Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205626 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

#120947 Aug 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution also does not rely on the Big Bang.
To what "information" are you referring?
Put the monkey back on the computer, he knows what DNA is

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120948 Aug 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure there's evidence of a creator of life. It's called chemistry.
If that's what you choose to believe

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120949 Aug 27, 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
No, the problem is that you ask poorly formed questions and then don't like the honest answers that were given to you.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120950 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is evidence for both. Your problem is that you do not know what qualifies as evidence. All you can do is to deny the evidence that scientists agree upon.
Bullshit! 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,even with your belief in the astronomical luck theory. 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

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120951 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the problem is that you ask poorly formed questions and then don't like the honest answers that were given to you.
Did the universe make itself then make life?... yes or no
Did the universe create itself then create life?.....yes or no
Did the universe just happen , then life just happened?....yes or no
Did a creator create the universe and all life,..yes or no
wondering

Morris, OK

#120952 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is evidence for both. Your problem is that you do not know what qualifies as evidence. All you can do is to deny the evidence that scientists agree upon.
what evidence do you have that the universe created itself? a thought or a theory(which cannot be tested or replicated). there is no solid scientific evidence. it all falls on thoughts and beliefs.
some believe the BBT and some believe in a creator.

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#120953 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It evolved. There is more than one definition for "information". You are not using a consistent definition of "information". There is information that requires intelligence to make. Such as information in the printed word. There is information that does not take an intelligence to make, such as tree rings, lake varves, and glacial ice layers. You have yet to show that the information in DNA is of the former type.
I said where did it come from, evolve is not a source! tree rings! where did the information for the tree come from?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120954 Aug 27, 2014
wondering wrote:
evolution happens period. if you keep up with the track record it has gone from
1) species evolving to become other species,
2) to last common ancestor
3) to the similarities are so close so it has to be
4) to more blue eyes happening
5) to lactose intolerant becoming lactose tolerant
6) to hybrids being different.
it is simply change!! so how can you creationist argue against change? the core of evolution may differ but it is simply change and there is no denying that change happens.
.
.
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.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120955 Aug 27, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If something always existed then the answer to what created it is absolutely nothing.
.
Then it didn't emerge and you dodged the statement. What are you referring to that has always existed?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120956 Aug 27, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but it is an observed fact that life does not require a drive for survival. Bacteria do not have such; plants do not have such; fungi do not have such. the premise is solid.
.
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.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120957 Aug 27, 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.
blue eyes, new trait, becoming lactose tolerant etc. etc. is evolution.

"you 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)"
where do you think the "limb" itself came from? do you think it was always there or through changes it evolved to be a limb?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120958 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit! 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,even with your belief in the astronomical luck theory. 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
A rational voice in the wilderness!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120959 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh yes,..your evidence. Zero,..your beliefs,...100 percent
Ah denialism! You have been presented with scientific evidence many times. This is your usual response. Not very original. Guess you have run out of anything to say

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120960 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>6
Since there's no scientific evidence that the universe created itself then created life its all a belief
Since I didn't say that, your comment means even less than usual.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120961 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I said where did it come from, evolve is not a source! tree rings! where did the information for the tree come from?
I see that you are still as dumb as a post. The so called information evolved. That is an answer.

Now a wise person would have asked how it evolved, but then we know that you are not wise.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120962 Aug 27, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit! 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,even with your belief in the astronomical luck theory. 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
bohart, you can't win an argument with strawman arguments.

You don't know what evidence is much less proof.

And you should pay attention. They are much closer to finding life than you think that they are..

Perhaps if you could ask a reasonable question you could get a reasonable answer. You keep forgetting that evolution is a proven fact. The theory of evolution is the best description of that fact. Just as gravity is a proven fact and Einstein's theory of gravitation is the best explanation.

A big part of your problem is that you ask questions that assume the theory is false. Since all tests have shown that it is correct that is an incredibly foolish tack to take.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120963 Aug 27, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what evidence do you have that the universe created itself? a thought or a theory(which cannot be tested or replicated). there is no solid scientific evidence. it all falls on thoughts and beliefs.
some believe the BBT and some believe in a creator.
You have no clue. The Big Bang Theory has been tested many times. It has passed those tests.

And you do not know what a theory is either. If your idea cannot be tested it is not a theory. You are mistaking the casual layman's use of the word with the scientific use of that word. In science a theory is at the very top of the pinnacle. There is nothing higher than a theory in science.

All of the astronomical scientific evidence that I know of supports the Big Bang Theory. There may be some that opposes it, but there is no scientific evidence that supports a creator.

Perhaps you need help on understanding evidence. It is not that hard to understand. I can help.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120964 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no clue. The Big Bang Theory has been tested many times. It has passed those tests.
And you do not know what a theory is either. If your idea cannot be tested it is not a theory. You are mistaking the casual layman's use of the word with the scientific use of that word. In science a theory is at the very top of the pinnacle. There is nothing higher than a theory in science.
All of the astronomical scientific evidence that I know of supports the Big Bang Theory. There may be some that opposes it, but there is no scientific evidence that supports a creator.
Perhaps you need help on understanding evidence. It is not that hard to understand. I can help.
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.
wondering

Morris, OK

#120965 Aug 27, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>All of the astronomical scientific evidence that I know of supports the Big Bang Theory. There may be some that opposes it, but there is no scientific evidence that supports a creator.
evidence that supports a creator?? i never said there was. i do not believe in god the creator.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120966 Aug 27, 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.
Try again. This is another poorly formed question.

Here we have another creationist that does not understand evidence. You know so little about the subject that you are debating that you cannot even ask proper questions.

Here is a clue. I never said there was proof, I said that there is evidence that the universe created itself. Evidence can support an idea without absolutely proving it.

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Limbertwig 240,313
News The Limits of Trumpism 15 min Rev Cash Dollar 1
News Trump on Chicago shooting: 'Just what I have be... 41 min Rev Cash Dollar 47
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Rosa_Winkel 16,244
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 1 hr Ms Sassy 1,067
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 2 hr Patriot 10,961
News Republican Frontrunners Avoid Climate Change (Nov '15) 2 hr Actual Science 109
More from around the web