Creationism vs. Evolution

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Oops, my bad. Thinking 'kilotons', typing 'megatons'. I'll leave the rest alone for awhile.

[autoVino 26]

I think spacemanspiff will win that trixie

But one reason that mutation, in larger organisms such as us, are often so hard to see is that most often these mutations die off with the cell that they occure in.  I mean, what are the chances of a cell being modified and surviving?  Also, in order to make a mutation useful (or harmful) the mutation must occure in a cell that will be able to survive and undergo miosis for further reproduction (of the cell and in the end, with some chance, the organism itself).  Given this, the chances of a single mutation effecting an organisms offspring are increadibly slim.  Many of these mutations increase that chance, but there comes the fact that the offspring is most likely going to have trouble surviving to do more reproduction.  If the almost insignificant chance occures that the mutation does have some effect on the offspring in a way that it will be able to furhter reproduce, you must take into account on whether the offspring will pass on this mutation to more offsprings.  But when you put 4 billion years and man many trillions of organisms, you can easily have mutations that will greatly change speciese and organisms and create immense diversity.

But one can't expect it easily to occure in a large organism with trillions of cells... that is for such an organisms to have a mutation to change the course of the speciese future.  It's jsut improbable.  When many of such organisms are added together and given much time, that probability increases, but still a mutation that will cause an advantage is slim.  This is why there are considerably more "failed" speciese in Earth's history than succesfull ones.  I can go onand on, but the point is that evolution doesn't happened in complex organisms over night and in only one organism.

As farfeched as evolutioncan seem (which an idea of improbably randomness over much time and organisms doesn't sound farfeched to me at all) everything just "appearing" one night is even more far feched. 

[patriots_1228 51]

Spaceman-I agree with everything you say except the "god spoke" part. You should not take points from your students for beleiving in a god, thats just being predjudice imo.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Totally off-topic: the nuke talk led me in a roundabout way to this: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

Some very cool info about the biggest and cleanest bomb ever tested.

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 Spaceman-I agree with everything you say except the "god spoke" part. You should not take points from your students for beleiving in a god, thats just being predjudice imo.quote>

 

"god spoke" doesn't answer a question of "why?"  Why is this true, etc.?  Because god says so.  That answer shows no logical thought, and is in no way seperating the student out against his or her peers.  I mean, what good will it do if every student begins to answer every question with god says so, and the teacher can't say that it's wrong?  No body will learn anything this way.  Nothing agains the student or god, just that answer.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 Spaceman-I agree with everything you say except the "god spoke" part. You should not take points from your students for beleiving in a god, thats just being predjudice imo.quote>

He's not taking points from his students for their beliefs, students must study a given topic and show that they have some knowledge about it, saying "god spoke" shows no knowledge at all.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: wir3d

Originally posted by: coolotter88 evolution is accepted as fact by all respectable scientists in the world. unless if it is disproved evolution is true.quote>

Ok name some scientists because Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Michael Faraday were all christian.  All them were the great scientists of the world. quote>

Okay, first of all, just because someone is Christian does not mean they cannot believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, Franklin and Jefferson never lived to see Darwin's theory published, so they could never have believed in evolution because the idea had not yet been proposed by the time they died. Faraday was 67 years old when it was published and died 8 years later. Maxwell was 28 and Kelvin was 35, so it was more in their day, but still. The theory did not gain immediate acceptance after being published for the very same reason that you and many others today refuse to accept it- it contradicts the bible and therefore a lot of people don't want to believe it's true because it seems to challenge their faith.

And one question that i haven't asked:    Why did evolution have to create a beginning?

 

Now what does thermodynamics really say about Evolution? It says that while temporary entropy decreased are possible there must be compensating entropy increases in all systems to make the total system tend to entropy increase.

 

So what we have is the need for massive disorder to order, massive positive mutations, needed to have life as we see that. Entropy does not preclude those things absolutely happening it just pushes real hard at it not happening. It is like a 1000 lb weight on the back of a man climbing the mountain. I really decreases his odds at making the top.quote>

Well, I see you've done a little research. That's good. You learn that way. Really, the biggest hole in the theory of evolution is that it can trace all life back to a primitive single celled bacteria, but it cannot explain how life actually began from non-life. There are several other hypotheses for that, the most curious among them being Exogenesis (the idea that life started elsewhere and came to Earth, and that that's why there isn't any evidence as to the origin of life here- because it's somewhere else). Once you have life, evolution comes naturally with it (I've already addressed this issue and don't feel like repeating myself). In fact, this is the interpretation that a lot of Christians follow: that God created that first cell and triggered it to evolve. The bible need not be taken literally. A lot of people would argue that the details aren't important, that it's the moral of the story that counts.

 

Another concept brought up by the laws is the concept of useful energy. Evolutionists are fond of saying that the sun provides more than enough energy to drive their postulate. But does it? Is the energy useful to their postulate?

 

Raw energy from the sun, if not for the ability of living things to convert it to useful energy such as sugars, proteins etc. would be a destroyer of life. In many of the scenarios of primitive life the UV radiation is looked as the driver of the mutations need for evolution, but it conversely would destroy the organism as well if not protected. In fact the mutation rate being very slow and the energy being very fast the destruction would be very many times faster than the creation.quote>

Okay, but plants don't get destroyed by the sun. They continue on living quite fine.

[spacemanspiff 0]

Duke87 is quite correct that radiation is a big driver of mutations, but only in lower order life.  The reproductive systems of higher order organisms mitigate genetic changes caused by radiation.  Essentially, sex becomes the vehicle for  genetic diversity.

Thanks for the support many of you have shown me for our grading practices.  We are very up front with what we expect and why we expect it.  As such, we've never had a problem.  We've never denied someones right to their religion, or argued the existence of god.  What we rail against are positions that are at odds with knowledge, logic, and truth.  Junk science and half-truths should and will always be challenged.

Great Balls of Lightening

Benjamin Franklin called himself a Christian, yet Churches denounced him as a heretic.  Why?  Because he invented the lightning rod.  How did that make him a heretic?  Because weather was not a science a the time.  Weather was the work of god, demons, angels, and spirits.  Lightning, in particular, was considered god's way of punishing sinners (sort of like Zeus or Thor).  Lightning rods directly interfered with the will of god.  Franklin was going to be smote!  In fact, many blamed him for the earthquake of 1755 because god had to find another way to punish people.  So, you may believe in evolution and call yourself a Christian, but will the religious establishment cast you out anyway?

The World is Flat

Here is another exercise I use in teaching.  The Flat Earth Society.   These folks actually argue that the world is flat.  My students all think it's nuts, so I tell them 'prove it'.  They actually make some good arguments in support of their flat idea.  The exercise is to use good science and debate to debunk the junk-science claims that the world is flat.  When all the flat earth arguments are rendered powerless, the people who argue for a flat Earth retreat to their last-ditch claim, "it's all a conspiracy, and you can't prove a thing!"

A Sinking Feeling

A huge burr under the saddle of creationism is the existence of fossils.  Paleontology is the bane of creationists.  At first, fossils were a scientific curiosity.  After Darwin published The Origin of Species, suddenly the fossil record had meaning and further reinforced evolution.  Religion has made up some of the silliest stories to try to explain these extinct creatures.  My all time favorite (and the most prevalent) is their destruction by the great flood.  When they died, their bones settled in different layers of mud, which have turned to stone in a few thousand years.  It's so absurd that it just makes you roll your eyes.  While Paleontologists and Geologists have gone to great lengths to prove their scientific theories, creationists have comparably done nothing.  Still, they demand creationism is science.

Deus ex machina

When everything else has failed and is rendered invalid, Creationists, like the Flat Earth Society, resort to the same tactic.  Complete Denial.  They usually introduce some excuse or condition that renders it impossible to verify or test their claims.  Coincidentally, the same excuse conveniently invalidates all counter-arguments.  In their mind, this demotes scientific proof (since the evidence or methodology is invalid), to a guess.  Psychologically, they've leveled the playing field by reducing everyone to zero.  It's a common ruse, and many peo

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Having read Franklin's autobiography in its original form (complete with 18th century spelling) I can tell you unequivocally that Franklin was not a Christian. A Deist, yes. But not Christian. But then again, neither is the Catholic Church IMO.

And there are many atheistic scientists who reject evolution. They believe the science behind it to be not only deeply flawed, but biased in favor of evolution at the expense of all other scientific study on the matter.

And about that Trixie thing... What a colossally bad idea. Not because I reject evolution, but because ST is not the place. Outside of 'equal time' concerns, there is the unprecedented act of awarding a Trixie for something having nothing to do with ST. Where would it end? Just think of the slope we would embark on...

'Defender Of The Revolution' for our communist members.

'The Clinic Dumpster Award' for our pro-abortion members

'The Flatulence Award' for our vegetarian members

'The Golden Hookah' for our pothead contingent

'Holocaust Denier of the year'...I'm sure there's a few in that 221,000+ membership

'Best Jihadist', self-explanatory.

and of course, "Flag Burner Award' for our anti-American members that make their presence known in the off-topic forums.

There are plenty of other sites devoted to any of the various views here. ST should not make any one-sided officially-sanctioned awards that have nothing to do with the site or the game. To abandon the political neutrality of ST in regards to overseeing the forums would be a death knell for the site eventually. Let us debate stuff, sure. But IMHO ST would be best served if it took no sides of controversial or hot-button subjects.

All it would do is prove correct those who opposed off-topic forums to begin with.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

ST should not make any one-sided officially-sanctioned awards that have nothing to do with the site or the game.

quote>

Too late.  In 2005, MC6Ash received the Simtropolis Emissary Award

This award recognizes real life contributions to disaster situations.  We miss our members when they have to go out in the field, but we are proud of the contributions they are making. quote>

Ash is one of those guys who knows how to get power plants up and running.  He went to Sri Lanka after the big tsunami to help get the lights turned back on.

But that was not a controversial subject.  Your point there is well taken.

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: manticorefan And about that Trixie thing... What a colossally bad idea. Not because I reject evolution, but because ST is not the place... removed because quoted almost from directly above...All it would do is prove correct those who opposed off-topic forums to begin with.quote>

 

I would agree such a trixie would be a bad idea... becuase St is not the place.  Bud I do believe that this particular example was more of a joke... and expression of humor (which I took light heartedly and played along).

On a different note, I found this guy that has to do with why life works in thermodynamics.  Ilya Prigogine.  More specifically dissipative structures... I first saw a mention of this in my physics book, and got interested from there.

[Joesocwork 4]

Trust me, the staff & leadership of SimTropolis reflect a quite diverse cross-section of varying demographics. No one or no group is going to be slammed or treated special b/c of any one of those demographics.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

...

And there are many atheistic scientists who reject evolution.

...

quote>

For example?

Originally posted by: manticorefan

...

And there are many atheistic scientists who reject evolution. They believe the science behind it to be not only deeply flawed, but biased in favor of evolution at the expense of all other scientific study on the matter.

...

quote>

Such as?

Evolution underlies everything in biology and understanding it is essential to being able to find answers to problems that are of great concern to society in the areas of biological sciences, such as cancer treatments, conservation, agriculture, medicine etc. We know that evolution is an effective theory because it allows us to make reliable predictions which tend to be accurate and it suggests new avenues of research into existing problems.  A theory that doesn't work is usually fairly obvious. Its predictions don't match observations. When we make predictions using the theory of evolution they tend to match the subsequent observations. When predictions are reliable they can be used to generate new knowledge and applications.

For example, evolution is used in fisheries to ensure they are managed sustainably, to increase economic yield and to provide information on the status of the populations targeted as well as species that are incidentally impacted.

Evolution is used in the development and testing of new drugs and medical treatment, for example in locating and isolating substances and genes that may be useful as new treatments, finding and developing suitable models for testing, modification and production of these substances or genes, as well as predicting outcomes of drugs and managing resistance.

It is used in epidemiology and in managing parasite virulence and its effects on human and animal health. Phylogenetic analysis assists in identifying and managing disease reservoirs, and can be used to inform the selection  of drugs appropriate to treating particular forms of a disease. It is used in identifying previously unknown pathogens and is also used in forensic science.

Statistical methods developed and applied in the research of evolution have found applications in wider fields including information technology, physics, mathematics,  electrical engineering, finance and robotics.  For example, the same processes that were developed to trace phylogeny can be applied to tracing the history and development of languages, or tracking the history of versions of a document. Genetic algorithms have been shown to be extraordinarily effective as problem solving methods.

These successful applications in diverse areas reinforce the value and validity of the theory of evolution. There are no alternative scientific explanations that are as useful and accurate as the theory of evolution is. 

Edit: This article illustrates one of the practical applications of evolution in developing new treatments:

Stanford Report, November 11, 2005

Hormone finding offers new hope for obesity drug

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Dr. Hubert Yockey, and  Dr. Robert Marks to start with. Dr Huston Smith is another example ["As description -- of the fossil record and of the age, continuities and discontinuities in life forms that the record discloses -- evolution is true and creationism mistaken. But as an explanation (let’s call this evolutionism), neo-Darwinism is largely a failure, and one that has the important psychological consequences] . Pierre Grasse expressed disdain for it, but also expressed disdain for religion. And Berlinski, of course. There's more, they can be found if you really want to pursue it.

But c'mon, Sam...you obviously are well-versed on this subject. I'm sure you didn't need me to point them out. 

[hym 358]

Statistical methods developed and applied in the research of evolution have found applications in wider fields including information technology, physics, mathematics,  electrical engineering, finance and robotics.  For example, the same processes that were developed to trace phylogeny can be applied to tracing the history and development of languages, or tracking the history of versions of a document. Genetic algorithms have been shown to be extraordinarily effective as problem solving methods.quote>

Would you happen to know what these methods are?  Curiousity compels me to ask.

[Sam 163]

Hi Hym, I don't know much about EE but I believe they have to do with using genetic algorithms.

This example is to do with voice recognition circuitry:

New Scientist 15 November 1997

Creatures from primordial silicon - "Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands."

Wikipedia page has a basic description and some more examples in the references: Wikipedia - Genetic Algorithm

You are probably already very familiar with these processes from your studies.

[krbe 193]

http://www.cynthiayockey.com/pages/1/index.htm

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: sam Hi Hym, I don't know much about EE but I believe they have to do with using genetic algorithms.

This example is to do with voice recognition circuitry:

New Scientist 15 November 1997

Creatures from primordial silicon - "Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands."

Wikipedia page has a basic description and some more examples in the references: Wikipedia - Genetic Algorithm

You are probably already very familiar with these processes from your studies.quote>

Thanks.  Actually, I haven't made it that far yet, being a freshman and all, so I'm not totally familiar with this from an educational standpoint.   Though, do to my intense interest in AI, I am somewhat familiar with genetic algorithms and neural network AI's.

[wir3d 2]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Okay, first of all, just because someone is Christian does not mean they cannot believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive. Secondly, Franklin and Jefferson never lived to see Darwin's theory published, so they could never have believed in evolution because the idea had not yet been proposed by the time they died. Faraday was 67 years old when it was published and died 8 years later. Maxwell was 28 and Kelvin was 35, so it was more in their day, but still. The theory did not gain immediate acceptance after being published for the very same reason that you and many others today refuse to accept it- it contradicts the bible and therefore a lot of people don't want to believe it's true because it seems to challenge their faith.quote>

Ok  so saying that you can be christian and beleive  in evolution and still be christian. 

Now that is a missunderstanding.  You are either with one train of thought or none at all.

You can't be in between.  And the reason they disageed with evolution is because it did not make sense to them, we are talking about the most prominent scientists in the world here,  so what they would say would be important. 

Don't we all need to see a Microbioligist?

[patriots_1228 51]

Well, im chirstian and I beleive in evolution.

Last time i checked, i am still a member of my church. It's not up to you, or a rich german man with nice jewerly to tell anyone how to worship.

As far as im concerned, Creationism, like much of the bible, is just a story made up to better explain things in life and morals. The thing i digested from the story of creationism was not that god said "light" and there was light. thats rubbish. Instead, i digested the stuff about sinning and what not, because that was really the whole point of the story, sinning moves you away from god. Alot of the bible is exaggerated and made up, to help teach us better. Saying "Jesus helped the boy overcome his insecurity about being blind" does not get to us like saying "Jesus cured the boy's blindness".

[simsmart 1]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228

Last time i checked, i am still a member of my church. quote>

Hahaha. I haven't been to church in years. The last time I went was because they had free cookies. But we still get their letters in the mail.

[wir3d 2]

You are catholic.  And catholics believe in evolution.  They beleive that God created evolution and has no control over this universe.  Not meaning to be rude, but catholics are very confused about christianity.  And who heck do think you are?  "Jesus help a boy get over his insecurity about is blindness".  Wow that is just wrong.  First of all, all evolutionists act like they were there to see the beginning.  Im not saying i was there but Bible tells us about it.  I last time I checked the Bible was the first book ever plublished!  And Charles Darwin published is book 5,000 years later.  If evolution was the so evident why did they figure this out earlier?  And the Bible is right in many ways about the things of the future.  It has proclaimed about the war in Iraq, 9/11,  The second law of thermodynamics, television, and a whole lot of things in present time.  Boy, you have a big missunderstanding of the bible.  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

To claim to be a Christian and yet believe evolution means you have a serious misunderstanding of at least one of them.

You cannot deny the Bible and follow Christ; you must come down on one side or the other.

To paraphrase Paul: If an angel comes down from heaven and tells you something different from the Bible, believe the Bible. 

Christ said that lies would come along that were so convincing, they would deceive even the Elect if it were possible.

The Bible and evolution are at permanent emnity, period. To assauge the internal conflict by claiming them both is not really a genuine position, just a cop-out IMO.

[coolotter88 2]

then evolution is right and Christians can go stick their heads somewhere, you know, like in the sand.

[wir3d 2]

Finnally a christian, who understands the bible better than me.

EDIT: Come on cooloter88.  This is not the king of comebacks thread, ok?  No need to be rude.

[Hahayoudied 3]

I thought this tread was dead one or two month(s) ago, I guess I am wrong now.

[fukuda 351]

*stares at the cult war*

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: wir3d You are catholic.  And catholics believe in evolution. quote>

no...i have been taught creationism in church.

 They beleive that God created evolution and has no control over this universe.  Not meaning to be rude, but catholics are very confused about christianity. quote>

What's this the 1800s? Catholism is not better at christianity than protestant or orthodox, but it is also not any worse. 

 And who heck do think you are?quote>

duh...me. what kind of a question is that?

  "Jesus help a boy get over his insecurity about is blindness".  Wow that is just wrong.  quote>

don't be so literal. That was just a fake example of the top of my head. Supposed to prove a point.

First of all, all evolutionists act like they were there to see the beginning.  quote>

and creationists don't? They trust some aristocratic men from 5000 B.C. to tell them how the world was created. Shouldn't you also beleive the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth?

Im not saying i was there but Bible tells us about it.  I last time I checked the Bible was the first book ever plublished!  And Charles Darwin published is book 5,000 years later.  If evolution was the so evident why did they figure this out earlier? quote>

If me getting onto Simtropolis and posting this is so simple, why didn't mankind figure out how to do this earlier?

 And the Bible is right in many ways about the things of the future.  It has proclaimed about the war in Iraq, 9/11,  The second law of thermodynamics, television, and a whole lot of things in present time.  Boy, you have a big missunderstanding of the bible.  quote>

 

I could go grab the bible, and there will be nothing about TV's and 9/11. As far as im concerned, the bible is about god and jesus.

[belfastuniguy 18]

To claim to be a Christian and yet believe evolution means you have a serious misunderstanding of at least one of them.quote>

I disagree..

I am a Christian but I believe in evolution. I do believe in God and believe he was present at the very very beginning of the creation of the universe. I can't explain why I believe that I just believe it. The fact is that no-one really knows anything until they die. You can be a Christian and believe in creation as I was taught in my Catholic primary school, but after further education at grammar I moved to the evolution side of things. Your mind is not a book that cannot be changed, it can be easily influenced and developed over time as you become more educated and become more aware of the world around you.

I also don't agree that by being a Christian means you are confined to the teaching set out by the churches. To be a Christian in my view is believing in God and Jesus, I see myself as a liberal Christian fully able to make my own mind up and not be subject to a church or a book. I disregard a lot of what the church and Bible say because they were never written by God himself nor did god establish the churches we see today. They were all created by man and in the early days to suit the whim of those in control.

Any way, some of that was off-topic, but thought I'd just air my view.

[Hamish 1,369]

I've been brought up with the concept of creationism, being a Christian. But I believe more in Evolution.

I just believe that the people from 2000 years ago or more, didn't need a good understanding of how the world was made. It just was and thats enough for them.

And the Bible is right in many ways about the things of the future. It has proclaimed about the war in Iraq, 9/11, The second law of thermodynamics, television, and a whole lot of things in present time. Boy, you have a big missunderstanding of the bible. quote>

You must be thinking of prophets. Even then, most of them don't plainly say "A plane is going to hit a few building on september the 11th." Its more, This happened and someone said some thing that could relate, vaguely, to the incident. So, naturally, He has just made a prediction.