Creationism vs. Evolution

[jpapadpapa]

I'm a wife, a mother with another due in a month, and a netrepreneur among many other things. I just don't have the time or energy to argue simply for the sake of arguing. I have to prioritize and I don't have time to debate just to get some kind of ego boost when I win. It is more important to me to discuss these things with those who are truly questioning and want answers than those who are looking for someone to beat with "verbal sticks." Maybe I'll change my mind due to the fact that this is a very important topic, but until then, I have a lot to do in the next month.

[jpapadpapa]

How 'bout this: Why doesn't someone take a shot at proving evolution. I'd like to see this done. I'm really asking for it because I know in all likelihood I won't be able to resist replying. Maybe I am a fool afterall!

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Also, Meatros, the percentage you gave is incorrect according to the site you linked to. It's 5% of scientists. While that is still not a majority, it is still a significant number when you consider that most of the media talks about evolution as though it were fact. Also, what the majority believes does not make something true or false, though human nature likes to conform, so we often simply accept what the majority says. I find that most truth in life is not accepted by the majority anyway. As I pointed out before, brilliant minds such as Einstein have been creationists. I find it a little hard to believe that Einstein would have accepted logic that "does not fit the 'Scientific Method'."

As for your offer, Shunyadragon, to "submit individual examples of this bogus and selective use of scientific evidence upon request," I don't doubt that for every one of those examples, I could come up with my own from the other perspective. That does not prove anything except that some people make poor arguments. That does not disprove creationism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There is a distinction between being a 'Creationist', i.e. to believe God created existence and the Fundimentalist Christian view of 'Creation Science', which believes that the version of God's creation of the world is a literal truth.

I am a 'Creationist' in the same way Darwin and Einstein believed God created existence. Einstein did not support the Fundimentalist 'Creation Science' view of how the world was created.

It is true that the majority view does not determine what is true or not true, the 'Creation Science' view is supported by very few scientists.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
I simply don't have the time to get into another online discussion that will be entirely unprofitable. Most people already have their minds made up about what they choose to believe, so no matter what facts are presented, it will not matter. It really all comes down to faith and I believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You have already entered into an online discussion that you feel will be entirely unprofitable. What is your purpose?????????????

The purpose of debate is not always to convince anyone of anything.

There are many interesting points to debate about the evolution-creation science debate. The most modern Creation Science arguement hinges strongly on disproving the validity of radioactive decay dating methods. The time issue is very important to the 'Creation Science' arguement.

[G. Adams]

Okay, I'll give it a go. Please, those big on evolution follow me and cover my holes, doubtless there will be many, as I havn't studied either sides arguments well because I, usually, really don't care. It has no impact on my life either way (well in one possible way, i'll put it at the end).

The universe starts with the big bang (oh wow, strong argument, defend a theory with a theory...just look at the way the universe is expanding, rewind it all and yup we did have a big bang). Off and away our hydrogen and helium molecules go. Clusters form. Heat up, expand, collapse, new molecules. On and on and now we have earth, about 4.6 billion years ago. Do creatures just appear? Nope. We can start looking at evidence now. Earliest life forms, single cell creatures like blue green's and algea form around 3.5 billion years ago. First Dinosaurs appear in the scythian epoch of the Triassic Period or the Mesozoic Era (i wanted to be a paleontologist when I was little...) about 260 million years ago. See the advance? 60 million years ago Dinosaurs go out out, small mammals, crocs and sharks stay. 3 million years roughly Ostrolopithicus leaves the trees and moves into the savana. 2000ad, man begins devolution...

Thats just the time frame of things happening. Now being a logical person, I like to see reason and where possible some empirical evidence. Did God create the world in 7 days? Hrm, 7 days...7 billion years more like. But then you could say the seven days just refer to epochs, and each bit came one after the other, like my mini history of earth up there. (You know I had to read Genesis just now to make this argument??) This doesn't add up either.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. "

Well sorry to say the light came long before the earth did. The sun had to exist similar to its current state in order for it's gravitational field to trap the molecules that would become earth into an orbit.

Onto day 2

"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day. "

There wasn't water to begin with, there was a molten planet and gravity. In Laymens terms, volcanic activity releases CO2, gravity traps it in an orbit, warms planet, reacts with the hydrogen, we have water people, and carbon (don't ask me where that went). So the sky, if we're referring to the atmosphere (because sky is really crappy for a subject, it's just that up there), came before the seas.

Day 3

"And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day. "

Sad to say wrong again. This earth began with a solid (molten maybe? geology people out there?) surface first, the water formed on top of it. So wrong order.

Don't know my paleobotanical history, so can't comment on the timing of the vegetation, except that grass came, at the earliest, at the very end of the cretatious period. So all those dinosaur films are usually wrong, and it irritates me.

Day 4

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.

Oh boy is this easy. Well I'll give you my material to pick apart. Again the sun came first. The moon's not a light, just a reflector. All the other stars are like the sun, some newer, some older. Once again time scale is shoddy.

Day 5

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.

The times of the first birds and the first sea creatures are far, faaar apart. Also note that it says 'every winged bird' to it's kind. So why were some birds not around 300 million years ago that are around today? Did God get lax and add them in later? If so he forgot to tell the publishers.

Day 6

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Now, again, these all didn't come together around the same time. There were big, big bloody mammals long before we hit the scene, yet the bible lumps us all together.

Another point I've thought of, were in the bible does it say "And God shall create a new strain of the cold virus each week, so no matter how hard these foolish humans try, they will not find a cure, nor even a decent set of drugs to treat the symptoms. *manic laughter*"

You know why it doesn't? Because the cold virus mutates for different environments and even different humans. The cold you passed on one week could come back to you six weeks later to knock you on your arse again as a very different strain of the cold virus. You know what this is called? Evolution! And if the cold virus evolves, why can't we?

[G. Adams]

Sorry, came across as a bit of an arsehole there, wasn't intended but it's almost six in the morning and I'm always grouchy.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
How 'bout this: Why doesn't someone take a shot at proving evolution. I'd like to see this done. I'm really asking for it because I know in all likelihood I won't be able to resist replying. Maybe I am a fool afterall!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
It is a proven scientific theory, it's as certain as it gets, apart from universal constants that runs the whole universe of which there are only five.

In order to become a scientific theory, the model and its predictions must conform to all known data and if it doesn't it must be adapted until it does so etc. When Darwin published the Origin of Species, rather reluctantly, of course as the Victorians were mainly fundies, he didn't even known about genetics. But with Mendel's work being rediscovered many years later, it all fits into place on how characteristics are inherited. The basic requirements outlined for speciation by Darwin can and do happen. And we've observed it as well. You might as well go out there and start denying gravity happens.

[mbrock59]

are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mbrock59,)
are there other theories besides these two? Is Creationism and Evolution all we have?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

People tose around theories, facts and proof without understanding them well.

In science we must all realize we often never directly observe many things, we just see the foot tracks in the snow and they often end up to be our own. This humble view of doubt is often taken as a sign of weakness by fundimentalist Christians, but to scientists it is the strength that leads to change and new kniwledge.

The following is response from Scientific American.

Evolution is only a theory and can't be proven. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

[jpapadpapa]

"You have already entered into an online discussion that you feel will be entirely unprofitable. What is your purpose?????????????"

Shunyadragon, I was only trying to point out a few things and add to the discussion, since I felt there was no voice from my perspective. I was not intending to lurk here and get into a full-blown debate. It could go on forever. I don't know why I have to explain this again, but at any rate, since I seem to be so wanted (tee hee) I suppose I will add in a few comments here and there as time permits.

I am just saying that I really hate the types of "discussions" that often occur on the internet. They seem to simply stir up anger and vitriol instead of genuine intellectual stimulation. I am not in the mood to be harassed and I will treat others in a civil manner as much as possible if they will do the same. We are all human and we should treat eachother with respect, despite our differences. It seems that some of you are trying to have a genuine discussion and I appreciate that. In that case, I would be happy to continue discussion as my limited time permits.

I don't have time right now to counter the points that have been made so far, but hopefully I will soon. This is not something I take lightly, so I have to commit adequate time to do the subject justice.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) [...]
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>So?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
How 'bout this: Why doesn't someone take a shot at proving evolution. I'd like to see this done. I'm really asking for it because I know in all likelihood I won't be able to resist replying. Maybe I am a fool afterall!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>If I recall, I penned a short and pithy essay, with all the relevant literature cited, that demonstrates evolution in action quite well on the first page. In fact, it was the post that started the topic.

[jpapadpapa]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Quote:Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) [...]

So?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Surely you must see the irony of quoting a man who was a creationist while trying to prove evolution? I just thought it was ironic, that's all. Thoughts on your essay to follow, but thank you for pointing that out. I had forgotten about it.

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
    Quote:Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
    Albert Einstein (1879-1955) [...]

So?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Surely you must see the irony of quoting a man who was a creationist while trying to prove evolution? I just thought it was ironic, that's all. Thoughts on your essay to follow, but thank you for pointing that out. I had forgotten about it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

For purposes of communication we need to distinguish between a 'Creationist', which includes Charles Darwin, Einstein and I, and the believer in 'Creation Science'.

I don't think 'irony' fits here. What you may be describing is a contradiction. The beliefs of Einstein were never in contradiction with evolution.

[jpapadpapa]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
For example, we'll use the claim that mutations are harmful or that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While it is true that most virulent human diseases are caused by genetic defects (downs syndrome, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, and progeria, to name a few), most mutations are actually neutral[1]. That is, neither beneficial nor deleterious. To counter the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed, let's go back to the mid-1970s at the University of Rochester where Professor Barry Hall is conducting an experiment with special strains of E. coli[2]. A typical nutrient of bacteria is lactose, so Hall decided to remove the lacZ gene, responsible for the metabolization of the milk sugar substance. Hall placed one strain in an environment rich in lactose with little nutrient to survive on, and the other strain was placed in an environment with no lactose. The former recovered its ability to metabolize lactose over the course of a few days, with two mutations to preexisting genes along a different operon in the genome from the original. The first mutation produced a beta-galactosidase enzyme (34% homologous to its predecessor), tasked with breaking down lactose via a process of hydrolysis into the two monosaccharides glucose and galactose. This new enzyme was dubbed the ebg, or evolved b-galactosidase enzyme. The second mutation altered the control region, or repressor protein (25% homologous), so that the enzyme may be expressed in the presence of glucose. The second strain displayed no such progress.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I agree that creationists should not make the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While cases such as the one you site are rare, they do happen. The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)


I agree that creationists should not make the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While cases such as the one you site are rare, they do happen. The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
erm, you do realise that addition and duplication mutations HAVE been observed? And both of those cause increase in genetic info.

For fuck's sake, I was taught that at Secondary (High School) level?

Did you timewarp from a century ago?

[jpapadpapa]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
For purposes of communication we need to distinguish between a 'Creationist', which includes Charles Darwin, Einstein and I, and the believer in 'Creation Science'.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Okay, go ahead. You have me a bit confused.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I don't think 'irony' fits here. What you may be describing is a contradiction. The beliefs of Einstein were never in contradiction with evolution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

We don't need to argue over the use of the word irony. I have seen plenty of major spelling and grammatical errors throughout this thread and being a bit anal about the proper use of English, it's amazing I can keep my mouth shut. However, since you brought it up, the definition in Webster's is as follows: "Incongruity between what might be expected to happen and what actually happens." It was incongruous to my personal expectation: Therefore, "ironic."

As far as the beliefs of Einstein never being in contradiction with evolution, this is not true. I thought the quotation I posted was adequate to show this. However, let me remind you also of Einstein's Gulf. I know this website will make many of you cringe, but I would like to hear some comments about this article that I believe makes a good argument against evolution. The link is:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm

[jpapadpapa]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
erm, you do realise that addition and duplication mutations HAVE been observed? And both of those cause increase in genetic info.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Show me examples.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
For ****'s sake, I was taught that at Secondary (High School) level?

Did you timewarp from a century ago?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As for your base, unimaginative language skills, please refrain. I will be gone in about two seconds if you continue to act juvenille. I have, to the best of my ability, treated you all with respect and I will not hang around here to be insulted and cursed. This is exactly why I was reluctant to continue this discussion in the first place. I don't want to be drawn into obnoxious behavior.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
erm, you do realise that addition and duplication mutations HAVE been observed? And both of those cause increase in genetic info.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Show me examples.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
For ****'s sake, I was taught that at Secondary (High School) level?

Did you timewarp from a century ago?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

As for your base, unimaginative language skills, please refrain. I will be gone in about two seconds if you continue to act juvenille. I have, to the best of my ability, treated you all with respect and I will not hang around here to be insulted and cursed. This is exactly why I was reluctant to continue this discussion in the first place. I don't want to be drawn into obnoxious behavior.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
*yawn*
You know if you want what to take it personal thats fine but stop acting so ignorant, all the science is available readily for you and we will do nothing to stop you learning from it. And seeing as you're on the internet, there's no excuse not know the facts, especially when you make bold claims such as "The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information", when quite clearly thats wrong. You didn't even make it out like you were perhaps unsure, you basically stated that like it was a fact. And thats what pisses me off.

Anyway, look here and scroll down to Deletions and Insertions.

[Capitalist Pig]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

I agree that creationists should not make the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While cases such as the one you site are rare, they do happen. The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Which information theory are you running off of? Shannon Information Theory, or Kolmogorov-Chaitin?

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Capitalist Pig,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,)

I agree that creationists should not make the claim that no beneficial mutation has ever been observed. While cases such as the one you site are rare, they do happen. The point that needs to be made is that scientists have yet to find a mutation that actually increases genetic information.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Which information theory are you running off of? Shannon Information Theory, or Kolmogorov-Chaitin?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I reviewed the lecture series you posted. They are good, but incomplete as far as dealing with all potential mutations that may take place during diversification and speciation. The point of the possibility of new genetic material comes under the section that desvribes the possible 'insertion' in genetic mutation.