Creationism vs. Evolution

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Chilly I could live with evolution (although I don't think they know half of what they don't know, right now)...but the big bang?? Why hasn't science been able to produce life from nothing?...that's the question that gets me. The rest of it doesn't really matter. If I am a distance relative of some jelly fish, I can live with that...I just want to know how it all started. Darn it. Tell me!! Now!

It has been proven that the universe is expanding. Reverse the process.

Also, there are detectable energies (I need to get into my books for details, but read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.) that are basicly the "echo" of the Big Bang.

Even the guy who coined the phrase "big bang" thought it sounded silly, but it was what they called the apparent beginning of this universe for lack of anything better, so it stuck.

Besides, you can't believe a process where there is observable and provable evidence, yet you CAN believe in a supernatural being suddenly deciding to "create" everything in a few days time?

OOOOOKay fine....


BTW...just because we are still in the process of learning, and ALL the answers aren't known RIGHT THIS SECOND, does not invalidate all that we DO know.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fangrim Personally, I don't believe in evolution. But neither do I believe in creationism.

And I'll bet that you don't believe in gravity or Santa Claus either.

Quote by: Fangrim I see no reason to believe in either, nor do I view either as more deserving of that belief or recognition of their respective truths.

That's probably because you don't have even the slightest knowledge of either. For example, it is quite foolish to look at science as some sort of quest for truth.

Quote by: Fangrim I could just as easily believe both as true, but the one thing I certainly can't do is believe that either of them are false.

Right. Since you haven't bothered to learn about either.

[gallo]

Quote by: Mozart1220 It has been proven that the universe is expanding. Reverse the process.

It has not. Science doesn't prove things. The expansion of the universe is a conclusion that was first based on observations of the red shift of light coming from distant objects.

Quote by: Mozart1220 Also, there are detectable energies (I need to get into my books for details, but read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.) that are basicly the "echo" of the Big Bang.

You mean the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). First predicted in 1948 by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, and observed in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. More recently studied by COBE and WMAP. But again, that isn't proof but observations that support the theory. The theory was called the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow theory because, as a joke, Gamow included Nobel prize winning physicist Hans Bethe as an author, even though he made no contribution.

Quote by: Mozart1220 Even the guy who coined the phrase "big bang" thought it sounded silly,...

That was Fred Hoyle. Hoyle thought that a beginning to the universe implied a god. He believed in an eternal universe and referred scornfully to the Lemaître/Gammow theory as the "big bang." Gamow liked the name so much that he adopted it.

Quote by: Mozart1220 Besides, you can't believe a process where there is observable and provable evidence, yet you CAN believe in a supernatural being suddenly deciding to "create" everything in a few days time?

Except for the part about "provable evidence", that's a good point. Evidence isn't provable. It would have been sufficient to refer to observable evidence, or maybe empirical evidence. But once again, science, through scientific theories, explains the evidence. There is always the logical possibility that the explanation might be incorrect and have to be adjusted in order to accommodate further observations.

Quote by: Mozart1220 BTW...just because we are still in the process of learning, and ALL the answers aren't known RIGHT THIS SECOND, does not invalidate all that we DO know.

And it isn't logical to propose that because we don't know that a magical being is responsible.

[Klio]

I don't see why we have to choose between Creationism or Evolution? Are we so devoid of imagination that we can't come up with other options?

[Ohmycaptain]

There's no way we can really figure it out (obviously), but I think it's too deep do think about, and we can't handle what the truth is.

Obviously, something had to create another... Yet, something had to create that thing, right?

And there can't be nothing... But nothing is something, and has there always been something?

There is no such thing as nothing, yet... It just makes no sense.

There's always been SOMETHING... But... How was that made?!

It just goes on, asking that question just keeps repeating over and over.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: gallo And I'll bet that you don't believe in gravity or Santa Claus either. That's probably because you don't have even the slightest knowledge of either. For example, it is quite foolish to look at science as some sort of quest for truth. Right. Since you haven't bothered to learn about either.

Your choice to insult my knowledge of the two subjects is astounding.

No, I don't believe in Santa Claus. I believe that the force of gravity exists, but I don't believe that that force arises from the interaction of bodies of matter. I can believe what I wish, and for me, that belief does not include the origin of gravity.

I don't know how you managed to transform my "respective truths" phrase to some wild understanding that sciense is a quest for truth, because I certainly did not mean that. By "respective truths," I meant the two different claims that religion and science propose as the reason for the diversity of life on Earth. Both claim that their reason is true. It's as simple as that. Don't take my words and then shoot them wherever best suits your condescension.

Why do you assume that I have never bothered to learn either creationism or evolution? Is it simply because I don't believe in either of them?
So, according to you, if you don't believe in evolution, you haven't learned enough of it. I'm going to go on a hunch and say you don't believe in creationism. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Then, if you don't believe in creationism, perhaps you haven't learned enough of it?

Your condescension aside, people can believe what they want, including you and me.

[gallo]

Quote by: Fangrim Your choice to insult my knowledge of the two subjects is astounding.

Either you have knowledge or you don't. There was no insult. Maybe you have extensive knowledge of creationist mythology but that isn't apparent from your discussion. What is clearly apparent is that you have little idea of what science is or how it works. If you are insulted when I merely point out your evident lack of basic knowledge, then the obvious answer would be to try to learn.

Quote by: Fangrim No, I don't believe in Santa Claus.

I wasn't sure what you might believe.

Quote by: Fangrim I believe that the force of gravity exists,

Really? For a scientist gravity and it's effects are an observation. Since it is the evidence for the theories of gravitation, there is no need for "belief."

Quote by: Fangrim but I don't believe that that force arises from the interaction of bodies of matter.

Well, that's an expression of the Newtonian theory of gravitation. It's still used because at normal scales and velocities it gives correct answers. However, Newtonian gravitation was superseded by general relativity in which gravity is the result of the curvature of the time-space continuum caused by the presence of matter. Beyond that, there is quantum gravitation that explains gravity in a different way. You see, we actually don't have a very good idea of what gravity is. The theories of gravitation are certainly less well understood and less secure than the theories of evolution. But no scientist "believes" in a scientific theory. Rather, they recognize them as the best explanation for the observed facts that we have been able to devise with our present knowledge. In fact, in the case of gravitation, there are still three theories recognized as the best that we can do, even though they cannot be reconciled. Which one is used is a matter of what you are working on.

Quote by: Fangrim I can believe what I wish, and for me, that belief does not include the origin of gravity.

That's what I said before. You haven't bothered to learn. That is certainly your right. But problems arise when you attempt to discuss topics about which you have no knowledge - intentionally.

Quote by: Fangrim I don't know how you managed to transform my "respective truths" phrase to some wild understanding that sciense is a quest for truth, because I certainly did not mean that.

Then what you meant wasn't clear to me in the context of your post. It certainly seemed as if you were saying that.

Quote by: Fangrim By "respective truths," I meant the two different claims that religion and science propose as the reason for the diversity of life on Earth. Both claim that their reason is true.

There you go again, declaring that science is somehow a quest for truth. Religion/creationism certainly makes claims of truth, but science does not. Science only offers explanations of observed facts that are the best we can devise with our current knowledge. Do you think that cosmologists and astrophysicists claim that their particular favorite theory is true while the others are false?

Quote by: Fangrim It's as simple as that. Don't take my words and then shoot them wherever best suits your condescension.

It was, and still is, what I understood you to say. You continue to attribute claims of truth to science. You are wrong. How is that condescension?

Quote by: Fangrim Why do you assume that I have never bothered to learn either creationism or evolution? Is it simply because I don't believe in either of them?

No. It is because you have demonstrated no knowledge of either. In fact, in the case of science, you have demonstrated a lack of knowledge.

Quote by: Fangrim So, according to you, if you don't believe in evolution, you haven't learned enough of it.

No. I don't believe in evolution. But I have studied the evidence and have been doing so for many years. Because of my understanding of the evidence and my understanding of logic and reason, I recognize that the current theories of evolution are the best that we can devise with our current knowledge. I am aware that the evidence clearly shows that young earth creationism is wrong.

Quote by: Fangrim I'm going to go on a hunch and say you don't believe in creationism. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Belief means acceptance without evidence. However, when there are vast amounts of evidence that show that some belief is wrong, then I reject it. When the mythology of creationism is presented as if it were science, then it becomes cartoonish.

Quote by: Fangrim Then, if you don't believe in creationism, perhaps you haven't learned enough of it?

Actually, I probably know more about it than you. I have read books by Morris and Whitcomb, Duane Gish, Walt Brown. I have attended lectures by Carl Baugh and watched all 16 hours of Mr. Kent Hovind's lectures. I often read articles at Answers in Genesis. Learning more about creationism when one actually has an understanding of the science in question does not help one "believe" in creationism.

Quote by: Fangrim Your condescension aside, people can believe what they want, including you and me.

Sure you can. But offering opinions about things based on no knowledge whatsoever does not cast you in a good light. You are free to believe or not believe anything you want. Of course, belief implies acceptance as true without evidence.

[gallo]

Quote by: Klio I don't see why we have to choose between Creationism or Evolution? Are we so devoid of imagination that we can't come up with other options?

Not at all. There are several other options that have been proposed. Of course, like creationism, they have no evidence to support them. Imaginary scenarios that can't be tested are worthless when it comes to advancing knowledge. Evolution has been observed. There is no doubt that organisms evolve. But choose to believe whatever you want.

[gallo]

Quote by: Ohmycaptain There's no way we can really figure it out (obviously), but I think it's too deep do think about, and we can't handle what the truth is.

Not everyone feels that way. Some people actually think that we can learn by careful observation, forming hypotheses to explain the observations, making predictions from those hypotheses, and then testing the predictions. If the prediction is correct, they we have learned about reality. If the prediction is wrong, then we have learned what isn't real.

Quote by: Ohmycaptain Obviously, something had to create another... Yet, something had to create that thing, right?

Actually, that's not obvious anymore. There is also the presumption of the supernatural in your use of the word "create." But your thinking seems limited to Newtonian physics. That's understandable because that's what you observe in your daily life.

Quote by: Ohmycaptain And there can't be nothing... But nothing is something, and has there always been something?

Actually, your thinking is just limited so that you can't conceive of nothing. Few, maybe no one, can.

Quote by: Ohmycaptain There is no such thing as nothing, yet... It just makes no sense.

But you are claiming that nothing is something. That's what doesn't make sense.

Quote by: Ohmycaptain There's always been SOMETHING

How do you know?

Quote by: Ohmycaptain But... How was that made?!

Quantum fluctuation perhaps?

Quote by: Ohmycaptain It just goes on, asking that question just keeps repeating over and over.

Just as a matter of information, something from nothing has been observed to occur. But you probably don't want to get into that. That's part of experimental quantum mechanics that will only end up causing you to have even more questions about what you don't understand. That's how I feel about it. As Niels Bohr, one of formulators of quantum theory said, "And anyone who thinks they can talk about quantum theory without feeling dizzy hasn't yet understood the first thing about it." I find that I am dizzy without understanding.

[Fangrim]

I think there's a general misconception of how I use the word "believe."
I can believe something with evidence just as I can believe something without it. Evidence is irrespective of belief as a concept, though of course evidence may help a person believe something is true.

You're right, I don't know enough. I would like to learn more, and with the last year of high school approaching, I have decades ahead of me to do so. That's plenty of time to cultivate my beliefs and examine the various pieces evidence and information before me. Right now, I have only a basic understanding of creationism and evolution, and reserve my belief in either of them until I can honestly believe in one of them. I might never do so.

I have more than "no knowledge whatsoever," but it isn't much more than that, I suppose. The knowledge that I do have of evolution is simply not enough for me to believe that it is true, and the same goes for creationism.

That's all I was saying in my post, though it did perhaps have the implications that not only did I not have enough information, but neither did anyone else. Of course, this is just an off-hand speculation.

[Jack]

I would like to learn more

An excellent attitude. I hope you keep that as a determination for years to come.

[Ohmycaptain]

Quote by: gallo Not everyone feels that way. Some people actually think that we can learn by careful observation, forming hypotheses to explain the observations, making predictions from those hypotheses, and then testing the predictions. If the prediction is correct, they we have learned about reality. If the prediction is wrong, then we have learned what isn't real. Actually, that's not obvious anymore. There is also the presumption of the supernatural in your use of the word "create." But your thinking seems limited to Newtonian physics. That's understandable because that's what you observe in your daily life. Actually, your thinking is just limited so that you can't conceive of nothing. Few, maybe no one, can. But you are claiming that nothing is something. That's what doesn't make sense. How do you know? Quantum fluctuation perhaps? Just as a matter of information, something from nothing has been observed to occur. But you probably don't want to get into that. That's part of experimental quantum mechanics that will only end up causing you to have even more questions about what you don't understand. That's how I feel about it. As Niels Bohr, one of formulators of quantum theory said, "And anyone who thinks they can talk about quantum theory without feeling dizzy hasn't yet understood the first thing about it." I find that I am dizzy without understanding.

You misunderstand what I mean by nothing is something.

Nothing has to be something, because nothing is there. For something to be there, it has to be something, therefore nothing is something. There can't be any way there is "nothing", but instead, it may just be hidden to our eyes, smells, and all our senses, and ways of thinking.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Ohmycaptain You misunderstand what I mean by nothing is something. Nothing has to be something, because nothing is there. For something to be there, it has to be something, therefore nothing is something. There can't be any way there is "nothing", but instead, it may just be hidden to our eyes, smells, and all our senses, and ways of thinking.

This is where your reasoning breaks down.

If nothing is something, and nothing is the opposite of everything, then nothing is everything.

[Century 25]

PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums (Powered by Invision Power Board)

[gallo]

Quote by: Fangrim I think there's a general misconception of how I use the word "believe."

I can't address a general misconception of how you used a word. I can only speak for myself. You used the word "believe" with two different connotations, and then equated the two.

Quote by: Fangrim I can believe something with evidence just as I can believe something without it.

And that is my point. You believe in fairies and you believe in gravity. One belief is based on no evidence whatsoever, and the other is based on observation.

Quote by: Fangrim Evidence is irrespective of belief as a concept, though of course evidence may help a person believe something is true.

Again, you use the word "belief" with two different connotations.

Quote by: Fangrim You're right, I don't know enough. I would like to learn more, and with the last year of high school approaching, I have decades ahead of me to do so.

And I have decades behind me during which I have examined the questions. I believe in neither creationism nor evolution. However, I reject creationism because it offers no evidence beyond pure mythology to support it's assertion. I accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation that we can devise, based on current knowledge.

Quote by: Fangrim That's plenty of time to cultivate my beliefs and examine the various pieces evidence and information before me.

Sure it is. But I am saddened that you are approaching graduation without having taken a course in science. I was required to to take a science course in order to graduate from high school. I took three - biology, chemistry, and physics. My sons took two years of biology and two years of physics. They both grasped the difference between belief and understanding.

Quote by: Fangrim Right now, I have only a basic understanding of creationism and evolution, and reserve my belief in either of them until I can honestly believe in one of them. I might never do so.

Honestly, I don't believe in either. But that may be because I am an evolutionary biologist.

Quote by: Fangrim I have more than "no knowledge whatsoever," but it isn't much more than that, I suppose.

Your courage in that admission is noted. And yet, your 'knowledge" seems to me to me more misunderstanding than any real knowledge.

Quote by: Fangrim The knowledge that I do have of evolution is simply not enough for me to believe that it is true, and the same goes for creationism.

But the difference is that no one expects you to "believe" in evolution, while creationism requires that you believe without any more evidence than a book of mythology. Here's some food for thought. Polls have shown (some conducted by creationists) that the more educated a person is, the less likely he/she is to "believe" in creationism. Among scientists, 99% of biologists and geologists accept evolutionary theory. Generally, 95% of all scientists reject creationism and accept evolutionary theory as correct.

Quote by: Fangrim That's all I was saying in my post, though it did perhaps have the implications that not only did I not have enough information, but neither did anyone else.

I can understand that you would admit that you lacked sufficient knowledge to make a judgement. But that does no imply that thousands of scientists also lack such knowledge.

Quote by: Fangrim Of course, this is just an off-hand speculation.

I suspect that it wasn't. It seems a bias to me. I'll leave it at that.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: gallo I can't address a general misconception of how you used a word. I can only speak for myself. You used the word "believe" with two different connotations, and then equated the two. And that is my point. You believe in fairies and you believe in gravity. One belief is based on no evidence whatsoever, and the other is based on observation. Again, you use the word "belief" with two different connotations.

I merely use the same word belief, with the same meaning, on two different things that you infer to mean different connotations. You can believe a scientific theory just as you can believe a religious doctrine.

And I have decades behind me during which I have examined the questions. I believe in neither creationism nor evolution. However, I reject creationism because it offers no evidence beyond pure mythology to support it's assertion. I accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation that we can devise, based on current knowledge.

And it may very well be the best explanation. As my knowledge stands right now, however, I can't simply wish myself to believe in it; it's just not enough for me. Of course, as you have said, science does work in believing theories are true, it simply proceeds to explain things as best a s it can, and that's fine.

Sure it is. But I am saddened that you are approaching graduation without having taken a course in science. I was required to to take a science course in order to graduate from high school. I took three - biology, chemistry, and physics. My sons took two years of biology and two years of physics. They both grasped the difference between belief and understanding.

Of course I've taken science courses. Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, all Pre-AP (advanced). Next year I'm taking an even more advanced course of physics.
I've learned about the scientific method, and evolution. Perhaps I hadn't fully grasped it yet, since that piece of knowledge hasn't really been tested, but at any rate, I do know now that science only seeks to explain, not to find truth, though you do admit that many scientists and lay people may glorify the field in that manner.
I've learned evolution, but as it is, I also know that 9th grade biology isn't nearly enough learning of a subject to make a decision on its validity for myself. I'm not going to go by what scientists tell me, and I didn't glean enough from the textbook to honestly say I understand evolution enough to assess it for myself. I understand how it's supposed to work, with reproduction through mistakes in the replication of DNA, or simply the slow genetic recombinations in favor of certain traits that aid in reproduction. I'm fine on a basic level.

Your courage in that admission is noted. And yet, your 'knowledge" seems to me to me more misunderstanding than any real knowledge. But the difference is that no one expects you to "believe" in evolution, while creationism requires that you believe without any more evidence than a book of mythology. Here's some food for thought. Polls have shown (some conducted by creationists) that the more educated a person is, the less likely he/she is to "believe" in creationism. Among scientists, 99% of biologists and geologists accept evolutionary theory. Generally, 95% of all scientists reject creationism and accept evolutionary theory as correct.

I beg to differ. The number of people (the "intelligentsia" of our school, if you will) which constitutes the atheists and Communists, generally regard anyone who wouldn't believe in evolution as "needing it the most."
There are at least some people who want you to believe in evolution. Of course, they don't get physical about it, but the wish is still there.[/quote]

[anak]

There are a set number of genes for every species.
If there was some genetic mutation in an offspring of one species, making that offspring have a different number of genes than their parents, then that offspring would quite simply not be of the same species as her parents or her playmates.
Since the genetic anomaly cannot reproduce with other animal of her parent's species, then she would have to find another animal of the exact same genetic mutation.

The sheer possibility of that proves that evolution will forever be an unproven theory.