Creationism vs. Evolution

[Sam 163]

You're welcome ShortStraw   I quite enjoy reading Darwin, as I like his writing style, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything he writes.

Thanks for the link Wackee, that one brings back some memories (I sometimes used to read the original news group many many years ago now)

[Mikeaut1 261]

Haha... I was reading my email today and someone sent me this out of the blue. I found it really cool to read. I think it's a good story.

God vs Science

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to

the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The

atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his

new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers

for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and

you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if

you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He

doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip

of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er..yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is

there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything,

correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God

created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to

the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness?

Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this

world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats

his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer Suddenly the

lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ,

son? "

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I

do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses

you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen

Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt

your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable

protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that,

son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem

science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a

question of His own. "Professor, is the

[coolotter88 2]

but evolution is true anyway. you don't need to see it happen, just interpolate using fossil data and other data to prove Evolution is more true than Creationism.

[Boggy1 45]

Mikeaut1: Quite a nice little story there, with only a few glaring mistakes. ANY well-trained science professor or teacher who even wants to get a job in Primary (Junior) School would know that there is no such thing as cold or dark. Even I knew those at the age of around 8.

Secondaly, we have observed evolution, though indirectly through fossil records and the like. We also can see the effects of evolution all around us. Nearly every animal on this planet has two optical devices, placed usually on opposing sides of a body. Bones throughout different species are very similar, even if they perform totally different tasks. For instance, wing bones are the same as whale flipper bones. And of course the obvious one is that human and monkeys share approximately 98% of DNA structure.

Thirdly, we would know that the professor has a brain, due to documented, tested, and scrutinized studies of thousands of past humans. We can therefore make a logical duduction that the professor also has a brain, as we know that the professor would not be able to function without one. You may call this faith; I call it logic, or, Occums Razor. Of course we can't apply this to God(s), as there is nothing that we can test imperiacally against. We can neither disprove or prove the existance of God(s).

Sociology can give us reasonings as to why people believe there is a God(s), but science cannot, and I doubt will ever, give absolutel proof.

[coolotter88 2]

another point, creationists are just making a fool of themselves, especially this website which claims that basically all peer reviewed scientific evidence has been falsified and used in the conspiracy against creationism. Wow, this is going to make people believe you more.

http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_myths

it's so wrong, that at first, I want to laugh, then I realize how sad it is.

[perozzo 0]

I don't belive in eathier... I think that there were some extremly advanced humans and there was a set of twins (a boy and a girl who didn't know it was bad to merry your sibilings) that was so ugly they sent it out into space and landed on earth and then we were born

[Frankie_Grove 32]

It seems to me, that if "evolution" really has taken place, that more than one species would have developed to the 'advanced' and 'developed' state like us humans. If all species had the same amount of time alloted to develop, then most likely we would have more than one dominant species on this planet. It just doesn't make sense that one, and only one species would reach the state that we have developed to. Same conditions, yet only one dominant species..I think I make an interesting point?

[2nerdy4u 1]

Boggy, you are totally right. That story was (obviously) written by a creationist. Key facts were left out of the story.

1. As Boggy said, any teacher would know about cold and darkness being the absences of heat and light, respectively.

2. Evolution surely takes place. Viruses evolve all the time, which is why finding successful vaccines is so difficult.

3. And of course the professor has a brain. He could not function without one. And what about MRI? If the student argues that the teacher has no brain, and therefore cannot be trusted, then likewise, it could be argued that the student, by definition less wise than the professor, also lacks a brain.

4. If faith is the explanation, could it not be argued that unicorns and aliens exist? Surely, if this Christian has faith in a god, he believes also in unicorns and aliens, simply by faith. In fact, why does this student choose to believe only in the Christian god? If what he is truly choosing is faith, then in order to avoid be somewhat of a hypocrit, he must believe in all of the different ideas of gods and all of the myths that men have told. This leads to contradictions. So why and how then, if it is faith that he believes in, does he choose one gods of the many out there?

EDIT: Frankie_Grove: All primates are relatively intelligent compared to other animals. Dolphins and elephants are like this too. Also, have you ever heard of Neanderthals? They were, at one time, a completely separate species that lived alongside humans. Then we surpassed them. Perhaps we are a mix of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. Or maybe the Neanderthals simply died out. Remember, evolution takes a LONG time, so perhaps this is one of those time periods where there is only one species like us.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[coolotter88 2]

yeah, perhaps in the next 1000 years, dolphins will evolve into sapient beings too.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u

2. Evolution surely takes place. Viruses evolve all the time, which is why finding successful vaccines is so difficult.quote>

Viruses changing rapidly does not exactly verify evolution, considering your next statement;

Frankie_Grove:  Remember, evolution takes a LONG time, so perhaps this is one of those time periods where there is only one species like us.quote>

I know it takes a very long time, but I believe there is a difference between 'adaptation' and 'evolution'?  For example, if someone lives in a warm weathered region, then moves to a cold weather region, they can get used to it in a short period of time...short-term perhaps, but an adaptation none the less.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I'm not sure what you mean by "same conditions".quote>

Several speices, co-existing in similar environments (such as all the animals of a desert, forrests, etc).

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I would also point out that Neandertals (H neandertalensis) were likely intelligent, used stone tools, cared for their elderly, etc, but they could not compete with H sapiens, either due to direct competition, lower birthrate, or disease.quote>

Yes, I once watched a show on TV about the Neandertals. I believe at some point they fought against the Homospaiens, and due to the reasons you mentioned died out. However, 2 co-dominant speicies is still not really enough to convince me, and surely there would have been many more? Like I said, all the time alloted, and similar conditions must have influenced more than one speicies. (perhaps underwater advanced races? not as far fetched as you may think....or is it?)

[Boggy1 45]

Frankie_Grove: There are basically two kinds of evolution; macroevolution and microevolution.

Microevolution is the rapid evolving of viruses and other microscopic life. Such as the cold virus; the reason we can't cure the cold is because it evolves new strains of itself all the time.

Macroevolution takes place on the day to day scale with animals and plants. This does happen over thounsands and thousands of years (though occasionaly can be spurred into quick action when a species is forced to evolve to surivive, in the case of rapid climate change or a new predator)

[mayor of the manor 0]

Actually a group of scientists have 'witnessed' evolution, however I do not have a reference. I say 'witnessed' because they observed a calculated change in a species of moth due to new ecological constraints created by the scientists. There exists a moth that only feeds on one type of nectar in the Amazon and lives only for approximately 5 days (I think, however it was a short period of time) and the scientists created a strain of the flower it feeds on that would require the moth to have a longer proboscis than average to feed on it. They grew these quick-growing plants in a few acres in the Amazon (the moths do not have a tendancy to expand from an area quickly due to short life-span) and came back a few months later and observed the population of moths was still going strong despite the new ecological constraints. They took samples of the moths and noted that now on average the proboscis was longer than before so as to cope with the surroundings.

Believe me or not. I can search the for journal references at my Uni library but I ought to do work for my own course first!

2nerdy4u: Have you ever read any of the literature on the origins of European man? And also the supposed European gene within native American man? There are some very interesting arguments made on both sides (slightly off topic!).

And to back up your point yes all primates are inteligent compared to other animals. A gorilla was once observed using a stick to determine the depth of a stream before crossing it.

Oh and aliens should exist by a matter of probability.

Why has this thread gone on for so long?

[2nerdy4u 1]

Boggy, you and I think alike. The hierarchy of life plays an important role in evolution. There is micro- and macro-evolution. Small-scale and large-scale. Macro-evolution, at its core, is really only a scaled up version of micro-evolution. To say that macro-evolution does not exist is to say that micro-evolution does not exist. And, of course, we know micro-evolution exists, because we have seen it with our own eyes. Then you could make the argument that our eyes deceive us and then you are no longer talking science.

And I, definitely believe in extra-terrestrials. This is not faith, because there is evidence and study. That statement is based on probability, as mayor of the manor pointed out. But, there is another thread for that discussion.

And I believe that this thread has gone on for so long because this is a heated argument. Of course, here, the debate is more laid-back and we are all friends, but still, the topic remains a popular one, both in the outside world and here at ST.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4uAnd I, definitely believe in extra-terrestrials. quote>

As do I, to a degree. I think there is definitely something there, not all UFO sightings are secret test flights, or simply crazy people, or liars.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Mikeaut1: Quite a nice little story there, with only a few glaring mistakes. ANY well-trained science professor or teacher who even wants to get a job in Primary (Junior) School would know that there is no such thing as cold or dark. Even I knew those at the age of around 8.

quote>

I agree. The story given is kind of like having an imaginary discussion with someone inside your head. You can make the other person say whatever you want them to say and behave however you want them to behave, even if its not what they would normally do. You can make them win or lose an argument (whichever you prefer) make them look wise or foolish, however you want it to play out. You can even re-run it as many times as you like until you get the outcome you want. But its not real. And if the people involve are real (or identify with the character) and the imaginary story is spread around then people get hurt by the unrealistic portrayal.

Firstly a good science teacher would not start a science course by raising the topic of religion (personal beliefs on the supernatural are not relevant to science), nor would they attempt to belittle their students in this way. Students who have been ridiculed do not learn well or willingly.

A good science teacher would start a science course by discussing science, what it is and how it works, at least briefly (because its boring). These concepts would then be repeated and reinforced through the whole course with practical examples and references. By the end of the course the students should have a firm understanding of what exactly science is and what it is not. If that were the case then most of the issues in the rest of the story would resolve themselves.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove It seems to me, that if "evolution" really has taken place, that more than one species would have developed to the 'advanced' and 'developed' state like us humans. If all species had the same amount of time alloted to develop, then most likely we would have more than one dominant species on this planet. It just doesn't make sense that one, and only one species would reach the state that we have developed to. Same conditions, yet only one dominant species..I think I make an interesting point?quote>

The words "developed" and "advanced" in the ways you have used them have no relevance or meaning in the theory of evolution. It is a religious concept that life strives for "perfection" or "advancement" or any similar word. Evolution is undirected. A population changes in whatever direction is selected for at the time (or drifts unselected in), and the evolutionary development through time may include changes of direction or even reversals. Sometimes the change may be towards increasing "complexity", sometimes towards simplification or decreased "complexity". Sometimes it goes off on a side branch or in a direction that may be completely weird to our thinking. Sometimes the change is faster or sometimes slower, sometimes so slow there is no apparent change for long periods. And the rate and direction is different for every single population. There is no evolutionary "conveyor belt" that all species are carried on towards some ultimate "goal" in the same direction and at the same speed.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove If all species had the same amount of time alloted to develop, then most likely we would have more than one dominant species on this planet. It just doesn't make sense that one, and only one species would reach the state that we have developed to. Same conditions, yet only one dominant species..I think I make an interesting point?quote>

Actually that's what the word "dominant" implies - takes over from all other

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mayor of the manor 0]

I understand that point and I love the fact that the ST boards are really civilised (at least compared to other boards). Kudos everyone! Back on topic... Yes the 'dominance'

of humanity is due to the fact we as a species have more capability to control our natural surroundings than other animal species and thus we can operate out of the 'ecological balance' (although technically we're still part of it). It's mainly thanks to our thumbs, complex thoraxes and folds in the brain although a huge combination of things makes us who and what we are.

[Karybdis 34]

Just thought I would chime in here on the fact that cold actually does exist.

Now you can talk about a sense of atomic motion, which is what we feel as temperature, however hot is not equal to atomic motion, and cold is not a lack of atomic motion

Both hot and cold are sensory qualia, that is they are representations of sensory data being presented to our brain. Hot is any amount of atomic motion necessary to trigger heat sensors in our body, and therefore any temperature above that. Cold is any atomic motion needed to trigger cold sensors in our body, and any temperature below that. The switchover point is about room temperature.

So, while cold includes in its definition a lack of heat, that is not what cold is. Something that is utterly room temperature also has a lack of heat, since heat can be defined as a sensory qualia. Cold is whatever triggers cold sensing proteins in the body to send a signal to the brain that we interpret as cold. If you exposed someone to absolute zero, we can extrapolate that it was cold since it should be below the trigger threshhold, but you wouldn't feel cold, just completely numb with no feeling whatsoever. The molecules to trigger your representation of cold could not fire due to the lack of motion.

Now if you want to discuss the chemistry and physics definition of what is "heat", then go for it, but that's not what we feel or know of as heat, so its use in a philosophical discussion should be restricted to what concerns humans, and not a choice of words in a specific field.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hot or cold are both subjective and quantitative.  Feeling hot or cold is a matter of limit of senses.  Objective cold is defined as absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) which is about -273 degrees Celsius.

I don't think there is a good definition of absolute hot.  We seem to find things all the time that are hotter than anything we have found before.  I should think hot could be thought of as energetic enough to separate matter into its subatomic components or to convert it totally into high energy photons.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[schm0 27]

I just wanted to throw this in, too... the story threw me for a loop. In the first sentence, the story clearly labels the teacher as one of science. However, the third sentence says he's an "atheist professor of philosophy." The teacher brings up several classic philosophic arguments in the discussion, so I think the original story has been edited in some way over time and originally was supposed to be a philosophy class.

And if you're of the purely empirical philosophy, then hot and cold are relative terms that we use to describe the feelings we perceive from our senses, and nothing else. Who knows? Maybe we're all just being fed impulses by some cruel master race that have created a virtual existence for us.

[ShortStraw 1]

The emailed story in question has popped up in my inbox a few times.  Usually forwarded in a mass mailing by one of my more devout christian friends or relatives.  It's been circulating for some time now.  It's basically just another way for people to announce their religious beliefs to whoever may be listening.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa quote>

As for your last question, Frankie_Grove, it sounds like you cannot be convinced, which often has to be accepted in discussions of this nature.  No one can really make anyone understand their point of view.  I could never accept a supernatural explanation to the origin of life, and it is clear as day to me.  But there are plenty who take the supernatural as a matter of fact (regardless of evidence), and for them, God and Creationism is just as evident.  This does not change my interest in the topic, as a whole, since it can often lead to interesting discussion (for those wondering why this thread is still going).

Barbarossaquote>

Yes, and most of my friends would say I'm a hard-headed individual...but nothing wrong with that right? I think it is really difficult sometimes to make someone else understand your point of view, since we have all had different experiences that help to reinforce our beliefs. I could not possibly explain why I choose what I believe, its just one of those things you just can't explain or make someone understand. However, if everyone would just understand this point of view issue, maybe they'd be much more accepting and tolerant of others opinions..

[DOXXP29 5]

So true, FG. Some people like chocolate, some prefer vanilla. Why? Who knows, but it's what makes us individuals.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ron Swanson 1]

Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u Boggy, you are totally right. That story was (obviously) written by a creationist. Key facts were left out of the story.

1. As Boggy said, any teacher would know about cold and darkness being the absences of heat and light, respectively.

2. Evolution surely takes place. Viruses evolve all the time, which is why finding successful vaccines is so difficult.

3. And of course the professor has a brain. He could not function without one. And what about MRI? If the student argues that the teacher has no brain, and therefore cannot be trusted, then likewise, it could be argued that the student, by definition less wise than the professor, also lacks a brain.

4. If faith is the explanation, could it not be argued that unicorns and aliens exist? Surely, if this Christian has faith in a god, he believes also in unicorns and aliens, simply by faith. In fact, why does this student choose to believe only in the Christian god? If what he is truly choosing is faith, then in order to avoid be somewhat of a hypocrit, he must believe in all of the different ideas of gods and all of the myths that men have told. This leads to contradictions. So why and how then, if it is faith that he believes in, does he choose one gods of the many out there?

EDIT: Frankie_Grove: All primates are relatively intelligent compared to other animals. Dolphins and elephants are like this too. Also, have you ever heard of Neanderthals? They were, at one time, a completely separate species that lived alongside humans. Then we surpassed them. Perhaps we are a mix of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. Or maybe the Neanderthals simply died out. Remember, evolution takes a LONG time, so perhaps this is one of those time periods where there is only one species like us.quote>

 

Yes, technically you are right. If faith is a part of human existence, then it could be argued that unicorns and aliens exist. Who is to say they are wrong for believing? No one can. However, as a Christian, I choose to believe in God, the Holy Trinity, etc. not unicorns and aliens. Why? I don't know. To me, God makes the most sense in a senseless world. Am I wrong? I could be, but I don't believe so. You can tell me I am wrong, just like I could tell you that evolution is wrong. But here is the thing. Someone, somewhere, has to have it right I would think. Someone who believes in some theory (scientific or not) or another has to have it right. Mathmatically, which I believe is the only absolute, the odds are that someone is right in their beliefs. It is because of choice that we believe in God, or evolution, or aliens, or whatever. This discussion is to relate those beliefs. Unfortunately, it has, as it always does, become a debate to prove and disprove and accuse and flame at each other. Well I can see why some people would be bitter towards the Christian population or the evolutionistic population. Who wants to be told they are wrong in their beliefs? No one. It should be like this: Here is my theory, think about it, then tell me your thoughts on it. Do you accept it? If yes, then great. If no, thats fine too. It is about relating beliefs to one another and then choosing something that makes the most sense to yourself. However, some people will take and dismiss one belief or another without fully understanding and thinking about its ideas, history, etc. Thats what this forum is here for. To enlighten those around us. There is a 99.9% chance that no one will be swayed in changing their mind from a paragraph some stranger posted. Thats just how it is. It is simply a way to erase ignorance. 

The last point you made, evolution taking a long time, and that is because science has to keep expanding the time period for evolution to occur to the point where it is currently. It was 6 billion years ago, n

[2nerdy4u 1]

That has got to be the most important post in this entire thread. Meaningful and deep. After all, we're still one race of humans, on one planet. We get one life each and one chance to do the right thing. There has to be an answer somewhere out there. Maybe the human race will find it; maybe we'll die out before we do. It is certain, at the moment, that nobody knows for sure.

I think the title of this thread needs to be changed to something else. How about "Evolution and Creationism" for a new title?

[DOXXP29 5]

For those who say god did create the universe, then why did he do it? Some big game? To quote from another thread, it DOES seem like some bar bet.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl

The last point you made, evolution taking a long time, and that is because science has to keep expanding the time period for evolution to occur to the point where it is currently. It was 6 billion years ago, now it's 14 billion? I don't know actually. Someone enlighten me

quote>

The age of the Earth is estimated at approximately 4.5 billion years (perhaps this is the 6 billion you were thinking of, as I don't know where that figure came from). The age of the universe (or at least this part of it since "the big bang") is currently estimated at approximately 13.7 billion years (very close to your 14 billion).

However, as has been pointed out before, the theory of evolution relates to biological evolution on earth, not the origin of the universe. Big Bang Theory is not a part of the theory of evolution, and evolution does not cover origin of the universe. For this reason its most likely the 4.5 billion year figure (age of the earth) you want when discussing evolution. Unless you are proposing that "life here began out there".

Originally posted by: Sc4_cewl

Someone, somewhere, has to have it right I would think. Someone who believes in some theory (scientific or not) or another has to have it right. Mathmatically, which I believe is the only absolute, the odds are that someone is right in their beliefs.quote>

Have you considered that perhaps no-one is right?