, grass, have NO NEED of any apparent intelligent input to reproduce. I am not lying about the fact that there is NO evidence of life prior to 3.5 billion years ago. I am not lying about the fact that the universe being finite DOES present a problem for your claims of an infinite regression of life that would need to continue before existence even existed. I am not lying about the fact that your position requires LOTS of special exemptions while mine does not.

You have two jobs:

1 - Deal with my points DIRECTLY instead of repeating fallacies I've already refuted time and time again.

2 - Deal with the contradictions in your own position without relying on your hypocrisy to give your positions special exemptions, ESPECIALLY given the fact your position is based on zero evidence.

I'm not and have never said Intelligent Design is not possible. But we HAVE pointed out why your attempted justifications of it are invalid. Same with your claims against evolution and abiogenesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120154 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that a creator, who is called by the name of God ,created the universe and all life. The immense complexity of the universe and of life cannot be caused by nothing, Abiogenesis and evolution are desperate grasps to explain the creation without a creator. That is why you see very few who will answer the question of whether the universe had a creator or created itself, they respond with everything but a yes or no answer .
Your beliefs are irrelevant and nobody gives a fig.

If a something was needed to "create" it, intelligence does not necessarily have to be a pre-requisite.

If it is, then there's no reason why it must also not apply to your creator. Thus you smack headlong into the infinite regression fallacy.

Your "God" doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything. It is a WHO, not a HOW. And it's an assertion made with zero evidence.

NOTHING in science, even the concepts you don't like, necessarily reject the possibility of a creator.

However - the ONLY things in science that invoke an intelligent creator are things which are made artificially by animals here on Earth. Gravity explains things without a creator. Chemistry explains things without a creator. Same probably applies to lots of natural scientific phenomena. This in NO way invalidates any of them.

All your objections are repeated fallacies we've all addressed before. You never counter our points directly. Until you can you can you will always be stuck in your own failure.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120155 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be rational
Bo, you've already seen that Messy is a Young Earth reality-denying liar for Jesus. See what I mean about you being unable to judge what's rational?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120156 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are an arrogant condescending jerk, why do you persist in assuming no one could possibly be as smart as you,..hey you have links and youtube videos.What a genius
And SURE you are able to address al those links and YouTube videos.
Until now we've SEEN NOTHING YET.

If you need lectures on dodging and ducking, attend a creationist's seance.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120157 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
thank you for your honest answer. i respect what you believe even though science disagrees. you have a cause which is what most people lack. if your cause is non-existent you will never know, if your cause does exist then you will know but others you left will not.
the universe I believe was an expansion of a previous universe that collapsed. how, where, and when the prior universe came to be i could not tell you. but I believe it once had to be before it could be again, including life.
the matter of truth is when it comes to life and the universe we will never know what or why or how or who. we can guess, do experiments trying to figure it out, we can have faith and belief but
1) we will never know if there is a heaven or hell.
2) we will never know if there is a god.
3) we will never know exactly how life was caused/created/started
4) we will never know exactly what caused/created the universe.
the only way to find out 1 and 2 is to die, no one can talk to the ones that have passed and if those places do not exist we still won’t know. 3 and 4 relies upon more and more testing of what we think is right, but may not be right. so for now people have choices. some of those choices consist of;
1) believe in god and have faith
2) trust science for the evidence they put forth
3) play both sides just in case(pascal’s wager-- which I think many do but will not admit)
Pascal's Wager is famous for being stupid.

It doesn't take into account of the fact that there's THOUSANDS more "sides" to take.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120158 Aug 15, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
One, four, five and six are the same. Seven is meaningless. Chimps and humans are omnivores.
Opposing large toe, upright gait. Tomatoes, tomatoes.
For a fundie, three is passing grade.
.
Whether you like my differences or not, I will let others judge. The fact still remains you are ignorant of the differences.
.
0 for an anti-theist is a passing grade.
.
Large cranial capacity will not give you the ability to think, look at an elephant, he has large cranial capacity, can he speak, create music, cook food, make clothes, have morals, etc.
.
But if you think there are less than 8 differences between an man and a chimp why would that take 6 million years?
.
Oh my bad, I should ask polymath, he gives intelligent answers, not snide remarks.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120159 Aug 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
uhmmm.... uncaused adj: 1) not brought into existence by any cause; spontaneous or natural.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uncaused
wondering

Morris, OK

#120160 Aug 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
being you think it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon what would you say the "cause" was that brought those chemicals together to produce the reaction we know as life?.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120161 Aug 15, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be rational, I have a question, according to the abiogenesis believers after the universe caused itself , the first puddle of goo sprang to life, when this biomass decided to crawl onto the land to live , we're their plants and a functioning ecosystem there to sustain it?
If so ,does this mean that plants came to life first from the goo , then evolved into plant eating animals? Were the first plants grass, weeds? or banana trees? Maybe the pond scum changed into apple trees.
.
I'm not that intelligent, I can't get beyond "everything came from nothing". Once I am able to grasp that I can go on to abiogenesis.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120162 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
If you have been following my posts, you should have known hat the fossil record tells that once in the earliest history of life, there were only bacteria around. Multicellular life came later. But you "neatly" avoid this 230 years old observational information in order to be able to tattle further on to someone else. You assertion that bacteria cannot evolve into other species is directly discarded by the fossil evidence.
Messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already answered this assertion. A fossil cannot tell us who is its predecessor or its descendent. All we can do is GUESS based upon a similarity.
WRONG.
First of all the stratification of fossils in the geological record is NOT an assertion but an OBSERVATION.

Second, I was not talking about "a fossil" but the STRATIFICATION of fossils.
Your answer has no single bearing on the point I made.
You seem not able to understand this VERY SIMPLE thing we OBSERVE.
If there once only were bacteria on earth and the rest of life chronologically follows in the geological record, there is ONLY ONE and SINGLE conclusion to draw: life began single cellular became multi cellular and from that moment became ever more complex.

The determination of the predecessor of some particular fossil species is totally irrelevant and even not necessary. A species to species record would be nice (actually sometimes we are very close to that in some lineages) but not required. The only requirements to be fulfilled are:
1) a gradual change in the phenology from ancestor to descendant on all essential traits
2) enough fossils that show intermediary traits
3) these fossils should lay in the correct time-frame (in between ancestor and descendant)
4) all relevant traits should be represented in the intermediary fossil finds
5) the gradual evolution of each trait should yield better survival chances (because natural selection only passes new genes to the next generation if those genes yield better adaptation. As a matter of fact, natural selection IS the process due to differential survival and reproduction chances).

As follows:
I presented you a post about the evolution of land animals. these show an almost perfect chance in all relevant traits for fish to evolve to land animals:
1. from cartilage fish to bony fish
2. from bony fish to bony fish with both lungs and gills
3. from bony fish with both lungs and gills to bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor
4. from bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor to bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor and the land
5. from bony fish with both lungs and gills and crawling the sea floor and the land to early amphibians with, as you call it, tiny feet who crawled the land but still with lungs and gills and clear signs of still being quite aquatic
6. from early amphibians with, as you call it, tiny feet who crawled the land but still with lungs and gills and clear signs of still being quite aquatic to amphibians with only gills in their infant stage but lungs in their adult state and less aquatic.

Of ALL of these stages we do have the fossil evidence. That fossil evidence is in the chronological correct order. All changes do reflect better survival chances.

I also showed you that descendants of these diverse species are still living today or the examples of divergent evolution in extant species that reflect each of the stages 1 to 5. I even pointed you to the fact that many amphibians even today start their life as fish (like tadpoles) and later metamorphose to land dwelling adults (but often still quite aquatic).

You ALL ignored this and even in your last post you manage to say that we didn't provide much until now. Well we did and ENOUGH to silence you on the particular points - assessed by your lack of answers on them.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120163 Aug 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text> As for abiogenesis, it is certainly NOT an uncaused phenomenon. In fact, the whole point is to understand the chemical causes for the origin of life, which is, after all, a chemical process. This requires a deep understanding of both the chemistry of life and the chemical environment of the early earth. Why you would claim this is uncaused is beyond me. Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon.
.
I believe what is being disputed is that chemical reactions by themselves cannot bring about life. I was told 40 years ago scientists created life in a lab. Where is that life now?
.
Additionally if "Chemistry is not an uncaused phenomenon", then why would you think nuclear decay is uncaused?
.
I didn't see you respond to my question about a loss of a neutrino as the cause of nuclear decay.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120164 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1) what species did it start as?
2) what changes happened?
3) how did the changes change it genetically?
4) how did the changes change its classifications?
5) what "new species" did the "starting species" evolve to be?
Let's take Lenski's long term experiment on E. coli (Wiki it). It is an experiment on E. coli bacteria depriving of their normal diet - glucose - and providing citrate instead. E. coli normally are not capable of metabolising citrate in aerobic conditions.
1) E. coli.
2) the bacterium became larger and gained the ability to grow on citrate in aerobic conditions.
3) the genetic changes involving the larger size needed 59 genes to be altered. The ability to grow on citrate came in 2 steps: first a slight ability to process citrate, followed by a change in iron acquisition that enhanced the ability to process citrate dramatically
4) metabolism is the major factor in classification of species. For instance, the differences between carnivores like lions and hyenas and herbivores like goat and sheep are merely to be traced back to difference in diet. To compare: there are other bacteria that grow on citrate, like Salmonella. But Salmonella is in a different genus than E. coli and a slight 70 million years of evolution separates them. In all respects of bacterium classification Lenki's larger citrate processing bacterium is to be called a different species.
5) see 4.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120165 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take Lenski's long term experiment on E. coli (Wiki it). It is an experiment on E. coli bacteria depriving of their normal diet - glucose - and providing citrate instead. E. coli normally are not capable of metabolising citrate in aerobic conditions.
1) E. coli.
2) the bacterium became larger and gained the ability to grow on citrate in aerobic conditions.
3) the genetic changes involving the larger size needed 59 genes to be altered. The ability to grow on citrate came in 2 steps: first a slight ability to process citrate, followed by a change in iron acquisition that enhanced the ability to process citrate dramatically
4) metabolism is the major factor in classification of species. For instance, the differences between carnivores like lions and hyenas and herbivores like goat and sheep are merely to be traced back to difference in diet. To compare: there are other bacteria that grow on citrate, like Salmonella. But Salmonella is in a different genus than E. coli and a slight 70 million years of evolution separates them. In all respects of bacterium classification Lenki's larger citrate processing bacterium is to be called a different species.
5) see 4.
so it became a little different but still stayed e-coli.
kind of like homo-sapiens that were lactose intolerant that became lactose tolerant but still stayed homo-sapiens.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120166 Aug 15, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
so it became a little different but still stayed e-coli.
kind of like homo-sapiens that were lactose intolerant that became lactose tolerant but still stayed homo-sapiens.
"Escherichia coli encompasses an enormous population of bacteria that exhibit a very high degree of both genetic and phenotypic diversity. Genome sequencing of a large number of isolates of E. coli and related bacteria shows that a taxonomic reclassification would be desirable. However, this has not been done, largely due to its medical importance[21] and E. coli remains one of the most diverse bacterial species: only 20% of the genome is common to all strains.[22]

In fact, from the evolutionary point of view, the members of genus Shigella (S. dysenteriae, S. flexneri, S. boydii, S. sonnei) should be classified as E. coli strains, a phenomenon termed taxa in disguise.[23] Similarly, other strains of E. coli (e.g. the K-12 strain commonly used in recombinant DNA work) are sufficiently different that they would merit reclassification."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120167 Aug 15, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
.
<quoted text>
First of all the stratification of fossils in the geological record is NOT an assertion but an OBSERVATION.
.
Correct, what is asserted is the age.
.
<quoted text>
If there once only were bacteria on earth and the rest of life chronologically follows in the geological record, there is ONLY ONE and SINGLE conclusion to draw: life began single cellular became multi cellular and from that moment became ever more complex.
.
You are asserting an assumption, that there was ONLY bacterial life in the beginning.
.
Lets assume this, a flood buried all life on earth. Would the bacteria die from the flood?
.
<quoted text>
1) a gradual change in the phenology from ancestor to descendant on all essential traits
.
Please explain how phenology applies.
.
<quoted text>
2) enough fossils that show intermediary traits
.
Firstly you don't have enough, secondly this is not proof of descent. thirdly you can claim descent without intermediate forms. Which is what you are doing because there are no intermediate forms between the intermediate forms.
.
<quoted text>
3) these fossils should lay in the correct time-frame (in between ancestor and descendant)
.
I agree but we don't always find this. Plus why is C14 dating rejected at this point?
.
Until the question of the dating is answered the chronology you have given is just an example of the diversity of life.

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
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 1 min Judy 123 59,812
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 min Suezanne 197,258
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 4 min Old Sam 2,716
Any Word ! (Mar '11) 5 min andet1987 5,102
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 5 min Suezanne 1,167
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min Old Sam 19,634
One Word (Jan '09) 7 min Calisportsgirl 17,062
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 22 min Suezanne 33,134
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 46 min Irrelevant Poster... 8,789
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Lucy the First 59,639
More from around the web