Creationism vs. Evolution

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[simphonian 0]

miguelkuk:  Thanks for pointing out my error.  It was not my intent to cast judgement on anyone who chooses to use pornography.  It has, however, been well-documented that the use of it can break up marriages.  My earlier illustration was simply intended to be an example of how our choices sometimes effects our lives in bad ways that are not nessecarily God's will for our lives 

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: simphonian miguelkuk:  Thanks for pointing out my error.  It was not my intent to cast judgement on anyone who chooses to use pornography.  It has, however, been well-documented that the use of it can break up marriages.  My earlier illustration was simply intended to be an example of how our choices sometimes effects our lives in bad ways that are not nessecarily God's will for our lives quote>

Work, holidays, an interest for amcars, etc. also breaks up marriages.

[Micah 16]

Let's end the discussion of pornagraphy immediately. This is a PG-13 website.

It isn't even part of the topic.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: ryalmighty1 The one and only thing that I ponder about that science cannot explain, and that is animation of life.

... That is the one thing science cannot explain...

... but nowhere has a reasonable answer come from that explains where "being" comes from.quote>

I think that is a risky assumption to make, given that the field of science is now so large and has explained so much, that no one person could have a complete and perfect understanding of what it covers or even of all the areas of current research. Science has a long history of explaining what people previously claimed could not or could never be explained by science, and acheiving things that it was thought could never be achieved.

However when people claim that "science cannot explain ..." they apparently often mean "I cannot explain ..." which is a very different thing. Often it turns out that science has already explained it or at least has some pretty good ideas about the issue. Even if it hasn't then it hasn't yet, not never can.

Originally posted by: ryalmighty1

...What creates LIFE. Not the atoms and particles and elements that make up objects or all the matter in the universe, but what ANIMATES and creates a consciousness in many living creatures? For lack of a better word, lets substitute "soul" for this phenomenon. Matter can coalesce and create a something, such as elements or cells, but what gives a conglomeration of cells a sentient existance? How can THAT be created? ... quote>

How do you know that what you percieve as consciousness or a soul is indeed anything separate or different to the biological processes of the organism? i.e. that it is not simply an emergent phenomenon of a complex neural network.

[Ded 30]

Originally posted by: sam

How do you know that what you percieve as consciousness or a soul is indeed anything separate or different to the biological processes of the organism? i.e. that it is not simply an emergent phenomenon of a complex neural network.

quote>

Well, in terms of scientific debate thats a fantastic way to think... In terms of living, its a rather bleak perspective, don't you agree?

[Sam 163]

Not bleak. Just because something is the result of naturalistic processes doesn't need to mean has to be viewd as in any way diminished. Does understanding something necessarily have to cheapen it? Or does it make it something to appreciate even more?

Is the way we perceive the world lesser if the reasons we perceive it at all are biological rather than divine? Do we appreciate life less or do we appreciate it more?

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Ded

Well, in terms of scientific debate thats a fantastic way to think... In terms of living, its a rather bleak perspective, don't you agree?quote>

No, why? As  sam points out, I don't see how living in an anthropocentric, semi-divine and surreal life could do any good to me, I would have to lie to myself, and it finally would cause me more unstability than accepting the more plausible explanation, I prefer having an understandable existence rather than mystical things. Putting me at the same level than the other life beings helps me to have a wider perspective and to respect them more.

[Ded 30]

On a spiritual level... If I don't believe in my own soul, or the soul of any other creature/being/animal/etc, then I cease to exist as a person. I am merely a shell. I would function, certainly; but I couldn't love or feel. When your pet cat or dog is curled up on your bed with you at night in the middle of winter, you can feel the bond of love that two completely unrelated creatures share. That to me is the proof of my spiritual soul. It could be that what I'm experiencing is the product of a complex neural network - But you can't give a name to that, except to understand that the mutual joy you gain from each others company and love is a gift. Falling in love with a person, and sharing a lifetime with them goes against everything you'd expect an "animal" seeking to spread his/her genetic material to do. Yet Humans do it. To try and explain that away as nothing short of a spiritual experiene whether christian or otherwise is a rather bleak way to percieve in my opinion.

Each to his own, however.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[fukuda 351]

Several animals, and not only humans, share a lifetime, even an entire life, with their loved ones. It's not against spreading your genetic material at all, reproduction is useless if your descendants die (the genes are not passed to the next generation, so) , usually, when other animals are born, they learn how to walk and run and other vital things in hours or they even already know how to do it, humans not, due to our natural mental plasticity, we must learn everything from our family or experience, so they'd die immediately if their family and/or group doesn't spend years in training and taking care of them, so the genes of the ones who spent years together taking care of the babies spread to all their descendance.

Yes, I have a "soul" if you want to call it like this, but it's not spiritual at all. Believing that we are superior beings gifted by God is maybe not bleak, but I don't think that we need to feed our ego with such ideas to live.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[fukuda 351]

Hum, yes, thanks, "Engrish" is not my mother language, sorry ^^

[Callbat 8]

Ok back on topic. Evolutionism and Creationism are not a scientific at all. They are based on faith. But there are no ways to prove both wrong. The only way is to wait and see. Me as a Christian i do believe that Evolution is wrong because they are many ways to prove it wrong. For instance. Statistics and probability are great enemies of Evolution. Because Evolution utilizes random mutations as the main engine of their postulate, we can then use the laws of probability to exam their claims. Many evolutionists cry foul here, but they have no reason to do so as they also use probability to lay out their claims.quote>

I am for Creationism, but half of what you said is plain wrong. Evolutionism is not based on faith. Evolution is not about random mutations...it is about the process of lesser species adapting to their environment over the course of millions of years by natural changes in each new generation, humans for example, are losing their pancreas [i am so sorry, I meant to say appendix ] since it is an unecessary organ. From what I understand probability and random events have no part in the evolutionary process.

[coolotter88 2]

what?! the pancreas...unnecessary?! you try living without your pancreas for a couple of months...I'm sure you'll find yourself buried under the ground by then. you mean...appendix right?

i'm going to say this and say it again, evolution is the real theory here, creationism is just something that totally can't be proven.

anyway, Evolution explains the origin of species not the origin of life, unlike creationism.

[GingerBlokey 30]

Originally posted by: Callbat

I am for Creationism, .quote>

I expected differently, you don't find very many Brits, least of all ones with the intellegence to form a good argument in favour of creationsim.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: wir3d Ok back on topic. Evolutionism and Creationism are not a scientific at all. They are based on faith.

quote>

I agree with you that Creationism is not scientific. Many Creationists would also agree with you on that. Some wouldn't though.

I don't know what you mean by Evolutionism though. There is the Theory of Evolution which is most definitely a scientific theory in the scientific sense.

You are certainly entitled to claim that your own views are based on faith, but the theory of evolution is not based on faith. It is based on evidence and science.

Originally posted by: wir3d ... But there are no ways to prove both wrong. The only way is to wait and see.

...

quote>

I disagree. Evolution, being a scientific theory must be falsifiable. And it is. It makes predictions, and bold predictions at that, which can be tested. For example, I have previously mentioned in this thread at least two ways in which ToE can be falsified:

1) The theory of evolution predicts that through time, life changes. If the life forms present at all different times throughout evolutionary history can be shown to always have been the same then evolution would be falsified. However we see significant changes from the earliest times of life on earth through to the most recent, ie change has occurred.

2) The theory of evolution predicts that although life through time changes, such change is stepwise and determined to a certain extent by the life form's evolutionary history, current morphology and genetic structure. We would not for example, expect a horse to give birth to a starfish (in spite of what some might claim the theory says). If we saw this happen we could get rid of ToE then and there.

3) The changes in life over time as evidenced in the fossil and genetic record, and by biogeography and comparative biology, have occurred over millions of years. If the earth could be proven to be only a few thousand years old, then ToE (or at least that it took place entirely on earth) would be proven false. However there are many different lines of evidence all pointing to an old age for both the earth and life.

4) The theory predicts we should not see anachronistic fossils in the fossil record. For example if we found fossil mammals in the pre-cambrian (as a verified and repeated occurrance) then we might consider either revising or dropping the theory. (note: so called "living fossils" are not in any way anachronistic if you understand the theory properly). Although attempted many times, no genuine anomaly has ever been adequately demonstrated.

5) The theory of evolution predicts that life that has been geographically (or otherwise) isolated for longer periods of time will differ more from life that has not been isolated. Generally this is what we do indeed see.

6) Cladistical methods are capable of providing evidence contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees, however they tend to only confirm their existence and the structure of such trees determined from other lines of evidence.

Ok so that's more than two. But the point is that even though there are many ways evolution could be falsified, there has never been any evidence sufficient to do so put forward, that has withstood serious scrutiny. Just because there are many ways to prove it wrong does not mean that any of these ways have successfully done so. As I indicated above, there are lots of ways, but despite serious attempts none of these falsifications have ever been successful. The evidence returned from these attempts has only served to strengthen the theory.

We don't have to wait and see. There is plenty to see already.

Originally

[ExiL3 10]

Creationism = Faith

Evolution = Theory based on real science

---

Now what is the topic of this discussion again?

take care,

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: ExiL3 Creationism = Faith

Evolution = Theory based on real science

---

Now what is the topic of this discussion again?

quote>

 

I like the regularity with which this post is repeated verbatim from time to time. An ST meme?

I noticed in Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings poem had a line about faith and reason, making little distinction between the two. This is common in older literature (Isaac Newton, where are you?). How times have changed!

On the probability aspect; evolution would require random probablities. To say that 'accident' had nothing to do with anything would then mean that the mutations and such were all controlled or directed. 

So you have then, 'Intelligently Designed Evolution'. Evolution would be a terribly inefficient means to creation, and I would think a Supreme Being could have come up with a faster  and more efficient way.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: ExiL3 Creationism = Faith

Evolution = Theory based on real science

---

Now what is the topic of this discussion again?

quote>

 

I like the regularity with which this post is repeated verbatim from time to time. An ST meme?

...

quote>

lol

Originally posted by: manticorefan

On the probability aspect; evolution would require random probablities.

quote>

Why? There is some random aspect involved, but evolution is not entirely or even mostly determined on the roll of the dice. As soon as simple rules are overlayed on top of random chance you start to get patterns in the results. For example in chemistry, certain reactions occur under certain conditions and according to certain rules, ie not all possible reactions are equally likely, and some are so unlikely that they won't normally occur under certain conditions. This is not random chance, it is the processes of chemistry acting in a non-random way. The same ideas are repeated all through science. Chemistry for example does not have different processes when the chemicals are in a beaker as opposed to in a living organism. Science is all about patterns and using them to make useful generalisations that can be applied to obtain new knowledge.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

To say that 'accident' had nothing to do with anything would then mean that the mutations and such were all controlled or directed. 

So you have then, 'Intelligently Designed Evolution'. Evolution would be a terribly inefficient means to creation, and I would think a Supreme Being could have come up with a faster  and more efficient way.quote>

Accident?

Evolution has about as much control and direction as a rock dropped off the top of a cliff. It is not reasonable to suppose that a rock thus dropped is likely to fall in a direction determined by random chance. It is overwhelmingly likely to go in a particular direction: down. If there is a very strong wind and the rock is very small and light it may go sideways a bit. If it hits an outcropping it may bounce up and out then fall down again. The exact path may be the result of many forces but it is not inexplicable or supernatural. Evolution is the same. Unlike what some people suggest, evolution does not violate what we like to think of as the natural laws and processes.  Although there may be many "possible" directions, the actual direction resulting will be determined by the vector sum of the forces acting. Mutations occur and are differentially acted upon by selection. The resulting direction is determined by the selection pressure and other factors (including just a little random chance sometimes). Unlike gravity however, the forces are not necessarily constant or acting in the same direction. In that respect they are more like the wind than gravity. Also, as I mentioned, the direction that is open to a life form is constrained to a certain extent by its phylogeny. Certain directions may not be open to the life form. Eg you aren't very likely to see a bilaterally symmetrical organism produce offspring that are radially symmetrical in a single generation.

However I think its a big leap to assume that such direction is due to anything other than natural forces, just like the direction of a rock being dropped from a cliff to the ground is non-random but explicable by natural forces.

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: Callbat

Ok back on topic. Evolutionism and Creationism are not a scientific at all. They are based on faith. But there are no ways to prove both wrong. The only way is to wait and see. Me as a Christian i do believe that Evolution is wrong because they are many ways to prove it wrong. For instance. Statistics and probability are great enemies of Evolution. Because Evolution utilizes random mutations as the main engine of their postulate, we can then use the laws of probability to exam their claims. Many evolutionists cry foul here, but they have no reason to do so as they also use probability to lay out their claims.quote>

I am for Creationism, but half of what you said is plain wrong. Evolutionism is not based on faith. Evolution is not about random mutations...it is about the process of lesser species adapting to their environment over the course of millions of years by natural changes in each new generation, humans for example, are losing their pancreas [i am so sorry, I meant to say appendix ] since it is an unecessary organ. From what I understand probability and random events have no part in the evolutionary process.quote>

 

Excuse me i meant more like a religion. Here is the purpose of science for instance is to carefully observe nature in order to discover the laws of creation so these laws could be put to work for the benefit of mankind. What does evolution do? It can not be observe for it is impossible. If evolution was true why don't we see today things mutating into different organisms?

Let me guess because it take billions of years right?

 quote>

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: wir3d If evolution was true why don't we see today things mutating into different organisms?

Let me guess because it take billions of years right?quote>

Not necessarily. That depends on the "item" that's being evolved, like the appendix example (although it provides training for you immune system when you're a foster/small child, but it's useless as a grownup). Other examples where microevolution takes place, are the fur of animals. You also have remains of muscles wichh you only need when climbing trees

The mutation part has to do with genes, and you can see it when someone has a deformed limb (or on animals close to Chernobyl, for how radiation alters genes).

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: wir3d

 Here is the purpose of science for instance is to carefully observe nature in order to discover the laws of creation so these laws could be put to work for the benefit of mankind.quote>

?? The purpose of science is knowledge, it's called to be a philosophical practice, that's it. You're talking about engineering now

Originally posted by: wir3d

 What does evolution do? It can not be observe for it is impossible. If evolution was true why don't we see today things mutating into different organisms?quote>

We can observe the results of evolution in the past, we have tons of fossiles, some show evident signs of evolution, and they only represent a tiny part of all the species that existed on earth.

Originally posted by: wir3d

Let me guess because it take billions of years right?quote>

it took hundreds of thousands of years for hominids

Originally posted by: wir3d

It is true that some characteristics make an animal more fit to survive under cetain conditions than others but natural selection produces no new charateristics. quote>

No, mutations do.

quote>

[coolotter88 2]

somatic cell mutations does not a new species make.

you can see evolution happening right now...at your local hospital. broad spectrum antibiotics are working not as well, more resistant strains of bacteria are forming. MRSA is a product of natural selection. Wired, it happens, unlike creationism...which happened once...and the only proof of it is a book...written by men...billions of years after it happened.

[wir3d 2]

you can see evolution happening right now...at your local hospital. broad spectrum antibiotics are working not as well, more resistant strains of bacteria are forming. MRSA is a product of natural selection. Wired, it happens, unlike creationism...which happened once...and the only proof of it is a book...written by men...billions of years after it happened.quote>

[Boggy1 45]

Wir3d: Krbe was talking of microevolution, not macroevolution with monkeys and the like. But still, to answer your question, it isn't linear. It isn't as if there is a direct line connecting us humans here today with the microscopic bacteria of a billion years ago. And macroevolution generally takes millions of years to take place because a genetic mutation which is actually useful to the host (ergo, doesn't kill it), is quite rare.

And sometimes animals are forced to rapidly evolve due to a sudden climatic change or a new predetor. Natural selection weins out the ones that dont survive, so that only the ones that can survive in the changed world are there, and so they can pass down their genetics to their children, therefore assuring the survival of the species.

Also, of course there is proof that new bacteria are mutating. The reason why you can't vaccinate against the Common Cold virus is that it mutates pretty much constantly, so as soon as you get an antibody against one strain, another totally different strain comes along. At least I think thats what you were talking about, excuse me if I'm wrong.

[Karybdis 34]

To agree with Boggy, a vaccinologist would laugh you out of the building if you tried to tell him that new forms of bacteria or virii don't evolve. That's their job. To deal with it. Because they do manage to deal with it most of the time, hundreds of millions of people are now alive who probably wouldn't be otherwise.

And if you think that monkeys haven't been evolving constantly and look different than they did a few million years ago, then you don't understand the concept of evolution, which is probably a good part of the problem. Monkeys are highly evolved in the last while.

Also you have a misunderstanding of mutations. Most mutations ARE bad, almost no mutations would do something like add a new Eyeball though, although that's a relatively small, but just rare mutation. Consider the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia. It's bad right? Guess what though, it's also good, and protects from Malaria because the shape of the cells makes them immune to the parasite. In fact in some parts of the world, it's SO important, that the goods outweigh the problems of having anemia, and so it gets spread around instead of being rare. Also, consider the mutations that cause virii to evolve from year to year. They're bad for us, but very good for the virii.

Single mutations don't build a new structure though. In fact no mutation builds a new structure from scratch. They're built up extremely slowly over hundreds of millions of years, and many millions of generations of organism, each one mutating things ever so slowly, each one contributing just the next bit of the equation. Making this pit a bit deeper, making that bone a bit longer, splitting that muscle into two muscles because it's too big, etc. THATS what forms something like an eye, or an arm.

This whole idea of the so called "MISSING LINK" is also an error of creationism. It doesn't exist even theoretically or conceptually. I'll tell you why too. Every time we find a "missing link" some creationist somewhere just calls for us to find the "Missing link" between that "Missing link" and the next "Missing link". It happens so regularly that it might as well be a joke. Fossils aren't so regular that you're going to have a fossil record of each individual mutation in each individual chromosome of each individual species. The idea is rediculous. You can indeed find intermediate species, but we've found tons of them already, and creationists unfortunately never recognize the fact because it's against their concept of creation.... so meh.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Ok if everything mutates, (like monkeys evolved into humans) then explain to me why are their still monkeys? did they just not mutate? and if it takes billions of years for something to mutate, then why aren't their monkeys nowadays that are kind of human, kind of monkey, but still mutating.  And also mutations never add.  For instance like a human.  If some sort of radiation were to mutate me i would get one eye instead of two.  Mutations never add.

quote>

Generally, modifying a super complex system as the genetic basis of species causes much more errors than good things, it's not that mutations take billion of years to occur, they are happening all the time, but for a mutation to success it must:

1) Have a genetic meaning, the genetic code used to build proteins is highly degenerated, so several combinations of base have the same menaning, changing GAG into GAC won't mean any change in the final protein.

2) Be in a reproductive cell, or it won't pass into the next generation (in this case it'll only be showns in the descendants). There are tons of mutations in somatic (non-reproductive cells) like cancer, that will have an effect in the actual being but not in his descendants.

3) Be positive, or natural selection will erase it, as genes are complex and it's exons can codify several proteins, a good mutation can carry another change that will be stored if it's not negative.

Mutations that pass those 3 steps are very rare, so it takes a looong time to have a total speciation.

The idea of a directed rectilinear evolution is ridiculous and highly anthropocentric, evolution has no direction and it's not at all directed to us, a big part of the speciation (generation of new species) is caused by physical separation of 2 populations of the same species, so they exist both at the same time frame.

Oh and by the way, we don't descend from monkeys, our ancestors were separated from them long ago.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Ah, Barbarossa. Good to see you around, you were apparently hiding for a while. 

wir3d: No insulting other's beliefs. C'mon, you know better. 

I also came into this thread full of piss & vinegar, and let me tell you, it will get you nowhere. Barbarossa and I are deeply divided on religion and evolution; it doesn't mean we can insult each other. In fact, we seem to get along quite well now that I have calmed down after spending some time with a thread full of people who disagree with me. No one is here to have their mind changed about anything, so keep the polemics to a minimum. Having an open mind to the fact that others believe differently doesn't mean you have to change yours. But flaming other members will just get you tossed, so relax. Seriously, you'll be much happier and enjoy the discussion much more.