Creationism vs. Evolution

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kite I seem to remember something about a big bang? Doppler effect? Universal Background Radiation? Of course, thats not the theory of evolution, but what are the odds that there would be one theory that would explain the origin of the universe AND the creation of all sentient life on earth in a convenient storybook format?

I don't know what the odds are, do you? But I'm still waiting to hear your "more logical and sensible" explanation. Seems to me that the Darwinists only want to compare their theory with one minor tenet held by one small segment of creationists that don't accept that theory. What's a more logical and sensible explanation for the universe than the idea it was created?

[rez]

Quote by: Zeebadee What's a more logical and sensible explanation for the universe than the idea it was created?

Well it is not sensible to say something is created without mentioning the creator.

[Kite]

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't know what the odds are, do you? But I'm still waiting to hear your "more logical and sensible" explanation. Seems to me that the Darwinists only want to compare their theory with one minor tenet held by one small segment of creationists that don't accept that theory. What's a more logical and sensible explanation for the universe than the idea it was created?

The issue in dispute is not weather or not the universe was created, which would be a rather one sided debate. This thread is about creationists and evolutionists trying to prove their point about how life came about. This isn't about how the universe was created, why the sky is blue or why cats land on their feet, so I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to derail the topic.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee And yet, for all your mumbo jumbo rhetoric,

Just because you don't understand some pretty simple science doesn't mean that it is mumbo jumbo. It seems to me that claims that a magical being did it by magic is more mumbo jumbo.

if you follow your own rules of evidence, you can't make the claim that creationism is impossible,

But I never did. I did claim that there is no observable evidence for creationism. The point of science, including biological science, is not to prove religious mumbo jumbo wrong but to offer explanations for observations of natural events in the observable universe.

for the simple fact is that you can neither disprove it,

Who is trying to do so. All I can do is to point out errors in logic and science from creationists in their silly and ineffective efforts to "prove" science wrong. When creationists try to represent their beliefs in mythology as scientific and represent established science as wrong because it cannot be reconciled with an old book of mythology, then their beliefs get treated as science and rejected, just like incorrect science. It isn't that science is trying to "prove" creationism wrong, it's the creationists that are doing an inadequate job of trying to prove science wrong, and then throw a hissy when they make themselves look foolish.

nor can you provide proof of some other source for the origin of life.

Why do I have to? You are proposing the "god of the gaps." If science cannot adequately answer a specific question, then it musta been your god.

However, the scientific field of abiogenesis that studies how life may have come about has discovered lots of information. For example, there are several kinds of self replicating organic molecules. It has been observed that contains several types of such molecules, it is those that are more successful at reproducing themselves that become the most numerous. It has been observed that lipid membranes sometimes form spontaneously in nature. Researchers have also constructed two viruses that reproduce just like the originals from which they were copied. And now, a bacterium has been constructed in the lab. The entire genomes of the above organisms were pieced together by constructing segments of RNA or DNA and then joining these segments together in the right sequence. The bacterium is Mycoplasma genitalium, a bacterium with the smallest known genome in any free living bacterium. The genome consists of 582,970 base pairs. It is a parasite that infects primate genital and respiratory tracts. The particular gene that allows it to infect primates was deactivated in the artificial version. However, the point is that a living organism was artificially constructed in the lab.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Ok, fair enough. Now just give us your "much more logical and sensible explanation" of the origin of life and the universe.

Rather than postulate that invisible magic being did it all from nothing by magic, it is more reasonable to assume that both the universe and life arose by some natural means. We may not yet know much about the processes, and although we may never answer either question completely, there is still no reason to postulate that it was done by magic by a being drawn from the mythology of ancient, bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. Since that answer is totally lacking in evidence, it is less logical and sensible than natural means, for which we do have some evidence.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee Creationism addresses the origins of life, what part of the TOE provides a "much more logical and sensible explanation" for such origins, or for the existence of the universe?

Well, as explained before, there is some evidence that the universe and life arose by natural means. Of course, there are many questions that are far from being answered, but that doesn't mean that science should give up. On the other hand, creationism offers an answer that doesn't answer anything. Creationism doesn't explain the origin of the universe or the origin of life. It only substitutes magic without any details.

[Century 25]

Maybe "Mr Magic" will tap into NASA's message: NASA Broadcasts the Beatles' "Across the Universe" to Polaris -The North Star | The Daily Galaxy: News from Planet Earth & Beyond

Ummm.. naw, ya know.. the lights are all on.. but....

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't know what the odds are, do you?

Certainly. Zero. I think that the question was rhetorical.

But I'm still waiting to hear your "more logical and sensible" explanation.

Done that. But actually, any explanation that was based on some actual observed evidence rather than on mythology would be "more logical and sensible."

Seems to me that the Darwinists only want to compare their theory with one minor tenet held by one small segment of creationists that don't accept that theory.

Actually, "Darwinists" (whatever that may mean) don't want to compare any scientific theory with any tenet based on superstition and mythology. The comparisons are caused when creationists object to science or try to represent their mythology as science. It is the creationists who are attempting the comparisons.

What's a more logical and sensible explanation for the universe than the idea it was created?

But that explains nothing. How was it created? Why are there quarks, leptons, mesons, baryons, and hadrons? How were these created and why to the join the way they do? What is gravity? Why do certain life froms exist in only a certain limited geographical area, for example Darwin's finches which exist only in the Galapagos islands, some species existing only on a single island? Or the mocking birds, or the tortoises, or the flightless cormorants, or the aquatic iguanas? Is it more logical to assume that a magical being just created all of these creatures from nothing rather than that they evolved from other, similar species. And why are the Galapagos volcanic? It is logical to assume that the islands were build by the action of the volcanoes, since we still see such action going on. Is it more logical and sensible to claim that they were placed there by magic and only made to look like they are volcanic?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kite T This thread is about creationists and evolutionists trying to prove their point about how life came about.

But the theory of evolution doesn't make any claims about how life came about.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo Rather than postulate that invisible magic being did it all from nothing by magic, it is more reasonable to assume that both the universe and life arose by some natural means. We may not yet know much about the processes, and although we may never answer either question completely, there is still no reason to postulate that it was done by magic by a being drawn from the mythology of ancient, bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. Since that answer is totally lacking in evidence, it is less logical and sensible than natural means, for which we do have some evidence.

You keep talking about "magic" and "mythology" and "god", yet offer no reason why any of them would be necessary. The idea of a creator requires no religion, no god, no supernatural means. In fact, you haven't offered any evidence that "natural means" doesn't include a creator.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee But the theory of evolution doesn't make any claims about how life came about.

That is correct.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee You keep talking about "magic" and "mythology" and "god", yet offer no reason why any of them would be necessary.

But that's what you have been claiming. I don't see any reason why any of them would be necessary for reality, only for creationism.

The idea of a creator requires no religion, no god, no supernatural means.

Please pick a horse and ride it. You can't change it up every time you realize that you have made yourself look silly. You were talking about creationism, which requires a supernatural creator; in short, a god. Now you are pretending that somehow there is no creator in creationism, that somehow "creationism" means that the universe and life somehow arose without any sort of supernatural intervention by some magical being. Please make up your mind. Or are you being intentionally disingenuous?

In fact, you haven't offered any evidence that "natural means" doesn't include a creator.

So you are saying that the "creator" is nothing more than natural causes? You are denying that there is any supernatural being that must be worshiped that is responsible for the entire universe? So you are saying that the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolutionary theories are just other statements of "the creator?"

That's really funny and pretty much a 180 turn from creationism.

So are you just trolling with nonsense?

[Kite]

Quote by: Zeebadee You keep talking about "magic" and "mythology" and "god", yet offer no reason why any of them would be necessary. The idea of a creator requires no religion, no god, no supernatural means. In fact, you haven't offered any evidence that "natural means" doesn't include a creator.

I have seen creationists retreat back and say this so many times, but I have yet to see them offer a realistic substitute for a god, diety, or supernatural being in the role of creator.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gallo But that's what you have been claiming.

I've never made any such claim.

Quote by: gallo Please pick a horse and ride it. You can't change it up every time you realize that you have made yourself look silly. You were talking about creationism, which requires a supernatural creator; in short, a god.

But it's YOU that is making the claim that creationism requires a "supernatural creator". Why would such a requirement be necessary?

Quote by: gallo Now you are pretending that somehow there is no creator in creationism, that somehow "creationism" means that the universe and life somehow arose without any sort of supernatural intervention by some magical being.

I never said there is no creator in creationism, I've only put forth the idea that the universe could have been created without the use of "supernatural intervention by some magical being". Since you are making that assertion, isn't it up to you to tell us why such would be necessary?

Quote by: gallo So you are saying that the "creator" is nothing more than natural causes?

Not at all, only that a creator wouldn't require anything more than natural causes.

Quote by: gallo You are denying that there is any supernatural being that must be worshiped that is responsible for the entire universe?

Now you're catching on.

Quote by: gallo So you are saying that the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolutionary theories are just other statements of "the creator?"

Well, yeah, it's part of the idea.

Quote by: gallo That's really funny and pretty much a 180 turn from creationism.

Not at all. Creationism is merely the idea that the universe as we know it could be the product of deliberate design.

[gallo]

Quote by: Kite I have seen creationists retreat back and say this so many times, but I have yet to see them offer a realistic substitute for a god, diety, or supernatural being in the role of creator.

Indeed! In fact, creationists have fallen back to the concept of intelligent design. They offer the standard creationist arguments about how anything that they don't understand or that can't be explained by current knowledge must have been intelligently designed, but they don't know who the designer is.

Creationists don't have anything more than "god of the gaps" arguments.

[gallo]

Quote by: Zeebadee I've never made any such claim.

I'll leave it to others to judge your argument.

But it's YOU that is making the claim that creationism requires a "supernatural creator". Why would such a requirement be necessary?

Do you not understand what creationism is? Science (i.e., methodological naturalism) examines natural causes. Creationism postulates supernatural causes.

I never said there is no creator in creationism,

Did you not actually read what you posted?

I've only put forth the idea that the universe could have been created without the use of "supernatural intervention by some magical being".

You did no such thing. What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Since you are making that assertion, isn't it up to you to tell us why such would be necessary?

Yes, I am. But I am not claiming that it is necessary that there not be a supernatural being. I am claiming that there is no evidence for one. So why should one be postulated?

Not at all, only that a creator wouldn't require anything more than natural causes.

Then there isn't any evidence that such a creator exists. Do you not understand what you are saying?

Now you're catching on.

So there is creationism without a creator? Have you actually thought about any of this?

Well, yeah, it's part of the idea.

You're kidding, right? Scientific theories (big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution) that are opposed by creationists are part of the idea of creationism? Make up your mind.

Not at all. Creationism is merely the idea that the universe as we know it could be the product of deliberate design.

You're a pill. You don't seem to be able to decide what you are arguing. Is it creationism or ID. It doesn't matter. If you want to pretend that you are talking about science, then present the evidence, the hypotheses, the predictions, and the tests based on either. Creationism has been around since we laughed at it in my freshman biology class. ID has been around for more than 15 years and has yet to present a single example of scientific research in support.

You need to make up you mind what you are arguing. Are you a creationist or an IDer. Make up your mind and stop changing horses in mid-stream. I only makes you look silly when you do that.

[Jack]

Does not the creation or design of anything require purpose and a plan? Do not purpose and planning require consciousness? What aspect of nature besides carbon-based life forms exhibits consciousness and the ability to plan with purpose?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Isherwood Does not the creation or design of anything require purpose and a plan? Do not purpose and planning require consciousness? What aspect of nature besides carbon-based life forms exhibits consciousness and the ability to plan with purpose?

Let's say there is a designer (God): who designed the designer? If God need no designer, why does nature need a designer? Nature is God, physics is my gospel.
Long life to pantheism.

[gallo]

Quote by: Isherwood Does not the creation or design of anything require purpose and a plan?

Are you talking about a building or a bridge? In that case, yes. If you are talking about biological organisms, then no. The result of differential reproductive success of populations of organisms that alters the genetic diversity of that population according statistical advantages offered by advantageous alleles over time offers the appearance of design. And since such appearance of design is adequately explained by natural causes, there is no rational reason to postulate an unknown, supernatural, mythological being as the cause.

I am quite sure that scientifically illiterate creationists didn't understand that. What I said was that the appearance of design of various organisms is the resuld of natural causes. Thus, there is no need to inject imaginary beings.

Do not purpose and planning require consciousness?

I think so. But no one has ever presented any evidence for any purpose or planning of life, earth, or the universe.

What aspect of nature besides carbon-based life forms exhibits consciousness and the ability to plan with purpose?

None. I have seen dogs and cats plan with purpose. But, of course, they are carbon-based. And since all life is carbon-based, I guess the answer is none.

[Jack]

Are you talking about a building or a bridge?

I was trying to reason with the "the universe is created but there was no designer" crowd, trying to illustrate how nonsensical it is to suppose design and purpose without also supposing a being who possesses that purpose and acts upon a design. In short, I don't buy "creation without a creator" any more than I do "the creator is god" attitude as espoused by Behe and the The Institute for Creation Research.

the appearance of design

That concept is consistently overlooked by IDers.