Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218711 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.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37134 Aug 10, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
And, You Put Yours In Mankinds......I Dont Have Any Faith In Mankind. They Have A Terrible Record.
Well, for now it is all we have. It's easy and dismissive to just say Mankind sucks, but that doesn't really help, does it? I for one would like to see Mankind, even with all our flaws, survive. Accepting and supporting science as it was meant to be used is our best chance for that.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37135 Aug 10, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Compared to life emerging from a puddle of goo, the result of collected runoff from rain upon rocks.
So what books on Evolution have you read that made you come to that conclusion?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#37136 Aug 10, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
As he so correctly stated, you have no answers , so you hide.
You have been given many answers, with a lot of supporting evidence! Should I give them again, so that you can ignore them again?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#37137 Aug 10, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Since evolution is a theory intented to explain how *living* things change over time, why would it need to explain abiogenesis?
<quoted text>
Where do you draw the line between Modern English and Middle English?
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. Evolution deals with populations of living things that reproduce. Abiogenesis deals with non-living things that become living things.
No abiogenesis deals with th vast continuum between living and non-living. According to Darwinisn, there is no absolute distinction. Are you telling me that the first cell's parents weren't alive? If they were, then evolution has to deal with it.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37138 Aug 10, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Who Are You Trying To Kidd.???
Human Evolution Is Nothing But Baseless Propaganda And Philosophy, The Stretches In Evidences And Real Science Are Disgusting.
Please, Dont Be Another Pompous, Arrogant, Idiot That Believes Only Atheists And Eggheads Understand The Pseudo-Intelligence Behind The Unproven Deception, You Call TOE.
The Beauty Behind Your Innaccurate Hypothesis Is That The Theory Stands Until Proven Wrong....But, Its Never Been Proven Right.
When You Can Understand This Fact....You May Try To Educate Others On Your Manly Religion.
Yeah, perhaps the guy capitalizing every word should not be throwing the pompous and arrogant stone in this particular glass house.

I am not saying only atheists accept Evolution, I am saying the opposite, there is no reason a person can't believe in God and accept Evolution.

There is no philosophy of Evolution. Evolution is accepted by people of all different religious, philosophical and political spectrums.

There is no reason or incentive to support Evolution if it wasn't backed by evidence. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose. Even if you have a low opinion of humanity, which you seem to, that would still be the case. Scientists are very competitive, so if they were suppressing the truth about Evolution then the scientist that comes forward would have everything to gain. You make it seem like there is some massive worldwide conspiracy when there isn't one.

Yes, the Theory stands until proven wrong, which it hasn't yet. No Theory has ever been proven right ever in the history of science. So what's the problem?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37139 Aug 10, 2012
bohart wrote:
the line between modern English and middle English as an analogy between living and non living matter? Congratulations! you have captured the prize for the most imbecilic analytical comparison in the history of the 30,000 plus posts on this thread.
In other words, you can't actually point out any rational basis on which to criticize the analogy.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37140 Aug 10, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No abiogenesis deals with th vast continuum between living and non-living. According to Darwinisn, there is no absolute distinction. Are you telling me that the first cell's parents weren't alive? If they were, then evolution has to deal with it.
Why not let the scientists research it and get back to us? Or are you saying you absolutely refuse anything all of biology (including medicine) says until the issue of origins is resolved?

We know there was a point when there was absolutely no life on Earth, none, zip, nada. We know now, obviously, that there is life on Earth. We really really want to know what happened in that interim bit, so scientists are researching it. Why is that bad?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#37141 Aug 10, 2012
HTS wrote:
No abiogenesis deals with th vast continuum between living and non-living.
Abiogenesis deals with the process by which non-living material became life. Once there is life, we're no longer dealing with abiogenesis.
HTS wrote:
According to Darwinisn, there is no absolute distinction.
What is "Darwinisn"? Do you mean the modern evolutionary synthesis?
HTS wrote:
Are you telling me that the first cell's parents weren't alive? If they were, then evolution has to deal with it.
First, the first cell is not likely the offspring of sexual reproduction, so it didn't have "parents".

Second, who said that evolution deals only as far back as the first *cell*? It deals as far back as the first *living thing*. That didn't have to be a "cell".
bohart

White Pine, TN

#37142 Aug 10, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been given many answers, with a lot of supporting evidence! Should I give them again, so that you can ignore them again?
Again no answers,as the gooists alledge life began from some complex unknown formulation of chemical reactions that was disproven a hundred years ago, but one day we'll figure out how life crawled out of it's goo birthplace to change into every species on the globe.You guys could sell Jim Jones kool aid.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37143 Aug 10, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Again no answers,as the gooists alledge life began from some complex unknown formulation of chemical reactions that was disproven a hundred years ago, but one day we'll figure out how life crawled out of it's goo birthplace to change into every species on the globe.You guys could sell Jim Jones kool aid.
I will never understand people that use the Internet to hate on science.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#37144 Aug 10, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
A perfect analysis of the evolutionists position, well said. I look forward to the Dude trying to give some type of answer to you after you have disembowled him with the sword of reason and logic. It will be comical if nothing else.
A perfect analysis of the evolutionists position, Say's you cannot remember your great great great great, grandfather but you are related to him. Do you deny this?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#37145 Aug 10, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis deals with the process by which non-living material became life. Once there is life, we're no longer dealing with abiogenesis.
<quoted text>
What is "Darwinisn"? Do you mean the modern evolutionary synthesis?
<quoted text>
First, the first cell is not likely the offspring of sexual reproduction, so it didn't have "parents".
Second, who said that evolution deals only as far back as the first *cell*? It deals as far back as the first *living thing*. That didn't have to be a "cell".
You separation between life and non-life is relative. Therefore, exclusion of abiogenesis from evolution s arbitrary.
Yu know perfectly well that the only reason for excluding it is because it's impossible and crushes the entire NDT.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#37146 Aug 10, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No abiogenesis deals with th vast continuum between living and non-living. According to Darwinisn, there is no absolute distinction. Are you telling me that the first cell's parents weren't alive? If they were, then evolution has to deal with it.
Yes and are you trying to say that you were alive , but not yet living?
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37147 Aug 10, 2012
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, for now it is all we have. It's easy and dismissive to just say Mankind sucks, but that doesn't really help, does it? I for one would like to see Mankind, even with all our flaws, survive. Accepting and supporting science as it was meant to be used is our best chance for that.
Mankind Does Suck.....This Is Reality

You Dont Get To Dictate Whats Our Best Option For Survival.

Our Best Chance Is To Get Along And Work Together, Science Does Not Fulfill That Need.

The Reality is....And Always Has Been, We Cannot Govern Ourselves...Thus The Need For A God And His Wisdom.

One Disaster After Another Will Lead Us To Finally Accepting GOD.

" So It Is Written, So It Shall Be Done. "
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37148 Aug 10, 2012
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
I will never understand people that use the Internet to hate on science.
Everyone Knows Al Gore Created The Internet....LOL

Again, Your Comprehension Skills Are Lacking....I Love Science, As A Real Tool For Bettering Mankind.

Where The Line Is Crossed Is Theory Being Taught As Fact. You Claim Religion Is Unproven Stories By Sheepherders....Where Is TOE And BB Theories Any Different ?

Even By Sciences Own Criteria They Fail....Repeatable, Observable ?

Carry On Foot Soldier
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37149 Aug 10, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes and are you trying to say that you were alive , but not yet living?
Conscience.....Theres The Answer

When And Where ?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37150 Aug 10, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You separation between life and non-life is relative. Therefore, exclusion of abiogenesis from evolution s arbitrary.
Yu know perfectly well that the only reason for excluding it is because it's impossible and crushes the entire NDT.
It is hardly arbitrary. Evolution is the study of how life changes, regardless of how it originated. The only reason Creationists try to tie Abiogenesis and Evolution together is they think that since we don't have Abiogenesis pinned down that is a weakness in Evolution.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37151 Aug 10, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You separation between life and non-life is relative. Therefore, exclusion of abiogenesis from evolution s arbitrary.
Yu know perfectly well that the only reason for excluding it is because it's impossible and crushes the entire NDT.
Let's put it this way, if Abiogenesis is a problem for Evolution, then it is a problem for all of Biology. Do we throw out all of botany, genetics, medicine, etc. until we understand Abiogenesis?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#37152 Aug 10, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Again no answers,as the gooists alledge life began from some complex unknown formulation of chemical reactions that was disproven a hundred years ago, but one day we'll figure out how life crawled out of it's goo birthplace to change into every species on the globe.You guys could sell Jim Jones kool aid.
It was favor-aid you moron.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37153 Aug 10, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You separation between life and non-life is relative. Therefore, exclusion of abiogenesis from evolution s arbitrary.
Yu know perfectly well that the only reason for excluding it is because it's impossible and crushes the entire NDT.
Abiogenesis in no way crushes the theory of evolution. One reason that the two are separated is that one is a well developed and scientifically supported theory, that would be the Theory of Evolution. It is supported by all sciences and has been tested countless times and passed each and every time. Abiogenesis is sitll in the hypothetical stage. We have some of the answers but definitely not all of them yet. By the way, us not having all of the answers does not mean you can say "god did it".

They have been making some serious strides in understanding abiogenesis. Here is a four year old video that shows where we were only four years ago:

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton won US popular vote by nearly 2... 1 min Ftrump 981
News Undocumented Immigrants Tell Trump They're Not ... 2 min tomin cali 15
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min OzRitz 1,478,691
News Obamacare replacement may lower rates for young... 2 min Retribution 42
News PM Abe offers support for Duterte's war on drugs 2 min Ainu 10
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 3 min Tm Cln 17,534
News A look at how Trump might shake things up in Asia 3 min Fcvk tRump 10
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Jacques in Orleans 233,815
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min --Rickster-- 408,661
News Voting wars heat up as Democrats think about 2020 25 min Retribution 69
More from around the web