Creationism vs. Evolution

Duke87 · March 15, 2009

Originally posted by: Gridlock

Before Christianity wiped out all other religionsquote>

I think I know what you mean here, but that's a poor choice of words. Saying Christianity "wiped out" all other religions implies that it went and killed every other religious practice off... which obviously it didn't, seeing as there are a dozen or so other major religions and countless other minor religions practiced around the world today.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus instead replacing it with a 2000-year-old book for which there is no evidence for its validityquote>

But then you say..

Secondly, the Exodus probably was a historical event, based on the evidence avaliable, but there is no evidence of any supernatural involvement.quote>

So you deny its validity, then almost admit it, but deny its given cause. Hmm.quote>

Obviously, the Bible is not a complete and total fabrication. No one ever said it was. The most glaring example being that Jesus Christ is known to have actually been a real person that lived on earth ca. 4 BC-32 AD. He was actually crucified, etc., etc.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that this absolutely does not automatically make everything in the Bible true. I mean, A Tale of Two Cities isn't a complete fabrication, either. There was actually a French Revolution, but I doubt Jarvis Lorry was a real person.

The point being that just because something appears in the Bible doesn't mean it's true, but it doesn't mean it's false either. Some things we have evidence from other sources of actually having occurred in some way or other (but sans divine intervention). Others we don't, some of which (like the Noah's Ark story) are simply outright ridiiculous based on their scientific impossibility.

Secondly, there is little, if any "censorship and dismissal" going on in the scientific community. If you have a hypothesis, go and test it. There is nothing to stop you.quote>

That's outright BS. One only has to look at dissenting science on climate change to see that the scientific community has raised 'censorship and dismissal' to a, ... well, science.quote>

The dismissal of dissent on climate change has little to do with the scientific community and everything to do with politics. Dissenting scientist exist, and their opinions are no less valid, but the powers that be want to believe in carbon being the cause, so the dissenters get ignored. The problem arises from the issue becoming a hot button one to the point where politicians and activists, not scientists, dominate the literature and opinion on the matter.

aiumkastarkius · March 15, 2009

Brilliant explanation of phylogenetics.

Eastwinn · March 15, 2009

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Natural selection does not prove interspecies evolution.quote>

Wait, why not?

Duke87 · March 15, 2009

Originally posted by: Eastwinn

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Natural selection does not prove interspecies evolution.quote>

Wait, why not?quote>

It proves that it can happen, but it does not in and of itself prove that it did happen.

The fossil record takes care of that, though.

Gridlock · March 16, 2009

I got the weirdest NWO type message when i tryed to log in earlier lol

I dont know duke the choice of conversion or beheaded 4500 in one alleged incident or fight your way out of it look up Charlemagne, Arabela of Spain .

The Britons did not give up their pagan gods without a fight , folk tales are the pioneers pretended to be the tribal leaders friend , then had them beheaded , thats slaughter in my books , sorry if my english is blunt .This practice of beheading disbelievers can still happen in the world today in many places .In real world terms Christians and disbelievers are a minority .

Technology is allowing us to map out the characteristics of species , one day we might be able to create something thats alive .

We dont even have tools to see whats beyond our own galaxy yet . We still have lots to learn before evolution becomes more than theory . Id expect Evolution can prove these similarities,everything is connected we all part of the same eco system , thats my views , even if evolution scientist eventually create life it just proves ,it can be done .

Im not a preacher very rarely share my beliefs and im not trying to convert anyone , to be honest id struggle to be able to honestly advise anyone which religion to convert to .

There are many reasons to not believe and religion is one of them ,imho .

How you treat each other is more important than belief , In my twisted logic i trust that if there is afterlife , whatever comes after mortality is eternal ,however i believe disbelievers go to heaven if there is one , depends on how you live your life ,imho .

As long as the experiments dont cross the line of human suffering , then i fully support all evolution research .

1.7 billion believe in evolution without any proof , the qu ran calls god the Evolver and shaper 1400 years ago and also as drawings of human embryo .

K ll in that one , y and not i , gosh so many red lines .

fukuda · March 16, 2009

Arabela of Spain . quote>

Isabel?

Gridlock · March 16, 2009

I meant Spanish Inqui - Inquisition i was struggling to spell the word

so tryed a guess at the queens name

Isabella I of Castile .

Sam · March 16, 2009

Originally posted by: fukuda

...quote>

Nice explanation and pictures, that sure looks like a nice quality textbook. I'll keep an eye out for past editions at the book fairs now. Who says this thread doesn't achieve anything

Originally posted by: Duke87

Secondly, there is little, if any "censorship and dismissal" going on in the scientific community. If you have a hypothesis, go and test it. There is nothing to stop you.quote>

That's outright BS. One only has to look at dissenting science on climate change to see that the scientific community has raised 'censorship and dismissal' to a, ... well, science.quote>

The dismissal of dissent on climate change has little to do with the scientific community and everything to do with politics. Dissenting scientist exist, and their opinions are no less valid, but the powers that be want to believe in carbon being the cause, so the dissenters get ignored. The problem arises from the issue becoming a hot button one to the point where politicians and activists, not scientists, dominate the literature and opinion on the matter.quote>

Speaking of censorship, even if it did occur in the scientific community, its not a one way street.

Richard Dawkins was invited to give a speech at the University of Oklahoma. It was a public lecture (not part of the teaching program) in honour of Darwin anniversaries, and Dawkins had waived his speaking fee as he apparently often does for student audiences. In the days prior to the speech taking place Oklahoma Representative Todd Thomsen introduced two bills the second of which is below:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 52nd Legislature (2009)

HOUSE

RESOLUTION 1015 By: Thomsen

AS INTRODUCED

<StartFT>A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and

WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.

quote>

You can find the actual document at http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/HR1015_int.rtf

If you like that one, have a look at HR1014 which is the previous version as introduced. The language is a little ...um ... stronger.

As Pharyngula reader Just Plain Cliff succinctly put it "...Richard Dawkins only has the right to give a "free" speech, but not the right to free speech". Although it appears some seem to prefer he wasn't even allowed to give a free speech either. And if anyone's interested he did give the speech. It was entitled "The Purpose of Purpose".

Edit: Oh and I don't think the Representative put all those smileys in the bill either. Fixing it now

Edit 2:

In other news New Scientist has pulled an article from its website, as "New Scientist has received a complaint about the contents of this story." A more detailed reason is not known. What was the story about? It was written by one of their book review editors, Amanda Gefter, titled "How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda". I wondered why all this sounded familiar. Then I remembered. I'd read it in the print copy.

As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda.... So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.

New Scientist, Issue 2697, 28 Februray 2009, p23.

quote>

Originally posted by: Gridlock

...

As long as the experiments dont cross the line of human suffering , then i fully support all evolution research .

quote>

And what if the research into evolution could potentially stop a great deal of human suffering?

Blazerhawk · March 16, 2009

The point being that just because something appears in the Bible doesn't mean it's true, but it doesn't mean it's false either. Some things we have evidence from other sources of actually having occurred in some way or other (but sans divine intervention). Others we don't, some of which (like the Noah's Ark story) are simply outright ridiiculous based on their scientific impossibility. quote>

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." If you accept and grasp that idea nothing else in the Bible is impossible. As for scientific impossiblity I'd go into origin of the Universe stuff right here, but that is a separate argument, and I have no clue what theory is the frontrunner now.

Obviously, the Bible is not a complete and total fabrication. No one ever said it was. The most glaring example being that Jesus Christ is known to have actually been a real person that lived on earth ca. 4 BC-32 AD. He was actually crucified, etc., etc.quote>

This may sound a little off topic but I want to find out what you believe about Jesus Christ. I'll explain this later.

It proves that it can happen, but it does not in and of itself prove that it did happen.

The fossil record takes care of that, though. quote>

To be honest, even I as a creationist believe the concept of natural selection. What I don't see though is how it does anything other than determine habitat. Also, I'd like a little explanation as to how the fossil record proves evolution.

Duke87 · March 16, 2009

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." If you accept and grasp that idea nothing else in the Bible is impossible.quote>

"If you accept and grasp that idea" being the key qualifying words here. Many of us do not. And I daresay that outside of the Bible itself, there is no real evidence whatsoever of divine creation.

This may sound a little off topic but I want to find out what you believe about Jesus Christ.quote>

He was a man. A great man, with a strong sense of morality, who amassed quite a following and (perhaps unintentionally) founded the religion that bears his name. But ultimately, he was just a man, no different than any of us. He never performed any actual miracles, nor did he rise from the dead. He was executed for political reasons (as many were back in those days), not because it was god's plan or anything.

Also, I'd like a little explanation as to how the fossil record proves evolution.quote>

It doesn't "prove" it in the absolute sense of the word, but it does give us an awful lot of dots to connect. The fossil record has continually supported the theory of evolution, but it has yet to refute it.

N106 · March 16, 2009

Creationism AND evolution are both THEORIES! The difference is... you can't prove or disprove creationism, but you can prove evolution, if not quite disprove it. You can prove evolution by seeing how species on a small island decrease in size, or by looking at fossilized evidence underground. Evolution is based off of years of scientific research by Charles Darwin, while creationism is just a makeshift explanation in a 2,000 year old book meant to end the question of how humans came to be. While creationists argue that God made the fossils underground, and planned every single species, that would mean that God wanted to make it extremely easy for people to disbelieve and even disprove Christianity. Someone tell me, does the Bible say anything like that?

So, while not worth completely ruling out, creationism is more unlikely than a hurricane hitting a junkyard then assembling a perfect Boeing 747.

____----____ · March 16, 2009

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." If you accept and grasp that idea nothing else in the Bible is impossible.quote>

"If you accept and grasp that idea" being the key qualifying words here. Many of us do not. And I daresay that outside of the Bible itself, there is no real evidence whatsoever of divine creation.

This may sound a little off topic but I want to find out what you believe about Jesus Christ.quote>

He was a man. A great man, with a strong sense of morality, who amassed quite a following and (perhaps unintentionally) founded the religion that bears his name. But ultimately, he was just a man, no different than any of us. He never performed any actual miracles, nor did he rise from the dead. He was executed for political reasons (as many were back in those days), not because it was god's plan or anything.

Also, I'd like a little explanation as to how the fossil record proves evolution.quote>

It doesn't "prove" it in the absolute sense of the word, but it does give us an awful lot of dots to connect. The fossil record has continually supported the theory of evolution, but it has yet to refute it.quote>

Evidence? how is a rip off collection of myths evidence of divine creation?

Patricius Maximus · March 16, 2009

Also, while reading a news story about the new "superbugs" (drug-resistant TB, etc.), I thought about the absurdity of Creationists denying natural selection exists quote>

No one denies natural selection, just the idea that through it, amoeba can become butterflies, and butterflies become bears. Natural selection does not prove interspecies evolution.quote>

____----____ · March 17, 2009

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Also, while reading a news story about the new "superbugs" (drug-resistant TB, etc.), I thought about the absurdity of Creationists denying natural selection exists quote>

No one denies natural selection, just the idea that through it, amoeba can become butterflies, and butterflies become bears. Natural selection does not prove interspecies evolution.quote>

As others have so thoroughly pointed out, that is not exactly how natural selection works. Also, natural selection proves that speciation can happen, and the fossil record proves it did happen, and the natural selection of superbugs proves it is happening how.

instead replacing it with a 2000-year-old book for which there is no evidence for its validityquote>

But then you say..

Secondly, the Exodus probably was a historical event, based on the evidence avaliable, but there is no evidence of any supernatural involvement.quote>

So you deny its validity, then almost admit it, but deny its given cause. Hmm.

quote>

Let me clarify my point. Because the Bible states that an event happened, it does not mean it did happen. However, if the Bible states an event happened, and is backed up by other historical and archaeological records, then it most likely did happen.

If it is not backed up by other records, and/or is scientifically impossible, then it most likely did not happen. That is the method for judging the factuality of any event in any book. The Bible is no different -- it is a book.

Secondly, there is little, if any "censorship and dismissal" going on in the scientific community. If you have a hypothesis, go and test it. There is nothing to stop you.quote>

That's outright BS. One only has to look at dissenting science on climate change to see that the scientific community has raised 'censorship and dismissal' to a, ... well, science.quote>

That censorship is not coming from the scientific community (i.e. scientists). It mainly comes from politicians. Scientists being censored does not in itself prove they are being censored by other scientists.

Or maybe God's greatest deception was convincing billions of people that it is better to live in ignorant slavery than be free, sapient beings. If I believed in the Christian mythology (which I do not), then I would be inclined to be a Satanist.quote>

Funny, you sure have embraced one of their propaganda talking points pretty well.quote>

Sam · March 17, 2009

Originally posted by: crushedcar

...

To be honest, even I as a creationist believe the concept of natural selection. What I don't see though is how it does anything other than determine habitat.

...

quote>

More things than just habitat utilisation are affected by natural selection (I would argue that while some organisms do alter their habitat to fit better with themselves, generally evolution does not change the habitat to fit the organism, the organism lives or dies depending in its ability to survive its circumstances which may include habitat and other things).

An example of a non-habitat effect of natural selection is virulence. Parasites which are very virulent are likely to kill off their host before the parasite has a chance to reproduce. Natural selection tends to favour parasites that are less virulent as they have a better chance of reproducing and their offspring surviving.

Natural selection can also only act on changes or characteristics which alter an individual's ability to survive its circumstances. If a change or characteristic is neutral in effect or not expressed, then it cannot be acted on by natural selection. It can therefore spread quite quickly and silently through a population depending on other factors affecting the gene frequency and flow in that population (eg if the characteristic is associated with another characteristic that is not neutral then it can be affected indirectly, or if a group is isolated from another it cannot spread to the other group).

Another example of non-habitat effects would be in sexual selection which is a sub-type of natural selection. In sexual selection individuals prefer a certain characteristic in a potential mate (ie mates that are more "sexy"). Those of the opposite gender have that characteristic are more successful at reproducing and passing on their genes (including mutations) to the next generation. In this way certain genes that are not directly selected (those in an individual that is preferred) also have a better chance of being passed on.

However, evolution is a multi-step process, and selection is only one step and only one mechanism. The other steps are generation of change and reproduction with inheritence. Its not possible to consider natural selection in isolation of these other steps. There are also other mechanisms such as genetic drift.

One of the common sources of genetic change is duplication of parts of the genome (a single base pair, several base pairs, large sections, whole chromosomes and even whole genomes are known to occur). Once duplications occur either the copy or original can accumulate further changes without disrupting the original function. If you look at genes you will notice many are very similar, and are obviously copies subsequently modified and reproduced (ie evolution). It is possible to trace the phylogeny of genes in the same way you can trace phylogeny of a species. Even if we knew nothing of the fossil record, there is ample evidence of evolution in the genetic record.

Originally posted by: crushedcar

Also, I'd like a little explanation as to how the fossil record proves evolution.

...

quote>

Personally I don't use the word prove in relation to science except mathematics. Science is not about proof, its about evidence and reliable methods of testing the conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence to produce new knowledge . It reminds me of an Indiana Jones quote:

Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.

quote>

So what evidence does the fossil record provide? The fossil record is direct evidence of past life on earth. It shows us that life on Earth of the past is not the same as it is now, ie life has changed over time. The fossil record shows that there are discernable patterns to this change eg unique, non-repeating succession of species assemblages, nested sets, morphological disparity and divergence within the major groups increasing with time, and decreasing closer to their point of origin to the extent that taxonomic assignment becomes difficult. It also shows the direction, rate and extent of these changes, and allows correlation across continents to construct a "calendar" of major events.

As well as physical remains, the fossil record provides via trace fossils evidence of the behaviour of past organisms. The fossil record also provides windows into the ecology and habitats of past species assemblages.

The fossil record confirms and supports evidence for evolution from other fields such as biogeography, genetics and population ecology.

Edit: Aleking, I think some of your quotes might be broken in your post above this one, I had trouble figuring out who said what and what question you were responding to, as some of them don't seem to be closing properly by the looks.

Easy Bakes · March 17, 2009

Originally posted by: samquote>