Creationism vs. Evolution

[Explodingsims 3]

If you want a refrence for Dinosaurs in the bible than go to Job 40:15-24, also here is some other reading for you

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/dinosaurs.htm

And coolotter, like Micah said, the transformation refers to spirtual transformation

and it is possibly true that a type of dragon could have existed

Just Disregard the order and facts are witheld part. 

note- The facts sentance has been DELETED!

The facts things was coming from this speech a scientist gave in Florida. His name escapes me now and I couldn't recall entirly what he said.

So I appolgize for that.

I stick to the rest of this though

[JanYpe 17]

Your second link pretty much contradicts your first link. The first one claims that 'behemoth', 'dragon' and 'leviathan' all refer to dinosaurs, while the second one just likens them to modern day animals and to various other mythical creatures.

That passage of Job is very much open to interpretation in my opinion. I suppose you could see a dinosaur in that passage in some English versions if you really wanted to. In the Dutch version it really doesn't look like dinosaur though. I'm sticking with the several lifetimes of research in multiple scientific fields that have produced actual physical evidence over a few short passages in a book that's been edited and translated a few too many times.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

There's too much evidence that this could not be created By God, there is far too much order. Like a flower that opens up when the sun rises, thats not to say science can't explain it, but I just say that It seems too implusible for that to happen by chance.

quote>

The scientific explanations are far more plausible than an "intelligent creator", at least in my view of the evidence. The introduction of an intelligent designer in existence prior to "creation" introduces an enormous improbability to that hypothesis.  The old argument from design that existed in earlier times was falsified by Darwin's proposal of evolution, as evolution showed exactly how something with "the appearance of design" can arise from naturalistic processes.

Interestingly enough, if you look at studies of the religious beliefs of scientists compared to their general public, the scientists are far less likely to believe in God than the general population. At least one study (probably more) indicate biologists are in general less likely to believe in a God than other scientists. Perhaps the scientific evidence they've seen has something to do with this. (among other studies: 1998, Larson & Witham, Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313)

[fukuda 351]

WooW, Just read the quotes and interpretations in this page: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml#001

so, Bible explains fluid dynamics and hydrothermal vents?

Some examples from a web linked to the previous one, arguments against evolution

The earth’s surface is deposited in layers.

The point of discussion here is whether the layers were deposited over vast geological times or over a relatively quick period. Steve Austin investigated the Mount St. Helens eruption, which produced a small scale version of the Grand Canyon. He showed that thousands of layers were deposited over a number of days rather than being laid down gradually over long (4.5 billion years) geologic ages. We are not stating that this proves that the layers of the earth’s surface were laid down quickly. We are stating that ample evidence exists that the layers of the earth could be produced quickly by a geologic catastrophe like the flood in the Bible. Since neither model can prove itself in this area, we will award a “tie” to the creation and evolution models

Please, no, LOL. Sorry to say, but volcanic (pyroclastic) and flooding structures do not conform at all the vast majority of Earth's surface, and current sedimentary depositation rate has been so many times calculated... It blends perfectly to the actual geological time scale. Do not take Geologists as silly people

Scientists have found a large number of fossils.

Yes, there are many fossils lying around. That means a lot of plants and animals died and we can find their fossilized remains. Someone who believes in evolution would have you believe this happened over time. Think logically—if a rat died in an open field today, or a deer died in the woods, would either become fossilized? Would they stay put and untouched on the ground long enough to be covered by dirt eventually and become fossilized? No. They would be eaten by other animals and blown around by the winds and rains until a complete skeleton was no longer available. The reality is that there is no evidence that fossils were formed continually (or are being formed continually) as the theory of evolution predicts.

On the other hand, what would happen if there were a worldwide flood, causing everything to drown, including the rat and the deer? They might float for awhile, but would eventually sink to the bottom of the water. Next, the sediment on the bottom of the water would cover the remains (since it is very mobile compared to dirt on land—especially if there is a flood going on at the time) starting the process of fossilization.

There is no question that the large number of fossils testifies to the accuracy of the creation model rather than the theory of evolution model.

Moore, total bull*****, fossile jaciments were special places in the past, like anaerobic lakes or swamps, where animals or plants could not been eaten or rot, natural traps, that's why in some places there are so many fossils, and in other places there ain't fossils at all, and btw, if there was only 1 extinction as it says how it explains whhy fossils are located in very different layers?

Scientists have successfully arranged groups of animals into a “tree of life” (phylogenetic tree)

If you examine a tree of life, you will observe something surprising—no species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form that split into the two species? You are only shown a gap where the change was to have taken place. It does not take a Ph.D. to realize that no true transitional forms have been found, and the tree is trying to illustrate a principle that does not actually exist.

No species of one branch changes in species on another branch??? What?? yes there are links, i.e. amphibious-like fish fossils, arcaheaopterix, etc... The transitional forms are no longer here, they became extinct or converted themselves in another species

Ehm... Interesting interpretations, I'll do the same with another book, wait a moment

[aestiva 0]

I'll quote DEVO: " God made man, but he used a monkey to do it. . ." 

God doesn't have to be limited by science or Biblical record; If god is who he says he is he can do anything, however he wants. I find evolution more convincing of his wisdom and patience than the simplified Genesis story.  But, if he really did make the universe in six days I won't argue when I meet him.

-A

[Pixelrage 34]

Originally posted by: DanWalker8 The universe is a big big placequote>

on this topic, here's a cool video for anyone who hasn't seen it. I must have watched it over a dozen times, and I'm still amazed:  click here

[Odainsaker 2,133]

Here is a fun one to mull over, courtesy of the distilled archaeo-anthropology recently broadcast on the History Channel:

There are some who hypothesize that the basis of god and monster myths among the ancient religions wasn't solely fantastical inventions of ancient whimsy, but were the ancient incorporative explanations for the large fossilized dinosaur bones our ancient ancestors were even then discovering. All those giants, cyclopses, griffins, dragons, centaurs, and other bizarre creatures of ancient lore, along with the lands they were claimed to inhabit, seemed peculiarly sourced back to specific locations now known for large concentrations of dinosaur fossil finds.

Forget making god in own image...perhaps we once made god in the image of our fossils!

[coolotter88 2]

uh oh, looks like evolutionists will have a hard time arguing this

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

uh oh, looks like evolutionists will have a hard time arguing this quote>

I'm sure the monkeys indigenous to the locations where bananas where first discovered had claws or other dissimilar appendages instead of hands. That would explain why all monkeys absolutely detest bananas. God was just saving them for us and Chiquita stockholders.

[DanWalker8 3]

Pixelrage, here is something that will blow your mind, on both ends of the scale http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/universcale/index_f.htm

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

LOL, that video raises some interesting points, but all it shows is that Bannana's are a good fruit for human's to eat. For example, seabirds that have to dive for their food can move their wings so that they become like a dart and can enter the water easily and travel further, does this mean fish were invented by God for birds, no it just means that evolution has made it easier for the birds to get their food, just as evolution has made it easier for human's to have a nutritious meal. And all this about it being conveniently shaped etc. is just nonsense. By the way he was talking, I don't think that guy believed any of it either.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz LOL, that video raises some interesting points, ...quote>

Perhaps not quite the ones they were hoping to raise.

Originally posted by: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz  By the way he was talking, I don't think that guy believed any of it either.quote>

That's what I thought the first time round, but there are longer clips of it around which seem to suggest otherwise.

They picked a particularly bad example to try to prove their point. Bananas were domesticated from wild bananas and the wild ones were not much like the modern kinds. Bananas had been grown domestically since at least 327 BCE (and probably for thousands of years before that). But up until recently these bananas were tough and starchy, and needed to be well cooked before they were edible. So they were nothing like what was being described in the clip.

Then in 1836 on a Jamaican banana plantation, Jean Francois Poujot discovered a mutation in one of his banana plants, which produced the yellow banana with soft sweet flesh, similar to what we know today. This mutant plant was cultivated and from its descendants the modern cultivars were selectively bred. They were selectively shaped through successive generations by humans to have the characteristics we desire (most or all of the characteristics mentioned in the film).

So the bananas are actually a quite good example of evolution (and it occurred during recorded history too)

I wonder what they would have made of the pineapple though.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: sam

The scientific explanations are far more plausible than an "intelligent creator", at least in my view of the evidence. The introduction of an intelligent designer in existence prior to "creation" introduces an enormous improbability to that hypothesis.  The old argument from design that existed in earlier times was falsified by Darwin's proposal of evolution, as evolution showed exactly how something with "the appearance of design" can arise from naturalistic processes.quote>

IMHO, that didn't falsify it.  All it did was propose an alternate line of thinking on the subject.

Anyway, what's about to follow is going to be one of the oddest theories you've ever heard because it kind of says that both theories are correct.

Regardless of which theory you hold to, both theories have to provide a substance for life to come from.  In the creation theory, you have someone, presumably a Deity, make the stuff.  So, we have the raw material for life to come from now according to the creation theory.  In the evolution theory, the stuff already exists and after application of energy, life at some point resulted from the process.  It may not have happened the first time, the billionth time, but the life would have resulted from it at some point.  Now, whichever theory you subscribe to, you have an immediate problem.  Creationists can't tell you where the Creator came from, except that most accounts say that the Creator exists without beginning or end.  Evolutionists can't tell you how the mass and energy that made all this life got here to begin with.  So, scientifically speaking, we already have problems in both camps and each theory has crucial flaws in it.  Where this really gets to be a problem though is that there isn't a thing any of us can do to prove either of them right or wrong at this point because none of us can truly fathom something just existing or coming out of nowhere.

On a side note, schm0, I remember you asking that we keep this out of the realm of the entire universe and limit it just to the earth or something, but it's impossible to truly comprehend this without getting to the source of the issue, and the source of the issue appears to be even beyond the universal level.

Continuing on, at this point, we now appear to have life in both sides.  We have another problem though.  The creation theory usually purports that everything has been continually getting worse while the evolutionary theory says that everything is indicating that life is continuing to become more advanced.  Now, this is where I can't continue the side-by-side analysis either.  My analysis in life is that things tend to go from good to bad to worse unless someone attempts to maintain them.  Evolution says otherwise, but as much as I've asked - heck, begged - people to show me proof of this, no one has been able to show me a closed system that got more advanced over time.  Saying something like "look at the world around you and you'll see all the proof you need" is a really lame example too, because according to evolution, the process tends to go so slowly that it's hard to observe in a short period of time.  Inversely though, we all know things can decay so fast we can watch it happen again and again in our lifetimes.

Extending the thinking out some more, it should also be noted that none of the theories that I know of that explain how the universe came to exist, save the creation theory, can answer the next important question.  The evolutionary theory is absolutely dependent on there being mathematic principles in place before anything can assume a state of order.  The problem though is that there isn't an explanation for how they got to be there.  Granted, a creationist's explanation for how they got there doesn't make much sense to the logical mind either per se.

The last thing I'm going to touch on right now as to problems with the evolutionary theory is the issue of mutations.  The study of birth defects in children is a field where you can see mutations in action, and very, very rarely will a birth defect come through there that has a positive effect that we know of.  Most of the time, it's all sorts of stuff that you wouldn't wish on your own enemies, let alone your kids.  Nature actively discourages mutating into something new, and natural selection is great at either killing or ruining the life of something which doesn't conform.  For example, my sister has a chronic disease that had the potential to be a problem from birth but the doctors didn't notice it.  Later, it took it's toll, and if she had been born fifty years earlier, she wouldn't be alive today.  Moving on to my mom, she has four tendons in each wrist when you're only supposed to have two.  As a result, she has untreatable carpal tunnel syndrome.  These and stuff like having a hole in your heart are all examples of mutations, and they sure as hell aren't helpful.

Now, at the same time that I've given those reasons why I believe evolution isn't true, allow me to explain something else.  All of those examples point to macro-evolution.  So, to recap, I don't believe macro-evolution happened (and the above reasons are part of why).  Now, at the same time that I say that macro-evolution doesn't exist, I know for a fact that micro-evolution is true.  Dog breeding, those moths in England that supposedly changed colors and all of that are examples of micro-evolution, or evolution within a species.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single strongly evident case of evolution that we can observe around us that is a result of macro-evolution and not micro-evolution.

So, in a short recap of what I said above, micro-evolution is plausible.  However, there's way to much stuff stacked against the theory of macro-evolution for me to believe that terradactyls turned into birds or something like that.  Species of animals can adapt to their environment, but that's about it.

[fukuda 351]

IMHO, that didn't falsify it.  All it did was propose an alternate line of thinking on the subject.

Anyway, what's about to follow is going to be one of the oddest theories you've ever heard because it kind of says that both theories are correct.

Nono, It's not an odd theory, i've already heard it, and is far more plausible than a lot of things that I hear everyday

Continuing on, at this point, we now appear to have life in both sides.  We have another problem though.  The creation theory usually purports that everything has been continually getting worse while the evolutionary theory says that everything is indicating that life is continuing to become more advanced.

Hmm, really? There are examples of involution, evolution has no clear direction as it's not being diredted by anyone, only by the environment.

 Now, this is where I can't continue the side-by-side analysis either.  My analysis in life is that things tend to go from good to bad to worse unless someone attempts to maintain them.  Evolution says otherwise, but as much as I've asked - heck, begged - people to show me proof of this, no one has been able to show me a closed system that got more advanced over time.  Saying something like "look at the world around you and you'll see all the proof you need" is a really lame example too, because according to evolution, the process tends to go so slowly that it's hard to observe in a short period of time.  Inversely though, we all know things can decay so fast we can watch it happen again and again in our lifetimes.

Evolution is slow, but you can see it's effects, I agree that the ""look at the world around you and you'll see all the proof you need" argument is lame (and is not only used by evolutionists), a "taxonomically compare the bodies and structures of animals and plants" argument would be more adequate

Like this:

I see the same legs, the same pelvis, very resemblant (wings/arms) and a very much likely the same skeleton structure

The last thing I'm going to touch on right now as to problems with the evolutionary theory is the issue of mutations.  The study of birth defects in children is a field where you can see mutations in action, and very, very rarely will a birth defect come through there that has a positive effect that we know of.  Most of the time, it's all sorts of stuff that you wouldn't wish on your own enemies, let alone your kids.  Nature actively discourages mutating into something new, and natural selection is great at either killing or ruining the life of something which doesn't conform.  For example, my sister has a chronic disease that had the potential to be a problem from birth but the doctors didn't notice it.  Later, it took it's toll, and if she had been born fifty years earlier, she wouldn't be alive today.  Moving on to my mom, she has four tendons in each wrist when you're only supposed to have two.  As a result, she has untreatable carpal tunnel syndrome.  These and stuff like having a hole in your heart are all examples of mutations, and they sure as hell aren't helpful.

You're only representing a small part of total mutations, the only ones that you can directly see. The major part of the mutations heve little or less effect on the entire body. They are affecting only proteins or tiny body parts, the majority of "good" mutations are not showing up, as they doesn't affect the body in a  radical way. If they subsist through generations, they accumulate and form new organisms, or a big macroevolution process cames first, but macroevolution is way less probable than microevolution to occur....

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: sam

The scientific explanations are far more plausible than an "intelligent creator", at least in my view of the evidence. The introduction of an intelligent designer in existence prior to "creation" introduces an enormous improbability to that hypothesis.  The old argument from design that existed in earlier times was falsified by Darwin's proposal of evolution, as evolution showed exactly how something with "the appearance of design" can arise from naturalistic processes.quote>

IMHO, that didn't falsify it.  All it did was propose an alternate line of thinking on the subject.

quote>

It was the existence of an alternative method which in effect falsified it.

The argument was that if something looks to be designed then there must have been a designer (argument from incredulity). The reasoning as far as I understand it was that someone couldn't think of an example of something that looks designed but which had no designer.

Darwin's theory explained how something could look designed (ordered) yet arise from completely naturalistic processes (ie have no designer). As soon as that alternative existed, the original argument from design was falsified (because there now was a way known that something ordered could arise by natural processes)

BTW Darwin's book On the Origin of Species has a chapter on "Problems with the theory" in which he anticipates this difficulty and answers it. Sometimes creationists don't mention the answer when quoting him as saying the evolution of the eye is absurd for example. However if you look at the original quote the statement was rhetorical and he proceeds to thoroughly refute it. The original quote in its entirity is in chapter 6, page 143-144. I've put some of the quotes here. But I suggest viewing them in their native habitat for the full story.

Originally written by: Charles Darwin, 1872

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

In searching for the gradations through which an orgain in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw light on the steps by which it has been perfected...

quote>

I'll snip the detail of the steps, but the whole chapter is well worth reading.

Originally written by: Charles Darwin, 1872

When we reflect on these facts, here given much too briefly, with respect to the wide, diversified, and graduated range of structure in the eyes of the lower animals; and when we bear in mind how small the number of all living forms must be in comparison with those which have become extinct, the difficulty ceases to be very great in believing that natural selection may have converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve, coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the articulate class.

quote>

It has been objected that in order to modify the eye and still preserve it as a perfect instrument, many changes would have to be effected simultaneously, which, it is assumed, could not be done through natural selection; but as I have attempted to show in my work on the variation of domestic animals, it is not necessary to suppose that the modifications were all simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and gradual.

quote>

Much more detail snipped, getting towards the end of the chapter and Darwin is concluding his evolving telescope analogy here:

We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement.

quote>

So Darwin anticipated the argument from design and dispatched it.  The chapter covers the main points and how they work. A lot of refinement has been done in the subsequent years too, up until the present day, and no doubt will continue to be refined.

Long post and I didn't even get to the entropy part. (suffice it to say for now, the second law applies only to closed systems, and the living world is definitely no closed system. Locally entropy is allowed to decrease, if it is coupled to an equal or greater increase elsewhere in the universe. An example is making iceblocks in your fridge. In turning water to ice you are decreasing the entropy in the water. However to acheive that, your fridge uses energy and that energy use causes a greater increase of entropy, so overall in the universe entropy is increased, even though in the iceblocks it was decreased.)

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

On a side note, schm0, I remember you asking that we keep this out of the realm of the entire universe and limit it just to the earth or something, but it's impossible to truly comprehend this without getting to the source of the issue, and the source of the issue appears to be even beyond the universal level.

quote>

It's not that I don't mind talking about universal evolution, but the relevance of the topic is very much limited to our own planet, and the creation stories surrounding it. When the Bible was written, not many theologians realized we orbited the sun, so the concepts of solar systems and universes were not yet formed. While evolution certainly can be applied to cosmology, I'd like to keep the general scope of this discussion on evolution limited to the flora and fauna located on our planet. We can have smaller side discussions on universal scales; however, the main focus should be on evolution on Earth and how the debate affects the human culture. As long as it brings the focus back to Earth, then it should be fine. Your post is well within the intended discussion... I just don't want this to turn into the thread on solar evolution and galaxy formation.

[Odainsaker 2,133]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok
Extending the thinking out some more, it should also be noted that none of the theories that I know of that explain how the universe came to exist, save the creation theory, can answer the next important question.  The evolutionary theory is absolutely dependent on there being mathematic principles in place before anything can assume a state of order.  The problem though is that there isn't an explanation for how they got to be there.  Granted, a creationist's explanation for how they got there doesn't make much sense to the logical mind either per se.quote>

If I'm reading this along the same lines, it would be like accepting all the fundamental mechanistic rules of the universe, but wondering where those rules comes from.  If the universe follows some set of rules, who determined the initial setup, caused the rules, or was the First Mover?  Afterall, science is deriving or even reverse engineering how everything already works, but they didn't actually set everything to work that way, so something or someone did.  The Cosmological Argument rears its head.  But that is all metaphysics, for which philosophy is better suited to deal with rather than the infancies of our physical sciences, let alone mere evolutionary science.  Unfortunately, the how and why of the universe still goes back and forth exhaustively among philosophers and theorists with no resolution, for we know too little, perhaps we can never know, and some might argue the question itself is fundamentally flawed.

Rather than me foolishly daring to paraphrase it all, try these fascinating links on the philosophical arguments for and against a god creator of the universe:
Cosmological Argument
Teleological Argument
I especially like how the natural sciences do more to tweak the flow of the arguments rather than actually produce any ultimate conclusions, but they do suggest that the grand scope of God-induced Creationism and the pedestrian mechanics of evolution are not really talking about the same issues at all.  Almost as if on the the subject of photography, one is talking about the inner workings of a camera, while the other is speaking in terms of the aesthetic artistry of the photograph.

[Ron Swanson 1]

I have very little problems with micro-evolution, because it can be proven, it has been seen and documented. What I cannot stand is the idea of macro-evolution. It is mathmatically impossible. You want 3 billion, 5, 6 billion? It doesn't matter. The chances of anything evolving from one to another is so large, the amount of years to accomplish this is something like 10 to the 1000000000000000 power, that isn't what it really is, but to give an idea. So it doesn't matter if your a fundamental Christian who believes the earth was created in 6 days, or an evolutionist who says it took 6 billion years for everything to be where it is now.

So heres the argument for not teaching evolution, except for micro. When it comes to explaining the begininng of the earth, most evolutionists say big bang theory. But you have to ask, how is this scientific? No one can prove this happened, in fact, one could say its a "non-existant" much like a diety. There becomes a level of faith in believing that matter and energy just appeared and created a huge process known as evolution. Well, then maybe it isn't the big bang being taught, maybe its something entirely different. But if one gets down to it, one must account for the creation of the universe and earth. And in doing so, one must take a step of faith. Whether its the theory of a diety or the big bang. Once that happens, it can no longer be taught as fact, or science. There must be a level of falsifiablility in order to be taught in science. So if the big bang is going to be taught, then creationism has to be taught, and if that is taught, then all creation theories must be taught. Who gave the right to push evolutionistic views as fact on the topic of the worlds creation? I say get rid of it outright and bite the toungue, or find a way to teach all views. Or make it a non-requirement, an elective. That will truly benefit society and our culture...

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewlWhen it comes to explaining the begininng of the earth, most evolutionists say big bang theory. quote>

Well they might, but only because some of them may (or may not) accept both theories.

However big bang theory has nothing to do with biological evolution. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe came into being, nor how the earth got to the point it did when life appeared. Those belong to other areas of science, not biology. Evolution attempts to explain the reasons and mechanisms behind the diversity of life and how life changes through time, nothing more, nothing less.  So most evolutionists (and by that I mean scientists who study evolution) would not really attempt to speak professionally on origins of time, the universe and the earth, although they may hold their own personal views on such things, as almost everyone does. However those views may be diverse, and may or may not include big bang theory.

Also many biologists would not say that evolution covers how life got here, that is covered by the theory of abiogenesis, although some similar principles may apply to both theories.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewlWhen it comes to explaining the begininng of the earth, most evolutionists say big bang theory. quote>

Well they might, but only because some of them may (or may not) accept both theories.

However big bang theory has nothing to do with biological evolution. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe came into being, nor how the earth got to the point it did when life appeared. Those belong to other areas of science, not biology. Evolution attempts to explain the reasons and mechanisms behind the diversity of life and how life changes through time, nothing more, nothing less.  So most evolutionists would not really attempt to speak professionally on origins of time, the universe and the earth, although they may hold their own personal views on such things, as almost everyone does. However those views may be diverse, and may or may not include big bang theory.

Also many biologists would not say that evolution covers how life got here, that is covered by the theory of abiogenesis, although some similar principles may apply to both theories.

quote>

As long as the writer can bring it back to how it applies to modern evolution (on Earth), then it fits within the scope of the conversation. There are similar aspects to both theories, and ironically, the science of big bang theory caters to the idea of a creator more than creationist theory as it applies to Earth does. There is something to be said about Creationist theory being a bit narrow-minded, as it doesn't really explain anything outside our own planet. However, I am reluctant to begin a larger tangent into the cosmological and universal evolutionary theories, as I created this thread to discuss how evolution and creationism affect the culture of human ciivlization on Earth.

I don't mean to discourage others to discuss these areas, just make sure you bring the argument "back down to Earth." 

[Joesocwork 4]

Well if it's culture you're after, I think the creation/ evolution debates are indicative of what is an unnecessary and growing divide between people that want to consider and align themselves as being into either all religion or all science and nothing in between.  I like Albert Einstein's quote:  "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."   As a student of the social sciences I also like his quote: "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." 

To me a sign of maturity is the recognition of the limits and boundaries of what humans know about each other and the outside world and an appreciation that much of what we act on is based on a matter of faith.  Both religion and science are tools to answer questions in different fashions to fill in the gaps about the unknown even while we continue to keep on living. Actually it's a strength to acknowledge that we don't know what we don't know b/c it allows one to admit that it's okay to permit reevaluations and to keep an open mind about future discoveries regardless of the source.

[schm0 27]

Let me rephrase:

Let's have this discussion be about evolution and creationism as they apply to our own planet. We may discuss the outer cosmos and the evolution of our solar system, our galaxy, the universe, and everything in it, as long as we bring it back to how it relates to the debate occuring on our planet today. I use the words "human culture" to leave a broad interpretation as to what that may infer.

(On a further note, I never meant to kill the Kentucky debate, but perhaps we should start posting a single news story in light of the broader subject, with a "bigger question" to be asked of the reader/replier. For instance, at one time, there were three seperate global warming threads going at the same time, but only one that addressed the larger debate.)

[Ron Swanson 1]

Sam: Well if that is the case, then why is it printed in so many science texts? If it is a personal belief and not a consenus belief, then it shouldn't be taught unless all other views are taught with it. I have no problem having evolution taught, but there are many iffy up in the air theories associated with evolution that are taught as nearly fact. What makes the theory of evolution that much more scientific when it does have some major flaws? I say teach about what is solid fact, where there is little to no dispute, otherwise all other iffy theories outside of evolution have to be taught as well. I am taking this position from a educational standpoint because that is where most people are exposed to it. High school science drove me nuts with its evolusionistic idealism being taught as fact and giving students a lot of false ideas...

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl Sam: Well if that is the case, then why is it printed in so many science texts? If it is a personal belief and not a consenus belief, then it shouldn't be taught unless all other views are taught with it. I have no problem having evolution taught, but there are many iffy up in the air theories associated with evolution that are taught as nearly fact. What makes the theory of evolution that much more scientific when it does have some major flaws? I say teach about what is solid fact, where there is little to no dispute, otherwise all other iffy theories outside of evolution have to be taught as well. I am taking this position from a educational standpoint because that is where most people are exposed to it. High school science drove me nuts with its evolusionistic idealism being taught as fact and giving students a lot of false ideas...quote>

The origins of the earth and the universe are indeed covered by various theories of science (whatever form the theory is in these days, I don't really pay much attention to it, as I'm far more interested in biology).

My distinction was between the professional roles of biologists as opposed to the professional roles of physicists. It in no way was meant to imply that any of those theories are not legitimate science. Physicists deal with physics theories and biologists deal with biology theories (unless they are both biologists and physicists, which happens a bit).

Schm0: my intent was not to excede the limits you put in place for the thread, simply that people should not overextrapolate the theory of (biological) evolution to the origin of the universe, as it does not cover areas of physics.

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl  I say teach about what is solid fact, where there is little to no dispute, otherwise all other iffy theories outside of evolution have to be taught as well. I am taking this position from a educational standpoint because that is where most people are exposed to it. High school science drove me nuts with its evolusionistic idealism being taught as fact and giving students a lot of false ideas...quote>

Well as I see it science should be taught in science class. The majority of science is about the unknown and how to change the unknown to understanding and knowledge. If this, the most important aspect of science is not taught in science classes then we are doing the students a disservice, and indeed teaching them false ideas. Science is not about learning by rote a set of facts. Its about discovering the unknown. If students are not given experience in this they do indeed end up with a very false idea of science.

I'm sorry you seem to have had such an unhappy experience with science. In my experience its a wonderful and fascinating field to be involved in, especially the field of evolution and biological sciences.

[GMT 389]

I don't care if creationism or evolution.

Eevolution makes more sense to me, but even evolution needs something to start from... maybe god? maybe he just snapped with the fingers (creationism, let's say the big bang) and then everything else happened (evolution).

But, as long as supporters of each side don't start a war because of this, it's really not important to me. Some awesomely interesting thing to think about, yes, but there're more important things than that.

[coolotter88 2]

debate about the education of the future is very important. we don't want to be idiots and start going backwards when the rest of the world is advancing.

[DanWalker8 3]

^ agreed, teaching based on things that can be proven is what seperates us from our past.

[Ron Swanson 1]

I am just saying that typically a lot of people put a lot of faith into their science and I really can't believe that is science. I mean string theories, white hole theories, evolution in some parts, they are just really well thought out conjectures that have not and most likley will not be proven ever. So yes, in your definition of science, then evolution should be taught based on what we observe and keep unearthing, but it cannot be taught as the say all end all of how we came about as humans or why everything is the way it is.

"The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe came into being, nor how the earth got to the point it did when life appeared. Those belong to other areas of science, not biology. Evolution attempts to explain the reasons and mechanisms behind the diversity of life and how life changes through time, nothing more, nothing less."

If you say evolution deals only with explaining how life changes, it still must address the original conception of humans and animals and insects, etc. If it cannot account for life as a beginning, why should we use to examine life now? And why are you defending biology, when I am pretty sure this question was open to all branches of science, not just biology. I mean biology doesn't mean much if there isn't earth science, or physics to accompany it. So what I am saying is, if evolution is truly science, then in some ways creationism is as well. Now since creationism comes from a book that hasn't updated itself in 2000 years its hard to make it taught in these times, however it can account for the beginning of earth and how things came to be, how ever vague it is in some areas, evolution is no better. And that is why there is a controversy over evolution and creationism.

[coolotter88 2]

Yes, well, theoretical physics is whole different ball game.

Evolution is the best, most logical (you guys who think it's illogical should think about evolution long and hard before dismissing it) explaination of how life came to be how it is today. It takes a long time to evolve something as complex as humans.

Actually concerning your concerns about macroevolution, parasites are a perfect driving force for macroevolution. I would recommend reading Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer. I would also like to read his other book, about macroevolution at the waterside but haven't the chance to. He is also coming out with a new book about E. Coli (exciting I know).

[Ron Swanson 1]

Originally posted by: coolotter88

Evolution is the best, most logical (you guys who think it's illogical should think about evolution long and hard before dismissing it) explaination of how life came to be how it is today. It takes a long time to evolve something as complex as humans.

Actually concerning your concerns about macroevolution, parasites are a perfect driving force for macroevolution. I would recommend reading Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer. I would also like to read his other book, about macroevolution at the waterside but haven't the chance to. He is also coming out with a new book about E. Coli (exciting I know).quote>

I don't think we're talking about the same kind of macro evolution. I mean when a primate turned into a human. Not when a parasite adapts to thousands of environments. No one can prove that macro evolution, meaning from one species into another classification of species, has ever occured. They hoped for the fossil record to show something. So far, inconclusive. Sure they rearrange and conjecture about bones, but nothing shows this--and probably never will. Know why? Even with 6 billion years as a time frame, it isn't enough to produce the kind of complexity that has been obtained. You may say that it is, but unless someone lives for 6 billion and saw that it happened, its just another theory to hide behind that can never be proven. Its convenient, may be even right, but no one can prove and so its not science that I would believe.