Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197438 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: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121191 Aug 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there is evidence of self assembly. And you demonstrated that you have no understanding of the concept of scientific evidence by mistaking evidence for proof.
There is plenty of scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There is not enough evidence for abiogenesis to be considered a theory yet. Sadly "theory" is another concept beyond your paygrade.
Now , here we are. You once again , with your brethren . claiming that there is evidence that life self assembled , then made the leap from dead to alive. You , me and the others on here read the same articles, google the same information, I see an idea that hits a brick wall, and has no empirical evidence that it has ever been breached . You on the other hand have FAITH that it has been , which one of us on this issue is driven by the evidence , and who is driven by faith?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121192 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
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 .
And of course this one, which is a copy of a previous one you didn't answer and of course wasn't answered neither.

As Polymath already said, there have been numerous experiments done that have showed that:
1) complex organic molecules can emerge from prebiotic environments in varying simulations of early earth conditions
2) already several pathways form those basic molecules to macromolecules is on its way and very promising. Among those are several amino acids (the building blocks of proteins as well as proteins and all nucleotides of RNA, as well as the phosphate and sugar parts of it
3) the self-replication of RNA in prebiotic conditions with no proteins around and even showing natural selection to occur
4) the emergence of metabolism is also on its way with a bunch of experiments.

All those lines 1 - 4 comprise dozens of experiments.
Creationists only refer to the Urey-Miller experiments. That was almost 60 years ago. For everything that happened since then they are COMPLETELY ignorant of. It is as if nothing happened in physics after Newton. But we ALL KNOW hoe creationism works.

A nice line of research is the engineering existing prokaryotic (bacterial) cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life are reached. Than we may build up the line of events from the other side to arrive at that point.

Hence: the emergence of (complex) organic molecules is already pretty much understood. The emergence of self-replication is pretty much on its way and major steps have been taken. The next step will be how biological reactions were incorporated behind and contained within cell walls. This research also started and is on its way. the same applies to metabolism.

But these lines are still different building blocks, many of them not complete and even others lacking and neither of them integrated in one construction.

But NOBODY claimed we already finished the job.

But to say that there is "zero evidence" is just PLAIN LYING.
Also a notorious trait of creationism.

Now instead of "go and play on the road", I have a better advice for you: go and read a book about the things BEFORE you start TATTLING about them.
wondering

Morris, OK

#121193 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, being against YEC is the same as being against god????
Are you serious?
Please don't bother me with this nonsense.
I like how you summed it down to YEC"s to avoid the point. creationists don't have to be YEC's. a creationists believes life and the universe was created by god 5,000 or 5,000,000,000 years ago.

do you believe in god? lets have your stance on god to see where you stand.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121194 Aug 28, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
So then your god has to be made of something... couldn't the entire universe be made of the same stuff and also not require a creator? If your god could just happen why couldn't first life just happen??
Explain the law of biogenesis?

The universe is made of matter, ergo energy, which cannot be created no destroyed, from what I've read. Once there was no universe,, where did the energy come from?
wondering

Morris, OK

#121195 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not addressing 75% of my post and VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY wrong about my position about a god. VERY VERY VERY VERY WRONG.
Your reading abilities SUCK.
Useless post. NEXT.
and you addressed nothing in the post that you responded to here so I guess that make you the king of SUCK and useless posts..

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121196 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Louis Pasteur would DISAGREE with you.
When he heard of the work of Darwin he only asked that it will take more research to substantiate Darwin's concept of natural selection.
Weird isn't it, that the founder of the idea of biogenesis wasn't opposing Darwin at all but only argued natural selection needs more research. Now, how come......
Okay, didn't Pasteur's experiments show that life only comes from existing life?

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121197 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Unsubstantial answer, not addressing ANYTHING. NEXT please.
Ha,Ha,Ha,....great evasion puddle man
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121198 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations ,you have described him perfectly.
SURE, for YOUR god I make an exception on his misunderstanding of me: I am opposing YOUR GOD indeed. Don't mistake me on that.
I don't like the OT god.
HE is an immoral twerp.
But the god conceived by others, FAR away from your bronze age mythology nagging and harping, is nothing I have problems with.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121199 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR.
I only have to repost an earlier post of mine - which you OF COURSE - left unaddressed.
Your claim was that there was ZERO evidence for life emerging form abiotic conditions.
This claim has been debunked utterly and completely by me. Totally. Showing that you are a deceitful and lying twerp who constantly tattles about things he has 1st grade grammar school knowledge of. Claiming about things you have no knowledge or understanding of makes you the average creationist's ignorant tattler.
I also added that abiogenesis is not at the point that the pathway of life emerging form abiotic conditions is completely explained. Hardly surprising for a discipline that's only 60 years around. but the gaps are closing and NOTHING indicates these effort to be stopped because of unpromising results.
If you want to cry victory about closing gaps, be my guest. The only thing biologist do is shrug their shoulders lift their eyebrows and just continuing their work on abiogenesis not paying further attention.
Let's have a look how this goes:
- "ribose (the sugar component of RNA) is unstable and rapidly breaks down in an even mildly alkaline solution" - SOLVED
- "nucleobases (RNA components) are 'irreducibly complex' and impossible to form spontaneously" - SOLVED
- "ribose, phosphate and nucleobases are impossible to assemble into nucleotides" - SOLVED
- "it is impossible for nucleotides to assemble into RNA" - almost SOLVED (only the pathway to G and A nucleotides awaits a solution)
- "DNA can't start to replicate spontaneously because in all living cells it needs proteins to perform that but proteins precisely are the product of DNA" - SOLVED by experiments where RNA self-replicated without any proteins around. The steps form RNA to DNA are piece of cake. Note that in these experiments the RNA also spontaneously started to produce ever more complex chains AND that some of those became dominant, ousting other chains - natural selection appearing as a pure biochemical, hence abiotic property of RNA. Darwin would have been DELIGHTED.
And the same in other fields, like the emergence of proteins.
For the others here: if you want to read a nice summary of the state of affairs in abiogenesis, read this one: http://www.mcb.ucdavis.edu/faculty-labs/schol .... Although this is a 2009 paper and the things are really running very fast in abiogenesis.
No, not for you, Bobo, you will get problems with your ministers when reading this stuff. You may stick your head into the bronze age mythology book again. Nobody cares. We just will go on doing science. Bye!
Each time the creationists lose the battle but they just step to the next stage, where evidently other problems are found (scientists BTW just call these "challenges") and continue their raids. Until those one also are lost. But gee, who cares about this pattern of ever ongoing retreat, let's have a look, where can we find other "problems".
So spare me this kind of superfluous tattling posts.
Oh ! the liar,liar pants on fire defense!....

I'm ruined!

You really need to publish your work , because no one seem's to know but you?

Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say everything you say is true.
What do you have ?Life, no, unless you believe all the empirical is wrong?
Because that's all you have a belief

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121200 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.
That is true, and I have not claimed more than that.
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.
And there you are wrong. You have misused the term theory again. Theories are supported by massive amounts of evidence. There are several lines of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. There is evidence, not as much but still scientific evidence supporting abiogenesis. There is no scientific evidence supporting the claims of creationists.
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.
That is true. But not knowing everything does not mean that we cannot know somethings. And again here creationists are incredibly dishonest since they do not have any evidence for their beliefs yet they will claim to "know" that the Earth was created.
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.
And again, demonstrably wrong. Evolution is as proven as gravity. The only theory out there is the theory of evolution. It seems that you do not know what a theory is. A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that is very well supported by scientific evidence. Creationists do not even have a testable hypothesis of creation. Remember a testable hypothesis or even theory does not have to reproduce the original event. It only has to explain how that event led to what we observe today. Creationist cannot even pass that relatively low bar.
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.
There is always more to learn. But we know that dropping a hundred pound weight from chest high onto bare feet is a very bad idea. We also know that live evolved. What we are unsure of are some of the details of the path that evolution followed and quite a few of the details of abiogenesis, which is why it is still a hypothesis.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121201 Aug 28, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you want honesty. here goes. yes I think theirs is just as much as a belief/faith as you with your god is with one big difference. they look for and try to show evidence for their faith/belief. they look for an alternative route where you just stay on the same old road holding up a 3000 year old book and say there ya go. you see your belief/faith set in stone whereas they see there as ever changing.
does that make one right and one wrong. not in my eyes because we don't know. i see it as you made your choice and they made theirs.
to put this as short as I can: they keep looking, you have stopped looking.
I disagree with you, I have never held up the bible in this debate. The evolutionist's speak of the bible far, far more than ever I have. The difference in us is I don't cloak my beliefs in pseudo science, and then claim those who don't agree with their beliefs as ignorant, you've seen it.The stop looking argument is their strawman .

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121202 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
.....that life can evolved on it's own,...... care to explain that ridiculous statement?
What? You are nitpicking over a grammatical error after all of the idiocy that you have spewed!

"that life can evolve on its own."
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121203 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, didn't Pasteur's experiments show that life only comes from existing life?
Francesco Redi disproved earlier spontaneous generation for large organisms by showing that maggots arose from meat only when flies laid eggs in the meat.

Pasteur's experiments added to this that microbes infections. He first demonstrated that air is full of micro-organisms. Then he demonstrated in his famous swan-neck flask experiment, that infections indeed did come from microbes from the air landing on the material and not were generated spontaneously.

The reason for this was that at those times people believed that all kinds of organisms could arise by spontaneous generation. It was a widely held belief throughout the middle ages and into the latter half of the 19th century. It mainly was religiously inspired: people thought It matched nicely with the prevailing religious views of how God created the universe. Many recipes and experiments were offered in proof. To create mice, a recipe called for dirty underwear and wheat grain to be mixed in a bucket and left open outside. In 21 days or less, you would have mice.

That's all what Pasteur tried to disprove - successfully.
And of course he thought that this wretched crossing of old wive's tales and religion hindered a better understanding of how infections emerge. That's why modern microbiology starts with Pasteur.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#121204 Aug 28, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course this one, which is a copy of a previous one you didn't answer and of course wasn't answered neither.
As Polymath already said, there have been numerous experiments done that have showed that:
1) complex organic molecules can emerge from prebiotic environments in varying simulations of early earth conditions
2) already several pathways form those basic molecules to macromolecules is on its way and very promising. Among those are several amino acids (the building blocks of proteins as well as proteins and all nucleotides of RNA, as well as the phosphate and sugar parts of it
3) the self-replication of RNA in prebiotic conditions with no proteins around and even showing natural selection to occur
4) the emergence of metabolism is also on its way with a bunch of experiments.
All those lines 1 - 4 comprise dozens of experiments.
Creationists only refer to the Urey-Miller experiments. That was almost 60 years ago. For everything that happened since then they are COMPLETELY ignorant of. It is as if nothing happened in physics after Newton. But we ALL KNOW hoe creationism works.
A nice line of research is the engineering existing prokaryotic (bacterial) cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life are reached. Than we may build up the line of events from the other side to arrive at that point.
Hence: the emergence of (complex) organic molecules is already pretty much understood. The emergence of self-replication is pretty much on its way and major steps have been taken. The next step will be how biological reactions were incorporated behind and contained within cell walls. This research also started and is on its way. the same applies to metabolism.
But these lines are still different building blocks, many of them not complete and even others lacking and neither of them integrated in one construction.
But NOBODY claimed we already finished the job.
But to say that there is "zero evidence" is just PLAIN LYING.
Also a notorious trait of creationism.
Now instead of "go and play on the road", I have a better advice for you: go and read a book about the things BEFORE you start TATTLING about them.
..........and none of this produces life,...that was what this thing was about wasn't it, pathways ,molecules,, RNA,......nothing.

Oh you left out the main ingredient

FAITH!.........now it works!
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121205 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with you, I have never held up the bible in this debate. The evolutionist's speak of the bible far, far more than ever I have. The difference in us is I don't cloak my beliefs in pseudo science, and then claim those who don't agree with their beliefs as ignorant, you've seen it.The stop looking argument is their strawman .
Until now you didn't show any sign to understand science in the first place.
Yes you do cloak your beliefs in pseudo science.
You don't even understand the meaning of a straw man fallacy.

And the mere fact that NOBODY among the earth and life scientists (and almost nobody among the other disciplines) agrees that evolution theory is a pseudo-science, does not seem to hinder you in calling it pseudo-science.

Well, little layman tattler, the scientists are the ones that decide what's to be considered science or not. And those scientists all have decided that evolution theory is established science. and your opinion on this is IRRELEVANT. Get used to it.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121206 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with you, I have never held up the bible in this debate. The evolutionist's speak of the bible far, far more than ever I have. The difference in us is I don't cloak my beliefs in pseudo science, and then claim those who don't agree with their beliefs as ignorant, you've seen it.The stop looking argument is their strawman .
You don't have to hold up the Bible if your ideas clearly come from there.

We are not as foolish as you are. You might fool yourself, but you won't fool others.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121207 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Now , here we are. You once again , with your brethren . claiming that there is evidence that life self assembled , then made the leap from dead to alive. You , me and the others on here read the same articles, google the same information, I see an idea that hits a brick wall, and has no empirical evidence that it has ever been breached . You on the other hand have FAITH that it has been , which one of us on this issue is driven by the evidence , and who is driven by faith?
That is because you do not understand what is and what is not evidence.

And how has the work on abiogenesis ever hit a brick wall?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121208 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain the law of biogenesis?
The universe is made of matter, ergo energy, which cannot be created no destroyed, from what I've read. Once there was no universe,, where did the energy come from?


Technically the total energy of the universe is zero. Therefore no laws are broken if it made from nothing.

Since: Oct 08

Avondale Estates, GA

#121209 Aug 28, 2014
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text> Let's see ... so what you are saying is that you should believe because it MIGHT be true. Why risk it.
Hmmm ... so if it is true, you are going to stand at the Pearly Gates and tell St Peter that you only believed on the chance one of the various religious nut-jobs might be right. Yea, that will get you in the gates (Not!)
While you are busy with that, Jesus and I will be sharing a few beers looking down on the Earth laughing at ... people like you! At least the people who actually believe have some level of integrity. They'll at least have a chance at making it through. You, not so much.
so you're passing judgement on me, based on a couple of topix posts? Judge not, lest ye be judged....besides, you look like a h omo, do you think h omos will be welcomed into the kingdom of God?
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#121210 Aug 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh ! the liar,liar pants on fire defense!....
I'm ruined!
You really need to publish your work , because no one seem's to know but you?
Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say everything you say is true.
What do you have ?Life, no, unless you believe all the empirical is wrong?
Because that's all you have a belief
FIRST OF ALL: you are a liar.
Because there IS substantial evidence for a abiogenetic pathway of life.
And you are a DECEITFUL LIAR because you ignored my previous posts and all those from Polymath and others too, just doing what all creationists do when they suspect facts miles around: they shut their eyes, close their ears and start reciting "la, la, la".

You also are a COWARD because you DARE not to address them, Not all those previous ones by me and Polymath but EVEN AGAIN this very last ones by me.

Your post is AGAIN unsubstantial and hollow. They contain NOTHING.
They address NOTHING. They ass well could have addressed the latest news on dachshund barking in animal shelters.

How dare you to exhibit yourself in this way. Embarrassing.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Joe Biden would be an excellent 'slip-in' candi... 1 min Jamie 5
News Donald Trump breaks with nation's only Latina g... 2 min Lawrence Wolf 64
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 2 min woodtick57 384,229
News Donald Trump nixes Bernie Sanders debate, blame... 4 min Hostis Publicus 10
News Oklahoma lawmakers OK bill criminalizing perfor... 8 min inbred Genius 72
News House takes action against Confederate flag, a ... 12 min inbred Genius 302
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 13 min Terra Firma 11,884
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 18 min NotSoDivineMsM 1,383,597
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 34 min Maria 972
News Protesters clash with police outside Trump rall... 1 hr Go Blue Forever 312
More from around the web