Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220729 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.

wondering

Morris, OK

#120733 Aug 23, 2014
evolution happens period. if you keep up with the track record it has gone from
1) species evolving to become other species,
2) to last common ancestor
3) to the similarities are so close so it has to be
4) to more blue eyes happening
5) to lactose intolerant becoming lactose tolerant
6) to hybrids being different.
it is simply change!! so how can you creationist argue against change? the core of evolution may differ but it is simply change and there is no denying that change happens.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120734 Aug 23, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is a forum where questions can be re-raised and re-answered. You can choose to participate or not. You have not answered, You had the chance to answer if a new structure is formed. This you dodged. You also didn't plainly answer if killing all non-blue eyed people is a change in the gene or just a change in the frequency of the gene for non-blue eyes.
Why do away with all non-blue eyed people?
Your objective would be better met doing away with all the smart people.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120735 Aug 23, 2014
wondering wrote:
evolution happens period. if you keep up with the track record it has gone from
1) species evolving to become other species,
2) to last common ancestor
3) to the similarities are so close so it has to be
4) to more blue eyes happening
5) to lactose intolerant becoming lactose tolerant
6) to hybrids being different.
it is simply change!! so how can you creationist argue against change? the core of evolution may differ but it is simply change and there is no denying that change happens.
Ask them if they know a biological mechanism that would inhibit the "micro-evolutionary" change to STOP at the species' boundaries.

You'll NEVER hear of an answer on that.
I at least cannot recall ONE SINGLE answer after having posed the question dozens of times.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120736 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The basic argument here is that conscious life can be created without a "creator". All that's needed is the right combination of inorganic matter. Is that any more reasonable than the biblical explanation?
Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match?
And if there is a God, what created him?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120737 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You're an arrogant little putz, aren't you? If you think insulting me masks the fact that you came from the shallow end of the gene pool, run with that.
The point , Your Vacancy, is that since Darwin confessed he didn't know where the first life came from, no one has solved that mystery. Unlike your silly Louis Pasteur example, Darwin's puzzlement was not a precursor to greater knowledge. Any attempts to solve the mystery of the original life, including abiogenesis, are only fools gold.
The fact that Darwin said he did not know how first life started on Earth, does not automagically mean that your magic sky daddy did it.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120739 Aug 23, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
And if there is a God, what created him?
I did, of course. Didn't think I had the talent, huh?

I don't think of god as "him". I think of "god" as a primordial energy. Of course it is only supposition.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120740 Aug 23, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that Darwin said he did not know how first life started on Earth, does not automagically mean that your magic sky daddy did it.
Pay attention, Mr. Boogah. I don't postulate a "magic sky daddy". You "atheists" need some new material.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#120741 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Pay attention, Mr. Boogah. I don't postulate a "magic sky daddy". You "atheists" need some new material.
God = a magic sky daddy.

The most concise definition of god I have ever heard.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120742 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Pay attention, Mr. Boogah. I don't postulate a "magic sky daddy". You "atheists" need some new material.
PARDON, you are the FIRST here who talks about a primordial energy, the REST of the creationists all speak of the sky daddy. You BETTER inform about your fellow creationists FIRST.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120743 Aug 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
PARDON, you are the FIRST here who talks about a primordial energy, the REST of the creationists all speak of the sky daddy. You BETTER inform about your fellow creationists FIRST.
I do not represent anyone but myself, Turkie. You can take your cliched argument elsewhere.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120744 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not represent anyone but myself, Turkie. You can take your cliched argument elsewhere.
As far as I can see, you have no "new material" to offer, so you can take your argument elsewhere.

I shall do the reasoning:
"Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match? "

Well, if there was a primordial energy, what put it on?

WHO has to take his argument elsewher, do you think?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120745 Aug 23, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can see, you have no "new material" to offer, so you can take your argument elsewhere.
I shall do the reasoning:
"Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match? "
Well, if there was a primordial energy, what put it on?
WHO has to take his argument elsewher, do you think?
Are you still here?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120746 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I did, of course. Didn't think I had the talent, huh?
I don't think of god as "him". I think of "god" as a primordial energy. Of course it is only supposition.
Most suppositions wind up innuendo.:-P

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120747 Aug 23, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Pay attention, Mr. Boogah. I don't postulate a "magic sky daddy". You "atheists" need some new material.
So if Darwin didn't know who started life, who did?

Obviously, it would have to be your magic sky daddy.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120748 Aug 23, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Most suppositions wind up innuendo.:-P
I looked innuendo but I didn't see you.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120749 Aug 23, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So if Darwin didn't know who started life, who did?
Obviously, it would have to be your magic sky daddy.
It is your right to believe in a magic sky daddy. Give him my best regards, and tell him he needs to work on Sundays.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120750 Aug 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So how do you dispense with a circular argument?
Contemplate this form:
Brooklyn is in the USA: therefore Brooklyn is in the USA.
How do you dispute that or dispense with it; apart from passing it off as a forgone conclusion?
That does not even qualify as circular, its merely the same statement repeated.

In a circular argument, its A proves B and B proves A therefore A and B, without reference to either a third argument or objective evidence.

You can establish whether Brooklyn is in the USA with empirical evidence, therefore its not circular.

Here is a circular argument:

A. My Book says everything within it is right
B. Because everything in my Book is right, statement A must be right

ad infinitum A B A B A B....

This claim does not, in fact, establish whether everything in my Book is right.

And that, unfortunately, is the situation Christians (and Muslims for that matter) find themselves in regarding their respective sacred books. Some things within the books can be shown to be right. There was a city of Jericho, for example. But none of the miraculous claims regarding Jericho or anything else can be substantiated with any empirical evidence. You go on the books' own claims to authority about their own authority, and their claims to exclude any other authority...

No wonder Muslims and Christians have been fighting for 1400 years....

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120751 Aug 24, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
...since Darwin confessed he didn't know where the first life came from, no one has solved that mystery.
Science proceeds from the immediate to the deeper cause. A theory of evolution was in reach by Darwin's time, but abiogenesis was not.
Darwin's puzzlement was not a precursor to greater knowledge.
Obviously it was as we have far greater knowledge about the requirements and possibilities regarding natural abiogenesis than was available in Darwin's time.
Any attempts to solve the mystery of the original life, including abiogenesis, are only fools gold.
We cannot know now whether the problem of natural abiogenesis will be solved, although we know a lot more than we did. However, your claim that the search is essentially futile ("fools gold") is a dogmatic one. Unless you have evidence that rules out the possibility of natural abiogenesis, you are merely spouting personal opinion. In the meantime, research unveils continually more about conditions under which the components and precursors to living systems self assemble - amino acids, peptide chains, RNA, lipid microspheres, primitive metabolic pathways...without us being able to claim in advance that a solution will be found - that too would be dogmatic.

However, I can say that the odds are looking pretty good.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120755 Aug 24, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The basic argument here is that conscious life can be created without a "creator". All that's needed is the right combination of inorganic matter. Is that any more reasonable than the biblical explanation?[QUOTE]
Yes, of course it is. We *know* life can be 'created' by the right combination of inorganic matter. In fact, each and every one of us is an example of life formed by the right combination of 'inorganic matter'. Absolutely none of the atoms in your body is alive. Absolutely none of the molecules in your body is alive. But you, an alive being, are formed by those non-living substances.

So the question isn't whether non-living chemicals can be assembled to form something alive. We know that they can. In fact,*all* life we know about is formed in that way. The question is how the *first* living thing formed. That is something we do not know, but are actively researching.

[QUOTE]Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match?
And why would you expect that answer to even be addressed by the theory of evolution? The theory of evolution is a theory about how biological species change over time. The Big Bang is not part of the theory of evolution. So the theory of evolution does not address *any* questions concerning cosmology.

Now, the question you have asked *is* addressed and investigated by cosmological physicists. Unfortunately, it has an underlying assumption that is almost certainly wrong: that the universe has a cause. The reason it is wrong is that time is *part* of the universe and causes always happen with time as a factor. So, there simply were not any causes before time. In fact, it is meaningless to even address the concept of 'before time' because the concept of 'before' requires time.

Now, there are books out there that address your issue. there are even some that give the general gist at a level you might be able to understand. if you want a more detailed understanding, you will have to learn a LOT more physics and the mathematics used to express it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120756 Aug 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
So what about Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian and the rest; even the ones yet to be discovered?
Tacitus, Pliny, and Lucian do NOT mention the person Jesus. They mention what Christians believed. That doesn't fit what was asked for. I am not familiar with the Babylonian Talmud. Care to say *exactly* what it says?
Oh. I see.
So what is it that will determine when anyone can/will determine the qualities of a 'son of God'?
I have no idea. It isn't an interesting question to me. When *will* you set out what you think are the relevant qualities of a 'son of God'?

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
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 10 min Parden Pard 5,259
News Religious TV station in Senegal accidentally ai... 14 min Gov Corbutt of th... 5
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 16 min _Susan_ 21,494
News NYC Mayor: 'Fearless Girl' statue can stay thro... 18 min Gov Corbutt of th... 10
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 24 min DarkSoul___ 213,280
News Teens wearing leggings barred from United fligh... 37 min Gov Corbutt of th... 13
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 38 min SweLL GirL 32,731
Stupid things to ponder ... (Feb '08) 49 min Chilli J 6,902
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr DMan 73,436
Memorable Movie Scenes. 2 hr Emerald 91
More from around the web