Creationism vs. Evolution

belfastuniguy · March 27, 2008

@ Micah. Yeah I don't like stereotypes, but gay men do tend in general to be very creative individuals. I personally as well as many of my SCJU friends enjoy expressing our creative side in CJ's and BAT's as well as within the Union itself. You just have to look at some of our members to see the creative talent, 6U in particular. We also have a very large number of highly talented gay members on this site.

6underground · March 27, 2008

I think that it's not a matter of Simtropolis being a "gay" or "bisexual" magnet, but that Simtropolis, is quite possibly the most tolerant forum I've ever been part of. TRUST ME, every forum has it's fair share of gay/bi/lesbian members, it's just that some forums are more restrictive and unwelcoming than others.

I know first hand a woman gamer, who actively pretends to be a guy on the forums she visits (not because she's a lesbian) but to ensure she's not harassed by male gamers, simply for having ovaries and a set of breasts.

@ Stormont, you are so kind.

I think if every SC4 fansite ran some form of survey I think you will find that the custom content enjoyed by thousands of people have been the result of the creativity of a very large proportion of gay/bi/lesbians. I realise I can't prove this, but I have a strong gut feeling that most of our well known BAT/MAP contributors are gay/bi/lesbian.

coolotter88 · March 28, 2008

well since gay sex does not help any species evolve, I think it's time we got back on topic.

evolution is right.

Sam · March 28, 2008

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

...I still fail to understand how people can believe in the ridiculous view this entire earth was created in 6 days...quote>

Not all of them do. If you ask 100 different creationists to describe creation you'll get at least that number of different answers.

-some are literal six day creationists (this is quite rare, as the scientific evidence against this is overwhelming)

-some are day/age creationists, ie each creation "day" was not a literal day but a much longer period of time

-others are gap creationists ie the creation week occurred a very long time after the earth was created, and/or there were gaps during the creation week.

-still others are one of the many varieties of theistic evolutionist eg God created basic kinds and life only evolves within those kinds (the definition of "kind" is rather vague though), to God continuously guides evolution, right up to the scientific version of evolution, but God started it all off and it ran on its own after that.

So there are actually many different kinds of creationist and they don't all believe the same thing.

Originally posted by: hym

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.quote>

Further to my previous response to Hym's question I found this book advert quite by accident, although its more related to computer programming than electrical engineering, there is at least one electrical engineering example in it:

Riccardo Poli, William B Langdon, Nicholas Freitag McPhee (2008) A Field Guide to Genetic Programming, Lulu.com, http://www.lulu.com/content/2167025 ISBN 978-1-4092-0073-4

"Genetic programming (GP) is a systematic, domain-independent method for getting computers to solve problems automatically starting from a high-level statement of what needs to be done.. Using ideas from natural evolution,, GP starts from an ooze of random computer programs, and progressively refines them through processes of mutation and sexual recombination, until high-fitness solutions emerge. All this without the user having to know or specify the form or structure of solutions in advance. GP has generated a plethora of human-competitive results and applications, including novel scientific discoveries and patentable inventions.

This unique overview of this exciting technique is written by three of the most active scientists in GP."

quote>

The book is free to download, although I haven't read much of it yet myself. But here are two paragraphs from the introduction explaining what it is about:

"The goal of having computers automatically solve problems is central to artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the broad area encompassed by what Turing called “machine intelligence” (Turing, 1948). Machine learning pioneer Arthur Samuel, in his 1983 talk entitled “AI: Where It Has Been and Where It Is Going” (Samuel, 1983), stated that<

Vandy · March 28, 2008

Originally posted by: 6underground I realise I can't prove this, but I have a strong gut feeling that most of our well known... MAP contributors are gay/bi/lesbian.quote>

Hmmm...

I'm not sure how well-known I am but I am not gay.

...maybe a bit touched in the head but not gay.

Regards,

Gary (Vandy)

Vandy · March 28, 2008

CAUTION: LONG POST AHEAD

(Look! What's that on the road? A Head?)

Hi, All.

I've just today decided to subscribe to this thread but have been reading through it for some time now. I thought it appropriate to become a participant and not just a lurker.

I do apologize for my double post. I just didn't believe that this post should be edited into my previous one. If I am to be casigated for what I've done then so be it.

Let me start out by giving you some background concerning myself. I was born in 1950 and raised in a small town in Kansas as part of a protestant family who believes in God and went to church regularly. (After all, that is what you did on Sundays...)

Out of high school (1968), I joined the United States Navy (1969) and, as my mother was fond of saying, went out to see if I really had "a girl in every port or a port in every girl." Out of the Navy in 1973, married in 1974 and a father in 1976.

By now, I had "refound" my faith (funny how so many people put their faith aside as a teenager and young adults) and my wife and I were part of the Charismatic, Pentacostal church "movement" having been baptised (for REAL, this time) and visited by the Holy Spirit.

Time passed...

Things happened (what things are not important)...

Now, as a 57 year old man, husband, father and grandfather, I find myself pretty much where I was a teenager -- questioning, challenging, fighting confusion, unrest, etc., etc.

Okay... (are you ready for this?) By now, I suppose many of you believe you have this old man pegged and are ready to dismiss him and anything else he has to write. Well, if I may ask, stick around a bit yet. I may be able to give you something to think about.

Do I believe that the bible is the infallible Word of God written by man through God's hand?
I honestly don't know if I do or not. It is a bit of a stretch for me to believe that all the books of the bible and their content is divinely inspired. Nonetheless, it is the book from which I attempt to pattern my life and from which my values, morals, etc. are taken.

Do I believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 7 (literal) days?
I honestly don't know if I do or not. Again, man's logic tells me that there was no way all of this could be created in 7 days -- no way at all. Now before anyone goes thinking that this old man doesn't believe, I did say "man's logic".

Do I believe in creationism or evolution?
I honestly don't know which I believe in. There is very compelling evidence to support the theory of evolution. Likewise, the bible makes a strong case for creationism. Which is true? Methinks there are elements of truth in each.

Just one last one, my friends...

Do I believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God who has died for my sins that I may have everlasting life?
You bet I do! (Enough said on that subject as I do not want to appear to be proselytzing. After all, this thread concerns Creationism vs. Evolution not Christianity or Christian Beliefs.)

The bottom line is that I am a Christian, I believe in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and of the leading by and through the Holy Spirit. For me, it is a matter of faith. For those interested, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines faith as follows:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1)

Barbarossa · March 28, 2008

.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa

belfastuniguy · March 28, 2008

I agree with Barbarossa, while some depend on their faith to defend creationism in whatever way it came about. The Bible itself does not give any proof or make a strong case for creation. While the case of evolution has libraries full of evidence.

patriots_1228 · March 28, 2008

Originally posted by: coolotter88 well since gay sex does not help any species evolve, I think it's time we got back on topic.

evolution is right.quote>

Might be one of the funniest things ive heard this week. I'll add that one to my arsenal

tommygunn · March 28, 2008

The Christian Bible isn't the first written account of a creator God. There are several earlier written works, claiming to be the word of the "one true creator", which belong to religions that have since been abandoned and are mostly regarded as false. Actually, if you do research into ancient Egyptian religion, there are overwhelming similarities, and a case can be made to suggest the real possibility that the basis for the entire Biblical story was ripped off of the Egyptians. It is simply a story, written by men to be used as a tool for controlling the population, and the evidence littered throughout the pages. If you read Genesis, it seems to be written from an earthly perspective, rather than from the mind of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator deity.. And Christians will defend this by saying that God is far too complex for us to comprehend, so we can not fully understand his written word, and you must have faith. Faith is probably the worst argument for Christianity. Any story that requires you to blindly believe despite any and all doubts you may ever have, regardless of anything EVER, cannot be true. To even bring up the idea of "faith" suggests that even the people who WROTE the Bible knew that there was no REAL evidence that any rational person could ever conclude to be valid, for if there were even one microbe of legitimate evidence to back it up, there would be no need for "faith". Science has never asked us to just "believe". Archaeologists have actually discovered artifacts that you can SEE and TOUCH that literally PREDATE Christianity. Is there really a need for any more evidence against it? It's virtually impossible to deny that kind of stuff. If you are a mature adult, and you claim to believe in the Bible and creationism, you are simply kidding yourself. That's the bottom line.

......

........

......

........

......

IIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOO

sorry, thanks, peace

Vandy · March 28, 2008

Hello, Barbarossa and Belfastuniguy.

First of all, thank you for your reply. They are always welcomed. Also, I greatly appreciate your commenting approach to my post. It is my belief that intelligent idea exchanges occur best when opposing points of view are articulately stated and -- to me, this is key -- in a non-confrontational atmosphere. It is quite refreshing to be able to post an opinion, view, belief, etc. and have the responder actually be civil in their reply and not go on a "flame-throwing expedition".

i must be honest and state that, in retrospect, my use of the phrase "a strong case" may have not be quite what I was attempting to get across. Hindsight tells me that provides references to creationism and can be used to provide interpretations for the same.

Let me see if I can better explain by using some quoted examples:

The Creation Date Controversy, Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

"Biblical Evidences

Given that most young-earth creationists have been taught to discount science, a beginning dialogue about the plausibility of the old-earth view will go further if it focuses on Biblical rather than scientific evidences in support of long creation periods and an ancient earth. Creation and Time lists (and more fully develops) the following Biblical arguments for interpreting the Genesis One creation days as long epochs rather than as a span of 144 hours:"

(Please refer to this section of the article for the actual quoted examples)

...and

"en presented with these Biblical arguments and evidences, some young-earth creationists respond by suggesting that only someone with a modern, science-trained perspective would ever see them as such. If that's the case, however, we would expect the early church fathers to be unanimous in affirming the young-earth, 24-hour-day interpretation. And that is not what we find. In fact, few of the early church fathers took a dogmatic view on either the time or timespan of creation events. Most saw these as a wonderful mystery yet to be unfolded. Young-earth creationism really arose after the King James translation of the Bible and a sequence of clashes between the theological and scientific communities that followed."

Physical Evidence Supporting Creation

"Although evolutionists agree that things look designed, they argue that nature has some powerful things up its sleeve that can produce what appears to be designed through a natural random process. The obvious physical evidence that would result if their theory were true is multitudes of transitional fossils filling our museums. Their existence would make a strong argument for macroevolution but, if missing, a strong casefor creation. Evolutionists would love to present us with such evidence, but they are unable to because the transitional fossils don’t exist! That is powerful physical evidence for creation."

I will grant you that this particular author seems to favor the "young earth" theory and the previously quote author seems to support the "old earth" theory.

I offer this small paragraph from Geocentricity and Creation, Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D.

"5. What is the role of geocentricity in

LarksTonguesInAspic · March 28, 2008

I, for one, have never ruled out 'Day-Age' theory. I know of some who have less-than-kind words for it, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility IMO.

nazaguy · March 28, 2008

Originally posted by: tommygunn The Christian Bible isn't the first written account of a creator God. There are several earlier written works, claiming to be the word of the "one true creator", which belong to religions that have since been abandoned and are mostly regarded as false. Actually, if you do research into ancient Egyptian religion, there are overwhelming similarities, and a case can be made to suggest the real possibility that the basis for the entire Biblical story was ripped off of the Egyptians. It is simply a story, written by men to be used as a tool for controlling the population, and the evidence littered throughout the pages. If you read Genesis, it seems to be written from an earthly perspective, rather than from the mind of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator deity.. And Christians will defend this by saying that God is far too complex for us to comprehend, so we can not fully understand his written word, and you must have faith. Faith is probably the worst argument for Christianity. Any story that requires you to blindly believe despite any and all doubts you may ever have, regardless of anything EVER, cannot be true. To even bring up the idea of "faith" suggests that even the people who WROTE the Bible knew that there was no REAL evidence that any rational person could ever conclude to be valid, for if there were even one microbe of legitimate evidence to back it up, there would be no need for "faith". Science has never asked us to just "believe". Archaeologists have actually discovered artifacts that you can SEE and TOUCH that literally PREDATE Christianity. Is there really a need for any more evidence against it? It's virtually impossible to deny that kind of stuff. If you are a mature adult, and you claim to believe in the Bible and creationism, you are simply kidding yourself. That's the bottom line.

......

........

......

........

......

IIIIIIIIIIIIIMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOO

sorry, thanks, peacequote>

Yeh, of course there are things that predate Christianity. I own few of them!

But anyways, about the bible evidence thing? Some people have a point when they class the bible as evidence. Many people only ever 'believe' in Evolution from 'evidence' they've seen in books. But, that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there for Evolution. I've seen plenty of it. Wether its the not-quite-perfect things about us, like back pain because we are only recently Evolved to be bipedal, or just fossils you can see if you see almost anywhere. Remember that Creationism and Creationist aren't always stupid, just mis-informed.

tommygunn · March 28, 2008

Yes, but my point was more about 'faith' than 'evidence'. I mean the fact that they have this epic story that apparently sums up the entire universe and its origins, and was writtin directly from the word of god, it would probably seem more believable to me if, after all that they present to you as evidence, they didn't have this concept called "faith", where you're supposed to believe in it no matter what else you see or hear. No matter what doubts you may have. I believe in evolution because the way it was told to us was different. You can choose to read about science and, for a lot of us, we are force-fed religion from the time we're a day old. although science is taught in public schools, and religion is typically not, i have never been told by a science teacher that my body is comprised of cells and if i dont believe that i'll burn and suffer for eternity after i die. Religion is like the insecure, uneducated one of two people having an argument, and so therefore must begin shouting and threatening because they're running out of ideas, and Science the calm, logical one, who just wants to know what is true, even if they turn out to be incorrect, which is what makes me trust Science a lot more easily.

krbe · March 28, 2008

Science don't know everything. That's the reason behind science—to know more. Until then, we can only believe, or have faith. Like the way Benjamin Franklin had faith in that lightning was electrical. Or how the 50's rocket scientists had faith in the possibility that man one day would reach the moon. Until we can prove or disprove, we only have our faith. ANd remember that evolution, the Big Banh haven't been proved, haven't been tested; there's jsut vast amounts of evidence in favour of such conclusions.

tommygunn · March 28, 2008

Faith does not belong in science. There is a difference between blind faith and acting on something you think might be true by conducting scientific experiments. 50's rocket scientists didn't have 'faith' that humankind would eventually make it to the moon, they calculated the risk of making the trip, based on the distance, and their confidence in the technology that they had available to them at the time, and their knowledge that technology would certainly improve in the future, and concluded that it was indeed a possibility. Faith is based on nothing, that's the idea of faith

nazaguy · March 28, 2008

Science isn't always calm and collective. Just read the god delusion by Richard Dawkins.

SimLord the Great · March 28, 2008

First of all, Vandy, I greatly admire your statement. Second of all I would like to discuss the evidence supporting creation. In virutally all aspects of live, evidence for creation exist, from the complexity of even the most basic living organism's DNA, to the complexity of the universe and the stars. First of all, looking at genetics. There are four basic parts to the human genome. Each one can only be linked only to one other. I forget the names of these parts, but for now bear with me. If you had an impossibly small strand of DNA containing only 12 pairs of these parts you could arange them in 8,916,100,448,256 ways, and thats an impossibly small amount of DNA, and to think this just happened? In genes and heredity as each generation passes, no information is added to the organism's genes. Information is only lost, this explains why as time goes on we see new diseases and deformities occuring in not only people, but in all organisms. Such errors in the DNA become more prominent when siblings or cousins produce offspring because of the similarities in the DNA and the errors in it. Sometimes, like in breeding dogs, information is removed to allow other features needed for survival of that organism in that particular habitat. Therefore, information is removed, not added, to make specific features more prominant. This is an example of natural and artificial selection, which many evoulutionists believe is evidence for evolution, which in fact it is not, because it only involves the gradual removal of information, which directly conflicts with evoulution. This is also an example for a young earth, between 6 and 20 thousand years old. This is because at the current rate of genetic decline if our earth were millions of years old most life, including humans would have gone extinct thousands of years ago due to genetic flaws. Second of all, in the universe when a star meets its doom, wether it be through a nova or a supernova, it takes the matter from three dead stars to gain enough mass to create a new star, which would eventually result in the destruction of all stars. Also I believe that we see the light from stars billions of light years away because when God created the universe he put the light there at the moment of creation, after all, God put them there for our enjoyment. Thats what I can think of off the top of my head for now. By the way, check out this link and the website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp.

krbe · March 28, 2008

Originally posted by: tommygunn Faith does not belong in science. There is a difference between blind faith and acting on something you think might be true by conducting scientific experiments. 50's rocket scientists didn't have 'faith' that humankind would eventually make it to the moon, they calculated the risk of making the trip, based on the distance, and their confidence in the technology that they had available to them at the time, and their knowledge that technology would certainly improve in the future, and concluded that it was indeed a possibility. Faith is based on nothing, that's the idea of faithquote>

faith — [feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

- noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

- Idiom

9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Regarding rocket science, both 1 and 2 apply: They trusted their hypothesis, which would be substantiated once the rocket made it to the moon. Without faith, all scientists can just give up: The purpose of science is to prove what we earlier just could believe. Take flying: Without people beliving that it would be possible to build flying machines, wouldn't the Wright brothers have faith in their abilities and machine and have made the first machine powered flight.

coolotter88 · March 28, 2008

That's not faith, that testing the hypothesis. You don't need any faith in testing a hypothesis, of course, the scientists would be happy if their hypothesis was correct but if it is wrong, just go back to square one and think of a new hypothesis. On the other hand, the THEORY of Evolution is well tested and has been proven to be the best explanation so far. It can only be thrown out the window IF and only IF it is proven incorrect. And since Christians insist that God cannot be reached at the moment, Creationism is not going to be replacing Evolution and SHOULD not even be considered fit for a Biology class.

edit: Also at Simlord, Information is not "Lost", there are no increasing deformities in all animals, there may be isolated cases where an animal receives damaged DNA, most of the time, these don't survive to reproduce to pass along the damaged DNA. This has happened throughout history, Woolly Mammoths suffered from genetic errors, Sabre-toothed tigers, Dinosaurs, etc. Otherwise, when changes to the environment occur, the natural variation within a species gives certain members of the population an edge over their buddies. These advantaged individuals live longer, reproduce more often because they can live longer and healthier lives. Also, the animals on Earth are not static, all the animals we see today have not been here since Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago.

The Young Earth fairy tale can be disproved easily with radioisotope dating (and don't say it has lots of room for error because half lives are half lives are half lives, they don't change)

Yeah, it may take the matter of 3 stars to make 1 star, but there's enough matter to last us until the Universe expands so much that there's nothing to see anymore. however, when this happens, humans probably won't be here anymore and that's not something to worry about.

so all in all, you're wrong.

extra long post because...

http://www.xkcd.com/386/

tommygunn · March 28, 2008

Originally posted by: krbe