Theory of evolution vs creationism

[Antipodean]

TetsuoShima: ARE YOU ILLITERATE?

 

"All science is based on it really' date=' if we say a theory is 100% certain, then this means it cannot be improved and in the end all science will stop! There allways is the possibily that you're/something is wrong and usually wrong does not mean completely wrong, but it rather means that there is room for improvement"[/quote']

 

Thats not true, science allows for a postulate to move from being a theory, for example if a theory has been demonstrated to hold universally true, then it can become a LAW.

 

Since there is no evidence for the most crucial part: the true start of life and how this occured and since this is implied in the vote' date=' that you think it's impossible for 'an intelligence'/God to have originated life, you are voting through a belief-system, not a scientific system. How strange this may seem, but since you're not voting with evidence, it's clear...[/quote']

 

YOU OBVIOUSLY havn't actually been following the thread above have you? - Check out StevenOfNine's input. Also, take a gander at The Stanley Miller Experiment. In 1953, he sent electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life. THIS IS OLD SCIENCE.

 

IF you wish to insert a hand of god at the moment when these amino acids and RNA-like chemicals became RNA... go ahead - that's a matter of personal faith, but in NO WAY does render the whole evolutionary process a fallacy. NOR does it make science a "belief system" as you suggest. Science is a method.

 

What you are suggesting can be compared to looking at a car without a spark plug, but suggesting that if science can't prove the spark plug, then internal combustion is just a belief system and the car could equally have achieved locomotion thanks to god and his supernatural powers... IN SHORT IT MAKES YOU LOOK FOOLISH.

[TetsuoShima]

MODERATION: First of all I will only say this once. If you cannot take part of a discussion without becoming offensive, then feel free to not take part at all! It holds no value at all to throw offences at me or anybody else and if you're not real carefull it will, in the end, get you banned!

 

Back to the discussion:

 

TetsuoShima: ARE YOU ILLITERATE?

 

"All science is based on it really' date=' if we say a theory is 100% certain, then this means it cannot be improved and in the end all science will stop! There allways is the possibily that you're/something is wrong and usually wrong does not mean completely wrong, but it rather means that there is room for improvement"[/quote']

 

Thats not true, science allows for a postulate to move from being a theory, for example if a theory has been demonstrated to hold universally true, then it can become a LAW.

 

There does not exist a single 'law' as you put it, that is accepted in the community as being 100% correct! When something is called a 'law', it is because it is the most accurate statement they have up untill that point and it will be used as being a truth, but no fair scientist I know will call it truth in the full meaning of the word!

 

Of course you can postulate things and try to come up with enough evidence to support it, that is one of the ways science operates, I never said you couldn't neither did I ever say that you couldn't make 'laws' and treat them as such, at least for as long as you keep in mind that it might not be 100% correct. For most things this solution works perfectly, only when you get down to the basics, you have to take in account every little thing. If you want to build a bridge, you do not use general relativity, you use derevatives of Newtons laws, does this make Newtons laws 100% truths? No. Even general relativity is not 100% correct btw!

 

To make theories usable, you have to simplify, but to discuss, things that go down to the core, you mustn't, if you do, you might make errors that are relatively big in comparison to the issue.

 

 

Since there is no evidence for the most crucial part: the true start of life and how this occured and since this is implied in the vote' date=' that you think it's impossible for 'an intelligence'/God to have originated life, you are voting through a belief-system, not a scientific system. How strange this may seem, but since you're not voting with evidence, it's clear...[/quote']

 

YOU OBVIOUSLY havn't actually been following the thread above have you? - Check out StevenOfNine's input. Also, take a gander at The Stanley Miller Experiment. In 1953, he sent electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life. THIS IS OLD SCIENCE.

 

IF you wish to insert a hand of god at the moment when these amino acids and RNA-like chemicals became RNA... go ahead - that's a matter of personal faith, but in NO WAY does render the whole evolutionary process a fallacy. NOR does it make science a "belief system" as you suggest. Science is a method.

 

I never said science is a belief system, where did I say that? Can you quote that for me? I did say that people are using it as such, me not being one of them.

 

What you are suggesting can be compared to looking at a car without a spark plug' date=' but suggesting that if science can't prove the spark plug, then internal combustion is just a belief system and the car could equally have achieved locomotion thanks to god and his supernatural powers... IN SHORT IT MAKES YOU LOOK FOOLISH. [/quote']

 

What I'm saying is that if you can't OBSERVE the spark (through whatever means I have at my disposal), then it could be that it isn't there! And indeed that it could be 'the hand of God' that moves it. If you're going to argue that we know that it isn't, then I'll say: but we can observe the spark!

[GorunNova]

The big problem here is that people are looking at an explanation about how sparkplugs work and saying it can't be accurate because it doesn't give instructions on how to build one, or attributing the description of the building of the car's frame to the building of the spark plug... ;p

 

Edit: A few tweaks, and a disclaimer: By using the car-to-universe analogy, I'm not suggesting -for a moment- that the universe was created by anybody...

[wahaha]

A dead carcass has all the amino acids, organic muck, and building blocks of life.. yet it's still a dead carcass. There are still processes going on inside that body, but nothing you could call intelligent life. Whatever WAS there keeping that body moving, and processing, is gone. And I doubt it had anything to do with chemicals.

 

Just because you have a playground full of legos doesn't mean anything. Something has to have the intelligence to build something out of it and put the pieces together. Each cell has its own function and I don't see how they could come together randomly or seek each other out in a pile of goop to form something and then have it crawl out, as if it knew it needed legs to walk or muscles to slither. How did this slime that we came from know that you need lungs, when it came from a liquid environment? It didn't jump out and observe, then jump back into the pool.

 

As previously mentioned it also doesn't explain how everything came to exist. If there is a GOD how did it get there? Where did all the liquid and rocks materialize from? What is all this dark matter in the universe that scientists are making a fuss about? All that space between stars has to be filled with some particle. There are just too many variables that can't be accounted for.

 

From a website that examines both sides of the story, it seems the only thing both sides agree upon is that life appears to have been created spontaneously all at once. Aside from that, every thing evolutionists say is just speculation, and not fact. Take the sign that used to be in Carlsbad caves for example.

 

"Professor Carroll, an eminent Canadian paleontologist, is well aware of such highly publicized fossils as archaeopteryx (the alleged half-reptile, half-bird) and the so-called walking whale, but he still has to acknowledge that birds and whales arose suddenly without obvious ancestors. As a matter of fact, it is well known by paleontologists that literally all phyla, classes, orders, and families of plants and animals have arisen suddenly without obvious transitional ancestors, as far as the fossil record shows." http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=854

[Ruk]

it seems the only thing both sides agree upon is that life appears to have been created spontaneously all at once.

 

Both sides? Evolutionists would disagree strongly with that statement.

 

Each cell has its own function and I don't see how they could come together randomly or seek each other out in a pile of goop to form something and then have it crawl out, as if it knew it needed legs to walk or muscles to slither.

 

If this is your idea of how life began, its no wonder you dislike evolution. You are so far off of what scientists believe its amazing. Why don't you actually take a few hours and actually read the page full of links I've showed you. The beginning of life isn't a great mystery, but is rather quite logical.

 

A) organic chemicals form naturally, and are present throughout the solar system, not just here on Earth. We can replicate the production of these in a lab. Physics does the first work for us... there is no magic or long odds of elements just happening to combine in just the right proportions.

 

B ) simple peptides (basically just a combo of the above chemicals) have been seen to replicate, producing more of the same. These are just simple chemical chains that run their own extremely simple chemical reactions. Reproducing is one of the very basic functions of life, and these things aren't even alive. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to get from A-B.

 

C) the very shape and polarity of water molecules helps create shells around objects. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to see how cell walls might generate from these as various chemicals bond along the outside. Once you have boundaries, organisms trapped within are protected further from outside elements. Doesn't take a great deal of imagination to get from B, to something like B trapped in C, and thus forming the first single cellular organism. This thing likewise doesn't necessarily have to be classified as "alive", but is clearly a precursor to true life.

 

D) several single cellular organisms combine to work together. We see this today in many species as well. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see how once combined, certain portions might specialize to benefit the whole (and themselves) even further, thus creating the first true multicellular life.

 

All in all, I think creationism is a failure of imagination. Science isn't some great unknown, but a logical progression, all supported by things we observe here today. Simple truth is that thus far evolution fits EVERY observation we've made about the world around us. Nothing we've found thus far violates its basic principles, or we'd be looking for a new theory.

 

The same can't be said for creationism, which has countless violations (age of earth, fossil record, genetic simularities, etc)

 

From a website that examines both sides of the story

 

LOL - ICR is a pro-creation website. NOTHING they say can be construed as anything approaching impartiality. See below for the proof:

 

it is well known by paleontologists that literally all phyla, classes, orders, and families of plants and animals have arisen suddenly without obvious transitional ancestors, as far as the fossil record shows

 

Wow, thats a whopper of a lie. Amazing that creationists can't prove their point without lying about it.

 

Of course they justify their statement by manufactoring a definition of "transitional" fossils that is so strict that it ignores the evidence.

 

Transitional fossils are actually quite numerous:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

Professor Carroll, an eminent Canadian paleontologist

 

And BTW, your article's quote of Carroll's research is only PARTIAL AND INCOMPLETE. Its called "quote mining", where you look for statements taken out of context to try and support your view.

 

To read the full account, go here:

 

http://home.att.net/~troybritain/articles/justmorris.htm

 

If you can't respond to this debate with true information, please don't bother replying.

 

 

[DFreed69]

I voted other as well...Although I am a big "Big Bang" guy and the idea of a God or Superior Being sickens me. The idea of somethng bigger and badder than us is prevenlant all around us..(Just think of that school yard bully, there is always some one bigger and badder than he is)..

Then we ge to evloutionism well here is a good one :p Just think about dog breeders....Hummmm. Well here is the argument.... Any baptist knows you just do not see Watches creating them selves ... or do you? hummmm. God I hate these polls.....

[Ruk]

Just think about dog breeders....Hummmm.

 

Dog breeding is one of the biggest proofs in evolution in my opinion. In just a few short centuries, one can see the HUGE differences just a few small changes in genetics cause in just a single species. The differences between breeds is less than 1% of their genes.

 

If such obvious changes can happen in so quick a time, why are people so opposed to the idea that much larger changes may happen if the scale were thousands to millions of years?

 

At some point, changes in genetics cause creature to be so distinct that interbreeding with others who have evolved in a different fashion is no longer possible, and then we have a whole new species.

[Antipodean]

Any Catholics amoungst you might be interested in the fact that Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, has reaffirmed Pope John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

 

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

 

 

We've actually witnessed natural selection in action already. Take the Peppered moth in england, which actually changed colour with the industrial revolution. They used to be universally light coloured, but pollution meant that light coloured moths were easily spotted by birds on dark and grey surfaces. Light moths get eaten, dark moths survive and VOILA the Peppered moth became a darker species in developed and polluted areas. Evolution in action.

[Antipodean]

Then we ge to evloutionism well here is a good one :p Just think about dog breeders....Hummmm. Well here is the argument.... Any baptist knows you just do not see Watches creating them selves ... or do you?

 

 

Firstly... there is NO SUCH THING AS "evloutionism" - with or without the wacky spelling. Evolution is not a religion or a school of philosohy or an art movement. It is a descriptor for an ongoing and observable biological process.

 

And I was waiting for the old "a watch doesn't make itself" line. Normally the arguement runs like this: " If we find a watch in a field, it is too complex to have appeared there by natural process so they assume that there must be a watchmaker responsible for its creation."

 

The thing is we should know better by now that complexity can indeed occur through happenstance... take fractals and the beautiful and infinitely complex images they can generate, whose forms frequently echo those found in nature.

 

And anyhow, if there was a designer, why are so many organisms so weirdly, if not poorly designed?

 

Why do people have an appendix that serves no purpose but is prone to fatal inflammation?

Why do we have knees and backs that give out all the time, when it is easy to imagine better designs - even for us non-omnipotent beings?

Why are humans made so that without modern medicine, giving birth frequently kills the mother just when she is most needed?

 

The Bible doesn't have an answer to these questions. Evolution however provides the only rational explanation.

[Soulreaper]

This is a fine debate.. but what if maybe just maybe.. the 'truth' or whatever is closer to the 'truth' is something inbetween intelligent design and evolution?

[TetsuoShima]

This is a fine debate.. but what if maybe just maybe.. the 'truth' or whatever is closer to the 'truth' is something inbetween intelligent design and evolution?

 

That is (about) exactly the point is was trying to make. :)

 

 

We can make models/theories/philosophies as much as we want, but since the only way to prove something is 100% correct is to do it by in mathematical way and since nature does not (or at least, is not proven to) function in a completely mathematical way, we can never (or at least not by any means available to us now) state a theory/model as being 100% correct.

 

Now, normally I would not even look at this arguement, since it's so unworkable, but for things that are as fundamental as the creation of life/the universe/everything we know, I do think everybody should take (or at least consider taking) this into account, simply because it is such a basic/fundamental thing. :)

[Antipodean]

There is NO "inbetween" evolution and evolution denial. EITHER THERE IS EVOLUTION or there isn't. The only thing I can add to that is the fact that one side has the evidence and the other doesn't.

 

 

IF you chose to believe in theistic evolution, as in an evolution that takes place by virtue of divine influence... that is your choice. But sorry NO.. u can't chose a middle ground on this one. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

 

If you do have some sort of halfway theory, then please share it and base it upon factual evidence. If not then don't presume to impose your ignorance upon the rest of us.

[Beawulf]

I would put it, that there either is a god or there isnt, the details of the theory of evolution and the details of how life came about may change. But you cant be somewhere between a god existing and not.

 

the cat is either dead, or alive. It can't be both.

[bones2097]

the way i see it they all link together.....

 

you can't fault evolution because you see proof of it everyday... weather its crossbreading dogs... or moths... my fav has to be the fetus.. weather a animial is born in a egg or a womb... life is created in a solvent (water guy!!),, ergo life had to begin in the water (sea)....

 

we have witnessed stars being blown up & eveidence of planets being formed... it can be quite obvious to say that it all began with a big one!!!... i duno what is ment by intel des.... if it means being created by a higher being then who created them??

 

finally what was here before the big bang??? why was there a big bang... i'll cop otu & say god (noooooooo!)...

 

creationism (genesis), hum if you mean by adam & eve.. ie only to beings fathered a whole nation... well they had to be perfect to aviod the effects of inbreading...... hence all humans should be perfect & shouldn't suffer the effects of old age???

 

but it you mean & god said let there be light & there was .... well an explosion cause a light... a very big light...... but because no one was there to witness it and it was inthe void of sapce was there really a bang? lol!!!

[TetsuoShima]

There is NO "inbetween" evolution and evolution denial. EITHER THERE IS EVOLUTION or there isn't. The only thing I can add to that is the fact that one side has the evidence and the other doesn't.

 

 

IF you chose to believe in theistic evolution, as in an evolution that takes place by virtue of divine influence... that is your choice. But sorry NO.. u can't chose a middle ground on this one. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

 

If you do have some sort of halfway theory, then please share it and base it upon factual evidence. If not then don't presume to impose your ignorance upon the rest of us.

 

Let me state my personal idea, AGAIN, just for your purpose, because you evidently don't seem to grasp what I'm telling here.

 

Based upon the evidence collected, I would say the evolution-theory/model is probably largely correct in so far that it explains the differences between the species (and some more), most likely it is NOT 100% correct. It does not (nor does any other theory) offer SUFFICIENT (ie. infallable) evidence for the beginning of life (nor does any other theory sufficiently explain (by means of true evidence) the beginning of everything). So, I was not saying that either one was the absolute truth, nor was I saying that I had a 'better' answer, I WAS saying that we do not know the whole truth and whether or not we will ever know, remains to be seen!

 

At this point I'm beginning to wonder whether you every recieved some training in philosophy for scientific subjects...

 

You can believe whatever you want for all I care, but you cannot accuse other people for being ignorant when they have some serious arguements that you cannot possibly oppose/negate.

 

 

I would put it, that there either is a god or there isnt, the details of the theory of evolution and the details of how life came about may change. But you cant be somewhere between a god existing and not.

 

the cat is either dead, or alive. It can't be both.

 

 

Exactly, there either has to be a God or there isn't (as a sidenote I'd like to mention that based upon quantumtheory, I could argue that this does not necessarily has to be true, in quantumtheory, it is possible to have two different states at the same time (be it a probability) and it can even be said that it is possible to be at 2 locations at the same time (this however is a point of view that is not shared by all sientists and hence is still the subject of some serious discussions), but since this is not necessary for my point, I'll not use it), but since nobody can prove whether there is a God, or there isn't, we can simply not make conclusions based upon insufficient evidence (as far as God is concerned). btw. the existance of a God does not have to exclude the evolution theory/model, neither does the evolution theory exclude the existance of a God.

 

Saying that there is no God is a statement that is based upon 'belief' just as much as saying that there is!

 

Since this is a fundamental issue, you even cannot solve it in a scientifically and philosophycally acceptable manner (for now). Therefore there can only be one correct answer: we do not know (yet)!

 

I can understand that this answer is unacceptable to some people, but in all honesty, it is the most correct statement!

 

I have great faith in science, but it is ill suited for discussions that basically come down to the meaning of life. Sience will progress and one day it may discover things that WILL explain and prove a lot, but that time has not yet come (as far as this matter is concerned).

[Beawulf]

as a sidenote I'd like to mention that based upon quantumtheory' date=' I could argue that this does not necessarily has to be true, in quantumtheory, it is possible to have two different states at the same time and it can even be said that it is possible to be at 2 locations at the same time[/quote']

 

my understanding is quantum mechanics says that there is a probability of an object being in located at certain positions. However it can only be in one position at a time.

 

An example being schroedinger's cat, you can setup a device that will kill the cat half the time, you let the device run through a cycle, without looking to see the result, you know there is a 50% chance the cat is dead, 50% it is alive. It cant be both.

 

 

Sorry to go off topic, I've got a test on quantum mechanics (among other things) tomorrow. ;)

[bones2097]

ya gona confuse a few ppl here....

 

which came first the chicken or the egg???

well actually it was an egg with 2 legs & a wing (yes only one!!)... lol

 

i think god is a product of our imagination... i mean primative cultures used to worship the sun & moon... because they were the unknown as they got wiser they turned to/invented the concept of spirtes & enventally god....

 

god being all mighty an all that i think it would be hard to top that....

 

i mean even if we met alien of a higher being which they proved that they created all life on earth because it was some kidz science experiment.... (gone wrong!!!)

 

we could still say god created them (dare i say another god... :o)...

 

so untill we know better/be proven wrong, god would be our final answer in all cases... for ever!!!!!! ha :)

[TetsuoShima]

 

my understanding is quantum mechanics says that there is a probability of an object being in located at certain positions. However it can only be in one position at a time.

 

An example being schroedinger's cat, you can setup a device that will kill the cat half the time, you let the device run through a cycle, without looking to see the result, you know there is a 50% chance the cat is dead, 50% it is alive. It cant be both.

 

 

You're quite correct, but quantumphysics is basically a pure mathematical science (be it based upon real life evidence, the theory itself is purely mathematical and as such only a reflection of reality (only should not be interpretted here as a strong word, since quatumphysics obviously is an extremely usefull science and usually quite correct in it's findings)). As such, the meanings that are attached to it are based for a large part upon philosophical points of view. I said, it could be argued, not it is, there is a difference. I also said that this specific point of view was not supported by all scientists, but it is a point of view that is there and should not be ignored.

 

The more/most popular point of view is the one you are stating btw.

 

I think/hope this satisfies your question/statement... :)

 

 

And since it is not a necessary statement for my previous deductions, it doesn't change its conclusions... :)

 

 

Actually I'm pretty well versed in this discussion (about the topic), my sister is a theology teacher and I am a physicist (for the most part, still part-time getting some extra degrees atm), you can imagine the arguements we allready had about this subject. :D

[Ruk]

finally what was here before the big bang???

 

One thing you forget is that time didn't exist before the big bang, so technically there was no *before* the big bang.

[GorunNova]

Ruk's got a point... to talk about there being anything before the big bang, you automatically act on the assumption that 1) unlike all the other 3 dimensions, time is somehow seperate from our universe, or 2) there is a parallel time dimension outside of our own universe to use as a frame of reference. I could mention my discussion with some friends about possibilities in that direction, but I've got to run to class, and it wouldn't be exactly on-topic ^^'