Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222738 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.

Petal Power

“It's a New Dawn”

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#120466 Aug 19, 2014
WHY???

Are ya All BOGGLING Your Brain. Farts .OVER This??

It's CUT And DRY..DUH??

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120467 Aug 19, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.
So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:
1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".
2 - Goddidit with magic.
3 - Aliens.
4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.
So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.
By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
1. the universe caused itself ,then caused life
2. God created the universe and all life
3. where did the alien life come from? this is a dodge
4.....nothing

There is zero evidence that that life created itself, all the scientific research , the real evidence not speculation, is against it. Its a faith driven concept,..oh look! sooner or later all these building blocks of life will assemble and then in an unknown process come alive!
That is totally a belief!

I am not going to change anyone's mind here, I know that, because,.....he who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still....

What I want to point out is the idea of self assembling life has no scientific basis whatsoever .
As one scientist said who studied the problem,...there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem
You can take all the building blocks of life available , put them together, change atmospheres, gases , add lightening, radiation , whatever else you can think of , what do you get ? nothing

Here is the problem you people have: there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of life

Also there is no scientific explanation for how the universe came into existence,

These two statements are facts,..and they are the causes of ridiculous theories that the universe had no cause or that life simply created itself.

They are the most illogical ideas ever proposed and masqueraded as science.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120468 Aug 19, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
There is zero evidence to support that belief.
However there is much evidence to support the origin of life due to biopoesis.
There is no evidence, it masquerades as evidence to prop up your beliefs

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120469 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual you comically stupid morons brag about the progress in abiogenesis...
Your 1-7 equals what?
Failure!,...you believe it happened because that's what you WANT to believe.
I have never seen any other idea which has been so demonstrably a failure, yet is clung to with such faith , as abiogenesis.
You have a remarkable religious zeal
I agree.

"‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION." [Michael Ruse]

http://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is...

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120470 Aug 19, 2014
bohart wrote:

Life exists ergo,...God made it
Aura Mytha wrote:
There is zero evidence to support that belief.
However there is much evidence to support the origin of life due to biopoesis.
Biopoesis exists ergo... God made it

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120471 Aug 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
"‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION." [Michael Ruse]
http://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is...
Agreed, and its strange that they can't even see it.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#120472 Aug 19, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Biopoesis exists ergo... God made it
That's such a hollow claim, while we can determine processes that brought life's origin, we finf no creator involved in the processes. You must first define the word Biopoesis.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/661...

biopoiesis, a process by which living organisms are thought to develop from nonliving matter, and the basis of a theory on the origin of life on Earth.

No mention of your belief involved, but you could be right, there maybe a invisible skydaddy out there creating things.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120473 Aug 20, 2014
what do you religious people think about this video? or even you non-religious.

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
&sn s=fb

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#120474 Aug 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
"‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION." [Michael Ruse]
http://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is...
"I think this paragraph, the introduction to a book review (for which I was never paid) in a Canadian newspaper some 10 or so years ago, has received more attention and more repetition (especially on the Internet) than anything else I have ever written. More even than my claim that morality is an illusion put in place by the genes to make us social animals. No matter that I qualified it then and have qualified it before and ever since. "Ruse recants! Evolution is a religion! Read all about it!" Or more accurately, don't read all about it, because then you might find that that is not quite all that I had to say." [Michael Ruse]
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120475 Aug 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
"‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION." [Michael Ruse]
http://creation.com/michael-ruse-evolution-is...
Yeah, but Mike Ruse is a reality denying fruitcake.(shrug)

YECers? Really? Get a grip, porky.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120476 Aug 20, 2014
replaytime wrote:
God is fake, religion is not important, God is a joke etc etc.
How many criminals/people in/was in prisons have changed their ways by finding evolution? That would be a big fat ZERO!
How many criminals/people in/was in prisons have changed their ways by finding God/religion? That would be many!!
You can't and won't find God unless you are looking for him,,,, Then you have to let him in.
Seem s like God found them just a tad too late then huh?

By the way, why the heck would evolution have any responsibility to stop people from robbing banks? That's like saying gravity is a load of crud because it didn't stop some bad guys from kicking the heck out of old ladies.

Doofus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120477 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
.
Does life need to be extinct for a new life to come into existence?
As usual you didn't get what I said because you can't even tell when I'm taking the pish outta you.
messianic114 wrote:
How do you know there weren't multiple cells being formed nearly simultaneously in different parts of the Earth?
We don't for sure. But since we both agree that the chances are slim for it to happen once there's no reason to expect it to have occurred anywhere else. Other possibilities are that maybe it did and the larger, more successful bio-population wiped it out, or that populations from other abiogenesis events simply went extinct.

However the theory of evolution (still) doesn't rely on abiogenesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120478 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
Life exists ergo,...God made it
Possibly. Not a possibility that I have denied. However you've still yet to explain what prevented God from making unicellular life that began to evolve from there.
bohart wrote:
Why complexity is evidence of intelligence?
what an amazingly stupid question
Should be easy for you to ANSWER my questions then.

So why didn't you? Why did you present this crap instead?
bohart wrote:
If the S.E.T.I. telescopes and listening devices were to pick up a morse code type signal from space it would be a confirmation that intelligent beings had sent it.
random signals are background noise, it takes intelligence to arrange the signals into information.
And the signals they are looking for are simple. I know you're only copying what your buddy Billy told you years ago, but even SETI themselves came right out that Billy didn't have a clue what he was talking about because he misunderstood how SETI works.
bohart wrote:
Information also requires intelligence.
Yes it does. But information is seperate from the phenomena it describes. A rock is full of information, but take any and all intelligent observers away it's just a rock. And rocks, as far as we can tell, do not require intelligent designers.

Again, I have not falsified any claims of ID (nor do I intend or need to). ID may still be possible. But you need to demonstrate it in an objective manner via the scientific method. Something which even the guys who invented the concept have never been able to do.

For thousands of years.

So I'll ask you the same question AGAIN - how are you MEASURING "complexity", what's the demarcation line between designed and non-designed, and how was that line established using the scientific method? Then once you've done that you can provide the mechanisms for how God did whatever the heck you think it did and evidence of those mechanisms.

Thanks in advance for dodging this again.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120479 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
1. the universe caused itself ,then caused life
2. God created the universe and all life
3. where did the alien life come from? this is a dodge
4.....nothing
Aliens is no more a dodge than saying God didn't need an origin. There's very little difference between the two really, since God is an alien anyway.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
There is zero evidence that that life created itself, all the scientific research , the real evidence not speculation, is against it. Its a faith driven concept,..oh look! sooner or later all these building blocks of life will assemble and then in an unknown process come alive!
That is totally a belief!
Yet the evidence demonstrates zero life prior to 3.5 billion years ago. So obviously your assertion is incorrect until you can provide evidence to the contrary.
bohart wrote:
I am not going to change anyone's mind here, I know that, because,.....he who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
I don't worry about trying to change the mind of fundies, they're immune to evidence anyway.
bohart wrote:
What I want to point out is the idea of self assembling life has no scientific basis whatsoever.
And we have correctly pointed out that you are wrong.

So to paraphrase yourself - who to believe? The biochemists actually engaged in research on the subject or a clueless internet troll called Bohart who has to engage in disingenuous tactics to defend his position anyway?
bohart wrote:
As one scientist said who studied the problem,...there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem
You can take all the building blocks of life available , put them together, change atmospheres, gases , add lightening, radiation , whatever else you can think of , what do you get ? nothing
Here is the problem you people have: there is no scientific explanation for the beginning of life
Wrong. There is a scientific explanation, however it's only a hypothesis and not a fully-fledged scientific theory. So far no better hypothesis has been proposed. We know this since abiogenesis has not been falsified as of yet, plus it has the added benefit of being testable.
bohart wrote:
Also there is no scientific explanation for how the universe came into existence,
Wrong. The Big Bang is how the universe came into existence. Admittedly current classical physics breaks down as the Big Bang reaches the point of the singularity, however we do have quantum physicists working on the problem. Again, that's the added advantage science has over invisible magic Jews. All you can do is laugh at science any time it admits it doesn't know everything yet then claim that your ignorance is just as good as even established science, as well as hypothetical science. It's not and never has been. But of course as the hypocrite you are, you still take medicine, go to hospital and use a computer.
bohart wrote:
These two statements are facts,..and they are the causes of ridiculous theories that the universe had no cause or that life simply created itself.
They are the most illogical ideas ever proposed and masqueraded as science.
Except you're incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction.

This is why no-one pays attention to you.

By the way, the theory of evolution still doesn't rely on abiogenesis. And certainly not the Big Bang. As usual there is no reasonable dispute over its validity.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120480 Aug 20, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you keep saying 150 mutations per individual. some studies say it is 150 mutations per generation.
1) spontaneous mutation
2) error prone replication by-pass
3) errors introduced during DNA repair
4) induced mutation
all types vary in each generation or person. again some studies say individual and some say generation.
one study:- two chinese men who were separated by 13 generations. they shared a common ancestor who was born in 1805. the two men were members of a family that had lived in the same chinese village for centuries. researchers were able to look at genetic mutations and the rate that these mutations occurred by focusing on a section of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome was studied because it passes from father to son relatively unscathed, and so the mutation rate is low. the two men are distantly related and scientists compared 10,149,085 letters of the genetic code. of those, 10,149,073 were identical. there were only 12 differences in the DNA studied.
Something tells me you answered your own question...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120481 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
And why can't you produce the data?
Again, what for? As all data presented is left unrefuted or unaddressed. And data is still irrelevant to you anyway.

So why do you keep asking dishonest questions?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120484 Aug 20, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
"I think this paragraph, the introduction to a book review (for which I was never paid) in a Canadian newspaper some 10 or so years ago, has received more attention and more repetition (especially on the Internet) than anything else I have ever written. More even than my claim that morality is an illusion put in place by the genes to make us social animals. No matter that I qualified it then and have qualified it before and ever since. "Ruse recants! Evolution is a religion! Read all about it!" Or more accurately, don't read all about it, because then you might find that that is not quite all that I had to say." [Michael Ruse]
What exactly are you trying to say?

Did the individual in question make the remarks or did he not?

The only need for any dispute regarding the quote would arise IF it were inaccurately translated...

The words speak for themselves...

So as long as Ruse knew the meanings of the words when he spoke them, neither you nor him have anything to dispute.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120485 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but Mike Ruse is a reality denying fruitcake.(shrug)
You and Ruse have a lot in common, then.

How interesting.

You should meet sometime.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120486 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, what for? As all data presented is left unrefuted or unaddressed. And data is still irrelevant to you anyway.
So why do you keep asking dishonest questions?
Why do you ask dishonest questions?

We can say the same regarding all the data presented to you on God or Jesus.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120487 Aug 20, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to make any thing other than an effort to find truth. I do think we are in a battle to find the real facts that explain the natural world around us, and I am a believer in freedom of thought. Free thought and the US Patent system has brought the world most of our greatest inventions we enjoy today. Many inventors are Creationists and creativity is enhanced in free countries like ours.
Darwin was a creationist too during the whole time writing the Origin of Species and even a long time afterwards.

The point is that many scientists were and are believers and hence they believe in a creating god. Almost NO ONE of those were what we now call Young Earth Creationists.
And all of those prevailed observation over revelation.
HENCE, when their doctrines didn't match the established observations, they discarded the doctrine. AND those believers functioned in an academic culture and organizations where religion was urged to be LEFT OUT of the scientific work.

And, BTW the most of the inventions we enjoy today are NOT of American origin.

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
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 min Goku Black 27,307
True False Game (Jun '11) 7 min Geno 15,563
Things That Are Solid,... 28 min Rosa 133
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Weird 223,335
First Word That Comes To Mind ....... (Apr '10) 1 hr Humor 13,168
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 2 hr Crazy Jae 871
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... (Nov '14) 2 hr wichita-rick 2,557
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 4 hr Crazy Jae 6,038
More from around the web