Creationism vs. Evolution

[Jack]

there is no evidence for God there is no life after death

While I agree with these statements, there is nothing in evolutionary theory which addresses those issues.

there is no absolute foundation for right or wrong there is no ultimate meaning for life there is no free will

These are concepts created by a society based on philosophical beliefs. Again, evolution, consistant with most science, does not concern itself with those issues.

sounds kind of desolate, doesnt it.

Not at all. Reality is not desolate, it is simply what is. If you perceive it that way, that's your choice. I do not.

[Sonart]

Very interesting...

Quote by: dthmstr the problem with evolution is, if it is true, the following things are also true, according to William Provine of Cornell University: there is no evidence for God

There is, however, evidence that belief in God or spirituality, is hardwired by evolution into the human brain.

The God Spot --"A group of neuroscientists at the University of California at San Diego has identified a region of the human brain that appears to be linked to thoughts of spiritual matters and prayer. Their findings tentatively suggest that we as a species are genetically programmed to believe in God."--

--"Does our DNA compel us to seek a higher power? Believe it or not, some scientists say yes."-- -- TIME Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004

Quote by: dthmstr there is no life after death

Since I've never believed there was, I've never seen this as a problem of any sort. However, I'm amenable to the idea that there's an actual form of energy -- a life force -- that continues to exist in some form after death, possibly even transferring to new life. But I've seen no scientific hypothesis on this.

Quote by: dthmstr there is no absolute foundation for right or wrong

Of course there is... survival of the species. Human Beings are social animals who depend on social harmony and cooperation to survive in nature. Right, or morality, are those things that promote harmony and cooperation within the social group. Wrong, or immorality, are this things that destroy such harmony and cooperation. Murder, lying, stealing, adultery, reckless endangering, harming children, etc. can be considered immoral and generally are in every society on earth.

Quote by: dthmstr there is no ultimate meaning for life

Again, the survival of our species. The meaning of my life is to find my role in my society and play a constructive part to the best of my ability, contributing what I can, passing on what I've learned and know to the next generation, raising children if possible, and doing no harm. In general, playing my bit in advancing and ensuring the survival of our species.

Quote by: dthmstr there is no free will

Why would anyone think that?? Because sh!t happens? So? Within the bounderies of our own evolutionary human instincts, and sometimes even despite them, why wouldn't we have free will? I don't understand how evolution would deny us that?

Yes, by our natural instincts some free will choices are going to be absolutely abhorent, in effect denying us those choices, but that's probably a good thing. The choice to randomly kill and eat people, for instance, is probably not a real choice. I don't think I could bring myself to do it. But I certainly have a free choice with what to do with my day tomorrow.

Quote by: dthmstr sounds kind of desolate, doesnt it.

Not so far. I've lived a reasonably descent, moral, law-abiding life, all without believing in God, and so far it hasn't been desolate at all. In fact it's been rather pleasant, actually.

.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 did you know that the idea of public schools came with religion??? the public school history is dominated by the names Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Reformers in the years preceding the Renaissance.

Actually, they weren't public schools. They were church schools and their purpose was to teach the students to read the Bible. Of course, the schools were for males only if they were of proper social status. And in Geneva, under Calvin was a city of repression, where religious dissenters were expelled (if they were lucky) or put to death.

Quote by: dthmstr254 most of the people who actively participated in the Rennaissance learned from these public schools, run by Christians.

Right. And they rejected what they had learned in those schools and were responsible for the birth of science free from dogma.

Quote by: dthmstr254 even today, there is a large number of mainstream scientists who do not agree with evolution as science.

Nonsense. The number of real scientists who do not accept evolutionary theory is quite small. Polls have shown that about 99% of biologists and geologists accept it. The numbers are a bit smaller for other scientists, about 95% of chemists for example.

Quote by: dthmstr254 ever heard of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism?

Yes. The NCSE checked with many of the scientists on the original list. Some didn't even know that their names were on the list. Others when asked a clear question about evolutionary theory said that they did accept evolution as the best explanation for the evidence. They didn't know at the time they saw the statement that it was a trick by creationists to inflate the list. How could any scientist disagree with a statement that calls for careful examination of the evidence? Besides, Darwinism disappeared in the 1940s with the modern synthesis.

Quote by: dthmstr254 Darwinism cannot be proven like the theory of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

Yet one more time you demonstrate your scientific illiteracy. The theory of gravity is one of the least mature of the scientific theories. Nothing about it has been "proven." And the laws of thermodynamics are generalizations made from observations. They haven't been proved either. Further, anyone who has an adequate understanding of the basics of science (what it is, how it works) knows that scientific theories explain things. A theory can be disproved, but not proved. It takes an individual who is exceptionally scientifically illiterate to continue to talk about proof after having been instructed otherwise. You science teacher must have been incompetent.

Quote by: dthmstr254 there is NO scientific test to prove that random mutations and natural selection can explain the complexity of living beings.

Right. Science doesn't prove. Science is a matter of explaining the observed facts with theories that have been tested again and again.

Quote by: dthmstr254 nobody can go back in time and prove that some primordial slime of red goo and amino acids (which can't in and of themselves form a living being) turned into life as we know it.

No one claimed that it did. Where did you ever get such a hair brained idea?

Quote by: dthmstr254 in fact, the experiment that created this red goo was flawed, because the scientists never watched what happened after the goo was created. one scientist did, and noticed that the amino acids broke down completely in 7 hours, because the red goo dispersed and the amino acids were exposed to the atmosphere. these results are devastating to the evolutionist claim;

Nonsense. You're making that up or you have been duped.

Quote by: dthmstr254 therefore causing them to overlook them and say that "i would be more correct to call it the LAW of evolution" [quote from Chattanooga's NPR (public radio) date 10/21/05 at 2:45 pm]

That's so silly that it borders on stupid. Who cares what was said on the radio in Chattanooga? How does that have scientific relevance.

Quote by: dthmstr254 claims like this caused your scientists in the "dissenting" group to turn away from evolution and to other answers. a good read for you would probably be Case for a Creator by Dr. Lee Strobel.

Silly. The number of "dissenting" scientists is so small as to have no importance. By the way, someone with a doctorate in law is called a lawyer. They are not addressed as Dr. I know that because my son has a doctorate in law.

Quote by: dthmstr254 it shows the walk of an atheist, with a doctorate in law, who interviewed many top figures in the fields of evolution and creationism, with a heavy bias for the evolutionist side, and came to the same results as we have.

What results are those? All you have presented is babble.

Quote by: dthmstr254 also, as for the public school issue you have: why not just allow the students to choose which one they want to learn, or maybe if they want to hear both sides of the coin. you know, you can't understand an issue unless you look at it from both sides of the coin.

Great. If the students want to learn that the earth is flat, then we should teach them that. If they want to learn that lightening is caused by the god Thor throwing bolts, we should teach them that. If they want to learn that an invisible magic being did something, somewhere, at some time in the past and made everything from nothing, we should teach them that.

[RickSp]

dthmstr254, what isn't clear to me is - if you want to teach your religion in my son's science class, is it OK if I teach physics in your kid's Sunday school? After all if they are being taught religion in science class, they may need some time to make up all the science that they have missed.

[Jack]

If either creationism or ID are correct, what possible purpose do nipples serve on men? Did god or the designer think that we may someday be able to breast-feed babies?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isherwood If either creationism or ID are correct, what possible purpose do nipples serve on men? Did god or the designer think that we may someday be able to breast-feed babies?

Oh cmon Ish, that's easy. God works in mysterious ways. Duh. :rolleyes:

[gallo]

Quote by: RickSp dthmstr254, what isn't clear to me is - if you want to teach your religion in my son's science class, is it OK if I teach physics in your kid's Sunday school? After all if they are being taught religion in science class, they may need some time to make up all the science that they have missed.

What a good idea! Besides physics we also need to require the teaching of cosmology, astronomy and evolutionary biology in Sunday school.

As a former science teacher, I never did have a problem with teaching creationism or "creation science" in my classes. It wouldn't have taken much time since it is composed of a few unsupported assertions. Whenever I met someone who thought that "creation science" should be taught along side of science, I always agreed and expressed my willingness to teach it. The reaction was always back peddling with a statement that someone "qualified" to teach "creation science" should do the teaching. It didn't seem to matter that I have degrees in biology and am certified in three states to teach biology, they want to have someone else teach "creation science" in my biology classes. How bizarre. Suddenly the teaching of "creation science" by qualified scientists didn't seem like such a good idea.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood If either creationism or ID are correct, what possible purpose do nipples serve on men? Did god or the designer think that we may someday be able to breast-feed babies?

what is the point of the navel, and appendix? maybe they serve some purpose as yet unknown to science. as far as I know, the only thing science knows of the appendix is that it can explode because of an infection, (appendicitis). the same question is there for evolutionism. don't go saying that the question is just for Creationism, cause it isn't.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp dthmstr254, what isn't clear to me is - if you want to teach your religion in my son's science class, is it OK if I teach physics in your kid's Sunday school? After all if they are being taught religion in science class, they may need some time to make up all the science that they have missed.

public school is, as it states, PUBLIC. ALL public societies are to be objective in their views according to law. therefore, they should not lean one way or the other. that is one of the reasons I argue to teach both, either congruently or seperately. let the student make his own choice, and have people trained in Creationism teach the creationism classes, like Dr Jay L Wile, PhD PhD. he aced both his Yale doctorates in physics and biology, if anyone is more qualified to teach creationism, I have never heard of him. If my kid goes to public schools at all, he will only go until he is required to learn evolution. at that point, he will go one semester under evolution, and then he is coming out and I will homeschool him. he can make his decision as to which one he wants then. you guys brainwash kids in school, teaching that some random slime mutated into life. we have never seen a random grouping of these amino acids turn into any kind of life. in fact, when put into the supposed atmosphere that the earth SUPPOSEDLY had all those years ago, they die.

[dthmstr254]

and, free will is nonexistent if evolution is true because we are just animals, following our instincts. we have no true thoughts. these complex love relationships would all be an act of instinct.

this is why there is no true basis for morals. if we are all animals, we are not important to this world. this all comes to the question, since there has to be a more important person, (IE the president is more important in his roll than the chief of staff or vice pres.; and the owner of a corporation is much more important than the manager...) who is the most important person in the human race? who is the one we should all look to for answers? my answer is Jesus Christ and that evolution is flawed in every facet.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 what is the point of the navel, and appendix? maybe they serve some purpose as yet unknown to science. as far as I know, the only thing science knows of the appendix is that it can explode because of an infection, (appendicitis). the same question is there for evolutionism. don't go saying that the question is just for Creationism, cause it isn't.

Are you so completely illiterate of science and medicine? The navel is the point at which the umbilical cord was attached to the fetus. The umbilical cord is the connection to the placenta, through which everything necessary for life was transmitted from the mother to the fetus. What simpleton doesn't know that?

The appendix is a vestigial organ. It does serve a function in disease resistance, just as do the rest of the intestines. In that regard, the appendix is nothing special. Beyond that, the appendix serves no useful function in primates. In herbivores it is a place for bacteria to break down cellulose so that the nutrients can bee absorbed. In humans, it is a blind pocket that may become impacted and can be removed without any ill effect.

So yet again you are demonstrating your scientific illiteracy and you failure to educate yourself before speaking. Even back in my day as a student we were taught to go to the library and research information before we spoke. You parrot what others have told you without any intellectual investment on your part. You allow yourself to be duped.

How sad.

[Sonart]

Quote by: dthmstr public school is, as it states, PUBLIC. ALL public societies are to be objective in their views according to law. therefore, they should not lean one way or the other.

No, in the teaching of science, they should definitely lean towards the objective view of science, and ID is not science at all.

Quote by: dthmstr If my kid goes to public schools at all, he will only go until he is required to learn evolution. at that point, he will go one semester under evolution, and then he is coming out and I will homeschool him. he can make his decision as to which one he wants then.

Great... just what this country needs in the coming global competition. Another ignorant zealot.

Quote by: dthmstr and, free will is nonexistent if evolution is true because we are just animals, following our instincts. we have no true thoughts

Complete and utter nonsense. I once said you simply invent things for the sake of making an arguement. Guess I can say it again.

.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Sonart No, in the teaching of science, they should definitely lean towards the objective view of science, and ID is not science at all.

according to the scientific community, it is still a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, therfore making it science.

Great... just what this country needs in the coming global competition. Another ignorant zealot.

tell that to someone who cares about your insults, they don't faze me. just so long as you arent debasing my friends and family, you will remain off my ignore list. I have no clue what mr Gallo is saying, but I aint listening, so he can keep rambling. unless I receive word from one of my buddies on volconvo that he has apologized, he will remain ignored.

Complete and utter nonsense. I once said you simply invent things for the sake of making an arguement. Guess I can say it again.

hey, I am quoting Cornell University, a non-Christian college.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 public school is, as it states, PUBLIC. ALL public societies are to be objective in their views according to law.

Exactly how do you propose to impose any law about public society on Korea, Iran, Italy, France? Did you actually mean to say "public school" as the term is understood in the U.S.? And how is it that U.S. schools are not being objective according to law? Specific examples please.

Quote by: dthmstr254 therefore, they should not lean one way or the other. that is one of the reasons I argue to teach both, either congruently or separately. let the student make his own choice,

But you assume that there are only two alternatives. What about the hundreds of native American creation myths? Shouldn't they also be taught as science? What about Buddhism, Shintoism? Where does your "one way or the other" come from. If your religion is allowed to be taught in science classes, then all religions must be allowed. Thankfully, teaching religion in public schools is a violation of the Constitution.

Quote by: dthmstr254 and have people trained in Creationism teach the creationism classes, like Dr Jay L Wile, PhD PhD. he aced both his Yale doctorates in physics and biology, if anyone is more qualified to teach creationism, I have never heard of him.

Well, I haven't either. But the Supreme Court has already decided that creationism may not be taught as science in any public school. The reason is quite simple; it is religion rather than science. No matter how much you wish to support your weak faith by pretending that it is scientific, it isn't.

Quote by: dthmstr254 If my kid goes to public schools at all, he will only go until he is required to learn evolution. at that point, he will go one semester under evolution, and then he is coming out and I will homeschool him. he can make his decision as to which one he wants then.

And like most homeschoolers, you will be incompetent as a teacher in specialized subjects. The problem is that the parents don't understand the subject so it is impossible that the students do.

Quote by: dthmstr254 you guys brainwash kids in school, teaching that some random slime mutated into life.

Bullroar. We guys teach no such thing. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned what you objected to before you made yourself look like a fool?

Quote by: dthmstr254 we have never seen a random grouping of these amino acids turn into any kind of life. in fact, when put into the supposed atmosphere that the earth SUPPOSEDLY had all those years ago, they die.

What amino acids are you talking about? What atmosphere are you talking about? I certainly don't know what you are talking about, do you?

You didn't when you discussed thermodynamics and it seems that you don't now.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 and, free will is nonexistent if evolution is true because we are just animals, following our instincts. we have no true thoughts. these complex love relationships would all be an act of instinct.

So you are saying that if we don't subscribe to your religion, we (all of us who disagree with you) are denying free will? If we don't accept that we were created by some magical, invisible sky man who magically granted us the ability to act rationally, our actions are nothing more than instinct? So even if we have more than one option and we think about those options before making a decision, it really isn't "free will", but rather your god?

Quote by: dthmstr254 this is why there is no true basis for morals.

Morality is cultural.

Quote by: dthmstr254 if we are all animals, we are not important to this world. this all comes to the question, since there has to be a more important person, (IE the president is more important in his roll than the chief of staff or vice pres.; and the owner of a corporation is much more important than the manager...) who is the most important person in the human race? who is the one we should all look to for answers? my answer is Jesus Christ and that evolution is flawed in every facet.

According to christian mythology, we are all dirt. That is a bit below an animal. The rest of your post is utter nonsense. What does the structure of a single branch (of three) of the U.S. government have to do with the discussion? What are you smoking?

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 according to the scientific community, it is still a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, therfore making it science.

Actually, according the the scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory. It is an unsupported assertion. If you disagree, then please show otherwise.

Quote by: dthmstr254 tell that to someone who cares about your insults, they don't faze me

Yes they do. In fact, facts that show you opinions to be without foundation and facts about your education faze you. You run and hide.
[quote=dthmstr254] just so long as you arent debasing my friends and family, you will remain off my ignore list. I have no clue what mr Gallo is saying, but I aint listening, so he can keep rambling. unless I receive word from one of my buddies on volconvo that he has apologized, he will remain ignored.[/quote}I'm sorry that you received an inferior science education because you were home schooled.

Quote by: dthmstr254 hey, I am quoting Cornell University, a non-Christian college.

Actually, Cornell University doesn't have an opinion. You are quoting a person out of context.

So if you quote something that I say will you claim that you are quoting St. Mary's College (CA), or Montana State University, or the University of Montana, or El Instituto de Estudios Superiors de Monterrey? I've got degrees from all of those But I make no claim to speak for any of them.

[dthmstr254]

okay. you want to attack the scientific ability of the ID theory. I will now turn the light on one of the most important evolutionary icons of the days: the Miller experiment.
here is the big problem with it: the atmosphere used is not the correct atmosphere according to todays scientists. Miller chose a hydrogen rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what most scientists of the day thought the atmosphere was like. but scientists don't believe that atmosphere existed. today's model of the ancient atmosphere is one of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. if you tweak that part of the Miller experiment, you do NOT get amino acids.
many textbooks try to gloss this over by saying that we still get organic chemicals from the experiment. but these chemicals are useless for the purpose of evolution. you know what you get when you run the Miller experiment on what we now think is the ancient atmosphere? cyanide and formaldehyde!!! they may be organic molecules, but they definitely are not allowed in labs. is you were to open a bottle of formaldehyde in a protein rich environment, the fumes would literally eat all the protein in the system!
again, the textbooks gloss this over by saying that if you mix them you get something useful to organics. you know what you get then??? embalming liquid!!!


now assuming that amino acids were produced in an accurate environment, which is impossible, you are still an EXTREMELY LONG LONG LONG way from producing a living cell. this is the first step in a very complicated process. you would have to get the right number of amino acids in exactly the right sequence to link up to create a single protein molecule, and this is still very far from creating a cell. next you would need dozens of protein molecules to come together in exactly the right sequence to create a living cell. this is just scientifically impossible.
for a visual picture, take a test tube of salt, put a single living cell in it and poke a hole in it to leak out the contents of it. this would acomplish much more than the Miller experiment did. the problem is, you could never make a living cell. there is no point in even trying. it would be like a physicist trying to make an experiment to make a rock fall up all the way to the moon. scientifically impossible.


ps I would like to see gallo say I am a scientific illiterate now. I just completely turned the Miller experiment into little more than a myth. maybe a historical signifigance, but no scientific fact at all. I have much more where that came from.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 public school is, as it states, PUBLIC. ALL public societies are to be objective in their views according to law. therefore, they should not lean one way or the other. that is one of the reasons I argue to teach both, either congruently or seperately. let the student make his own choice, and have people trained in Creationism teach the creationism classes, like Dr Jay L Wile, PhD PhD. he aced both his Yale doctorates in physics and biology, if anyone is more qualified to teach creationism, I have never heard of him.

So essentially you want my kids to be denied a good education in science so your creationist "PhD PhDs" can teach your religion class poorly disguised as science? Sure, let the kids decide which course they take. Yah, sure. Now you want not only to trash the science curriculum but the curriculum as a whole.

Mess up your own kids. Leave mine alone.

[Jack]

There have been a number of objections to the implications derived from these experiments. It is now believed that Earth's original atmosphere did not contain as large a quantity of reducing molecules as was thought at the time: Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly NH3 and CH4. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. The reasons for this are (a) volcanic gas has more CO2, CO and N2 than CH4 and NH3 and (b) UV radiation destroys NH3 and CH4 so that these molecules would have been short-lived. UV light photolyses H2O to H· and ·OH radicals. These then attack methane, giving eventually CO2 and releasing H2 which would be lost into space. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The H atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been produced in variants of the Miller experiment. More recent results may have called this into question, however. Simulations done at the University of Waterloo and University of Colorado in 2005 indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40% hydrogen, implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only 1% of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature. One of the authors, Prof. Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early earth, (Washington University, September 2005) complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller-Urey experiment.

Source