Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218757 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

#121146 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
And the LYING continues.
"Zero evidence for abiogenesis".
Go back to my and Polymaths posts on that where we extensively proved that there is a LOT of evidence for MANY steps in the pathway form abiotic conditions to the first life.
ALL THOSE POSTS have been SYSTEMATICALLY been ignored by you, we haven't seen ANY ANSWER of you on those. NOTHING. NADA. That makes you a COWARD, daring not to admit you're wrong but just ducking his head and thinking that the
You are not only a LIAR by saying things that just ARE NOT TRUE but you are also DISHONEST by ignoring the posts of your opponents in debate and re-appearing some days later, feigning as if nothing happened at all. This also makes you a IMPOLITE and ANNOYING little boy who only needs a good whacking on his bare arse.
There is zero evidence for life self assembling, you are the one who is lying

...many steps in the pathway ,... as I said your proof is the same as saying iron ore is proof of steel. Marble as proof of the Lincoln memorial. The mineral components of life found are in no way proof that they assembled into the proper amounts then somehow,..no one knows how , sprang to life . That's a fairy tale .

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121147 Aug 28, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, you've been answered.
Stop blowing the irony meters Bo.
as Wolf said,..go away

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121148 Aug 28, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
naw, I'm a bacon loving, pork rind loving, BBQ pig loving southern boy....show me a man that don't eat offa the pig, and I'll show you a liberal yankee or a muslim
Stop eating that garbage. I don't want to lose a pen pal.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#121149 Aug 28, 2014
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks.....Captain Crunch is pretty good too.
Personally, I can't get enough of them Sugar Crisps. And how about them frosted flakes? They're grrrrrr..........Argghhh!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121150 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.
Ah Messy back after having dodged some dozens of posts.

1. several answers here:
a. we DID in some occasions test the genome prior to the change, for instance in the Lenski experiment on E. coli this has been done by keeping a frozen colony of every few generations of bacteria in store, nicknamed the "frozen fossil record" by Lenski himself. From here he could 100% prove the pathway of genetic changes in the acquisition of citrate metabolism.
b. we have the case of bacteria acquiring the ability to metabolize nylon. Nylon is an 100% artificial compound produced for the first time in the 1930's and not found in nature. Hence, the ability of bacteria to metabolize nylon is beyond any doubt a complete genetic innovation.
c. I already recall me asking to you it several times, but gee, we know creationists HATE questions and always shun them, but let's have a new try, you'll never know: in most earth layers we find remnants and fossils of life, those of Humans are completely lacking. Now how you are going to explain that. Similar: there are earth layers that only contain single-cellular life and not a shred of other lifeforms whatsoever. Now how you are going to explain that. And, even more odd, these layers are situated on the very same spot.

2. SURE: http://pseudogene.org/human/index.php

3. Uh? Change that is observed is minute?????????
Well, as you know, I pointed you out SEVERAL times to the fossil evidence. To be precise: the stratification of the fossil record. OF COURSE you didn't address that. We ALL know how dodging works. Hence, this argument is GREATLY and OVERWHELMINGLY refuted by the fossil evidence.
Ignoring the observed evidence will NOT GO away by ignoring.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121151 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
as Wolf said,..go away
Annoying, isn't it when people continue to answer irrefutable things.
GO ON DUDE.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121152 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did the universe make itself then make life? NO.
Did the universe create itself then create life? NO, the word create is wrong and life emerged out of the conditions within the universe.
Did the universe just happen? We don't know and you don't know. Because you have not a shred of proof for your god.
Did life just happen? NO.
Did a creator create the universe and all life? NO. Unless you come with evidence for it.
Man these word games you people play,

How did the universe happen?

Either there was a cause, or as some have comically argued , it had no cause. The answer to this question reveals the lengths the puddle goo people will go in what they believe .

Life has never, ever ,ever been seen to just emerge from lifeless matter. The concept is no different than a miracle. Its fascinating that the puddle goo idiots will deny and laugh at the prospect of Jesus rising from the dead,...but have noooo problem with a puddle of rotting elements on a warm rock springing to life. This is but one of many hypocritical stupidities the evo zealots are forced to believe.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121153 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Annoying, isn't it when people continue to answer irrefutable things.
GO ON DUDE.
only thing irrefutable about the Dud is his stupidity and steadfast faith in the goo.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121154 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the reasons I chose that video was that it was at such a simple level that even you might have understood it.
And you can get some fairly high level education from YouTube. MIT for example has lectures for whole semesters of classes.
the thing is we do not know how life or the universe started/came to be. that is the most honest answer anyone can give whether you are a creationists or an evolutionists.

yes there are thoughts and theories and that is all they are but yet we still don't know. saying yes we do know is dishonesty which is what i call lying for science. you seem to think by saying we don't know it is a discredit to science, which it isn't.

there is no shame in saying we don't know. you can even say we don't know yet if you believe we will eventually figure it out.

the fact of the matter is we don't know. we have several theories and many thoughts. to believe in those theories and thoughts takes faith. faith that they will someday actually figure it out.

it takes the same faith to believe in those theories and thoughts as it does for creationists to believe in the bible. you both hope one day what you believe will be proven. until that day arrives, you just have faith in what you believe. you can deny this all you want but the is the way it is.

i see you all throw up the "theory of gravity" argument many times for evolution. as we keep learning what we know about gravity may turn out to be completely miniscule to what there is to learn.

how do we know that mass causes gravity? observation of the orbit's of planets and stars?

all what we can perceive is that mass and gravity are "directly" linked.

it could just as easily be gravity which causes mass.

we think we know much now but have much to learn about everything. one could say by comparison that we know nothing compared to what there is to learn.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121155 Aug 28, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
A fellow was traveling in a hot air balloon and lost his bearings in a cloud bank.
He slowly lowered his altitude until he could faintly see the landscape below.
Eventually he spotted a human figure on a hill. He shouted below,
"Can you tell me where I am?"
The figure shouts back, "You are about 50 feet in the air in a hot air balloon."
The fellow shouts, "You must be an engineer!"
The figure affirms this is true and asks how he knew this.
The fellow explains, "Your answer was both completely accurate and utterly useless."
The figure shouts, "You must be a manager!"
The fellow affirms this is true and asks how he knew this.
The figure explains, "You've gotten your self lost, you have no idea where you are and now it is all my fault!"
:-P
What about this one on East-German engineering:

Helmut Kohl (former West-German chancellor) met Erich Honecker (former East-German president) on an international meeting, Honecker wearing an enormous backpack with lots of steam coming from it.
What have we here, colleague? Kohl asks.
Well it is my pacemaker, East-German quality production, it runs on brown coal, Honecker responds, gleaming of pride.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121156 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>How did the universe happen?
we don't know. We have thoughts and theories but we really don't know.

how do you know your god is real? You don't know.

both sides only go by what the have been told and/or taught and chose to believe in.

the answers may never be found but that is no reason to keep looking. until then everyone will have faith in what they believe in being the truth. that is about as honest as it can be put.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121157 Aug 28, 2014
"to not keep looking" that should say

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#121158 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No God did not make himself, yes he created all life
The creator exists outside the known universe, since whatever caused the universe existed before the universe was created. Follow that logic? God is the eternal first cause, he invented time so therefore is not bound by it.
Chemical reactions led to life? Believe what you want, science states , without exception that life only comes from existing life. So to believe that life sprang into existence is unscientific, it would be a miracle, based on the evidence ,Abiogenesis and the uncaused universe are theories that the evolutionists have to believe in ,because the alternative is unthinkable.
So you think... zero evidence of a eternal, magical, invisible, skydaddy creator of mudman Adam and rib-bone Eve is scientific? Oh Gawd I sinful ...gimme a cow skin to hide my nakey self!
Me promises to not listen to snakes anymore! argh hahahahahahaHahaha HA!

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#121159 Aug 28, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Personally, I can't get enough of them Sugar Crisps. And how about them frosted flakes? They're grrrrrr..........Argghhh!
You seem to have had your fill ...of froot loops!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121160 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
the thing is we do not know how life or the universe started/came to be. that is the most honest answer anyone can give whether you are a creationists or an evolutionists.
yes there are thoughts and theories and that is all they are but yet we still don't know. saying yes we do know is dishonesty which is what i call lying for science. you seem to think by saying we don't know it is a discredit to science, which it isn't.
I could perfectly agree with this.
But the next question would be: what to do next.

There is nothing wrong as such with saying "goddidit". But that is NOT what's going on here.
What's going on here is creationists saying that the big bang, evolution DID NOT happen and NEVER will be possible to happen because their bronze age mythology book by some random semi-nomadic middle east tribe SAYS SO.
You are acting AS IF the problems discussed here are JUST between science not knowing everything (of course) and religion in general. In case you didn't notice: this is NOT what's going on here.

Here we deal with people who defend science and as far as I read their intent, they are of a moderate opinion. They all are aware of the restrictions of science and the gaps in the current scientific understanding of the universe and life. On the other hand we've have fundamentalists who think that the bible is to be taken literally and who are disputing actual, already established science - and for the rest are babbling about worldwide floods having happened, people who aged 500 years or older or who grew 5 meters or taller and such RUBBISH.

Next, you seem to equal both positions to have the same credibility. They DON'T.
The empirical evidence for the big bang is compelling. Of course we do not know what made the big bang emerge but the whole way until the Planck epoch is already pretty much (though not 100%) understood.

Abiogenesis tries to explain how the different stages in the pathway from abiotic conditions to the first life. No-one pretends that this is already a piece of cake. Far from it. But several, rather important links in the the total chain are already resolved. The abiogenetic research looks promising, AT LEAST - judged by the results of last decades.

Frankly, creationism has nothing to propose against it but a random bronze age mythology book with an known and notorious bad reputation pertaining its scientific value.

Hence, answering my own question "what to do next", my answer is: GO ON WITH THE SCIENCE and WE CAN MISS GOD LIKE TOOTHACHE in this endeavour.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#121161 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
the thing is we do not know how life or the universe started/came to be. that is the most honest answer anyone can give whether you are a creationists or an evolutionists.
yes there are thoughts and theories and that is all they are but yet we still don't know. saying yes we do know is dishonesty which is what i call lying for science. you seem to think by saying we don't know it is a discredit to science, which it isn't.
there is no shame in saying we don't know. you can even say we don't know yet if you believe we will eventually figure it out.
the fact of the matter is we don't know. we have several theories and many thoughts. to believe in those theories and thoughts takes faith. faith that they will someday actually figure it out.
it takes the same faith to believe in those theories and thoughts as it does for creationists to believe in the bible. you both hope one day what you believe will be proven. until that day arrives, you just have faith in what you believe. you can deny this all you want but the is the way it is.
i see you all throw up the "theory of gravity" argument many times for evolution. as we keep learning what we know about gravity may turn out to be completely miniscule to what there is to learn.
how do we know that mass causes gravity? observation of the orbit's of planets and stars?
all what we can perceive is that mass and gravity are "directly" linked.
it could just as easily be gravity which causes mass.
we think we know much now but have much to learn about everything. one could say by comparison that we know nothing compared to what there is to learn.
They have the universe figured out to about 300 billionths of a second.
Any closer than that to t=0 requires energy we cannot duplicate.
We know mass creates gravity, experiments with salt showed us electrostatic charge attracts small particles such as dust to adhere together.
We also know from observation of asteroids, that they grow and can contain multiple pieces. When the pieces gather together to about a 300 mile circumference it's own gravity will turn it into a sphere, and it's attractive force will cause it to attract more smaller objects by it's own gravity.
Minute particles have no gravity, but the electrostatic charge works to start accretion, this was predicted and confirmed aboard the ISS.
We have also seen through the Hubble ST, the accretion process in motion in other solar systems.

TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121162 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
only thing irrefutable about the Dud is his stupidity and steadfast faith in the goo.
One thing irrefutable is your constant dodging and ducking of posts.
Among those are ALL posts by Dude which NONE of those you were able to address WHATSOEVER but by annoying one-liners which share one trait: they NEVER do answer the content of it. Otherwise point me out to ONE post of him which you actually did address substantially. As a matter of fact, I can not even recall ONE post by you that resemble even an attempt to be substantial.
You have nothing to bring here but ignorance and lying.
But THAT we know is COMMON among creationists: LYING, IGNORANCE and COWARDLINESS.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121163 Aug 28, 2014
Gee, already Judges in 1 minute!!!
Seems to me I hit the arse of a creationist!
LIKE IT.

Hence, my post yet another time, YEAH!!!

I could perfectly agree with this.
But the next question would be: what to do next.

There is nothing wrong as such with saying "goddidit". But that is NOT what's going on here.
What's going on here is creationists saying that the big bang, evolution DID NOT happen and NEVER will be possible to happen because their bronze age mythology book by some random semi-nomadic middle east tribe SAYS SO.
You are acting AS IF the problems discussed here are JUST between science not knowing everything (of course) and religion in general. In case you didn't notice: this is NOT what's going on here.

Here we deal with people who defend science and as far as I read their intent, they are of a moderate opinion. They all are aware of the restrictions of science and the gaps in the current scientific understanding of the universe and life. On the other hand we've have fundamentalists who think that the bible is to be taken literally and who are disputing actual, already established science - and for the rest are babbling about worldwide floods having happened, people who aged 500 years or older or who grew 5 meters or taller and such RUBBISH.

Next, you seem to equal both positions to have the same credibility. They DON'T.
The empirical evidence for the big bang is compelling. Of course we do not know what made the big bang emerge but the whole way until the Planck epoch is already pretty much (though not 100%) understood.

Abiogenesis tries to explain how the different stages in the pathway from abiotic conditions to the first life. No-one pretends that this is already a piece of cake. Far from it. But several, rather important links in the the total chain are already resolved. The abiogenetic research looks promising, AT LEAST - judged by the results of last decades.

Frankly, creationism has nothing to propose against it but a random bronze age mythology book with an known and notorious bad reputation pertaining its scientific value.

Hence, answering my own question "what to do next", my answer is: GO ON WITH THE SCIENCE and WE CAN MISS GOD LIKE TOOTHACHE in this endeavour.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121164 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No God did not make himself, yes he created all life
The creator exists outside the known universe, since whatever caused the universe existed before the universe was created. Follow that logic? God is the eternal first cause, he invented time so therefore is not bound by it.
Chemical reactions led to life? Believe what you want, science states , without exception that life only comes from existing life. So to believe that life sprang into existence is unscientific, it would be a miracle, based on the evidence ,Abiogenesis and the uncaused universe are theories that the evolutionists have to believe in ,because the alternative is unthinkable.
Science makes no such claims..

bohart, what will you claim if scientists show that life can evolved on its own?

They are getting closer than you think. Time to consider where you are going to move the goal posts to next.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121165 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>Hence, answering my own question "what to do next", my answer is: GO ON WITH THE SCIENCE and WE CAN MISS GOD LIKE TOOTHACHE in this endeavour.
i believe I said in the following post that because we don't know does not mean we should stop looking.

this last comment of yours shows that you are not just about evolution and science but you are anti-god. you would prefer science to show that the creationists god is false.
science is not about proving or disproving a god. it is about searching for how and why no matter by what means it happened.

if in my lifetime it is found to be evolution or it is found to be god, i can accept either. you on the other hand could not. by that I am saying that if by some weird odd chance science says in 15 years that it was god and that is final, you would declare war on science. or if in 15 years science says there is no god, you would do the happy dance.

you want it to be only the way/by what you believe.

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
What Turns You Off? 8 min razz58 114
A six word game (Dec '08) 8 min Poppyann 20,884
True False Game (Jun '11) 19 min Poppyann 13,503
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 20 min Poppyann 16,745
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 25 min CJ Rocker 11,515
The last word in the sentence must rhyme with t... (Aug '15) 28 min beatlesinafog 1,621
*add A word / drop a word* (Nov '12) 29 min SweLL GirL 15,951
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Goku Black 209,819
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Grace Nerissa 68,070
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 2 hr Bad Bex 2,150
More from around the web