Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201768 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

#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.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#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.
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120279 Aug 17, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why can you not accept that all life was created by God? The evidence is clear that life today is just a reproduction. Actually the thing that brings about life as it is today in its basic element is an acid. There are specific processes that comprise life through certain acids and sequences correspond to reproduction and are units of inheritance. These acids are set into spiral systems which control pattern formation and they themselves are stretches of patterns that code in all living things. Orderly formation and orderly outcomes of self-organization are cyclical regularities from which agreement in dimensions are beautiful.and harmonious with proportion and balance. This kind of order did not create itself, it is an intelligent set up. This is not just random chemical reactions.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120280 Aug 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Why can you not accept that all life was created by God? The evidence is clear that life today is just a reproduction. Actually the thing that brings about life as it is today in its basic element is an acid. There are specific processes that comprise life through certain acids and sequences correspond to reproduction and are units of inheritance. These acids are set into spiral systems which control pattern formation and they themselves are stretches of patterns that code in all living things. Orderly formation and orderly outcomes of self-organization are cyclical regularities from which agreement in dimensions are beautiful.and harmonious with proportion and balance. This kind of order did not create itself, it is an intelligent set up. This is not just random chemical reactions.
"Random" is NOT the position of Polymath.

Why can't you just accept that all life was the result of early biochemistry of a young earth?
I shall pay you in your own coin:
"The evidence is clear that life today is just a reproduction. Actually the thing that brings about life as it is today in its basic element is an acid. There are specific processes that comprise life through certain acids and sequences correspond to reproduction and are units of inheritance. These acids are set into spiral systems which control pattern formation and they themselves are stretches of patterns that code in all living things. Orderly formation and orderly outcomes of self-organization are cyclical, biochemical regularities from which agreement in dimensions are beautiful.and harmonious with proportion and balance. This is always the case with thermodynamic open systems that settle into a state of dynamic equilibrium, which is also found in inorganic processes abundantly as well. This kind of order did self-generate. This is not just random chemical reactions. It is the non-random result of biochemistry within the physical and chemical conditions on earth."

When we use the word "spontaneously" we use it as a cognate of "not-intentionally caused".
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120281 Aug 17, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
I don't think that "unguided" means could have been caused intentionally. Because intentional causes presuppose guiding. But I think I understand your position.

The only thing I know is that at the very moment we excluded the premise of intentional causes, we got a revolution in science and our understanding of the universe and life extended dramatically. And I don't think this is a coincidence.
KeepCalmNcarryON

Los Angeles, CA

#120282 Aug 17, 2014
The hardest battle Hambidge fought was convincing academics of his day that the ancient Greeks were "sophisticated" enough to have used geometry to lay out their temples. For someone to double check his figures meant the work of years, and few wanted to devote the time to it.(Only recently, with the lightning-quick calculations offered to us by computers, has it become possible to "deconstruct" an ancient temple into its geometric basis with anything approaching efficient speed or to determine the intended astro-calendrical orientation of a temple constructed thousands of years in the past.)

Hambidge did fine work -- and one would think that he and his students would have proved the case for the legitimacy of sacred geometry beyond reasonable doubt -- but he wrote at a peculiar time in history. It was then, during the inter-War period -- when Hambidge's 1925 book "The Parthenon and Other Greek Temples: Their Dynamic Symmetry" was in print, when King Tut's tomb had been discovered, when Theosophy and Rosicruciansism were at the height of their popularity -- that the "mystery" of sacred geometry became bound up with the writings of people whose interests lay far afield from the use of the compass and the straight-edge.

It's hard to say where the art deco theories of Hambidge's students Edward B. Edwards (author of "Dynamarhythmic Design") and Walter Dorwin Teague (author of "Design This Day" and designer of Texaco Gas Stations) leave off and the metaphysical theories of fellow Hambidge student -- and Theosophist -- Claude Bragdon (author of "The Beautiful Necessity" and designer of railroad terminals) begin. Bragdon seems so...normal...as he writes about the Golden Mean and creates a new design style based on projective geometry, that it comes as quite a shock to find him edging into the theory that Man is a Cube, crucified in Time. Still, to his credit, Bragdon, despite dedicating one of his volumes to "The Delphic Sisterhood," was a practicing architect.

Beyond Bragdon, however, a line is crossed -- and one finds onself confounded by writers of that period such as Manley P. Hall, who lumps sacred geometry together with belief in Lemuria, spirit chanelling, Enochian magic, and Rosicrucianism. And he wasn't the worst, by far. The 1960s hippie interest in the occult and the 1990s New Age interest in spirituality have both given library shelf space to authors intent on inventing or perpetuatiing imputed connections between saced geometry, metaphysics, fringe archaeology, magic, and eccentric religions.

The article goes on to basically say the author thinks the occult is for kooks, but does not fault anyone for exploring and seeking truth.
I "wonder why there is a problem between God, Sacred Geometry, Evolution and Man.
I have said there is a problem with the fact this discussion is even occurring. Perhaps we need to start all over again. From scratch.
NO Telescopes
NO Microscopes
NO Education
NO Exploration
AND
NO God
Just NOTHING But death and austerity.
Who would like to have that right now?
Anyone? Come on, speak up.
How about we all just die ignorant, eh wondering?
WHADDAYA GOT TO SAAAAYYYYY??????
wanna FIGHT?
You GOT IT! WHACK! PUNCH! POW!...DrrrAAAAAAAggggggggg
KICK! Whack!
You see wondering it's not about science or debate anymore. it's about brute force, domination, abuse and control with you as it always has been.
This is what would happen to you IN PUBLIC if you tried the same shit there as you do here. All your teeth knocked out by an abuser who thinks YOUR a suitable victim.
Basically just for running your mouth like the P.O.S. you are
lucy

Trexlertown, PA

#120283 Aug 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Why can you not accept that all life was created by God? The evidence is clear that life today is just a reproduction. Actually the thing that brings about life as it is today in its basic element is an acid. There are specific processes that comprise life through certain acids and sequences correspond to reproduction and are units of inheritance. These acids are set into spiral systems which control pattern formation and they themselves are stretches of patterns that code in all living things. Orderly formation and orderly outcomes of self-organization are cyclical regularities from which agreement in dimensions are beautiful.and harmonious with proportion and balance. This kind of order did not create itself, it is an intelligent set up. This is not just random chemical reactions.
What kind of acid were u on when you wrote this? LOL
FREE SERVANT

United States

#120284 Aug 17, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Random" is NOT the position of Polymath.
Why can't you just accept that all life was the result of early biochemistry of a young earth?
I shall pay you in your own coin:
"The evidence is clear that life today is just a reproduction. Actually the thing that brings about life as it is today in its basic element is an acid. There are specific processes that comprise life through certain acids and sequences correspond to reproduction and are units of inheritance. These acids are set into spiral systems which control pattern formation and they themselves are stretches of patterns that code in all living things. Orderly formation and orderly outcomes of self-organization are cyclical, biochemical regularities from which agreement in dimensions are beautiful.and harmonious with proportion and balance. This is always the case with thermodynamic open systems that settle into a state of dynamic equilibrium, which is also found in inorganic processes abundantly as well. This kind of order did self-generate. This is not just random chemical reactions. It is the non-random result of biochemistry within the physical and chemical conditions on earth."
When we use the word "spontaneously" we use it as a cognate of "not-intentionally caused".
Very good comprehensive reply! Intention is evident in the design.
lucy

Trexlertown, PA

#120285 Aug 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Very good comprehensive reply! Intention is evident in the design.
Are you talking to yourself?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120286 Aug 17, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists do NOT use C14 to date 'fossils'. They instead use one of the 40 other different methods of radiometric dating techniques.
You know in the field of medicine there is a saying that goes like this:

"The more remedies there are for an illness, the less likely it is that any one of them works".

And the logic profound...

If there was a single accurate, reliable method; there would not be so many methods.
lucy

Trexlertown, PA

#120287 Aug 17, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Random" is NOT the position of Polymath.
Why can't you just accept that all life was the result of early biochemistry of a young earth?
I shall pay you in your own coin:
"The evidence is clear that life today is just a reproduction. Actually the thing that brings about life as it is today in its basic element is an acid. There are specific processes that comprise life through certain acids and sequences correspond to reproduction and are units of inheritance. These acids are set into spiral systems which control pattern formation and they themselves are stretches of patterns that code in all living things. Orderly formation and orderly outcomes of self-organization are cyclical, biochemical regularities from which agreement in dimensions are beautiful.and harmonious with proportion and balance. This is always the case with thermodynamic open systems that settle into a state of dynamic equilibrium, which is also found in inorganic processes abundantly as well. This kind of order did self-generate. This is not just random chemical reactions. It is the non-random result of biochemistry within the physical and chemical conditions on earth."
When we use the word "spontaneously" we use it as a cognate of "not-intentionally caused".
Ditto, by Ever ready.
lucy

Trexlertown, PA

#120288 Aug 17, 2014
I mean free servant. I get the names confused.
lucy

Trexlertown, PA

#120289 Aug 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Very good comprehensive reply! Intention is evident in the design.
Did you ever eat battery acid ?

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 22 min Sam 58,218
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 194,721
A six word game (Dec '08) 1 hr Trouser Cough 19,501
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 13,823
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 2 hr wichita-rick 3,553
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 32,701
Words of Love (Aug '10) 2 hr KNIGHT DeVINE 1,806
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 4 hr Knock off purse s... 7,895
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 6 hr dod 8,539
More from around the web