Creationism vs. Evolution

[Jack]

There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of evolutions creation theory.

The theory of evolution deals with populations already in existence. It offers no "creation theory".

[gallo]

Quote by: TehNinja did you know that the probability of life coming from non living chemicals is 1 x 10 to the 15 power? and that's the most optimistic one they have come up with.

Really? Please show the math.

Are you aware that there are non-living organic chemicals that reproduce? Are you aware that these chemicals arise spontaneously? Did you take them into account in your calculations?

Please define "life." Of course, your calculation ignores any intermediate forms, such as the above organic chemicals and naturally forming lipid membranes. Your calculation is essentially that it is impossible for mankind to spring from sea froth in a single event.

You're cute. So precious.

[gallo]

Quote by: Right of Center There is hard science to the fact that evolution occurs among species. However ther is insufficient evidence to suggest that everything on earth is descended from a single celled organism in a prehistoric mud puddle.

But there is a lot of evidence that indicates that common descent is true. Of course, your characterization of the "mud puddle" is meant to cast dispersion, since nobody makes such a claim. Sad that you can't present ideas without straw men.

But maybe you can explain why it is that every living organism, as well as some semi-living organisms like viruses, all use the same genetic code. GODDIDIT doesn't cut it.

Quote by: Right of Center There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of evolutions creation theory.

Are you actually conscious? What exactly is an hypothesis of a theory? Is it an hypothesis or a theory? How sad that you don't seem to be aware that evolutionary theory doesn't have a creation hypothesis. Wouldn't it be a good idea to learn the basics of what you oppose before you make yourself look foolish?

Quote by: Right of Center Evolution is an important theory because it is real.

If only you understood it.

Quote by: Right of Center But it does not and never can encompass the true beginnings of life.

See what I mean? Evolution is, by definition, heritable change in life over generations. Thus, the theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain how life originated. Even though principles of evolution have been applied (tested and found valid) to pre-biotic chemistry, such studies are not part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution deals with changes to living organisms.

Quote by: Right of Center No matter what we will have to accept that we do not know.

No we don't. That's nonsense. If I don't know that the tooth fairy exists, why do I have to accept that it is true? That's a pretty mindless statement.

[Nathan Struth]

I'm pro evolutionist, I believe god is a # 1 figment of the human imagination. If only more people believed in science instead of folk stories from some stupid book, because no 1 book can explain every single thing present; because the # of things present is constantly growing within our minds...

[xyzer]

Here is an interesting site that promotes creationism..
Kids 4 Truth - The Watchmaker
It's pitched to kids but nevertheless its makes the point...

[underbear1]

Those that don't accept evolution, are those who evolving isn't really touching their lives.

[Jack]

Quote by: xyzer Here is an interesting site that promotes creationism.. Kids 4 Truth - The Watchmaker It's pitched to kids but nevertheless its makes the point...

Pretty. Pretty pictures, pretty poetry, pretty silly. Good for infesting young minds with philosophical nonsense before they're old enough to reason and read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker to gain an alternative viewpoint.

One of the most popular, and apparently powerful, arguments for God's existence is the argument commonly referred to as "the argument by design." Believers often point to the wonders of nature, compare them to the lesser mechanical wonders of human design, and conclude that this is evidence that the universe was created by a much more powerful Designer, that is, God. This argument may seem persuasive, but it suffers from a number of serious flaws. The most famous version of the argument by design is no doubt the "watchmaker analogy" published by William Paley in Natural Theology (1802). Paley first argues: "In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there." Paley concludes: "Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation." In this form, the argument more has the form of an analogy than a real argument, which gives it great power especially to a lay audience. However, both the analogy and the underlying argument suffers from a number of serious flaws. Paley's analogy draws a distinction between natural objects and objects that are the products of human designers. The whole argument goes that if you should find a watch on a beach, lying in between the sand, stones, grass and waves, you would immediately recognize that it stood out from its surroundings, and that it was different. So, you would conclude it was an artifact. The problem is that Paley suddenly turns around and says that everything in nature bears evidence of a designer! The analogy is thus self-contradictory even on the most basic level. In the analogy, the differences between the natural objects and the human artifact is what makes an observer conclude that the latter is designed. How come, then, can anyone conclude that the stones, grass and indeed the whole universe is created by a Designer, too? Why will a human being, upon seeing a watch, conclude it is an artifact? First, it is its simplicity, especially the simplicity in form, that makes it stand out from nature. It is not, as theists confusingly seem to think, that the watch is "complex." Compared to any living thing on that beach, it is quite simple. Human artifacts (the only artifacts we know) are not characterized by complexity, but simplicity. We use simple geometrical forms -- circles, arcs, lines -- when we create our designs, and these forms are rare in nature. In fact, sometimes we may err and conclude a natural form is artificial because it is simple and, for example, rectangular. Second, we recognize certain patterns in designed artifacts. While I think a cave dweller would recognize the watch as a probable artifact, I think it's safe to say that we would recognize it as a certain artifact because we have seen such things before. We also know a watch when we see one, and we know from experience that these carries the name of their manufacturer, and we see no reason to doubt that. This is part of the cultural knowledge we have about what kind of products humans create. We have no comparable cultural knowledge, at least none based on actual observation and evidence, that there are any gods who create universes. Even when put into a better form than this watchmaker analogy does the argument "by design" contain a number of serious problems: First, theists apply the argument from design selectively. Assuming that the complexity of the universe shows it has to be design, they say that this proves the existence of an even more complex entity: God. Now, if the universe has to be created because it is complex, an even more complex deity will have to be the product of an even more powerful meta-god. Theists don't like this train of thought, and produce some ad hoc arguments with little merit. Second, as we have remarked above with the typical "watchmaker" analogy, the argument depends on a dichotomy between artifacts and natural objects. In its original form, theists say that someone walking on a beach and find a watch, will recognize it as an artifact. But, pray tell, how can the person distinguish between artifacts and natural objects? Well, the person obviously recognizes a watch as something he already knows is an artifact, and also the simplicity of form (circular, straight lines, etc). On the other hand the person recognizes stones, grass and leaves as natural objects. Ok so far. But then theists turn around and say that these natural objects are actually designed as well! Actually, theists say, there are no natural objects, only artifacts created by some designer. Thus, the whole watchmaker argument is self-defeating. Thirdly, and typically, arguments "by design" totally ignores the whole apparatus of explanation that modern science has provided. The theory of evolution by natural selection provides a powerful explanation of the complexities in life. While some theists reject it, it is simply not honest to pretend it does not exist, as the argument does. Known natural processes, sometimes amazingly simple, can create objects of high complexity. Snow flakes is one example.

Source

[gallo]

Quote by: xyzer Here is an interesting site that promotes creationism.. Kids 4 Truth - The Watchmaker It's pitched to kids but nevertheless its makes the point...

What point is that? The point that watches are reproducing organisms that have been reproducing imperfectly for about 3.8 billion years? How do you think that they learned that watches reproduce? Is that what goes on at night in the "watchmaker's" shop?

[RickSp]

The "argument from design"-"watchmaker" argument is ancient and hasn't improved with time. Order is an inherent characteristic of the fundamental physics of the universe. Unless one believes that the sun is dragged across the sky by a diety in a chariot, there is nothing remarkable in the earth rotating in its orbit in accordance with the laws of gravity. Even Newton's simple equations do a pretty good job at predicting the motion. Order need not imply a designer. There is little randomness in the universe except in the minds of creationists.

[Zinkovich]

For years scientists have predicted that furhter similarities between dinosaurs and birds would be found using the descent of forms and the theory of evolution. Guess what? A discovery from 2005 seems to confirm this! More:

HEADLINE SCIENCE: Dino Discovery Scientists see the softer side of Tyrannosaurus rex. When paleontologists find fossilized dinosaur bones during a dig, they usually do everything in their power to protect them, using tools like toothbrushes to carefully unearth the bones without inflicting any damage. However, when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible. A scanning electron microscope revealed that the dinosaur blood vessels, which are 70 million years old, are virtually identical to those recovered from modern ostrich bones. The ostrich is today’s largest bird, and many paleontologists believe that birds are the living descendants of dinosaurs. Scientists may be able to confirm this evolutionary relationship if they can isolate certain proteins from the recently discovered T. rex tissue. These proteins could also help solve another puzzle: whether dinosaurs were cold-blooded like other reptiles or warm-blooded like mammals. Does this discovery of soft dinosaur tissue mean that scientists will soon be able to clone a Tyrannosaurus rex? Probably not – most scientists believe that DNA cannot survive for 70 million years. Then again, before this discovery, most scientists believed that soft tissue could not survive for 70 million years either.

This report was sensationalized a bit in the fact that the tissue was not soft and pliable, but the blood vessels part about it is true, and there is a confirmed similarity.

Oh, and DNA extraction isn't likely. Sorry guys, but we'll have to wait a while longer for a real-life Jurassic Park :(

[kubedawg]

How can they 100% confirm that the dinosaur was 70 Million years old? The ways in which we are able to date bones back for a couple thousands of years may be completely different than that of dinosaurs because there are no living dinosaurs today. But lets just say, for science sake, there are. Like the ostrich. How are we able to determine the age of dinosaur bones? We weren't there so there is no way to do so. We can confirm the age of ostriches because they live today. But something existed before our time, or that existed before these studies were first being made, may not be true. Therefore, the theory of creationism cannot be ruled out, and that evolution is no more fact than that of creationism.

[Jack]

theory of creationism

If that's a theory (in the scientific sense) then there must be proofs. Could you cite a few of those for us?

[kubedawg]

The only proofs in evolution, the known evolution, are the ones that exist today. There is no proof of god, nor is there proof of creationism, but there is also no proof that evolution existed millions of years ago opposed to several thousands of years ago. I'm not trying to disprove anything, nor should it be. I'm trying to separate the current evolution from the supposed prior evolution. There is fact in evolution, but only that of which we see today. What's to say evolution started happening once a god put us here. Putting us here, then evolving to what we are today? No proof. No proof of something existing millions of years ago either. No disproof for both theories, otherwise they'd be known as false.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSp The "argument from design"-"watchmaker" argument is ancient and hasn't improved with time. Order is an inherent characteristic of the fundamental physics of the universe. Unless one believes that the sun is dragged across the sky by a diety in a chariot, there is nothing remarkable in the earth rotating in its orbit in accordance with the laws of gravity. Even Newton's simple equations do a pretty good job at predicting the motion. Order need not imply a designer. There is little randomness in the universe except in the minds of creationists.

There are some aspects of the fine tuning argument that can seem compelling. Unfortunately, it breaks down to matters of intuition that are abstract and unprovable in either direction.

However, if the nature of reality is such that high-order beings emerge, then, given forever, a highest-order being would eventually emerge. Thus, rejecting watchmaker arguments leads you straight into infinite emergence arguments - meaning that a being of maximal power probably exists.

The question is, is a being of maximal power sufficiently powerful to be considered a god?

This just depends on whether the laws of physics allow for such a thing. They might, but it is really unknowable, at present time.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Captain Chaos However, if the nature of reality is such that high-order beings emerge, then, given forever, a highest-order being would eventually emerge. Thus, rejecting watchmaker arguments leads you straight into infinite emergence arguments - meaning that a being of maximal power probably exists.

I see no rational argument for infinite emergence arguments. Physics tends toward balance not extremes. The emergence of higher-order beings as you term them might make for fun science fiction, but beyond that the argument has little basis. It could happen but is only one of many possible outcomes. Likewise rejecting the watchmaker argument doesn't logically lead to your infinite emergence argument.

[Captain Chaos]

The emergence of higher-order beings as you term them might make for fun science fiction, but beyond that the argument has little basis.

You are mistaken.

Given infinite independent trials, if the probability of an event is greater than zero, then the event will occur. Do you dispute this?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Captain Chaos You are mistaken. Given infinite independent trials, if the probability of an event is greater than zero, then the event will occur. Do you dispute this?

Interesting as speculation, but as a practical matter we more typically see a regression to the norm. Your proposition is effectively circular. Anything that you can imagine that has a non-zero probability must therefore exist, assuming an infinite number of trials. Of course, I am not convinced that you can define what you are speculating on in real terms, so your assigning of probablities is therefore questionable, as is the assumption of infinite independent trials. Again, interesting as speculation, but little more.

[Fonceai]

Also, consider that in probability, time and trials are synonymous.

In an infinite amount of time, the average lifespan when compared against time itself is zero.

Just as even a 1 * 10^40 chance could happen if you tried it 10^40 times.

The other issue with our evolutionary path is that it does relate to unique emergence not in that humans are unique, but in that our specific evolutionary path might be unique. Specifically, is our path (Terrestrial paths) the only one(s) that evolve intelligence?

Also, I had a really neat idea that I want to share and this is the perfect place thread for it...

---

Something else interesting to consider... look at both theories and how man came about.

In Evolution...

The general idea is that man evolved from primates. But in the evolutionary "ladder" there is a gap, the "Missing Link". While scientists are pretty sure they have found certain derivations of Homo Sapiens that fit into the gap, they still don't know how the step was triggered. There is the suggestion of widespread, massive genetic mutation or some other significant event that made the leap from Late Primate to Early Human.

In Creationism...

The Creationism I am going to refer to is the Christian / Biblical variety. The general idea is that Humans arrived instantly, fully evolved in the current form. They were made that way by God(s) and Primate evolution is just a coincidence, as evident by the "Missing Link" and the overlap of Late Primate and Early Human. A Creationist might argue that the overlap shows where Late Primates died out and Early Humans began. They explain away the time incongruities by saying that the evidence of Early Human would be found elsewhere if we looked closer to the Garden of Eden, but they still can't explain the obvious evolutionary changes.

But here's my idea...

In the Bible, Adam and Eve are basically ageless. They only start aging when they are cast from Eden. At that point, they live for hundreds if not thousands of years. Their children also live for hundreds of years. So on and so forth, they populate the Earth. At the same time, Evolution of Primates continues.

In the Bible, it mentions two things that caught my attention. As time went on, the descendants of Adam and Eve live shorter and shorter lives. It also mentions the existence of "Others". If you look deeper into Christian lore, it relates that the Great Flood and the destruction of the Tower of Babel are both related to these Others who are not of God's people.

So who are the Others?

The Others are the evolved Late Primates.

As the descendants of Adam and Eve started having children with the Late Primates, lifespans shortened. This crossing of The Descendants with The Others is the Missing Link. After the Great Flood, you end up with Early Humans.

Just an idea, and an interesting and fun one if you try to elaborate on it.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Rick Interesting as speculation, but as a practical matter we more typically see a regression to the norm.

What does that mean?

Your proposition is effectively circular. Anything that you can imagine that has a non-zero probability must therefore exist, assuming an infinite number of trials.

That is not circular.

Of course, I am not convinced that you can define what you are speculating on in real terms,

What are 'real terms?'

so your assigning of probablities is therefore questionable,

I am not assigning probabilities. I simply stated that IF the probability is greater than zero, and given forever, it will happen. The probability may well be zero. That simply depends on whether or not the laws of physics allow for god-like beings to exist.

as is the assumption of infinite independent trials.

Unless you believe in acausality, the outermost dimension of time must go backwards forever.

Again, interesting as speculation, but little more.

Ya just never know where speculation might lead you.

[Captain Chaos]

um...

I just posted four times?


weird.