Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222784 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121038 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
not talking about how first life formed. talking about how it acquired the information it needed to continue on after it formed. i see you are still lost. and as far as you answering anything. i won't hold my breath because you never do. but you sure play the heII out of youtube like it is a science class. is that where you got your education? lol
Part of how life formed involves where and how it acquired the information.

The only reason I am lost is because I do not know how to explain to an idiot a concept that has been explained a thousand times before by other people.

And what is wrong with YouTube? It has many proper science based videos on it. Oh wait, they can't explain how the information got their in the first place to you either.

It looks like you gave up. You forgot to go back one page and to see how you used the term information incorrectly. Once again you showed that I was not name calling.

Thanks. Any other false accusations that you care to make, moron?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121039 Aug 28, 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
If that's the case then how come it's always you who resorts to straw-men and waging a one-man irony meter genocide?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121040 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
Put the monkey back on the computer, he knows what DNA is
But apparently you don't as you're unable to answer me.

As usual.
bohart wrote:
If that's what you choose to believe
Belief is unnecessary when one has evidence. And the evidence shows that chemistry creates life from non-living matter every single day all over the entire planet.

As I said, if there's a mechanism we're missing then please tell us what it is and present the evidence of it.
bohart wrote:
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
Then who assembled all the trees?
bohart wrote:
even with your belief in the astronomical luck theory.
There is no such theory. Once again you're beating up a caricature to avoid addressing the subject the way we describe it.
bohart wrote:
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
Again, that has nothing at all to do with the claims made by evolution.
bohart wrote:
Did the universe make itself then make life?... yes or no
No and yes.
bohart wrote:
Did the universe create itself then create life?.....yes or no
This is a repeat of the same question so the answers are the same: No and yes.
bohart wrote:
Did the universe just happen , then life just happened?....yes or no
Yes and yes.
bohart wrote:
Did a creator create the universe and all life,..yes or no
Unkown and yes.

So Bozo, since all your claims and all your questions are ALWAYS answered (not that that ever stops you from continually beating up straw-men of course) then how come you always give all the flaws in your position a free pass?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121041 Aug 28, 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.
Look out guys, he's using the how do you know where you there argument! OH NOES!!!

Since when were your beliefs ever relevant, Messy?(shrug)

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#121042 Aug 28, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>He done it with power and Jesus now has all power.
OK, so thatís what your Sunday school teacher told you when you were an infant

As an adult you really should provide evidence to prove such a claim?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121043 Aug 28, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Then it didn't emerge and you dodged the statement. What are you referring to that has always existed?
I didn't doge the statement at all, you just have severe reading comprehension problems.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Oh, so you're claiming that we're claiming that the individual evolved in their own lifetime in response to external stimuli? Like a man growing gills if he's doused with water?

Here's a hint - before you go criticizing science at least go and TRY to learn the basics first.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121044 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really saying that chemicals produced the information in the DNA CODE?
Yes. Chemical reactions produced it; chemical reactions read it; chemical reactions *are* it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121045 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
translated to " it is your believe"
i did not ask you for proof. i asked for evidence. i said and say again "then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe." <<<<<do you see me asking for "proof" or "evidence" there?
trying the "proof" bs is just a coward dodge of the showing of evidence that you say there is. it is nothing more but what you believe. the same as others believe in a creator. the only evidence is in what you both believe.
Don't be stupid, Wonder Woman. Evidence renders belief superfluous.

You can pretend that all this is an issue of two opposing yet equal belief systems, but it's not. This is why people think you're a creationist. Because you say dumb creo stuff.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121046 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you do not understand how first life may have formed. Let me find a simple video for you, It might make it easier to understand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =U6QYDdgP9egXX
Thats a great vid. Funny to read the criticisms on the youtube site too. They just don't get it, because they just don't want to get it.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121047 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the universe make itself then make life?... yes or no
No. No, nothing can 'create itself'.
Did the universe create itself then create life?.....yes or no
No. Nothing can 'create itself'.
Did the universe just happen , then life just happened?....yes or no
This is the closest to what happened, but even it isn't quite correct.

The universe is uncaused--it 'just happened'. Life was a product of the laws of physics ac ting inside the universe. the causal agent was not the universe itself, but life was caused by the chemical reactions leading to life.
Did a creator create the universe and all life,..yes or no
No.

Now i tis your turn:

Did your creator make itself and then make all life?
Did your creator create itself and then create all life?
Did your creator just happen, then life just happened?
Did some other creator create your creator and then your creator created all life?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121048 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
where did the first life get its information? shock treatment?
Since the definition of information has been highlighted on this thread since yesterday why are you asking the same dumb questions?

Hence your creationist leanings.

You may not be a true full on creationist, but you're just like 'em.(shrug)

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121049 Aug 28, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
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.
No, it was NOT a *drive* for survival. No bacteria had an intention to produce nylonase. No bacteria strove to produce it. The mutations were not the result of any drive or desire. Mutations happen randomly because of chemicals or radiation in the environment. Some of those bacteria happened to have the right mutation to allow digestion of nylon. Those bacteria were able to reproduce. If the right mutations do not come up, it is quite possible for the whole population to go extinct. That has happened to many species.

A drive for survival implies an internal mental state which simply does not exist in bacteria. Those that move towards 'good' areas and away from 'bad' areas will tend to survive and reproduce more. No 'drive' is required, just selection of abilities.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121050 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not been here of late. So what is your supposed level of education? In what field?
Wondy was an engineer last time.

That was a shocker.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#121051 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
from your link:
Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:
>>>first life had nothing previously. did it come with self-instilled information?
1. Simple organic molecules were formed..........
2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life.
>>>where did this ability come from? again self-instilled?
the best answer is we do not know. we have guesses and thoughts but we do not know.
We may never know exactly how life came to be .
But we do know, even now it came be through a chemical evolution incorporating the revolutionary ability in the organic properties within the highly reactive and mutability of carbon atoms,
that can form thousands of different compounds and react with thousands of different chemicals.
There is much evidence to this, as matter of fact all evidence points to this direction.
Those guess and thought's have brought us closer to understanding the reality of how, and driven us away from thinking a mysterious magical invisible creator skydaddy and toward ...
the evolution of chemicals as being the reason.

Of course you can lay all suspicions to rest, by merely producing a mysterious, magical, invisible creator, skydaddy , and gl with that endeavor. It's only been thought to have happened that way from cave men right on up to the age of enlightenment. But it came to be, that we had to look elsewhere in attempt to know.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121052 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe.
The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory that describes the expansion and changes of state of the universe. The fact of that expansion is well proved by evidence ranging from red-shift data to the background radiation. That the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is now is also established by the evidence. That is was hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen *everywhere*, not just in the interiors of (not-yet existing) stars is also established by the evidence.

The 'standard' Big Bang theory does not address the 'cause' of the universe at all. In fact, the classical theory has time itself (and hence causality) beginning with the universe.

The problem is that we *know* the laws of physics as we currently understand them will fail in some way if we push to very small fractions of a second into the current expansion phase. At some point, effects from quantum gravity *must* become relevant and we simply do not have a tested theory of quantum gravity. We have a lot of conjectures about such a theory. Those conjectures say things relevant to the beginning of the universe, but they tend to say different things depending on which theory you use.

So, we know the Big Bang model is correct and valid in the sense that the universe is expanding from a much hotter and denser state. We know that this description is valid to within a millisecond of the start of that expansion. We simply do not know what happened before that. And it may well be meaningless to ask what happened before the universe because time likely is co-existent with the universe.

Now, you like to use the phrase 'caused itself'. That is contradictory and meaningless. Causes always precede effects. But it *is* possible, and even likely that the universe is 'uncaused': there simply is no cause for the universe as a whole. This would be the case if time started a finite distance into the past and the universe is co-existent with time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121053 Aug 28, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondy was an engineer last time.
That was a shocker.
I am still a lowly geology bachelor of science.

I remember from my college days that some engineers could be nerdy but not all that bright. They could learn how to use mathematical formulas but half the time they did not know the why behind them. Not that there are not brilliant engineers. Or that there are not dumb geologists. Having a higher education is no guarantee that you will know how to think. Some of the classes in non-science subjects helped me with that. They are usually not appreciated when we are undergrads and it is not until later that they are appreciated.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121054 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for solid scientific evidence that supports the earth created itself. i did not ask for proof. you are the one that threw proof in as a dodge tactic.
Actually, you asked about the universe before, not the earth. You do realize they are quite different things, right? Also that the Earth is only about a third the age of the universe?
again,,,, this is not a question, "then it is simple. show the solid scientific evidence that says without a doubt, that the universe created itself. show it instead of just stating what you believe." it is a request for you to back what you say.
Your phrase 'created itself' is meaningless. The Big Bang theory is a well-tested description of the expansion and changes in our universe from a very early time. We *know* that the laws of physics as we understand them break down if we go back to very small fractions of a second into this expansion. Because of that, any 'cause' for the universe isn't testable at this point. But there are several good possibilities (all untested):

1. Time starts at the same point as the universe, so the universe is uncaused.
2. There was a previous, contracting universe before ours along with a 'Big Bounce'. This is the prediction of Loop Quantum Gravity. That previous universe existed infinitely into the past and was hence uncaused.
3. There is a larger multiverse and our universe is a very small, four dimensional (three space, one time) part of this higher dimensional structure (11 dimensions seems to be correct for the math to work). This is the picture obtained in string theories. There are two main variants of this one:
3a. The universe is a result of a quantum fluctuation and is hence uncaused.
3b. The universe is the result of the collision of 'branes' in this multiverse.
It is also the case that time, as it exists in the multiverse may have little or nothing to do with time as it exists in our universe. The multiverse as a whole would be uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121055 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to laugh at the way you bring up "creator" and "intelligent source" and then tell me I am the one more or less doing it. lol
life some how obtained information to reproduce, survive, etc etc. unless you believe it also taught itself from nothing when there was no prior information to pass on like you believe it created itself from nothing (so to speak). we get information passed on to us. first life had no prior information of anything.
There is information whenever there is interaction of matter with itself. The way that atoms react to each other carries and *is* information. The fact that an oxygen atom will react differently to hydrogen than a carbon atom will *is* information.

In other words, information existed LONG before life came on the scene. The very molecules that make up the universe are filled with information. For example, a water molecule is information that water exists in the environment. Another molecule that reacts with water can carry information about the existence of that water by its reaction. That is how we can test for water in an environment.

The point is that information is inherent in causal reactions: any time two things interact and change each other, their new condition is information about that previous reaction.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121056 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you keep over looking that first life had nothing passed to it from any prior life. it had nothing but itself to build upon.
Wrong. It originated in an environment that had a wide variety of chemicals, electromagnetic radiation, temperature fluctuations, etc.
it had nothing but it self to build upon and with out any prior information it even became more complex with out any prior complexity.
Wrong again. The first life arose from an environment that had more than just that life in it. ALL matter has information. Complexity arises naturally when there are feedback loops in the environment. Weather is complex.
other words it self taught itself from nothing and as time went on it taught itself to be more complex so to speak.
Wrong. The information is inherent in the types of interaction the chemicals it is made from can undergo. That type of information existed LONG before there was life.

Let me give you another example. Suppose a meteor hits the moon. The crater that is left provides information about the composition, speed, and size of that meteor. The information is 'stored' in the arrangement of the materials, the height of the cliffs, the depth of the crater, the composition of the ground, etc. No mind is required to form that information. No mind is required to store it. It is simply part of how the matter is arranged.

Another: when an explosion occurs, we can look at the debris field and piece together the type of bomb, where it was when it blew up, the materials in the bomb, etc. That is information about the bomb. It is 'stored' in the physical placement of the bomb fragments and their physical effects on things in proximity. Again, no mind is required to form the information. No mind is required to store it. I tis inherent in the matter itself and its arrangement.

Again, the upshot is that ALL matter has information. So information existed LONG before any life developed.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#121057 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not been here of late. So what is your supposed level of education? In what field?
I don't recall telling wondering my educational background a month or so ago. I do recall telling replaytime this in a post he made some months ago. Wondering wasn't even posting on this forum at the time. He made a post some time ago claiming he is some sort of engineer. I don't believe his claim.

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
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 1 min Sublime1 10,426
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 2 min david04 27,699
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 3 min andet1987 900
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 3 min Brandiiiiiiii 3,676
One Word (Jan '09) 4 min Brandiiiiiiii 18,358
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 min LIM 76,756
Word association (Jun '07) 5 min Brandiiiiiiii 6,931
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 27 min andet1987 17,671
True False Game (Jun '11) 29 min andet1987 15,589
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 3 hr david04 6,111
More from around the web