Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221214 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.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120942 Aug 27, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one postulating a creator of life, therefore it is you who have to pony up the evidence -- which you have failed to do. Don't blame me for your failures. You want your religion taught in science class, you get to play by the very simple rules of science. Not my problem.
As for evidence of how life started ... there is evidence. That's why we study to formulate explanations based on the evidence. Have we finished, no. There are several hypotheses of how life started on Earth, scientific hypotheses, all of which have some evidence, but none of them have become the Theory of Abiogenesis. There remains much work to be dome. Your religious 'answer' would stop all work, which is certainly not how we learn things.
What I believe has little bearing on science. Science works whether you believe in it or not. The current evidence shows the Universe started with the, not aptly named,'Big Bang', which if I remember was hung on it as a pejorative, but it stuck. It matches the available evidence, whereas your idea that the universe started with the actions of one deity or another has no evidence at all.
6
Since there's no scientific evidence that the universe created itself then created life its all a belief

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120943 Aug 27, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>My take on quantum mechanics is that it seems to defy the known laws of physics. Of course it doesn't assume a deity, but it deepens the mystery of what we think we know.
Wrong. Quantum mechanics are part of the known laws of physics.

What you meant to say is that they defy the laws of physics as you know them, and your knowledge is in error.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120944 Aug 27, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tactic 45: ask someone "do you believe the universe created itself , then created life", ignore the answers and pose the very same question again to someone else. Then ignore the answers and repose the very same question to no. 3 and ignore the answers again and then repose the very same questions to person no. 4 and ignore the answers. Then repose the very same questions again to person 5 and ignore the answers. Then repose the very same questions again to person 6 and ignore the answers. Then repose the very same questions again to person 7 and ignore the answers. Then repose the very same questions again to person 8 and ignore the answers. Then repose the very same questions again to person 9 and ignore the answers.
..........5 years later)
.... Then repose the very same questions again to person 469 and ignore the answers.....(ad infinitum).
Isn't it about time to start to ANSWER the things said by persons 1-469?
Hmm,.... I never get a straight answer to that simple question. Because you are too cowardly to answer since your belief system requires you to believe that the universe made itself and then made life, and that is unscientific, moreover, it's comically stupid

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120945 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA carries information, where did it come from?
It evolved. There is more than one definition for "information". You are not using a consistent definition of "information". There is information that requires intelligence to make. Such as information in the printed word. There is information that does not take an intelligence to make, such as tree rings, lake varves, and glacial ice layers. You have yet to show that the information in DNA is of the former type.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120946 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>6
Since there's no scientific evidence that the universe created itself then created life its all a belief
Actually there is evidence for both. Your problem is that you do not know what qualifies as evidence. All you can do is to deny the evidence that scientists agree upon.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120947 Aug 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution also does not rely on the Big Bang.
To what "information" are you referring?
Put the monkey back on the computer, he knows what DNA is

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120948 Aug 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there's evidence of a creator of life. It's called chemistry.
If that's what you choose to believe

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120949 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm,.... I never get a straight answer to that simple question. Because you are too cowardly to answer since your belief system requires you to believe that the universe made itself and then made life, and that is unscientific, moreover, it's comically stupid
No, the problem is that you ask poorly formed questions and then don't like the honest answers that were given to you.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120950 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is evidence for both. Your problem is that you do not know what qualifies as evidence. All you can do is to deny the evidence that scientists agree upon.
Bullshit! your so called proof is like finding a marble deposit and claiming that as proof of the Lincoln memorial, that trees are proof of log cabins, iron ore as proof of steel. If they could self assemble into those things it would work. It works the same way with the puddle of goo, it does not self assemble and come to life,even with your belief in the astronomical luck theory. By the way, scientists say that here and there are certain elements that are mineral components of life, that's a quadrillion million miles from saying that life can self assemble and make the leap from dead matter to living. Only a zealot of the evolution religion would claim it

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120951 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the problem is that you ask poorly formed questions and then don't like the honest answers that were given to you.
Did the universe make itself then make life?... yes or no
Did the universe create itself then create life?.....yes or no
Did the universe just happen , then life just happened?....yes or no
Did a creator create the universe and all life,..yes or no
wondering

Morris, OK

#120952 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is evidence for both. Your problem is that you do not know what qualifies as evidence. All you can do is to deny the evidence that scientists agree upon.
what evidence do you have that the universe created itself? a thought or a theory(which cannot be tested or replicated). there is no solid scientific evidence. it all falls on thoughts and beliefs.
some believe the BBT and some believe in a creator.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120953 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It evolved. There is more than one definition for "information". You are not using a consistent definition of "information". There is information that requires intelligence to make. Such as information in the printed word. There is information that does not take an intelligence to make, such as tree rings, lake varves, and glacial ice layers. You have yet to show that the information in DNA is of the former type.
I said where did it come from, evolve is not a source! tree rings! where did the information for the tree come from?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120954 Aug 27, 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.
.
.
I don't see the argument as is there change. Yes there is change. For me here are the problems:
1. We haven't tested the genome prior to observing a change (in the gene expression, blue eyes for instance) So we don't know if any new information has been added to the genome.
2. We don't know enough about junk DNA to know if this has any effect or even if there are other possibilities or influences that are already present.
3. Change that is observed is minute. I believe there is a limit. So I don't believe there can be enough minute changes over time to account for the complexity required to add a new structure (like a wing from a limb)
.
By setting up the argument as change versus no change, you have created a strawman.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120955 Aug 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If something always existed then the answer to what created it is absolutely nothing.
.
Then it didn't emerge and you dodged the statement. What are you referring to that has always existed?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120956 Aug 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but it is an observed fact that life does not require a drive for survival. Bacteria do not have such; plants do not have such; fungi do not have such. the premise is solid.
.
What would you call whatever the bacteria did to form a nylon digesting enzyme if not a drive for survival? Certainly all the bacteria could have died, but they didn't.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120957 Aug 27, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
.
I don't see the argument as is there change. Yes there is change. For me here are the problems:
1. We haven't tested the genome prior to observing a change (in the gene expression, blue eyes for instance) So we don't know if any new information has been added to the genome.
2. We don't know enough about junk DNA to know if this has any effect or even if there are other possibilities or influences that are already present.
3. Change that is observed is minute. I believe there is a limit. So I don't believe there can be enough minute changes over time to account for the complexity required to add a new structure (like a wing from a limb)
.
By setting up the argument as change versus no change, you have created a strawman.
blue eyes, new trait, becoming lactose tolerant etc. etc. is evolution.

"you don't believe there can be enough minute changes over time to account for the complexity required to add a new structure (like a wing from a limb)"
where do you think the "limb" itself came from? do you think it was always there or through changes it evolved to be a limb?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120958 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit! your so called proof is like finding a marble deposit and claiming that as proof of the Lincoln memorial, that trees are proof of log cabins, iron ore as proof of steel. If they could self assemble into those things it would work. It works the same way with the puddle of goo, it does not self assemble and come to life,even with your belief in the astronomical luck theory. By the way, scientists say that here and there are certain elements that are mineral components of life, that's a quadrillion million miles from saying that life can self assemble and make the leap from dead matter to living. Only a zealot of the evolution religion would claim it
A rational voice in the wilderness!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120959 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh yes,..your evidence. Zero,..your beliefs,...100 percent
Ah denialism! You have been presented with scientific evidence many times. This is your usual response. Not very original. Guess you have run out of anything to say

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120960 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>6
Since there's no scientific evidence that the universe created itself then created life its all a belief
Since I didn't say that, your comment means even less than usual.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120961 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I said where did it come from, evolve is not a source! tree rings! where did the information for the tree come from?
I see that you are still as dumb as a post. The so called information evolved. That is an answer.

Now a wise person would have asked how it evolved, but then we know that you are not wise.

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
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 7 min unreals_dad 6,552
News Millions of Brits no longer using a pen 7 min Princess Finny Fe... 12
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 12 min Julia 2,056
News 'Large tortoise blocking the A24' 17 min Spotted Girl 4
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 19 min Princess Finny Fe... 74,298
Poll Funny people on here you miss and why (Jul '15) 44 min Bad Bex 99
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 56 min Ohio Sam 215,284
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 5 hr DMan 3,744
A to Z songs by title or group! 9 hr Rider on the Storm 1,562
More from around the web