Creationism vs. Evolution

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well.  It must be the weekend.  All this talk about the whichness of the why is giving me a head ache.

If this was a marriage, we could get a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences.  Since God is in charge, everything springs from Him, including organized religion and science.  Both are fruit of the Tree of Knowlege.

[JayStimson 212]

I always wonder what the debate is. Creationism claims to know how things got started but offers nothing on how things progress. Evolution claims to know how things progress but offers nothing about how things got started. What a waste of intellectual energy.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: JayStimson

I always wonder what the debate is. Creationism claims to know how things got started but offers nothing on how things progress. Evolution claims to know how things progress but offers nothing about how things got started. What a waste of intellectual energy.quote>

Well then if you combine both of them you get the Intelligent Design theory. Or, just a bunch of religious people who try to sound scientific while not presenting any actual proof. Do I have to admit, it sounds more logical then creationism, its still unsatisfying because it lacks any form of evidence. 

Also, it would point to a more deistic god then a theistic one. 

[Cobraroll 138]

@Jay:

The point being, if both theories are correct, then both also have massive flaws, and neither side is willing to accept that.

For example, we can say that the universe was created by something intelligent. Neither side have a problem with that. It's just that science says it happened about 13 billion years ago, and looked more like a mess than a garden and a snake. Another crucial point: according to this theory, there is nothing remarkable at all with humans. We have no meaning, no destiny, and there is no greater plan. At least, not one we've been introduced to. In short, the world was created, and the creator hasn't interfered since then. This theory does not contradict any known scientific facts.

However, it doesn't have any support either. Literally, there is no reason to believe an itelligent being created the world as we know it. It's just a suggestion. A hypothesis. And science doesn't work like that. If the hypothesis has no backup, it's no reason to believe in it.

And creationism doesn't stop at the point of creation. It also wants to put in a set date, a global flood, and give the creator an identity - all without any evidence to support it whatsoever, most of it even contradicts scientific facts. Literally, I can use exactly the same line of thought to "prove" why the Pok

[saltandsauce 0]

this debate has annoyed me to the point where i don't care

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The Big Bang Theory tells us how the universe was created also. Creationism pretty much tells us why. Evolution tells us what happened after life was established. There is proof of several "Great Floods" that wiped out civilizations (or most of one). Also, if I remember correctly, archeologists discovered a giant ark on a mountain.

EDIT: There is also proof of a large, ancient city near to the Black Sea that was wiped out by meteors. Could this have been Sodom?

^History Channel 2007, CNN 2008

It will take me some time to find the specific sources.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

The Big Bang Theory tells us how the universe was created also. Creationism pretty much tells us why. Evolution tells us what happened after life was established. There is proof of several "Great Floods" that wiped out civilizations (or most of one). Also, if I remember correctly, archeologists discovered a giant ark on a mountain.

quote>

Except that there is no proof that there was a God behind that flood or the Big Bang. If you say that God is behind it, you have an easy answer and it stops you from looking further then your answer. Science isnt satisfied with that so they discard the God hypothesis since it lacks any form of evidence and search for something that can tell them what caused the big bang. 

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: JayStimson

Evolution claims to know how things progress but offers nothing about how things got started.quote>

That's because the beginning of life isn't covered by gradual changes in already living organisms - for that you want Abiogenesis, which is an entirely different field of study.

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

There is proof of several "Great Floods" that wiped out civilizations (or most of one). Also, if I remember correctly, archeologists discovered a giant ark on a mountain.

EDIT: There is also proof of a large, ancient city near to the Black Sea that was wiped out by meteors. Cold [sic] this have been Sodom?quote>

I'll let XKCD answer this...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If science always wants causal proof and there isn't any, why not postulate an unknown and unknowable supreme being and let it go at that?

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

If science always wants causal proof and there isn't any, why not postulate an unknown and unknowable supreme being and let it go at that?quote>

Because, being unknown and unknowable, it is also untestable and is therefore not a valid hypothesis.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

If science always wants causal proof and there isn't any, why not postulate an unknown and unknowable supreme being and let it go at that?quote>

Because maybe if you search a bit longer for the solution you might find it. Using 'God' as an answer is just giving up and making up your own answers. 

I dont know how my computer works from the inside. Its to much of a pain to understand how chipsets work, so lets just say invisible computer pixies use their magic and thats how my computer works. That would be roughly the result of your solution. 

[fukuda 351]

why not postulate an unknown and unknowable supreme being and let it go at that?quote>

Providing relief for people's existential dilemmas is not science's job. As long as something interfers with this universe's matter or energy it is measurable and knowable. If it doesn't interfer with the known universe there is no way anyone could know about it in the first place and it therefore does not exist in practicality.

Saying that something is there but you can't know about it is a philosophical no-brainer.

There is no reason to postulate the existence of something that cannot be tested.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by: fukuda

why not postulate an unknown and unknowable supreme being and let it go at that?quote>

Providing relief for people's existential dilemmas is not science's job. As long as something interfers with this universe's matter or energy it is measurable and knowable. If it doesn't interfer with the known universe there is no way anyone could know about it in the first place and it therefore does not exist in practicality.

Saying that something is there but you can't know about it is a philosophical no-brainer.

There is no reason to postulate the existence of something that cannot be tested.quote>

Didn't Einstien postulate curved space well before the technology existed to test the concept?  Modern Scientists would do well to remember that in Newtons day there was a point of view that man was close to knowing all there was to know.  In retrospect laughable, but illustrative of the dangers of intellectual arrogance. 

All the things we are discussing here are difficult to understand at best and impossible unless you have some training in the associated disciplines.  Physics, Mathematics, and Biology to name three.  Lexus made a comment earlier about computer pixies living inside machines making them work.  For all intents and purposes that's what people think, they have no idea.  And thats true of a lot of technologies.  It makes it easy for people to believe things that tend to make me crazy. 

Add to that the fact that English or for that matter any spoken lanquage is unsuited to discussing the concepts.  Math is the lanquage of science and most people can't speak it.  So when we are dismissive of those things that people believe in like God, it would be well to remember that from their point of view that science is just as unknowable to them as God is to some of us.

[raja_indy14 8]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Add to that the fact that English or for that matter any spoken lanquage is unsuited to discussing the concepts. Math is the lanquage of science and most people can't speak it. So when we are dismissive of those things that people believe in like God, it would be well to remember that from their point of view that science is just as unknowable to them as God is to some of us.quote>

I really wonder how any of us can "know" God. We can at least, if we choose to, learn the language of science. As far as I can see, we cannot learn the language of God.  I've always thought it supremely arrogant that even if there was a God, humans somehow could claim to understand It.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

The language of the judeo-christian god is ancient Hebrew. The language of allah is Arabic. That means that God speaks 3 languages (Jesus spoke Aramaic) and understands all human languages (because of what he did at Burj Dubai Babel).

[astronelson 339]

Morriswalters: regarding the postulation of curved space, the technology to test General Relativity did exist in 1915. The first test proposed was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I. Because of this, the first experiment did not take place until 1919.

[fukuda 351]

Didn't Einstien postulate curved space well before the technology existed to test the concept?quote>

I don't remember Einstein saying that it was somehow unknowable?

The no-brainer is not the fact of announcing it before evidence appears, it's to announce something as unknowable.

And he was famous after they actually confirmed it. It wasn't confirmed by the means of high-tech, astronomers proved it few time after he published his papers as they saw how the sun moved the position of stars during an eclipse.

(displaced star positions before/after)

Modern Scientists would do well to remember that in Newtons day there was a point of view that man was close to knowing all there was to know.  In retrospect laughable, but illustrative of the dangers of intellectual arrogance.quote>

Devil's Proof is not a valid move, I'm sorry. We are aware that almost everything we know is badly formulated at best, but this by no means can be used to justify any unproven point. You are absolutely right, however this applies to everyone. Science is an accumulative effort and we will know way more things in the future than we do now and most actual concepts and models will fall or be replaced by better approaches.

There is however no way to know what the future is preparing for us, which means that what we know right now will stand until it is refuted or expanded.

Ehm, by the way, ain't we going a bit off-topic?

[morriswalters 16]

My apologies, I was incorrect, I was probably confusing it with an event talked about here.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Classical_tests  Evidently I should have paid more attention in school since I have twice used an argument that has a name without knowing, in any case it doesn't matter.  When you entered into the discussion you assumed the burden of arguing against or for the "unknowable",  that's the whole point of the thread.  As for me my personal position is that Darwin pretty much nailed it and I'll believe that unless presented with data that indicates otherwise.  The only thing I object to about Creationism is teaching it in schools.  But no matter what I feel about it though,  what I do recognize is that a lot of otherwise rational people place the same credence in Creationism as I do in Evolution. And that isn't likely to change.  Now I stirred the pot here enough, I think I'll go do something somewhere else for a while.

[saltandsauce 0]

what makes me wonder about the big bang is that, the big bang violates a law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

matter is essentially condensed energy, but in the fraction of a second, all the energy of the ENTIRE universe was created in one infintesimal amount of time, i would like an explaination for that

also, the universe startedin a massive explosion? there is one hole in it which is that it just sounds too cool to be true.

the universe is accelerating in it's expansion. it seems that there is something in nothing. there is something in nothing which is pushing galaxies apart and this creates more nothing.

do you get the jist of it?

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

what makes me wonder about the big bang is that, the big bang violates a law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

matter is essentially condensed energy, but in the fraction of a second, all the energy of the ENTIRE universe was created in one infintesimal amount of time, i would like an explaination for thatquote>

Here's one - the sum total of all the energy in the universe is probably zero. No violation of conservation of energy there.

Although, if you do need energy for a short amount of time that is perfectly permissible - just do it so fast the universe doesn't notice. Heisenberg is your friend there.

also, the universe startedin a massive explosion? there is one hole in it which is that it just sounds too cool to be true.quote>

Not quite an explosion - more just a rapid expansion of space. There wasn't anything to explode into.

the universe is accelerating in it's expansion. it seems that there is something in nothing. there is something in nothing which is pushing galaxies apart and this creates more nothing.

do you get the jist of it?

quote>

The acceleration of the expansion of space is one of the major fields of research in astrophysics.

Now, are there any questions that actually relate to evolution?

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

what makes me wonder about the big bang is that, the big bang violates a law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

quote>

Any law is a human creation that is a human attempt to construct a model of reality for the purposes of humans approximating an understanding reality. A scientific law is not the same as a law in the religious or legal sense, but creationists often seem to get them mixed up. However in the scientific sense, if a law doesn't match reality then reality is probably right and the law is probably wrong so it's probably the law that needs chucking out rather than reality. It would be nice if whatever model is constructed allowed the existing law to remain unaltered but it is not required. Progress though tends to be refinement rather than a replacement. Any new model or law must explain everything the old one does and the new observations as well. I think I've mentioned before that science doesn't dump a reasonably working explanation for one that doesn't work as well. I'm not too hung up on a few laws going missing though if that's how it has to happen. That's when the fun starts.

So I for one don't see it as a problem even if it does turn out to be a violation of any current scientific law (in fact we already know the laws we have do not apply under conditions of the Big Bang, so we are going to need new ones anyway). However, for the moment it is not a violation of any thermodynamics laws, more frequently it turns out that the creationist arguments have misunderstood the application and meaning of those laws.

Not that it has anything to do with evolution. Big Bang cosmology is nice and all, but evolution is more interesting to me, and what happens in Big Bang cosmology doesn't really affect anything about evolution except to supply raw materials. .

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Dear, dear Red Beard, one should know by now that I have always advocated the Church of God the Utterly Indiferent.

We know that living material can by synthesized from non-living chemicals under primordial conditions created in the laboratory, but whether the material so created can evolve in any kind of measurable time is not answered right now as far as I know.  Does anyone know if life created in any of these experiments was allowed to continue?  If so, in this case, man is the creator, possibly using ideas given by God.  The thing to be careful of here is that they might create a pathogen that would eliminate us.  This sort of result is called the Frankenstein Effect (by Mary Shelly).

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Dear, dear Red Beard, one should know by now that I have always advocated the Church of God the Utterly Indiferent.

We know that living material can by synthesized from non-living chemicals under primordial conditions created in the laboratory, but whether the material so created can evolve in any kind of measurable time is not answered right now as far as I know.  Does anyone know if life created in any of these experiments was allowed to continue?  If so, in this case, man is the creator, possibly using ideas given by God.  The thing to be careful of here is that they might create a pathogen that would eliminate us.  This sort of result is called the Frankenstein Effect (by Mary Shelly).

quote>

Evolution took millions of years. Cool if you can turn non living stuff into living stuff, but for it to actually continue evolving youd have to wait a looooong time. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I thought that all the matter and energy in the universe came from a small point of infinite energy. That was what NOVA (on Discovery or Public Broadcasting) said.

[fukuda 351]

We know that living material can by synthesized from non-living chemicals under primordial conditions created in the laboratory, but whether the material so created can evolve in any kind of measurable time is not answered right now as far as I know.  Does anyone know if life created in any of these experiments was allowed to continue? quote>

No one has ever created life in a lab experiment. Please keep in mind that organic molecules are just building blocks, not living beings or living material by themselves.

The thing to be careful of here is that they might create a pathogen that would eliminate us.  This sort of result is called the Frankenstein Effect (by Mary Shelly).quote>

Not in such a short time, not even in thousands of years (unless it's purposely done). Our bodies are pretty well protected against any foreign susbstances and our current pathogens have developed incredibly complex mechanisms over millions of years to break our defenses.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, somewhere I got the impression that there had actually been a living creature capable of reproduction created.  If not, then I am not surprised considering what goes into something that reproduces as life as we know it.  But what if there were such a thing as a creature that reproduces without using the DNA/RNA sequences?  This would be an unknown life form.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Well, somewhere I got the impression that there had actually been a living creature capable of reproduction created.  If not, then I am not surprised considering what goes into something that reproduces as life as we know it.  But what if there were such a thing as a creature that reproduces without using the DNA/RNA sequences?  This would be an unknown life form.

quote>

You may be thinking of Jack Szostak's work.

A video summary by youtuber cdk007 (starts about 2:40 in):

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Thanks.  I had this thing kicking around my memory from some time ago.