Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201253 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.

“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'?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120757 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?
Well, the argument

Brooklyn is not in the USA, therefore Brooklyn is not in the USA.

has exactly the same form and is just as valid logically. The point is that p=>p is true whether p is true or false. In particular, it does not establish the validity of p.

So your argument is NOT a proof that Brooklyn is in the USA and mine is NOT a proof that it isn't in the USA. Neither one serves to establish its conclusion.

Go take a basic logic class.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120758 Aug 24, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying to you that a circular argument is both a starting point and an ending point.
And it does not serve to prove its point.
It MUST necessarily be so for any point that is REAL.
The statement that p implies p is true whether or not p is true.
The reason is that whatever is real must be what it is by itself... the influences which produce the sound of a falling tree, are still effective even when you do not see nor hear the tree fall.
The first starting assumption regarding anything MUST be that the this IS what is it because it is what it is...
For if it is not what it is; what else can it be?
Wow. What a load of confused rubbish.
There is no such thing as a factual nor false proposition.
Either a thing is a) fact b) falsehood c) a proposition.
In other words, you don't even know what the words mean. A proposition is *defined* to be a statement that is either true or false.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120759 Aug 24, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>If you are addressing me, I make it a point to distinguish among the three concepts.
Clearly not since you seemed to think that the theory of evolution needed to address questions about the Big Bang.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120760 Aug 24, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Science proceeds from the immediate to the deeper cause. A theory of evolution was in reach by Darwin's time, but abiogenesis was not.
<quoted text>
Obviously it was as we have far greater knowledge about the requirements and possibilities regarding natural abiogenesis than was available in Darwin's time.
<quoted text>
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.
You're right. Calling abiogenesis "fools gold" is definitely my opinion. But when abiogenesis reveals molecules with a survival instinct, I'm willing to reconsider.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120761 Aug 24, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
First of all, I have already posted my view that the theory of evolution and the the question of how existence came to be are separate issues.
As for the rest of your comments, you seem too certain about something that has no real certainty. Many of us have questioned the nature of time. While some theories are intriguing, the question of why there is "something" remains unanswered.

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
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 2 min beatlesinthebog 10,335
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 3 min SweLL GirL 146,011
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 8 min beatlesinthebog 3,223
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min dark memories 194,279
Vacation 22 min Ferrerman 2
The Letter "C" (Aug '09) 22 min Bezeer 5,581
Tomorrow you wake up as the opposite sex , what... (Mar '14) 25 min andet1987 309
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 54 min Uncle Enzo 8,523
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr DMan 7,817
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 hr streetglidehoney 19,875
TRUMP, Donald (Jun '15) 3 hr Ferret 163
More from around the web