Creationism vs. Evolution

[coolotter88 2]

Lenski Affair, I recommend that creationists not to look at the web page as they might get offended. It's very embarrassing as well.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair

[Jack_wilds 550]

Hello everyone... Jack Wilds, So now I'll add my insights and other thoughts to this long dissertation on the origins of species. This whole concept of determining an empirical certainty about species origins can never be truly certain. Creationism, Intelligent design, evolution, variants of evolutionary theory, big bang, 'its always been here'...etc it is all theory! None of anything -evidence, fossil records, whatever can be utilized to empirically factually with all certainty. What you use for your theory I can also use for my theory. In the scientific method of things we are too intimately involved in the great experiment to be truly objective, we are too involved in its occurring that we can not nail it down well enough, control it good enough, place it in well contained uncontaminated labs to objectively quantize, or postulate, or hypothesize in or even get a grip on the smallness or the greatness of all to be able to reach a conclusive understanding of how all came into being.

All present theories are just that theories and all of them deserve consideration in the process of the scientific method. Evolution does not hold the corner market on the truth of it all any more than the other ideas. Scientifically all we really have to work with is evidence and the preponderance of it is not sufficient to rule anything out, yet. At this point anything is possible but is it probable?

Darwinism only deals with the origins of species and most of his suppositions was taken from observations from the Galapagos Islands. They may not explain everything around the globe. His theories have not advanced enough to include cosmic origins or development nor did it go as far as to explain things such as thermodynamics and its effects on systems, cellular development, 'soul' origin and development, cognitive development, ...etc have to go... more thoughts to come -Jack

[fukuda 351]

In the scientific method of things we are too intimately involved in the great experiment to be truly objective, we are too involved in its occurring that we can not nail it down well enough, control it good enough, place it in well contained uncontaminated labs to objectively quantize, or postulate, or hypothesize in or even get a grip on the smallness or the greatness of all to be able to reach a conclusive understanding of how all came into being. quote>

Unlike dogma, scientific method is based on questioning of existing theories and correction of them if new proof discredits them. This actually solves a big part of the "subjective" errors, but it's obviously a slow process. Experiments must be repeated several times and other groups of researchers must get the same results of them to be accepted.

All present theories are just that theories and all of them deserve consideration in the process of the scientific method.quote>

Some of the above-cited are not even theories, they are just beliefs or hypothesis at best. A theory is something very concrete.

Several deserved consideration and were already tested, fyi.

Evolution does not hold the corner market on the truth of it all any more than the other ideas.quote>

Some of them lack coherence and incur in huge logic flaws, and lack any real evidence. Tons of evidence point to evolution, the same can't be said about the other hypothesis or theories.

Scientifically all we really have to work with is evidence and the preponderance of it is not sufficient to rule anything out, yet. At this point anything is possible but is it probable? quote>

Playing with sophism leaves nowhere in knowledge.

Darwinism only deals with the origins of species and most of his suppositions was taken from observations from the Galapagos Islands. They may not explain everything around the globe. His theories have not advanced enough to include cosmic origins or development nor did it go as far as to explain things such as thermodynamics and its effects on systems, cellular development, 'soul' origin and development, cognitive development, ...etc have to go... more thoughts to come -Jackquote>

Evolution is way more than Darwin's work, ever heard about Dobzhansky's Synthetic Theory or the more recent Evolution theories?

The rest of the post is just... non sequitur

Evolution has nothing to do with thermodynamics or cosmic origins.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Not again...

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Heads up. I was reading a few weeks old New Scientist, and discovered a very interesting article.

...

Pretty cool, huh?quote>

Definitely very cool. Nice find Boggy, thanks for posting it.

Originally posted by: Jack_wilds Hello everyone... Jack Wilds,

...quote>

Hi Jack, and welcome.

Originally posted by: Jack_wilds

...At this point anything is possible but is it probable?

...quote>

Some things are a lot more probable than others. Scientists are experts at determining probabilities (which involves identifying and evaluating underlying and contributing factors among other things) and therefore the relative merits behind different ideas (and which are more probable than others). Its what they do.

Originally posted by: Jack_wilds

...Evolution does not hold the corner market on the truth of it all any more than the other ideas.

...quote>

Evolution is a branch of science and is evaluated using scientific methods which are pretty good at sorting out the explanations that work from those that don't work. It works just as well for evolution as it does for the any other sciences such as medicine, agriculture, ecology, astrophysics, earth sciences etc. Evolution works.

Originally posted by: Jack_wilds ... What you use for your theory I can also use for my theory. ...quote>

Its not what facts you use (although getting these right to start with are also important), but also your methods and how well those methods are resistant to errors and correcting them. In this regard scientific methods are excellent.

Originally posted by: Jack_wilds

...

Darwinism only deals with the origins of species and most of his suppositions was taken from observations from the Galapagos Islands. They may not explain everything around the globe. His theories have not advanced enough to include cosmic origins or development nor did it go as far as to explain things such as thermodynamics and its effects on systems, cellular development, 'soul' origin and development, cognitive development, ...etc have to go... more thoughts to come -Jackquote>

Darwinism does not equal evolution, evolution does not equal Darwinism.

Also I don't know why you would even expect the theory of evolution to explain things such as cosmic origins or thermodynamics. It is a scientific theory that explains heritable changes of populations through time.  Its not supposed to explain quantum gravity or anything else. If I want a theory that explains how light behaves I might use the wave particle theory. If I want to understand how mass interacts I use the theory of gravity. If I want an explanation of how matter and energy interact on the subatomic level I would use quantum mechanics (or more likely consult an expert in quantum mechanics).

I don't see why you would expect the theory of evolution to explain anything other than what it was intended to, ie heritable changes of populations through time. We don't expect other scientific theories to explain anything outside of their fields, so why expect it of evolution?

[krbe 193]

And what about some definitions for those who seem to think the theroy = guessworks?

---

the

[patriots_1228 51]

what happened to wir3d? he provided excellent comic releif for this topic.

[Muck308 55]

Did anyone hear about the teenage girl from somewhere in Africa? She grew up with a monkey for a pet (and best friend I believe) They climbed trees together and what not. By doing so, the girl's feet have adapted to the point that she has phenomenal gripping capability with them, borderline opposable toes. Obviously, this a change that was prompted by environment. I wish I could find something on this... but I haven't yet. I'll keep looking.

[Gridlock 9]

The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people , all by themselves....

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people.

[coolotter88 2]

@Muck: well, she isn't going to be passing those opposable toes to her children anytime soon.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: Muck308 Did anyone hear about the teenage girl from somewhere in Africa? She grew up with a monkey for a pet (and best friend I believe) They climbed trees together and what not. By doing so, the girl's feet have adapted to the point that she has phenomenal gripping capability with them, borderline opposable toes. Obviously, this a change that was prompted by environment. I wish I could find something on this... but I haven't yet. I'll keep looking.quote>

Unless it's on the genotype of her reproductive cells, it will lead nowhere. Evolution is driven by genotype changes, not phenotype changes, as the one that showcases that discovery

Lamarck is hidden somewhere in this room, don't forget it 

[flame1396 9]

Personally I prefer what has been proven. I don't think I need to clarify what exactly that is.

[redwards 0]

Wow. People argue about evolution on SimCity websites, too? Is there no corner of the internet not engaged in this somewhat hilarious debate?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Gridlock The belief that the atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced people , all by themselves....quote>

The belief that some magic aloof being created everything and is all seeing, all knowing, and all powerful....

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people.quote>

Nay, there are plenty of reasons.

After all, if god was so obviously the answer, there wouldn't be any debate here.

[belfastuniguy 18]

After all, if god was so obviously the answer, there wouldn't be any debate here. quote>

Indeed

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Gridlock ...

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people.quote>

That in itself is not a sufficient reason to believe. I would prefer to believe in things for which there were good reasons for believing, not just no reason for not believing.

I don't think God, if he did exist in a form that Christians believe him to, would be very happy with someone who only believed in him just because there was "no reason not to". The Bible and Christian teachings are pretty specific on the level of commitment belief in God requires.

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Gridlock ...

There is no reason not to believe that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people.quote>

That in itself is not a sufficient reason to believe. I would prefer to believe in things for which there were good reasons for believing, not just no reason for not believing.

I don't think God, if he did exist in a form that Christians believe him to, would be very happy with someone who only believed in him just because there was "no reason not to". The Bible and Christian teachings are pretty specific on the level of commitment belief in God requires.

quote>

Sam , i believe  due to faith, there is no overwhelming reason not to believe , the theory of evolution is not overwhelming evidence  that proves beyond any doubt thats what happened . Its merely a suggestion of yes this is possible , however beyond possibilty of chance unlikely considering the complexity of the mutation of a single atom without life  to a human with a brain and many other complex systems .

Its true, scientists have proved that life on earth does evolve and can take slighly differant traits.

The Evo scientists can talk about the origins of life , but have they  learnt to create it .

A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2^-N For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2^-100 = 10^-30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be multiplied. Chance is thus not an option.

Thats a lot of zero s aint it duke .

Even if they do manage to create the most basic single cell form of life , it would still not prove anything other than this is possible.

Religion divides the children and places them in chains .^^ is as good as reason as you can find to turn your back on religion .

The bible , is the book of the almighty or should i say was, unfortunatley  its become corrupt and mis interpretated many times through the centuries .

So i dont believe in religious acts , find the bible may be unreliable , but still have a overwhelming faith in Yahweh and the spirit of all living things . Faith is something that comes from within  .

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior great spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds,".

 

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Gridlock True scientists have proved that life on earth does evolve and can take slighly differant traits.

The Evo scientists can talk about the origins of life , but have they  learnt to create it .quote>

What's the differnece between a true scientist and "evo scientists"?

A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2^-N For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2^-100 = 10^-30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be multiplied. Chance is thus not an option.quote>

So now we believe science? Is it because it a) might, or seems to, make the theroy of evolution become a hard shot, or b) because it's carried out be true scientists, or c) because it's carried out by true scientists which by definition must contradict the theory of evolution on the origin of life?

The bible , is the book of the almighty or should i say was, unfortunatley  its become corrupt and mis interpretated many times through the centuries .quote>

Don't you worry. I'm sure there is some humans on God's green earth that hold the absolute truth as revealed in the Bible.

[Gridlock 9]

Thanks for pointing that out ,ive edited it .

The differance is a missing word and comma -P.

Obtw im not worried, im totaly at peace with the idea.

[fukuda 351]

however beyond possibilty of chance unlikely considering the complexity of the mutation of a single atom without life to a human with a brain and many other complex systems .quote>

Never heard about natural selection?

The Evo scientists can talk about the origins of life , but have they learnt to create it .quote>

You only need a man and a woman, usually.

A recent world conference on 'The Origin of Homochirality and Life' made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2-N For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2-100 = 10-30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be multiplied. Chance is thus not an option.

Thats a lot of zero s aint it duke .quote>

taken out of context technoblabber.

The discussion being quoted here is talking about proteins created before DNA existed, at the real beginning of life, we even doubt that there were long proteins or proteins at all before functional DNA, because proteins after DNA are obviously homochiral, but they are not arranged randomly, DNA codes them. As DNA evolves, it changes and therefore proteins coded from it also change, that's what is known as protein evolution (there's also natural selection on proteins), and it explains quite well how functional huge proteins appeared and some muted and were useful in different cases.

[coolotter88 2]

That's quite an error, humans, not to mention human proteins don't just spontaneously appear. That's what people who believe the bible may think, and THAT is very far fetched. Evolution never said life just randomly appeared, it is fact that evolution is how life came to be what it is today.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Gridlock

... the theory of evolution is not overwhelming evidence  that proves beyond any doubt thats what happened .

...

 quote>

The theory of evolution is backed by overwhelming evidence in its favour.

Originally posted by: Gridlock

... Its merely a suggestion of yes this is possible , however beyond possibilty of chance unlikely

....

quote>

Setting aside for a moment the fact that what you referring to is not the theory of evolution, your statement in regard to evolution is completely untrue. It is not a suggestion that it is possible. It is an explanation, that the consensus of scientific community puts forward as  the best and most likely explanation, backed by overwhelming evidence.

However what you are referring to is not evolution. As I've said just a few posts above, evolution is an explanation of the phenomena and mechanism of changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations (although its utility in this has been co-opted into applications in diverse areas such as artificial intelligence, economics and software design). It is not a theory about the origin of life, the universe and everything, nor is it reasonable to expect it to be. It was designed to explain a specific phenomena.

Originally posted by: Gridlock

The Evo scientists can talk about the origins of life , but have they  learnt to create it .

quote>

They aren't attempting to, which may have something to do with that. Like I said, the theory of evolution is not about trying to create life (although it would be an interesting spin off). The scientists who study evolution are busy developing practical applications based on the the theory, applications that benefit humanity and other life on earth, not debating whether or not it happened. That it happened is not in question in the scientific community.

Originally posted by: Gridlock

A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2^-N For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2^-100 = 10^-30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be multiplied. Chance is thus not an option.

Thats a lot of zero s aint it duke .

Even if they do manage to create the most basic single cell form of life , it would still not prove anything other than this is possible.

 

quote>

When you quote someone you should always provide a reference for the source of your quote, so that people can check its accuracy for themselves (and it should be put in inverted commas so that people know its a quote)

The conference wasn't exactly recent. I think you've got hold of an old quote there (and straight from the Answers in Genesis site).

The laws determining the formation of biological polymers are those of physics and chemistry and are definitely not random and don't produce random results. Therefore you cannot use probability calculations that require or assume randomness. So your most basic assumption in your calculation is completely incorrect.

Secondly you are assuming the formation of a modern polymer. Neither the theory of evolution nor, more correctly, theory of abiogenesis claims anywhere that modern proteins suddenly sprang into existence from nothingness based only on random chance formation. There are a number of prior steps in the process that your calculation has ignored.

Your calculation has also assumed a single sequential trial, whereas in reality there would have been billions of simultaneous trials. While that doesn't change the probability, it does reduce the expected time needed to reach a result (or can produce more in the originally expected time span).

There is more that can be said about it but I'll stop there for now as its late.

[Duke87 1,070]

I heard an interesting argument today from a co-worker as to why creationism is science and belongs in science classrooms alongside evolution. Get this. The argument, in paraphrase:

Science is under god. God created everything. The story of god creating things is science since god created science.

If you'd study the bible, you'd see that it actually supports everything science says.

I just had to share that. Because of how freaking hilarious it is.

Seriously, the reasoning there is so outrageously flawed, and the second statement simply isn't true.

Then again, this girl also denied that her religious beliefs were opinions and proclaimed that they were pure fact as god had enlightened her to them.

In other words, she's another kook who is to be laughed at rather than taken seriously.

[Gridlock 9]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 "it committed a murder upon Jesus in order to redeem mankind from the sin of eating an apple." -Thomas Paine on Christianity.quote>

Satan, Beelzebub, and the other rebel angels are described as lying on a lake of fire, from where Satan rises up to claim hell as his own domain and delivers a rousing speech to his followers.

 Satan and the rebel angels debate whether or not to conduct another war on Heaven, and Beelzebub tells them of a new world being built, which is to be the home of Man. Satan decides to visit this new world, passes through the gates of Hell,  and journeys through the realm of Chaos. Here, Satan is described as giving birth to Sin with a burst of flame from his forehead, as Athena was born from the head of Zues .

God observes Satan's journey and foretells how Satan will bring about Man's Fall. God emphasizes, however, that the Fall will come about as a result of Man's own free will and excuses Himself of responsibility.

The Son of God offers himself as a ransom for Man's disobedience, an offer which God accepts, ordaining the Son's future incarnation and punishment. Satan arrives at the rim of the universe, disguises himself as an angel, and is directed to Earth by Uriel, Guardian of the Sun.

Satan journeys to the Garden of Eden, where he observes Adam and Eve discussing the forbidden Tree of Knowledge. Satan, observing their innocence and beauty hesitates in his task, but concludes that "reason just,/ Honour and empire" compel him to do this deed which he "should abhor." Satan tries to tempt Eve while she is sleeping, but is discovered by the angels. The angel Gabriel expels Satan from the Garden.

Eve awakes and relates her dream to Adam. God sends Raphael to warn and encourage Adam: they discuss free will and predestination and Raphael tells Adam the story of how Satan inspired his angels to revolt against God.

Raphael goes on to describe further the war in Heaven and explains how the Son of God drove Satan and his minions down to Hell.

Raphael explains to Adam that God then decided to create another world (the Earth), and he warns Adam again not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, for "in the day thou eat'st, thou diest;/ Death is the penalty imposed, beware,/ And govern well thy appetite, lest Sin/ Surprise thee, and her black attendant Death".

 

 Adam asks Raphael for knowledge concerning the stars and the heavenly orders; Raphael warns that "heaven is for thee too high/ To know what passes there; be lowly wise", and advises modesty and patience.

  Satan returns to Eden and enters into the body of a sleeping serpent. The serpent tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. She eats and takes some fruit for Adam. Adam realizes that Eve has been tricked, but eats of the fruit, deciding that he would rather die with Eve than live without her. At first the two become intoxicated by the fruit, and both become lustful and engage in sexual intercourse; afterwards, in their loss of innocence Adam and Eve cover their nakedness and fall into despair: "They sat them down to weep, nor only tears/ Rained at their eyes, but high winds worse within/ Began to rise, high passions, anger, hate,/ Mistrust, suspicion, discord, and shook greatly/ Their inward state of mind."

God sends his Son to Eden to deliver judgment on Adam and Eve, and Satan returns in triumph to Hell.

 

The Son of God pleads with God on behalf of Adam and Eve. God declares that the couple must be expelled from the Garden, and the angel Michael descends to deliver God's judgment. Michael begins to unfold the future history of the world to Adam.

 Michael tells Adam of the eventual coming of the Messiah, before leading Adam and Eve from the Garden. Paradise has been lost.  The World was all before them, where to choose Their place of rest .

[____----____ 37]

i find the idea that the duece i just dropped created everything about as believable as creationism, it's flippin 2008 people.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Gridlock: That is a lot of rambling humbug. That elaborate history was partly invented to scare medieval Europeans into accepting the pope's dictatorial grip on them. The Church invented a whole mythology of the "evil deity" Satan and his corrupt demons that are infecting the Earth.

In fact, Christians are violating their own commandment: "Do not have any other gods before me." Satan, the "rebel angels", and the domain of Hell constitute a polytheistic mythology, instead of a monotheistic one.

Also, what evidence exists for this supposed history? Show me one piece of verifiable evidence that Satan and his demons are rampant on the Earth, or even exist.

This is the biggest humbug I have ever heard of.

If people accept these myths as facts with no proof, no progress can be made in the search for greater knowledge and understanding of the Universe through verifiable findings. This is what is called Science.

- Patricius Maximus

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Gridlock: That is a lot of rambling humbug. That elaborate history was partly invented to scare medieval Europeans into accepting the pope's dictatorial grip on them. The Church invented a whole mythology of the "evil deity" Satan and his corrupt demons that are infecting the Earth.

In fact, Christians are violating their own commandment: "Do not have any other gods before me." Satan, the "rebel angels", and the domain of Hell constitute a polytheistic mythology, instead of a monotheistic one.

Also, what evidence exists for this supposed history? Show me one piece of verifiable evidence that Satan and his demons are rampant on the Earth, or even exist.

This is the biggest humbug I have ever heard of.

If people accept these myths as facts with no proof, no progress can be made in the search for greater knowledge and understanding of the Universe through verifiable findings. This is what is called Science.

- Patricius Maximusquote>

That "rambling humbug" is also known as 'Paradise Lost' , a not entirely unimportant piece of English literature.

[IMPEI 1]

There is one major dent in evolution's theory.

The Big Bang. Could GOD have prompted the big bang and could his six days have been many eons for us?

[IMPEI 1]

Evolution has several major defects, the major of them being the Big Bang.

GOD started the big bang, and his six days were perhaps many eons for us