Theory of evolution vs creationism

[tadair]

I've gone for evolution/big bang, and as I'm a second year Geology student, I have a few (ok, a lot of) things to add regarding the age of the Earth and some of the history of geology being mentioned here :)

 

Warning: Very, very long :)

 

Fossils were first defined as being once living creatures by Nicolas Steno (1638-1686), who saw the similarity between modern sharks teeth and Glossopetrae fossil teeth; previously the word had meant anything dug up from the ground, from rocks to archaeology. He also developed some key ideas on how sedimentary rocks formed and were related to each other (sediment is deposited horizontally, oldest layers of rocks are at the bottom, rock layers are continuous in every direction - when there are no other factors to alter/limit them). As an interesting footnote, Steno was beatified in 1987 by Pope John Paul II for his work for the Catholic Church.

 

James Hutton (1726-1797) published a paper, 'Theory of the Earth 1788', promoting his idea that geological processes to alter and deposit new rocks took a long time, since while they were clearly happening at the present time, no changes could be observed; after initial resistance (his later 1795 book with 2,138 pages was little understood due to the poor explanation of his ideas within it), his ideas were accepted following Charles Lyell's (1797-1875) promotion of them under the collective name of Actualism-Gradualism (later known as Uniformitarianism in North America), and following this acceptance it was realised by the geological community that the age of the Earth had to be in the order of millions of years, not thousands.

 

Biostratigraphy (using fossils to date rocks) was developed by William Smith (1769-1839), who produced the first large scale geological maps, of Bath in 1799, then of both England and Wales in 1815 (the first of any country), he recognised that there were repetitions of certain groups of rock layers from place to place, and that within these rocks, various fossils were restricted to certain places in the rock layers (and thus would only have lived during the times these rocks were initially deposited). Smith named these groups of rocks based on the key fossils that were contained within them, giving rise to the geological periods such as the Cambrian, Silurian, Triassic, Jurassic etc. He was not able to give an exact age, but was able to determine which was older than the other, and identify such rocks elsewhere, based on the fossil content.

 

Biostratigraphy is used as the primary method of determining the ages of rocks in the oil industry today, since with the large amount of known fossil types and the times they lived in, it provides the most accurate dating method available. There are two limitations to it however, it only works on sedimentary rocks (not igneous or metamorphic), and it only works for the past 550 million years (prior to which, fossils did not have hard parts - shells or skeletons, and as such are much harder to identify in sufficient detail).

 

In 1859, Charles Darwin publishes 'The Origin of Species ...' (yes, Smith figured out Biostratigraphy without knowing about evolution).

 

In 1947, Willard Libby discovers Carbon-14 dating (50,000 years constraint). This leads to the discoveries of other radiometric dating methods including K-40 -> Ar-40 (1.3 billion years half-life), U-234 -> Th-230 (75,000 years half-life - 450,000 years constraint), and Uranium-Lead dating (U-238 -> Pb-206 has a 4.5 billion years half-life, and U-235 -> Pb-207 has a 700 million years half-life, providing a useful cross-check on the results, accuracy of 2 million years for rocks ~ 3 billion years old).

 

This all sounds great, but it should be noted that radiometric dating has several limitations, first the crystals being tested must not have allowed any contamination or escape of the decay products since they formed, some crystal types are too weak to constrain the products (especially as Ar-40 is a gas), also rocks undergoing metamorphism are essentially 'reset', so you can only date when they were metamorphosed, and finally the margin of error involved is sometimes fairly large (bigger half-life is not necessarily better, Rb-87 -> Sr-87 has a 50 billion year half-life, but an accuracy of only 30-50 million years for a rock ~3 billion years old).

 

An additional method of dating is by looking for variations in rock layers caused by Milankovitch Cycles, there are three of these cycles, Precession - where the direction the Earth's Axis points in wobbles in a complete ellipse over a 25,800 year period, Eccentricity - how different Earth's orbit is compared to a perfect circle, this has several components to its variation, working out approximately as a 100,000 year period, with the variation ranging from 0.005 to 0.058 (values towards 1.0 increasingly parabolic, 0.0 is perfectly circular), and Obliquity - the variation in the tilt of the Earth's Axis, from 22.1° to 24.5° and back over a 40,000 year period. These all lead to regular climate changes, which are recorded in the layers in many (not all) sedimentary rocks, and allow numbers to be put to the geological periods created by Smith.

 

The motion of the Earth's plates over history also provide indications that the Earth has been around for quite a while, rocks within England and Wales trace the movement of that part of what is now the European plate across the equator (at which point the coal deposits were formed in the tropical climate), right down to near the south pole (about 490 million years ago), on the West Gondwana part of the Vendian super-continent, while Scotland followed a similar course to near the south pole (about 580 million years ago) on the Laurentia part of the Vendian super-continent, this later broke up into: Laurentia (North America), Siberia (NE Asia), Baltica (Scandinavia/E Europe/NW Asia), Avalonia (England/Wales) and Gondwana (South America/Africa). Scotland joined the rest of Britain around 425 million years ago, forming the Caledonian mountain range (which reaches across into Scandinavia).

 

The last method of dating rocks (I've still probably overlooked something) is palaeomagnetism, where the Earth's magnetic poles (essentially the Earth can be considered to have a big bar magnet tagged with N and S inside it, not quite true, but close enough for comparison) swap over every 70,000-100,000 years, taking only a few centuries to do so. The pattern of these reversals is entirely unique over geological time. As crystals in igneous and metamorphic rocks form/reform, the magnetic minerals they contain align themselves according to this field (like a compass needle), and then retain that position once the crystal solidifies, so examination of the orientation of the crystals within a section of rocks allows their position along the historical pattern of reversals to be located. This basis for this technique comes from rocks on the ocean floor, where spreading of new rock from the oceanic ridges allows large areas of uninterrupted rock sequence to be seen, up to rocks formed 400 million years ago.

 

Each of these on their own could be dismissed as 'just' theories, but their mutual support of each other suggests to me that there is rather more to it than that.

 

Finally, a few points on the creation of fossils, evolution itself, and the origin of the 'big bang':

 

One of the reasons that relatively few fossils are found compared to the amount of animals/humans that were believed to be living at those time periods is that quite specific conditions are needed for fossils to be well preserved: rapid burial in an oxygen free/poor environment, with little/no diagenesis (alteration of the shell/bone after burial, this can lose the finer detail in the specimen, eg. as the aragonite in a shell is converted to calcite). Also, there are a lot more fossils than perhaps most people realise, just that most are of relatively uninteresting marine invertebrates, as opposed to the dinosaurs, of which there were only 26 known species alive, prior to the mass-extinction 65 million years ago. My general palaeontology text book spends a generous two pages on dinosaurs, out of over 300 :)

 

Evolution and adaptation are not mutually exclusive, evolution occurs through a random mutation providing a creature with an advantage over others of its species, so that creature can live to produce offspring, which would each carry (if they're lucky anyway, but thats the realm of genetics) this mutation, and be able to pass it on, thus the species as a whole will adapt to better live in its environment, the more important of these changes can range from being able to avoid predators better, attract better mates (coloured plumage in some birds), process/catch different foods, and even the most dramatic, a new method of mobility (fins->legs, arms->wings, legs->snakes).

 

A single species that moved into two areas (which they then cant/dont move inbetween) with different environmental conditions would therefore be able to evolve to adapt best to suit those particular environments, and you would then find after a long while that you had two distinct species, incapable of interbreeding and producing a fertile offspring. Virii (regardless of whether you consider them to be truly alive) are perhaps the ultimate example of evolution at work, adapting to new hosts, changing to find the best way to replicate themselves, and all on a timescale that is easily observable.

 

String theory (there are actually several theories, this is just the one I'm familiar with from my formation of the universe and solar system module last year) proposes that our 4-dimensional universe exists as a 'bubble' within another 5-dimensional space, and all the matter within this universe was created from the energy of an impact with another 4-dimensional universe, via energy to matter conversion according to E=mc², thus leading to the big bang.

 

Well, that pretty much finishes it off, if you read it all, thanks :)

[Ruk]

Each of these on their own could be dismissed as 'just' theories, but their mutual support of each other suggests to me that there is rather more to it than that.

 

Yup, thats something creationists dislike. Evolution isn't just a theory that stands on its own. Its got roots across a broad array of disparate and seemingly unrelated fields, from geology to genetics. One would think if the idea was wrong, there would not be such grand collusion between the fields.

 

String theory (there are actually several theories, this is just the one I'm familiar with from my formation of the universe and solar system module last year) proposes that our 4-dimensional universe exists as a 'bubble' within another 5-dimensional space, and all the matter within this universe was created from the energy of an impact with another 4-dimensional universe, via energy to matter conversion according to E=mc², thus leading to the big bang.

 

Pretty cool, but just begs the question of where did the 5 dimensional space come from that all of our universes are floating around within? ;)

 

Ah to have a TARDIS, but even Dr. Who had severe trouble when approaching the Big Bang (see Story #3, Edge of Destruction) ;)

[Antipodean]

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...

 

 

FIRSTLY, I would ask that you exercise some degree of intellectual honesty here. Please - You have not simply been arguing that evolution is only partially correct. You have been questioning it entirely and looking for a number of excuses to crucify the notion. It's just that one by one, the good folk here have managed to refute most of the fallacious propositions put forward.

 

In fact, you refusal to use the term "evolution" is in itself telling. Evolution is in fact the word applied in the contemporary biological sciences for this observable process. I mentioned this earlier. It's only creationists and evolution deniers that run about calling it a theory. It has been more than a theory for decades now.

 

In any case your refutation of evolution has come down to this, it seems, that deductive reasoning has no place in science. Let me explain, because your assertation is that because we can't 100% to your satisfaction that the the RNA like structures, that we call "pre-RNA" managed to become RNA and THIS IS THE SINGLE MOMENT we're talking about here (EVERYTHING ELSE in the chain of logic and evidence in the case for evolution holds fast) that therefore evolution can't really be correct.

 

I'm sorry. If that is what your case comes down to then you are just being deliberately obstinate.

[TetsuoShima]

Please - You have not simply been arguing that evolution is only partially correct. You have been questioning it entirely and looking for a number of excuses to crucify the notion.

 

If you thought that, then you obviously misunderstood me at one point or the other, I don't think that I said that anywhere, I've been trying to be really carefull in choosing my words you know, especially so that I would not be misunderstood, maybe I failed in that, but if I did, then it can probably be attributed to the fact that I'm not a native-English-speaking person (in fact I've never even visited an English speaking nation). If you can quote me saying that the evolution-theory is completely incorrect and/or that I think it's utter non-sense, then I apologise for leading you on the wrong track as far as my intentions are concerned, but I don't think you can.

 

In fact' date=' you refusal to use the term "evolution" is in itself telling. Evolution is in fact the word applied in the contemporary biological sciences for this observable process. I mentioned this earlier. It's only creationists and evolution deniers that run about calling it a theory. It has been more than a theory for decades now.[/quote']

 

I call it a theory, because it IS a theory or a model or whatever you want to call it. The word evolution itself can be interpretted in lots of different ways (at least in my own language) and I prefer whenever possible (and whenever I think about it) to try to be clear in what I try to say, that is why I prefer to call it that. I also say relativity theory, I don't say relativity. Why? Because relativity can also have multiple meanings and because it is a theory/model. I also say quantum-theory sometimes... And so on... You might be misinterpretting the way I use the word theory... If you tell me that it isn't a theory/model, then I really wonder what you WOULD call it, could help me resolve these misunderstandings a lot faster in the future?

 

In any case your refutation of evolution has come down to this, it seems, that deductive reasoning has no place in science. Let me explain, because your assertation is that because we can't 100% to your satisfaction that the the RNA like structures, that we call "pre-RNA" managed to become RNA and THIS IS THE SINGLE MOMENT we're talking about here (EVERYTHING ELSE in the chain of logic and evidence in the case for evolution holds fast) that therefore evolution can't really be correct.

 

I'm sorry. If that is what your case comes down to then you are just being deliberately obstinate.

 

I'm not going to comment on this AGAIN, because I will only really end up repeating myself again for the 3rd/4th time. If you still cannot grasp what it is I'm trying to explain, you will not understand it this time either.

[Antipodean]

I'm not going to comment on this AGAIN' date=' because I will only really end up repeating myself again for the 3rd/4th time. If you still cannot grasp what it is I'm trying to explain, you will not understand it this time either.[/quote']

 

 

No, I perfectly understand what you're saying. AND it DOES amount to a refutation of deductive reasoning.

 

Eg: Let's contemplate the following sequence of numbers:

 

1, 3, 6, 9, 12, x, 18, 21

 

Now... it's not an equation. It is not possibe to PROVE the value of x. HOWEVER, human's have this wonderful gift of deductive reasoning. With deductive reasoning we can extrapolate a value for x, namely 15. As I say, refusing to acknowledge the value of x as 15 is pure obstinance.

 

And the metaphor of a numerical sequence is actually appropriate. With evolution, we DO have an identifiable sequence.

 

Human's have even replicated in labs the production of the proteins and amino acids that are the building blocks of life.

 

We can demonstrate the existance of pre-RNA structures. Then we have proof of RNA, which in turn gave rise to DNA.

 

So let me think PRE-RNA -> RNA -> DNA

 

Looks like a pretty clear sequence to me.

 

Now because I can't point my finger at the exact moment or event that molecules that are VERY SIMILAR to RNA became RNA, or how, this doesn't actually refute that development.

 

And it doesn't then refute the development of single celled organisms, into multiple celled organisms, into the whole spectrum of species that roam the world around you. That whole history or speciation is evidenced in the fossil record and now we also have genetic evidence.

 

 

 

And why do I have to repeat myself? EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY OR A MODEL.

 

It is an observable process. We see it happening HERE AND NOW.

 

Where on earth do you think Bird Flu is coming from? Did it spontaneosly emerge from the ether? Was some secret clan of infected chickens hiding in the mountains waiting to pounce on humanity with their infection?

[wahaha]

VOILA the Peppered moth became a darker species in developed and polluted areas. Evolution in action.

 

Not evolution, but adaptation... like I said about viruses. Evolution would be the moth changing into a different species altogether.

 

But I stand by my statement' date=' wahaha, that your arguments are without proper merit, being open to nothing but doctrine read from biased websites.[/quote']

 

Evolutionist websites are just as biased as creationist, so don't give me that..

 

And why do humans have to forcefully replicate the process of life in a lab to create amino acids and organic matter? Because it wouldn't happen on its own?

[bones2097]

VOILA the Peppered moth became a darker species in developed and polluted areas. Evolution in action.

 

Not evolution, but adaptation... like I said about viruses. Evolution would be the moth changing into a different species altogether.

 

But I stand by my statement' date=' wahaha, that your arguments are without proper merit, being open to nothing but doctrine read from biased websites.[/quote']

 

 

Evolutionist websites are just as biased as creationist, so don't give me that..

 

And why do humans have to forcefully replicate the process of life in a lab to create amino acids and organic matter? Because it wouldn't happen on its own?

 

 

ummm how long does it take for a species to evolve ????

adaptations are the first steps to evoltuion.... i doubt anyone will live to see a new species form!!!!

 

plus sci have to force replication in labs because the work is carriedd out, not in its natural environment....

 

they proven that the proces of water being evapourated & condensatated (like the sea) repeated will create the building blocks of life i forget what.... though??? :(

 

[TetsuoShima]

No, I perfectly understand what you're saying. AND it DOES amount to a refutation of deductive reasoning.

 

Eg: Let's contemplate the following sequence of numbers:

 

1, 3, 6, 9, 12, x, 18, 21

 

Now... it's not an equation. It is not possibe to PROVE the value of x. HOWEVER, human's have this wonderful gift of deductive reasoning. With deductive reasoning we can extrapolate a value for x, namely 15. As I say, refusing to acknowledge the value of x as 15 is pure obstinance.

 

And the metaphor of a numerical sequence is actually appropriate. With evolution, we DO have an identifiable sequence.

 

Human's have even replicated in labs the production of the proteins and amino acids that are the building blocks of life.

 

We can demonstrate the existance of pre-RNA structures. Then we have proof of RNA, which in turn gave rise to DNA.

 

So let me think PRE-RNA -> RNA -> DNA

 

Looks like a pretty clear sequence to me.

 

Now because I can't point my finger at the exact moment or event that molecules that are VERY SIMILAR to RNA became RNA, or how, this doesn't actually refute that development.

 

And it doesn't then refute the development of single celled organisms, into multiple celled organisms, into the whole spectrum of species that roam the world around you. That whole history or speciation is evidenced in the fossil record and now we also have genetic evidence.

 

Well, appearently it was I who misunderstood you. LOL

 

You are quite right that deduction is important in science, but to use this in science, meaning you postulate something, you have to be able to observe it, or observe something else that makes it so that nothing else can possibly have had the same effect. This means the whole process, not just the majority of the process. (that is the way things are done in as we say over here '"exact science", even though the exact science isn't 100% exact)

 

In practice, this method is replaced by a statistical method and so you get probabilities. In other words, nothing that a scientists says/proves is 100% truth. It may be 99.99%, but that still isn't 100. As I said before somewhere, this notion is happily ignored in the practical world and it should be, if it weren't it would be darned difficult to have do anything without fearing that it might go wrong.

 

What I'm trying to say, is in things as fundamental as the one we're talking about now, this shouldn't be ignored and so, neither has completely proven its point.

 

In real life I'm perfectly happy to go with the notion the scientific community says is the correct one. Since it's most likely the one that is most correct up untill that point. It could be the one that really holds the truth, or it could be the one that reflects it the best, that doesn't matter in real life. In a philosophical discussion about these subjects however, it does matter.

 

So, in other words: I would gladly work with the concept of evolution, in working with it, I would even need to hold it as truth (100%), I could not be distracted by notions that it may not be 100% correct, that doesn't make sense to work with. If we however get down to the meaning of things, I'd have to remind myself that this may not be so. I don't just say this about the "evolution" (I'll leave out the model/theory part, since that seems to upset you), I say this about anything that the scientific community comes up with!

 

I'd take it even further, if you were to ask me which one I find the most plausible, the most likely, I'll say the scientific method seems (a lot) more plausible than in this case the Bible method. I said this in one of my first posts in this discussion. So, if I needed to choose a workable theory for whatever use I had for it, I WOULD choose the evolution model. But I don't need a workable solution now, I need the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And in that view, I can say that neither is 100% correct.

 

And why do I have to repeat myself? EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY OR A MODEL.

 

It is an observable process. We see it happening HERE AND NOW.

 

Well, this is imo just a matter of interpretation of words, I would say the theory of gravity, I can see the apple fall, I can observe it, but that doesn't mean that it's no longer a theory. Appearently I have (or maybe people in my country have) a broader view of the word theory.

 

Let me clarify: something that has been proven up untill the point that it is accepted, is still called a theory here. Maybe the word is used more strictly where you are, but now at least you know why I keep on using it. In fact, because I was starting to doubt myself on the use of the word in English and since this seems to be a 'stumbling block' for you, I looked it up and this is what I found:

 

theory=

 

"In scientific usage, theory is not the opposite of fact. Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, usually after the fact that they happen is no longer in scientific dispute."

 

"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified."

 

"In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles, capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems."

------------------------------------------

"The term theoretical is used in science to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been observed."

 

So, it would seem that I WAS (at least according to the wikipedia, which does represent quite a big community) using the word correctly!

What you seemed to be reading each time I said theory, was theoretical, even though I never said that!

[Ruk]

Not evolution, but adaptation

 

Explain the difference scientifically. Evolution is NOT just about one species changing into another. Adaption is the principle foundation of evolution. Creationists try to separate macro and micro evolution, but they are the exact same process only separated by time.

 

And why do humans have to forcefully replicate the process of life in a lab to create amino acids and organic matter? Because it wouldn't happen on its own?

 

I hate arguing with someone who doesn't bother reading what I've posted before. On the previous page I stated: 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

 

So to REPEAT myself (pay attention next time)... not only are organic chemicals replicated in labs, but they DO occur naturally and are common not just here in our solar system, but other places in the universe. The fact that we can so easily replicate them in labs is further proof that God just didn't put them there magically:

 

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/SIRTF/Spitzer.bpf.html

 

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=35604

[GorunNova]

And why do I have to repeat myself? EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY OR A MODEL.

 

It is an observable process. We see it happening HERE AND NOW.

 

Where on earth do you think Bird Flu is coming from? Did it spontaneosly emerge from the ether? Was some secret clan of infected chickens hiding in the mountains waiting to pounce on humanity with their infection?

 

For those that don't believe evolution happens, the answer to this question would have to be 'yes'... the only way entirely new diseases can appear is for them to -evolve- into being, and since THAT's impossible we must now scout the mountains for other evil livestock and their diseases!

 

Evolutionist websites are just as biased as creationist' date=' so don't give me that..[/quote']

Yes... they're biased against accepting information that can't be verified, is based on invalid 'evidence' (i.e. the Bible), directly contradicts what evidence tells us is the case without supplying relevant, complete, and somehow overlooked evidence themselves, and/or is a (faulty) denial of the presence of existing evidence ;p...

[Antipodean]

GorunNova: Hear, hear!

[str82u]

Alot of folks said some of what I think, Iintelligent design, whatever they want to call it is about as close as it comes. I think that if God is out there and has all the time in the world...hmm...then however things worked out may have been that way for a reason, one we don't need to know. I have faith that my car work, though I have a vague understanding of why. People tryingg to figure both sides of the argument out have holes in the theories. Maybe that's God's sense of humor or His way of weeding out those with faith and those who need proof.

[Antipodean]

Inelligent design is no science. Its a rebranding of creationism that concedes substantial ground to evolution, but tries to insert god whereever it can into that picture.

 

Why do you religous folk have to kid yourself with pseudo science to assert god made this world? I thought that's what FAITH was about ----> not needing evidence?

 

But no, you have to go an sell your god bothering in lab coats and pretend like you've got the same ground to stand on as science. Unfortunately too many people ARE indeed conned by the pretence and show of scientific method displayed by your proponents.

 

How many times to I have to keep saying this? EVOLUTION is not a theory with a hole in it, str82u. I'm not going to repeat myself so just read the whole thread.

 

Now you can CHOOSE to believe that evolution occurs by way of god. Or visa versa. But DO NOT dress that up as science. That is a matter of faith pure and simple.

 

"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is."

-John Stear

[Soulreaper]

I think the biggest problem with any 'god' issues and such is the misconception that any 'god' -like being would be like 'us' with the same screwed up ordeals, ideas, interests etc. hence why something semigodish/semi-religious becomes so 'unthinkable' and I agree - but if you change the god-as-the-guy-with-the-beard into perhaps something more like a universal force in the bigger picture (and not all that yadda yadda with earth or a specific country being the center of the universe) then I think it's more applicable - hence why I'd like to vote on something in between evolution / intelligent design

[hetzelfde1]

First, let's get a few things straight:

 

- Science is the search for a model (theory) that describes reality as accurately as possible.

 

- A scientific theory can never be proven, only disproven. This means you can only with 100% certainty show that a theory is wrong (this biy creating or seeing a situation where the theory predicts something else than is visible).

 

- Creationism is a belief. As a scientific theory it has been proven wrong over and over again. It is a belief based on some book (Bible, Thora, Koran, all the same).

 

- Evolution is a scientific theory that has never been disproven. Although there have been cases where reality didn't adhere to predictions, this was due to errors an other theories that need to be used in combination with evolution to make these predictions.

 

- Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is a concept. It means that somewhere along the line of our development a higher being had some influence on the process. Both Creationism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are examples of implementations of that concept. ID can happily coexist with modern scientific theories by simply replacing chance with god, thus saying "god did it" instead of "Roll the dice long enough, it's bound to happen", which in turn makes ID completely unnecessary.

 

Now, since we've cleared that up, here's my two cents:

 

Creationism, evolution and intelligent design can't be compared because they are of a different nature (belief, theory/model, concept).

 

Oh, before i forget, the Big Bang theory is a completely separate theory, which can coexist with evolution, because they don't create contradicting predictions, and of course the Big Bang theory can't be compared to creationism and ID for te same reasons als evolution.

[bones2097]

don't be silly it all came form the ether.....

 

lol.. :)

[GorunNova]

Oh, yeah, that substance that was considered the medium through which light waves transmit before they found out that light propagates through vacuum perfectly fine ^^'

 

... either that, or the universe burst into being after the proto-universe got high on laughing gas. Actually, I think I prefer that version... ^^'

[Naglfarir]

I'm astounded of how many of you are influented by a literal reading of the bible. And not just the supporters of ID but the rest also. Are there mostly americans in this forum? Cause the whole problem is mostly an american one. And this discussion that either there is evolution or there is no God is kind of strange too me. I cannot see that evolution should "break" God. Remember that genesis and the rest of the old testament should not be read as a literal historical tale of how things began. In my opinion the Genesis is about trying too imagine how it all began. some of it is actually quite astounishing as well the second genesis story the one in Gen 2 something has the stages in which a planet is made quite correctly. Anyways the whole quarrell really began when right wing christians tried too insist on having the scientific biological explanation instead of Darwin. And the biologists answered with trying too have the theological answer too everything. None of the two sides can have both answers. And you cannot read texts that are dated 3000 years old literally. Personally I must conclude that the big bang and evolution is most likey the way God made the universe and nature plus man. Because this is what we find when we study nature. QED the bible cannot be read as a recepy for the beginning. It is however a story of how God made man became seperated from man and wants man too come back too him through Jesus and the end of time. And that is a whole other ballpark.

 

I will conclude with a word from one of the greatest scientists ever: The task of science is too find the fingerprints of God"

- Einstein (He was Jewish by the way)

 

 

 

[Chewbacca]

http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hdertoc.htm

 

This page will gave you many reasons (and proof) why evolution cannot be true. Read it and jusge for yourself.

[GorunNova]

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

 

... now you can only blame laziness for not having read it! ;)