Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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.

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.

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.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120489 Aug 20, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you ask dishonest questions?
We can say the same regarding all the data presented to you on God or Jesus.
NO, NOT AT ALL, because God or Jesus were not HIS claims but YOURS.
So you CANNOT say the same.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120490 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! who to believe
Coppedge?
or an internet troll,...called the earth clod?.........
You REALLY have NOTHING to say, isn't it?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120491 Aug 20, 2014
Bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Life exists ergo,...God made it
Do you have any evidence for that?
At least WE do have much evidence for abiogenesis, as pointed out to you - on which you didn't manage to produce ONE substantially sensible response until now.

Pertaining your next, predictable response:
"on which you didn't manage to produce ONE substantially sensible response until again".

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120492 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
......as I said,...you dismiss the math
Ah, EXPLAIN.
Let's see WHO understands the math here.

Prediction: this question will NOT be answered, NO mathematical explanation will follow.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120493 Aug 20, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
When 40% of the Americans think that Noah's flood really happened, hilbilly or not, they are indeed morons.
If 90% of the populations think that, they all are morons.
BTW, 90% of the Arabic Islamic population indeed believes Noah's deluge, as it also is the Qu'ran.
.
How do you explain this as we are supposed to be evolving into a more complex form?
.
You anti-theists are doing a poor job of convincing the US public you're right? With all your intelligence, one would think you could do a better job.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120494 Aug 20, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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)
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
I don't worry about trying to change the mind of fundies, they're immune to evidence anyway.
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
Denial,...quite predictable

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120495 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
You are, I assume now DELIBERATELY, making errors.
.
I did make an error I thought there were only 90 million differences between a man and a chimp, it turns out to be 900 million.(not counting junk DNA) Now If I am incorrect, you need to explain how 30% of 6 billion is not 900 million.
Yes and now you are DELIBERATELY deceiving.
There are no "90 million differences" between chimps and humans there are >>>90 Kb<<< difference in the human and chimp genome SIZE.

The DIFFERENCE between both genomes counts 30 million POINT mutations.

Even after putting everything in CAPITALS you KEEP ON deceiving, deliberately blurring concepts.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
(As every SINGLE human newborn carries 125 - 175 POINT mutations with it, any generation of 100,000 accumulates 100,000 X ~150 = 15,000,000 POINT mutations within its population genome).

It doesn't seem to me that these will all be different mutations. You have calculated that everyone of (100,000) is producing ~150 new mutations per generation. Where is this documented?
No these are not all different mutations because many of them will be doubles. But most of them will be different mutations indeed. POINT mutations.

Documentation (among many many many): http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.ful...
Quote: "The average mutation rate was estimated to be ~2.5 10^&#8722;8 mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."

Shall I do the calculation?
Here we go: if you counted the number of positions - As, Ts, Gs, and Cs - you would have approximately 3.2 billion positions across those 23 chromosomes. As we are diploids, having 2 X 23 chromosomes, we actually have 6.4 billion single places where a mutation can happen (=point mutation). Now ~2.5 10^&#8722;8 = 0,000000025. The number of POINT mutations equals 0,000000025 X 6.4 billion = 160.0 per diploid. The number of 175 from the article derives from the fact that not all sites on the human chromosomes have the exact same mutation rate. I spared you this higher number.

I shall do the calculation in another way.
The current human population counts 7.165 billion people.
Now let's apply the mutation rate again: each of those 7.165 billion people experienced the same mutation rate of 0,000000025 per nucleotide. Hence: 0.000000025 mutations/site/generation * 7,165,000,000 generations = 86 mutations/site. The CURRENT population of humans on earth have accumulated a number of 86 mutations on EACH of the 6.2 billion nucleotide sites on the human genome.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120496 Aug 20, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
1. 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!
2. That is totally a belief!
3. What I want to point out is the idea of self assembling life has no scientific basis whatsoever .
4. As one scientist said who studied the problem,...there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem
5. 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
5. 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,
I numbered your assertions above.
1. This a plain lie and deceit, as proven by me and Polymath: there is CONSIDERABLE evidence of life generated from abiotic conditions. The pathway is not conclusive but to say there is "zero evidence" is blunt lying.

2. No it isn't, is is a very promising scientific hypothesis with, in all its components, MUCH evidence already provided and for the rest there is not A SINGLE VALID reason to change this course of research. ON THE CONTRARY.

3. yes it has and much research is going on worldwide on it.

4. sure. We don't need consensus on how to approach a problem. That's VERY scientific. The only thing that counts is the end result.

5. that, as Polymath and I tried to explain you, is NOT the way it is done.

6. yes there is. And the empirical evidence for it is already partly there and for the rest on its way.

So, as Dude noted correctly, we have 4 possible explanation for the universe and life:
- God did it
- natural causes
- Aliens did it
- some yet not conceived explanation.

We may exclude the last 2 ones here.

Now what do we have pertaining scientific evidence, that's what you demanded, ISN'T IT?

Hypothesis 1 "God did it":
1 do you have any scientific evidence for a god?
2 do you have any scientific evidence of some intelligence creating it?
-3evidence for intelligent origin of complexness?

Shall I give the answer?
1 nada
2 nothing
3 nope.

Hypothesis 2 "natural causes":
1 we have considerable evidence for the big bang
2 we do have no idea what came before the Planck epoch though
3 we do have already much evidence for several stages in the pathway of life from abiotic conditions.

Now let's compare, what's better: "nada, nothing and nope" or "considerable and much".
I did not include evolution. Because it is not about the origin of the universe or life.
But as creationists tend to muddle everything, I now will add: for evolution theory the evidence is overwhelmingly and decisive to the degree that it is not an doubt in science any more.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120497 Aug 20, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
You anti-theists are doing a poor job of convincing the US public you're right? With all your intelligence, one would think you could do a better job.
My position here is not anti-theistic.
My only position here is to kick religion out of science.and schools.
Because it does not belong there. For religion we have the private homes and churches.

The US public is infested by religion fundamentalism.
The same applies to the Arabic countries where Islam, also a mere fundamentalist religion of the same Abrahamic branch, is infesting the human mind also and thus, as a result, 90% of all Muslims believe that evolution is not true.
Congratulations.

In Europe YEC is virtually non existing. In England the number of people doubting is 26%, the highest number in the EU as far as I know.

I am an European, the discussions like these ones on Topix are merely non existing here as well. When I engaged in these debates lately, I just wrapped my eyes in unbelief. to be honest.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120499 Aug 20, 2014
When will people realize that the issue should not be Evolution VERSUS Creation. One need not negate the other. Each raises a different question. Evolution deals with the issue of how life adapted and changed over time. Creation deals with the question of how life began. It is possible to simultaneously acknowledge both evolution and some sort of "creative" force from which original life began.

Abiogenesis fans, please don't bother using that argument. From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.

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
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 10 min Karl 107
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 11 min _FLATLINE-------- 78,893
Word Association (Mar '10) 15 min Bev Roxon 17,011
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min I Am No One_ 161,446
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 23 min Bev Roxon 10,714
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 26 min Papa Smurfaletto 8,028
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 44 min Parden Pard 8,339
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr rosa 28,865
Things that make life eaiser... 1 hr rosa 114
motorcycle traveling stories 2 hr Mega Monster 563
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 2 hr mr goodwrench 8,348
More from around the web