Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222226 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

#120259 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
uncaused adj: 1) not brought into existence by any cause; spontaneous or natural.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uncaused
I don't see uncaused and spontaneous to be synonyms. Getting definitions like this from a dictionary tends to ignore subtleties that are important.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120260 Aug 17, 2014
un•caused (&#652;n&#712;k&#5 96;zd)

adj.
without an antecedent cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120261 Aug 17, 2014
cause (kôz)
n.
1.
a. The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
b. The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.

So conditions classify as causes.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#120262 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see uncaused and spontaneous to be synonyms. Getting definitions like this from a dictionary tends to ignore subtleties that are important.
I agree. Especially in this case, it unnecessarily ties the discussion to a general and not a technical definition. Besides, natural causes are a cause. Spontaneous can imply that for no reason at all something happened and in this discussion there is a reason.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120263 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see uncaused and spontaneous to be synonyms. Getting definitions like this from a dictionary tends to ignore subtleties that are important.
look at it this way. lets leave uncaused out of the mix(no pun intended)

mixing caused life which leaves you overlooking the fact that there was no cause for those chemicals to mix. it just happened.
1) the chemicals mixing had no cause or reason
2) after they mixed life arose(the reaction)

do you think that the chemicals mixing which the reaction became life were:
1) deliberate
2) planned
3) intended
4) premeditated

nope it happened naturally, spontaneously. there was no cause. it just happened and from that just happening life arose(the reaction)

the way you are looking at it is that chemicals mixing caused life which leaves you overlooking the fact that there was no cause for those chemicals to mix. it just happened.
1) the chemicals mixing had no cause or reason
2) after they mixed life arose(the reaction)

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120264 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see uncaused and spontaneous to be synonyms. Getting definitions like this from a dictionary tends to ignore subtleties that are important.

I see many things caused by the old determination in physics of...
Anything that can happen will happen, if given enough time and as long as it does not have to break physical laws to do so.
So life and the universe, can be explained as this being their cause.
It's not a specific cause, but one of probability. It seems all of existence is somewhat ruled by this type probabilistic inevitability it's not easy to accept but possible to understand.
Creationists will never be able to understand or accept this, they have the need for a cosmic director of all things. Insomuch reasoning they limit the scope and ability of such a creator.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120265 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
un•caused (&#652;n&#712;k&#5 96;zd)
adj.
without an antecedent cause.
antecedent - something coming before: something that happens or exists before something else;
with this definition we can say that TBB which happened first, which led to those chemicals that led to life arising, is the cause of life and not the chemicals being TBB came before those chemicals.

it is all a word game.

do you think the universe was caused or uncaused?
wondering

Morris, OK

#120266 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that NOT a cause? The chemicals coming together, getting mixed in the right way *is* the cause of life.
i did not see this one. "getting mixed in the right way". what do you mean by getting mixed in the right way? mixed in the right way almost sounds planned

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120267 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
look at it this way. lets leave uncaused out of the mix(no pun intended)
mixing caused life which leaves you overlooking the fact that there was no cause for those chemicals to mix. it just happened.
1) the chemicals mixing had no cause or reason
They had no reason, but they did have a cause. There was not a single cause for all the mixing, but there *were* causes, such as the action of gravity, or of the natural forces between the atoms or molecules, or the hitting of comets.
2) after they mixed life arose(the reaction)
do you think that the chemicals mixing which the reaction became life were:
1) deliberate
2) planned
3) intended
4) premeditated
nope it happened naturally, spontaneously. there was no cause. it just happened and from that just happening life arose(the reaction)
And now we get to the heart of the matter. Yes, it happened spontaneously *and* there was a cause for it. No, it was not pre-meditated or intentional, but there *were* causes: the forces of nature.
the way you are looking at it is that chemicals mixing caused life which leaves you overlooking the fact that there was no cause for those chemicals to mix. it just happened.
it happened because of thew natural laws that applied: gravity, electromagnetic forces,etc. Those were causes even though they happen spontaneously.

What you seem to miss is that it is possible for something to be spontaneous and still be caused by the conditions that were present before it happened.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120268 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
antecedent - something coming before: something that happens or exists before something else;
with this definition we can say that TBB which happened first, which led to those chemicals that led to life arising, is the cause of life and not the chemicals being TBB came before those chemicals.
it is all a word game.
do you think the universe was caused or uncaused?
I think that the universe was uncaused. That doesn't prevent events within the universe being caused. In particular, life was caused by a fairly large number of separate causes, from collisions of comets with the Earth, to gravity acting to mix chemicals, to lightning providing the sparks to produce certain reactions.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120269 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i did not see this one. "getting mixed in the right way". what do you mean by getting mixed in the right way? mixed in the right way almost sounds planned
Not at all. All that is required is that the chemicals involved be mixed in the right proportions. That happened spontaneously and via natural processes, but was caused by those processes. Why you think there had to be an intention involved is beyond me.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120270 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. All that is required is that the chemicals involved be mixed in the right proportions. That happened spontaneously and via natural processes, but was caused by those processes. Why you think there had to be an intention involved is beyond me.
I don't think that's even necessary.
IF the chemicals are present and mixed and energy sources (and/or catalysts) as well, they will start to compound, unless there are inhibitors present. Or, at least, the proportional composition has a very wide range to allow for the biochemical reactions to occur.
I don't think there is lot of 'fine tuning' needed here.
For instance: if you mix 20% sodium with 80% chlorine, a chemical reaction will occur. The same applies when you mix 80% sodium with 20% chlorine. Or 50% of each. The only difference will be the amounts of salt formed and the amounts of residue sodium and chlorine.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120271 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. All that is required is that the chemicals involved be mixed in the right proportions. That happened spontaneously and via natural processes, but was caused by those processes. Why you think there had to be an intention involved is beyond me.
i do not think there is or was an intention. which is why I say it was uncaused.
you said "getting mixed in the right way" and now you add "mixed in the right proportions."

lets run this down you say;
1) the right conditions
2) the right conditions causing the right causes(gravity, lightning, etc.)
3) the chemicals getting mixed in the right way
4) the chemicals getting mixed in the right proportions
5) what would you say the odds of each happening just right would be?
6) science has intentionally tried to create life from chemicals and so far has failed

you almost seem to straddle the line of spontaneous vs naturally intentional..

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120272 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i do not think there is or was an intention. which is why I say it was uncaused.
Do you think that all causes have to be intentions?
you said "getting mixed in the right way" and now you add "mixed in the right proportions."
lets run this down you say;
1) the right conditions
2) the right conditions causing the right causes(gravity, lightning, etc.)
These would be common.
3) the chemicals getting mixed in the right way
4) the chemicals getting mixed in the right proportions
5) what would you say the odds of each happening just right would be?
I don't even know how to start calculating the odds. Given how fast it happened on earth, it may well be fairly high odds.
6) science has intentionally tried to create life from chemicals and so far has failed
We have done very preliminary experiments to see if the basic building blocks can form spontaneously in the types of environments we expect on the early Earth. We have also seen whether basic reactions required for life can arise spontaneously given those basic building blocks. In both cases, we have found that they can for a wide variety of reasonably likely starting environments.
you almost seem to straddle the line of spontaneous vs naturally intentional..
No, I do not. No intention is required: there is no consciousness, only spontaneous, natural causes and effects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120273 Aug 17, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that's even necessary.
IF the chemicals are present and mixed and energy sources (and/or catalysts) as well, they will start to compound, unless there are inhibitors present. Or, at least, the proportional composition has a very wide range to allow for the biochemical reactions to occur.
I don't think there is lot of 'fine tuning' needed here.
For instance: if you mix 20% sodium with 80% chlorine, a chemical reaction will occur. The same applies when you mix 80% sodium with 20% chlorine. Or 50% of each. The only difference will be the amounts of salt formed and the amounts of residue sodium and chlorine.
Correct. But it isn't perfectly clear what the conditions are for life to start. It is quite possible that only specific temperatures or conditions allow some of the steps. The Sodium-Chlorine reaction isn't typical of what is seen in organic chemistry.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120274 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
antecedent - something coming before: something that happens or exists before something else;
with this definition we can say that TBB which happened first, which led to those chemicals that led to life arising, is the cause of life and not the chemicals being TBB came before those chemicals.
it is all a word game.
And typically, we talk about the causes being the more proximate events; those that fairly immediately and without intervening events lead to the effects we are talking about. Unfortunately, we do not know all the causes that are required or that transpired between the formation of the Earth and the origin of life.

What baffles me is your viewpoint that nothing spontaneous is caused. For example, a drop in temperature is a cause for water freezing into ice even if both are spontaneous. Also baffling is the idea that a lack of intention means an event is uncaused.

Neither of these usages seems to be typical to me. In fact, both usages seem to be quite counter to the typical usage in the current context.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120275 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i do not think there is or was an intention. which is why I say it was uncaused.
you said "getting mixed in the right way" and now you add "mixed in the right proportions."
lets run this down you say;
1) the right conditions
2) the right conditions causing the right causes(gravity, lightning, etc.)
3) the chemicals getting mixed in the right way
4) the chemicals getting mixed in the right proportions
5) what would you say the odds of each happening just right would be?
6) science has intentionally tried to create life from chemicals and so far has failed
you almost seem to straddle the line of spontaneous vs naturally intentional..
The term "sacred geometry" is used by archaeologists, anthropologists, and geometricians to encompass the religious, philosohical, and spiritual beliefs that have sprung up around geometry in various cultures during the course of human history. It is a catch-all term covering Pythagorean geometry and neo-Platonic gometry, as well as the perceived relationships between organic curves and logarithmic curves.
Here are a few examples of how the "sacred" has entered into geometry in different eras and cultures:

1) The ancient Greeks assigned various attributes to the Platonic solids and to certain geometrically-derived ratios, investing them with "meaning." For example, the cube symbolized kingship and earthly foundations, while the Golden Section was seen as a dynamic principle embodying philosphy and wisdom. Thus a building dedicated to a god-king might bear traces of cubic geometry, while one dedicated to a heavenly god might have been constructed using Golden Section proportions.

2) When Hindus (ancient and modern) plan to erect any ediface for religious purposes, from a small wayside shrine to an elaborate temple, they first perform a simple geometric construction on the ground, establishing due East and West and constructing a square therefrom.(It's a simple, elegant piece of work, at about the level of high school geometry). Upon this dioagram they lay out the entire building. The making of this geometric construction is accomanied by prayers and other religious observances.

3) The Christian religion uses the cross as its major religious emblem, and in geometric terms this was elaborated during the Medieval period to the form of an unfolded cube (reminiscent of example #1 above, where the cube was equated with kingship). Many Gothic cathedrals were built using proportions derived from the geometry inherent in the cube and double-cube; this tradition continues in modern Christian churches to the present time.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120276 Aug 17, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that's even necessary.
IF the chemicals are present and mixed and energy sources (and/or catalysts) as well, they will start to compound, unless there are inhibitors present. Or, at least, the proportional composition has a very wide range to allow for the biochemical reactions to occur.
I don't think there is lot of 'fine tuning' needed here.
For instance: if you mix 20% sodium with 80% chlorine, a chemical reaction will occur. The same applies when you mix 80% sodium with 20% chlorine. Or 50% of each. The only difference will be the amounts of salt formed and the amounts of residue sodium and chlorine.
Natural and unguided means can be a cause.
Or natural and unguided means could have been a cause by intention.
It is likely we can never know for sure.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120277 Aug 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i do not think there is or was an intention. which is why I say it was uncaused.
you said "getting mixed in the right way" and now you add "mixed in the right proportions."
lets run this down you say;
1) the right conditions
2) the right conditions causing the right causes(gravity, lightning, etc.)
3) the chemicals getting mixed in the right way
4) the chemicals getting mixed in the right proportions
5) what would you say the odds of each happening just right would be?
6) science has intentionally tried to create life from chemicals and so far has failed
you almost seem to straddle the line of spontaneous vs naturally intentional..
Not everyone who catalogues and writes about sacred geometry considers geometry itself to be inherently spiritual; for some of us, sacred geometry is an adjunct to the study of archaeology, architecture, art history, comparative religion, anthropology, archaeoastronomy, or geometry itself.
Sadly, many books on the subject of sacred geometry are chock full of extraneous blather about UFOs and perpetual motion and Atlantean Science (whatever that is). Even worse, unexpected encounters with such drivel tends to discourage research into the subject by steely-eyed geometricians -- who are, of course, those most qualified to undertake the work.
Over the years i have come up with a theory that encompasses three interlocked reasons for the unfortunate state of affairs by which the once-honoured field of sacred geometry is now often perceived as something akin to pyramidology or spirit-channelling.
1) There was an actual loss of general geometric knowledge during the Dark Ages -- the old Egyptian and Greek geometry was no longer passed along as it had been; instead it became the secret of such trade guilds as made use of it. Thus geometry became "mysterious."
2) Although interest in geometry revived during the Renaissance, the adoption of the Arabic numbering system had already led many Europeans onto a different way of thinking when it came to numbers. Specificly, because the irrational numbers that are so common in geometrical proofs are difficult to handle arithmetically, they became the domain of academic mathematicians. Thus sacred geometry -- which allows one to rattle off irrational number formulae like ".618...: 1 :: 1 : 1.618..." before having one's morning coffee -- seemed rather hard to master. And, the joke of it all is that "1.618..." is but a rude approximation, anyway -- just something for folks with rulers to measure after the geometricians have put down their compasses.
3) During the 19th century the sizes of construction materials became quite standardized for the first time. A common brick was 2 x 4 x 8 inches; lumber came in 12 foot lengths that were 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 or 12 inches wide and a similar choice of numbers deep. Construction therefore took on a more arithmetic aspect than it had when geometric ratio was the prime mover behind design. In a wooden frame house of typical Victorian style, a vernacular builder could lay out the work using simple arithmetic. An "architect-designed" house of an earlier period might have included a spiral staircase -- a test of geometric knowledge -- but by the late 19th century tables of angles printed on steel framing squares obviated the need for carpenrters to study even the small amount of geometry used in figuring out the area of a roof gable.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120278 Aug 17, 2014
Had to post that from this website
http://www.luckymojo.com/sacreddefined.html
You'll quickly note it's extremely hard to read the actual website.

"I believe that the combination of these three factors led many 19th century scholars (especially those who were culturally bound up in colonialist feelings of superiority toward conquered races) to decide that it was inconceivable that ancient cultures could have known enough "math" to have used "irrational numbers" to construct architectural monuments. One thing these writers failed to consider was that a culture that relied on compass-and-straight-edge geometry rather than arithmetic to design structures would not give a fig that some of the lengths turned out to be irrational numbers. The numbers (or rather, the lengths they represented) would simply appear during the course of construction and that would be that.

Jay Hambidge pioneered the technique of searching for certain typically "sacred" geometric ratios among the arithmetic measurements of ancient articfacts. Like all sacred geometry detectives, he had to work backwards -- he took arithmetic measurements of Greek vases and temples and derived from them their geometric construction. This is not as simple as it sounds, because many times an arithmetical construction will duplicate the results of a geometric construction -- in fact, in order to derive even the faintest proof that geometric contruction underlay Greek arhcitecture, he had to perform calculations on dozens of items of differing size, establishing beyond doubt that it was RATIO, not measurement, that determined the relative lengths of crucial dimensions.

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
Words "with more than one meaning" (Sep '12) 24 min whatimeisit 1,134
News DOCUMENT: Public Pool Sex Duo Surrenders To Ind... 28 min Gov Corbutt of th... 1
News Police arrest man accused of trying... 34 min Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News There's an easy fix for cranky kids going back ... 37 min Gov Corbutt of th... 2
News Golden retriever discovers $85,000 worth of bla... 40 min wichita-rick 2
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 50 min Brandiiiiiiii 5,859
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 56 min wichita-rick 222,067
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr Brandiiiiiiii 5,454
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 hr Paisley_Posey 25,237
More from around the web