Creationism vs. Evolution

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

To quote anything from berkeley on any subject is folly; do you consider Robert Reich quotable on macroeconomics, as well?

[UltraGIR XL 3]

Now, what about the Miller-Urey experiment, which helped show that organic compunds could be synthesized on Earth with what was here?

What about Protenoid Microspheres?

The only real mystery in evolution left is where genetic coding came in, and, at that, science will soon close in on that, too.

People have to realize that this stuff is hardly an overnight event; rather, BILLIONS of years of natural selection taking place.

And as far as claims that evolution is how life approches perfection--- hardly. Evolution is simply the process in which an organism changes by to become a different species. Perfection in biology is impossible as long as the biosphere changes. Climate change, competition, predation... all lead to evolution.

Biological perfection is the absence of biology, really, because as long as other organisms exist, others will undoubtedly evolve.

[hamsterTK 93]

I already posted ages ago, but to reiterate, here is my view:

Clearly this whole thing is all political BS.  What the right wants to do is blending church and state and go against what this nation was founded on. Their group wants to make american culture bow to their radical ideology, all the while pervading the myth that their views are our culture ....

Personally, I dont care what you believe. If you want to believe that the earth is flat and was created by space aliens, fine by me. Just dont try to become a scientist or something....

[BarbulaM1 38]

I just want to throw a little tidbit into here for people to ponder on time and the universes, always a very fun thing to think about since it can make your mind explode. The fact that time could possibly be infinite (if we are talking about time before and after a universe though theoretically it is non-existent in between "periods"), allows for an infinite amount of possibilities for the correct chemical and physical properties to be present for the creation of life, of which there are an infinite number of possibilities that we could develop from it. Though as stated above this relies on parallel universes and/or the theory that time is infinite (though if it is not, God can't possibly exist either since there is nothing to exist in or if an argument about nothing can be infinite than nothing could be created and nothing could exist).

Sorry if I confused people with that post... I can get ADD at times and forget any order in what I am writing.

[hamsterTK 93]

^^^^

hehe, on the whole infinity thing..

Say the creationists are right. Say we do one day determine that the answer to life, universe, and everything, is in fact not 42 as you would imagine, but instead some supernatural force or being truly does exist....

question of course is, if we can say without a doubt that many of earth's religions are products of society rather that something divine, then that means of course nobody knows what that deity or force likes or approves of

(if it approves or likes anything at all...).

This would of course mean then that there could be tens of millions of distinct faiths, each one with hundreds of millions of schisms and denominations, and yet not one soul over the course of a billion years has any chance of recieving salvation. And this simply rests on the equally infetismal chance that salvation in fact exists, layered with the infitesimal chance that said salvation is even truly "salvation", rather than hell or the much more likely possibility of it being something in between, possibly involving cheese....

Because of all these millions of choices, lets all be subgenius!

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK ^^^^

question of course is, if we can say without a doubt that many of earth's religions are products of society rather that something divine, then that means of course nobody knows what that deity or force likes or approves of (if it approves or likes anything at all...).

quote>

 

Of course they are products of society. we have ample evidence their were 100's of other religions around before  the christian/islam/Judaism  combo with all the sects included that we have now,all with thier own theorys of creation, who was right,   The greeks? The egyptians? americian indians?they couldnt all have been wrong or right for that matter. Im sure they all had  people with in them who didnt agree with the   how the leaders were hadling things, it how wars start and religions change.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Maybe this point is covered in another post, there were so many to wade through I decided to chance it. Here goes.... To believe that living creatures can arise from non-living matter takes more faith than any religion; it is ridiculous to defend. Also, if one finds a watch on the beach, do you say, "hey, look what the ocean made in millions of years by accident"? The math involved in evolution has been calculated recently at 10 to the 87th power against, JUST TO GET TO A SINGLE CELL. That is the equivalent of 1 particle of matter in all of the known universe. If I cooked you a 7 course meal, and told you there was no cook, you would know I was lying... My point is, design requires a designer. Those of you with programming experience know this; all the wishful thinking in the world will not spontaneously spawn a written program. Not to mention, the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. A car will eventually rust away into nothing, but no amount of time, or lightning, will make a pile of rust spawn an automobile. Put away the mental gymnastics, gentlemen;  use your intellectual capacities honestly! You're running in circles to argue the impossible. Even Darwin basically recanted Evo before his death, he admitted that it was the human eye that kept him awake nights and it made evo " absurd in the highest degree"

quote>

You are correct... we did cover this in a previous post

Unfortunately your arguments are based on misunderstandings of the science involved, and errors of fact and logic. To me it is very frightening that people want this kind of thing written into science classes and science textbooks, and to base law and government policy on these kind of beliefs. And creationism is a belief, whereas evolution is a well tested scientific theory, which is based on scientific evidence rather than "mental gymnastics".

For your Darwin and the eye statement, I suggest you check the original quote from "The Origin of Species". As I mentioned in a previous post you should be able to find a public domain copy in electronic form. The part you want is chapter 6, page 143-144.  Darwin was asking a rhetorical question when he said that and he then proceeded to thoroughly refute the notion that it was absurd. Your statement is based on myth. For any quotes you should always check the source, as they are often misquoted, selectively quoted or taken out of context. It doesn't take long.

I'll cut to the important bit more quickly this time. This is the concluding statement of the section:

Originally written by:Charles Darwin, 1872 in On the Origin of Species pp.143-144

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>

We also dealt with the 2nd law:

...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.)quote>

Unfortunately it is myths that allow misunderstandings to perpetuate.

[coolotter88 2]

well, what my science teacher explained as entropy was that, as long as you kept putting energy in, you won't fall apart. that's why you, me and all the living things don't fall apart because of entropy, we keep putting energy in to keep the entropy out...:/ is that related to anything we're talking about?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Hmmm.... still a"theory", so as of yet unproven. Argue as you will, there is still a damn big wooden ship up some 10,000 feet on Mt Ararat, and satellite topography of cities at the bottom of the Dead Sea. Seems to me that The Bible has plenty of proof to back up it's historical statements; are evolutionists not still looking for a missing link? It was claimed at times to be black people, aborigines, american indians, piltdown man, java man, peking man, etc etc etc. My point being, if it's empirical proof you seek, then evo offers none, merely conjecture and speculation by those seeking grant money. I will not be drawn into a list-and-counterlist battle in this forum that will have me typing until my fingers fall off over the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field, moon dust, and the inherent problems with carbon-14 dating, among countless other debates. It will not be settled to anyone's satisfaction until after death, and by then it will be too late for somebody. I could point you to a quote by CS Lewis, but will cut it short by saying, if you believe in evolution and reject the general Christian view of things, then you may go on your way and not have to worry about what us "religious nuts/zealots/fanatics" think anymore, and be secure in the pride of your own knowledge and understanding. These discussions turn ugly far too often; I certainly am not going to play along as arrogance and tempers rise. Those with PhDs may get paid to argue and research their life away, I'm here more as a gamer with some fairly strong views that I tend to vent to the delight of some and dismay of far more. Is life an open system? Well, it is contained within the universe, and that is a closed system. If my answers scare you, you should cease asking scary questions.....from Pulp Fiction, in case it sounded familiar....

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

uh oh, breaking the 2- post rule, mea culpa in extremis!... I forgot something. For those still on the fence, may I recommend this: darwinreconsidered.org/. The true believers in evo are sure to have a rejection handy; it may be helpful to those who are as yet undecided. Again, peace to this forum, I still am not looking to get drawn into redfaced arguments that serve only egos and arrogance and bring no good to anyone. :-)

[vershner 11]

Manticorefan, before continuing this discussion, could we get an exact statement of what it is you believe in regards the origins of life?

Do you take the book of Genesis completely literally and believe that the Earth was created in six days, approximately 6000 years ago, and all species that have ever existed were created within those six days?

What about the universe as a whole? When do you believe that was created, and do you accept current approximations of its size?

[Nardo69 51]

I think the hole problem of this discussion the creationalists began is the reasons of all wars and d?scussions of manhood since the first homo sapiens began to wlak (see I am not a creationist):

POWER

or the power to tell people what they shall think.

Believing the 6000 years and  being in the middle of everything undoubtly can compensate a deep feeling of inferiority by replacing it with superiority hence can be (ab)used to rule over others. The results can be seen in I don't know how many wars human mankind fought in the last 12000 years - which is approximately the age of our civilization according to our momentary knowledge.

But the 12000 years of our civilization are nothing compared to appr. 180.000.000 years of the dinosaur age or 4-5.000.000.000 years of our earth etc.

And in addition to this astronomy showed us we are not in the center of everything but in the outskirts of an average galaxy light years away from the next star system.

Okay, these numbers are not definite - most probably never will be but I really don't care about some 1000 years when I just look at the geology or meteorology of our small planet.

And THIS stuff is certainly not adequate to compensate a feeling of inferiority or legitimate a crusade on those who don't want be ruled by religious fundamentalist of any kind (which is what evolutionists are in the last instance IMHO)

my 0.02 simoleons ...

Bernhard

[2ch.net simplayer 180]

What I still don't understand is, why do people keep on saying "Evolution is impossible as it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" although it is refuted everywhere, hundreds of thousands of times all over the world?? Get back to high school physics book and there is the answer. Somebody must be systematically pumping in this blatant lie and propaganda into innocent fresh-minded (but soon to be educated) people.....

No wonder USA's manufacturing industry and technology is losing against Europe, Japan and even China and India.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 well, what my science teacher explained as entropy was that, as long as you kept putting energy in, you won't fall apart. that's why you, me and all the living things don't fall apart because of entropy, we keep putting energy in to keep the entropy out...:/ is that related to anything we're talking about?quote>

Maybe. I was sort of referring to Gibb's free energy or at least part of it whereby a reaction that results in an increase in entropy may proceed if it is coupled to a reaction that releases energy, and that energy is used to drive the first reaction.

Perhaps what your teacher was referring to was Schrödinger who postulated that that an organism keeps itself alive by feeding on "negative entropy" (free energy) from its environment, ie by metabolising "food", energy is released that can be used by an organism to drive reactions that would otherwise result in an increase in entropy. Because the organism is open to the environment (ie not a closed system with respect to its surroundings) it can take energy from the environment (thereby increasing entropy in its environment) which results in a decrease in entropy in certain reactions in the organism itself (ie local decrease in entropy at the expense of a greater increase in entropy in the external environment).

For that reason, living things can not be said to violate the 2nd law.

Maybe I haven't got the quotes exactly right, its been a while since I had to use thermodynamics. Some of the members who are more familiar with chemistry can no doubt clarify.

Edit: btw lets try to keep the discussion polite and considerate of others points of view. Thanks.

Edit 2:

Originally posted by: manticorefan uh oh, breaking the 2- post rule, mea culpa in extremis!... I forgot something... quote>

Is there something wrong with the Edit post button? If not then please use it.

[coolotter88 2]

yeah, organisms keep eating food and using the free energy that can do work to keep the entropy out of themselves.

oh, and the "it's just a theory" thing is dumb, so don't bring it up ever again.

Edit: and C-14 dating is very accurate since half lives are constant, that's why we have to wait millions or billions of years for barrels of radioactive waste to become safe to touch again.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, anything on Earth can get "free energy" from the sun, but, obviously, only to a certain extent. And even the sun is limited in how much energy it can provide, it's just that that limit is so large that it isn't something we really have to worry about ever getting reached on any human-relative time scale.

So the sun is the source of the energy needed to "decrease the entropy", if you consider evolution as that, which I really don't see how it is... after all, evolution is caused by random genetic mutations.

[Joesocwork 4]

Sorry Manticorefan, the thread didn't devolve into anything. Members, even including people who believe in creation like myself, shared their points of view. Period. It sounds like from your last post that you have plenty of other places to go if you want to stir things up.

[coolotter88 2]

awesome, evolutionists: 1 creationists:0

xD

[Joesocwork 4]

Oh?  I thought this thread was a discussion and a sharing, like our other threads containing sensitive or at least potentially intense subjects in the Off Topic Forums, not a contest.

[Thyme 0]

To believe that living creatures can arise from non-living matter takes more faith than any religion; it is ridiculous to defend. quote>

I'm sorry, but what exactly do creationists believe then, if not that life arose from non-living matter? Or do you count God as life? Where did God arise from then?

Also, if one finds a watch on the beach, do you say, "hey, look what the ocean made in millions of years by accident"? quote>

What if you find a seashell, do you say "Hey, look what God just happened to decide to make yesterday"?

If I cooked you a 7 course meal, and told you there was no cook, you would know I was lying...quote>

So you are saying that it is God who is trying to tell us there is no intelligent designer? 

My point is, design requires a designer.quote>

I guess the question is how we are supposed to just believe that design (I'm thinking purposeful patterns here) is intelligent in  the way that one self-aware entity  is intelligent.  Why should we think that?  Where are the creationists' "missing links"?

A car will eventually rust away into nothing, but no amount of time, or lightning, will make a pile of rust spawn an automobile. quote>

Do you also believe that rotting trees will never be recycled into new trees?

Put away the mental gymnastics, gentlemen;  use your intellectual capacities honestly! quote>

Yes, honestly! Think through what you mean to say before making it public.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

So the sun is the source of the energy needed to "decrease the entropy", if you consider evolution as that, which I really don't see how it is... after all, evolution is caused by random genetic mutations.quote>

If you are referring to what I posted about Gibbs Free Energy, then I wasn't claiming that evolution is defined as decreasing entropy using the sun's energy. I was simply explaining (probably quite badly) a  thermodynamics concept and how it relates to living things. The particular thermodynamics concept that is by no means exclusive to evolution science, in fact its physical chemistry and fundamental to many scientific fields. So much so that unless its the actual topic of research its largely taken as understood.

[deadwoods 542]

Is this thread still going on?

It's quite simple:

Creationism = faith = taught in Religious Education

Evolution = science = taught in Science

And never the twain shall meet. It's only a small portion of the world (i.e. Bible Belt USA) that see any form of grey area there. For the rest of us it's pretty black and white.

[Joesocwork 4]

Originally posted by: deadwoods Is this thread still going on?

It's quite simple:

Creationism = faith = taught in Religious Education

Evolution = science = taught in Science

And never the twain shall meet. It's only a small portion of the world (i.e. Bible Belt USA) that see any form of grey area there. For the rest of us it's pretty black and white.quote>

 

Some of us would beg to differ with some of those premises b/c the definitions aren't so pat. 

However I personally definitely think you are right that we've covered almost all of this earlier and we (or at least I) can amicably agree to disagree about many of the various aspects of the subject.  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

May I apologize to this forum for my thin-skinned behavior? After joesocwork's gentle upbraiding and further discussion with others offline, I have decided that I also was behaving priggishly. It was a disservice to all here. I truly object to the mischaracterizations presented by others, but there is no changing that. If the forum lasts long enough I will be posting a lengthy piece based on reputable scientists (not necessarily creationists) concerning the whole matter. Reputable meaning no Kent Hovind types, so you can relax. My background in applied sciences is focused more on industrial processes, but no one wants to discuss the formation of martensite in semi austenitic solutions! Thus, I am researching more before posting. Please bear with me, gentle folks of ST. Note: I also am removing my earlier post, I believe I do come across as a sulky child...

Thyme: You are correct, I should have said served. And that life can arise out of non-living matter without outside involvement.  As for the rotting trees question; where did the first living tree get its life? How did the original organic molecules "learn" to grow from the materials contained in cellulose, indeed how did those compounds "learn" to make cellulose to support plant life in the first place?

in general:As for "life giving" compounds in the being created in the lab:There are amino acids in my energy drinks, can one reasonably believe that life can arise from from a can of hi-test soda without help from something higher than humans? 

    Although I reject some of Dr. Michael Behe's work, I think that the idea of irreducible complexity is fairly valid. One has to ask if such a thing would be possible without a designer.

Vershner: I do accept the literal interpretation of Genesis, it's not that fantastic if you believe in an omnipotent/omniscient God. Even within the creationist community, this seems to be problematic for some. I thoroughly reject gap-theory creationism, and theistic evolution is a mix to satisfy those unwilling to come down on one side or the other. Still undecided on day-age creationism.  I do more or less accept the size of the universe as given, because there doesn't seem to be a second opinion available. 

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan... and theistic evolution is a silly mix to satisfy those w/o the backbone to come down on one side or the other...quote>

I'm sure Joesocwork would have mentioned to you the importance of respecting other people's beliefs when participating in discussions on this site. I would suggest you refrain from belittling or ridiculing those whose beliefs may be different to yours.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Another mea culpa; more apologies to anyone offended. The post has been edited.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

(Did it this way, as for some reason I cannot get the quote feature to work properly)

Barbarossa:I was unaware someone measured the size of the Universe. We see our own finite limits, due to our technology, but no one can say how large the Universe is. As far as we know, at this time, it has infinite boundaries. Are you referring to something else?

manticorefan: My understanding is that the universe is expanding more or less at the speed of light. There are quite a few theories, most involving many billions of light years. It is this universe containing physical matter to which I refer. What is beyond that, not even theologians venture a guess. RE the energy drink analogy; if this can were sterile and placed in a sterile environment, could life spring spontaneously out of the amino acid compounds contained therein, even after billions of years, even if say, struck by lightning or comet debris, or volcanic compounds; assuming all are sterile from the start? BTW: As a structural welder/fabricator, hydrogen is the enemy! It causes lamellar (underbead) cracking particularly in dissimilar-metal joints, or thicker joints as the Navy found out when manufacturing Lewis AA guns during WWII. Not that this is pertinent to the subject at hand, just sayin':-)

I noticed a lot of dichotomy being made between religion and science; this would be news to Einstein, Newton, Planck, and many many others. Isaiah 40:22 implies the earth is round; written prior to 680 B.C. it was way ahead of its time from a strictly factual point of view.While the battle was started by the Vatican and its treatment of Galileo, I cannot defend the Catholic Church's position as I am not catholic, and indeed, within the framework of Christian doctrine(or, "the pail of orthodoxy") catholicism isn't Christian. This may shock some, but it's absolutely true. But, I digress as that's a whole 'nother issue. If science refuses to accept the supernatural, what do you do with the empirical evidence of ghosts? Many instances have been recorded of ultrasonic, thermal and EM anomalies associated with the phenomena that appear to the eye to be apparitions. 

Coolotter88:re carbon 14; the enormous variances discovered along the way are well known, i.e. the living mollusks found to be 75,000 years old, etc. Thus, the constant switching to new techniques, like C-18, potassium-argon dating and the like. If C-14 were accurate enough, why keep changing the techniques, only to find a changed result? Still attempting to parse the finer elements of this point, so please bear with me...

I will have more to follow when it is ready, still researching and spending time on wiki, etc. 

Edit: what I have so far is 7 pages and not yet complete! Obviously it's going to need pruning and compression. It may end up being far too large for this forum, or at least exceeding other member's tolerance for the space it will consume. Perhaps I should post it on my myspace blog!

[JanYpe 17]

catholicism isn't Christianquote>

You have got to be joking. What is Catholicism then, a form of voodoo? All the Christian denominations fall under the banner 'Christian', whether you like it or not.