Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

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.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121058 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Most of the people I employ are specialist in their field. We got the job of creating a 3D mimic control system for a nuclear plant so hired the services of a highly qualified engineer with experience not only in the field but in the actual plant. He taught the design of PWR nuclear systems at a world famous institute of technology and had designed the plant control system we were tasked with mimicking. He was clever, brilliant in his field but was totally stumped by a simple fuse blowing in the plug of his computer and each day we never could be sure until he actually arrived that he got on the right bus when coming to work

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121059 Aug 28, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the people I employ are specialist in their field. We got the job of creating a 3D mimic control system for a nuclear plant so hired the services of a highly qualified engineer with experience not only in the field but in the actual plant. He taught the design of PWR nuclear systems at a world famous institute of technology and had designed the plant control system we were tasked with mimicking. He was clever, brilliant in his field but was totally stumped by a simple fuse blowing in the plug of his computer and each day we never could be sure until he actually arrived that he got on the right bus when coming to work
Crap. Here wee go with the engineer jokes.

:-(

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121060 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Still misusing the word "information".
Does anyone think that he will ever quit?
No.'information' is the latest in a long line of meanlingless arguments designed to help Creationists save face.'MacroEvolution' was another. The idea is to keep creating or redefining terms so they never have to admit their 'science' isn't science. Once they get tired of getting beat up over 'information', they'll pick a new one.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121061 Aug 28, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>No.'information' is the latest in a long line of meanlingless arguments designed to help Creationists save face.'MacroEvolution' was another. The idea is to keep creating or redefining terms so they never have to admit their 'science' isn't science. Once they get tired of getting beat up over 'information', they'll pick a new one.
Yes, it is a constant moving of the goalposts by creationists. Luckily there numbers seem to be dwindling. Hopefully the internet and the information ( evil smile ) that it makes available to everyone will be the final end of that vial belief.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121062 Aug 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Crap. Here wee go with the engineer jokes.
:-(
May I assume that you are an engineer?... It was not a joke, despite what you may think. I have the greatest respect for the skills and knowledge of the engineer, the reason I hired him was because without his expertise we could not have even bid for the job, yet alone completed it. This guy really was brilliant, he simply had one or two glaringly obvious stereotypical problems with real life that I thought worthy of mention given SZs post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121063 Aug 28, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
He knows there is more than one type of information. I pointed out several physical forms of information that had no intelligence behind them. He ignored it.

He wants to claim the so called information found in DNA has to come from an intelligent source.
SPUD TATER

Madison, TN

#121064 Aug 28, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Crap. Here wee go with the engineer jokes.
:-(
Then tell us how many engineers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121065 Aug 28, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
May I assume that you are an engineer?... It was not a joke, despite what you may think. I have the greatest respect for the skills and knowledge of the engineer, the reason I hired him was because without his expertise we could not have even bid for the job, yet alone completed it. This guy really was brilliant, he simply had one or two glaringly obvious stereotypical problems with real life that I thought worthy of mention given SZs post.
No harm, no foul. And, yes, you can make that assumption.

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 Post Wins! (Aug '08) 46 min mr goodwrench 138,434
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 47 min CJ Rocker 152,928
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 1 hr Jennifer Renee 7,860
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr -Lea- 26,057
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 1 hr Stormare 17,960
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 1 hr Stormare 77,712
Words That End With...E R (Jul '12) 1 hr Stormare 96
Is it possible to....... 4 hr Old Sam 620
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr TALLYHO 8541 37,800
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 4 hr dragoon70056 3,051
More from around the web