Evolution or Creation

R2D2-PENA:
Define science, and tell me why you don't consider creationism a science.

With pleasure. Science is the formulation and empirical testing of hypotheses. It is a method for finding natural explanations for natural phenomena. By definition, supernatural explanations are not science, but it goes further than that. Any scientific hypothesis may be disproved, in principal, by some possible observation(s). For example, there are at least thousands of possible observations that would be inconsistent with evolution: a ten million year old human fossil, a 100 million year old primate fossil, a 1 billion year old mammal fossil, to name just a few off the top of my head. What possible observation would be inconsistent with an omniscient, omnipotent god that we do not understand, who has created things the way that they are?

In my opinion it is a science but your bias makes you disregard creationism.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disregard creationism as science because it is not science. It also doesn't make any sense to me, nor does it actual explain much, but that is another issue.

First tell me why one can be considered science and the other can't.

Evolution is empirically testable, creationism is not.

Peez

 

R2D2-PENA:
Fine then since creationISM is a theory, then why can it not be a science just as evolution is.

Because it is not a scientific theory.

I have seen documents by people who have alot of evidence to support the creation theory, then why can't it be considered a science.

By all means, show us this evidence!

Peez

 

Keeping in mind that anything you post as 'evidence' has probably been debunked by hard science years ago, but put it up and we'll address it.

Edit, this is in anwer to fat fett on the previous page.

The 'deathbed recantation' of Darwin is a urban legend. Much like the urban legen that it was finches that inspired his original work, it wasn't, it was mockingbirds.

The Coelacanth is in no way contrary to evolution. It is what we term a living fossil. Theres lots of these, crocodilians, horeshoe crabs etc etc. Its just that in the coelacanths case, no one had seen one for a long time (they're rare even now from what I understand) so everyone thought it was extinct. It is not a case of reappearance, but of finding a living specimen when we thought the species was extinct.

Farces of missing link skeletons are an unfortunate side effect of the VERY competitive nature of science. Fortunatly they get debunked almost as quickly as most creationist 'proofs.'

Which example of species evolving to another would you like ? Horses ? Trilobites ? Whales ? Mastadons ? All these lineages show intermediates between species.

And a further answer to Fat Fett and anyone who asks why we woudln't see transitional forms in some species. Fossilization is not an easy process. Its in fact very tricky, and there ae many requirements that have to be met before something will be fossilized. It has to be in the right place, has to be made out of the right kind of tissue (soft stuff hardly ever fossilizes, and if it does, your lucky if your able to make anything out on the fossil), and it has to come to rest in a place where it won't be disturbed by geologic events for millions of years. To name just the basic few requirments. Even with these basic few, its remarkable that we have as extensive a fossil record as we do, and there is absoultly nothing odd about having a few holes here and there.

Edit again.

My dear Gob... I was going to try and point out everything wrong with your paper and show you how Biology teacher would have graded and responded to it. But after reading it through, I am SO not up to that task, I have neither the patience nor the time. The only thing I can say is to echo, pick up a copy of futuyama. There is so much in that paper that has already been debunked, and is so downright WRONG that I don't know where to begin. You could also try ACTUALLY reading some of the stuff you cite for yourself. Hawking would be a good start. You use that Hawking quote as support for a creator, Hawking in no way comes even close to saying anything like that. Plain and simple, he says the universe is the way it is because if it wasn't it wouldn't be here, thats it. Also I reccomend anything by Stephen Jay Gould, actually reading Darwin (he was a racist, yes, but so was everyone else in his time and position (way privelaged upper class white man), and some of the measures he and all his contemporaries made of man are adressed in Stephen Jay Goulds 'The mismeasure of man.' I would also reccomend anything by Richard Dawkins, although he's a sociologist, not evolutionary biologist (staunch supporter of evolution though) and some of his concepts are more advanced.


Ohy mama...

 

Snowdog, if you keep criticizing us (the Creationists) for attacking old, 100 year old theories, why do you believe in something based on an argument started over 150 years ago.....something that has to continually change after being debunked by Creationists. If your argument had such an old, weak base to begin with that it had to be constantly changed, why do Evolutionists base their ideas on it exactly?

Edit: My Sources

1. Saint, Phil. Fossils that Speak Out: Creation vs. Evolution. Melbourne, Florida: Dove Christian Books, 1989.

2. ?Creation vs. Evolution: Part II.? 2001. Library.Thinkquest.org. 30 Sep. 2001. <http://www.library.thinkquest.org/29178/>

3. ?Creation Science Homepage.? Emporium.turnpike.net. 2001. 27 Sep 2001. <http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm>

4. ?Answersingenesis.org.? Gospel Communication Network. 2001. Answersingenesis.org. 27 September 2001. <http://www.answersingenesis.org>

5. ?Pathlights.com.? Sword of Orion Productions. 2000. Pathlights.com. 10 October 2001. <http://www.pathlights.com>

6. ?Creationism.org.? 2001. Creationism.org. 8 October 2001. <http://www.creationism.org>

 

You didn't read my post did you ? Or is it that you just choose to disregard where I debunked all your so called proof.

And people have been cognizant of evolution for as long as they have been selectively breeding crops to produce plants with bigger fruits (about 4000 years, theres tablets showing the ancient egyptians selectively breeding date trees), less unusable biomass, whatever. It was just Darwin who finnaly put words to the process.

 

Snowdog, allow me to look at that Hox gene before I speak of it. Now to the rest of it -

First having an extra X chromosome is not adding information. X chromosomes are already present. There is merely an extra copy made. No new material.

To name a Creationist question is this: Using the Creation model, can accurate predictions be made about the magnetic field strength? Oh, wait. I bet you didn't know real science was used by Creationists because you don't care enough o at least investigate what they do.

You are ignorant of the aims of Creation. It is not about disproving evolution. Your baseless accusations reveal your devotion to stereotyping the beliefs of a group that I personal believe you cannot stand. It is an inaccurate stereotype BTW. Creationism has nothing to do with theology at its root. No there has been no formal paradigm put forward yet which I hope happens soon. However the scientific method (which is the same as 100 years ago, merely more tools availible) is the basis for creationism.

I have already given an example of Creation science - magnetic fields. That is VERY empirical and testable. Does anyone care disagree with that point?

 

My first source for this Hox gene says that it causes an abnormality in limbs. Among cases in women were effects resulting in infertility. That is not very adaptive. Anyway, if this is the correct Hox gene, the website inculdes this:

"The mutation they found was a coding change from the amino acid tryptophan to a nonsense or stop codon which resulted in a HOXA13 protein which was missing the last 20 amino acids."

It is kind of hard to add information to genetics when information is being lost. This is not evolution and falls in line with what I described earlier. However, I will ask if I have the wrong gene so that I may find the truth.

 

I just spent 2 hours typing and finding excellent articles from Creation scientists. I had articles on amino acids, micro-biology, etc from a Christian/Creationist viewpoint. I have dial-up internet. I went to send my reply, and right when I clicked the button to send it, I realized that my internet had just been disconnected.

The message read- "page not found". My internet server was down for a while, and this whole time I spent worrying whether or not my post had been saved. Sadly, it wasn't.

I didn't throw a temper tantrum or throw my computer out the window.....I cried. I am not a small person. I play on the Varsity football and wrestling teams at my school- I weigh over 250 pounds and can bench press over 300....I am also a Christian who has convictions. I cried not for all the hard work that I had done that was lost, but at how all my work that I had worked on, this work with hopes that I might change your secularist minds becuase I DON'T WANT YOU to not live for an eternity in Heaven, was lost. I have a VERY strong conviction as a Christian to tell you these things and what I KNOW to be true. I may sound annoyed at times, but I DO care about where you may go after you die if you don't change your mindset. Right now, I am to broken to try again.....I am spiritually and mentally exhausted.

Sometimes I wonder why I try to convince Evolutionists that Creation is the true theory....then I remember that Jesus wanted me to minister to the lost....right now I'm not sure why I carry on......

'Nite

Fat_Fett

 

Well, thats ok, I cry every time one of you guys shats on the second law of thermodynamics trying to say it prooves evolution can't occur.

This is just in answer to that point.

The argument goes something like this if I am corect. The second law of thermo states that entropy can never decrease correct ? What is evolution but going from disordered to more ordered, a decrease in entropy. Therefore evolution must be false. They fail to complete the story however, the complete story is that the TOTAL entropy of a CLOSED system can never decrease. Those two words make a big difference. Lets start with total, the total entropy can never decrease, but that in no way prevents the formation of individual pockets of order and disorder forming, as long as the total entropy of the system is always increasing. More order in one area, more disorder in another, and the entorpy keeps on increasing, its all perfectly allowable. Now, closed system, the earth is in no way a closed system. We recieve energy inputs from our sun, and you can ask the people in about 4 billion years when our sun goes nova if the suns entropy is still increasing, it most definatly is.


There truly is NO need to cry for me. While I don't necessarily believe in the classical concept of god, I do definatly believe there is some kind of higher power, whatever that may be, so that doesn't necessarily preclude my salvation unless you take an orthodox reading of the bible, and if those are the only people that can get into heavan, I don't want to be there. I simply temper my faith with a good scientific bakcground, and I can most certainly tell you, creation 'science' is most definatly not a good scientific background. Some of the arguments they make are semi-decent, and on the surface appear to be very convincing, and some are truly points that need to be adressed by evolutionists, however, evolutionists will never address those legitimate problems until creation science realizes that it can't keep dragging out bunk problems in the hope of overwhleming the evolutionists that have already debunked all the arguments they keep beating like a dead horse.

 

Don't worry, I cry whenever the children of our education system fail to grasp such a simple theory as the scientific method. I cry whenever they cite erroneous sources as legitimate ones. I cry whenever volumes of research are spat on by charlatans who don't have the knowledge nor willingness to challenge the entirety of that research for themselves.

Don't cry for me, I cry for you.

 

Fat_Fett:

why do you believe in something based on an argument started over 150 years ago...

Why do you believe in something based on an unproven argument started over 2000 years ago?

I don't "believe" in science any more than you believe in bicycles. Science is a mechanism that helps me understand how things work. Creationism isn't designed to help you understand anything more clearly than it was believed to be 2000 years ago... it is only designed to tell you how someone believes it is, and expects you to accept it without further question.

Not one of the sources you cite consists of primary research conducted directly by scientists attempting to disprove evolution... rather these are collections of anecdotes and random snippets of science thrown together like tossed salad to represent Creation theory in a completely unscientific manner. Like I said before... if you perhaps produced evidence of Noah's dental records, or maybe Adam and Eve's genes or even their fossils... now we'd be talking tangible, forensic scientific evidence that can be empirically tested. All you've got is a bunch of creationists attempting to poke holes at scientific disciplines they themselves have not clearly understood, then filtered down through people who understand it even less, down to you who barely understands it at all (given your presuppositions that evolution theory is about linear evolution and abiogenesis... you've got a long way to go).

Palpazzar: Do some research on codons, RNA and DNA transcription and the process by which new chromosomes are formed. The additional X or Y chromosomes is the first place new genetic material could start. Depending on the nature of the offspring, homozygous or heterozygous, the codons that are developed out of myriad combinations of the 20 or so amino acids can be mismatched with "incorrect" pairs to form new combinations and new chromosomes... some that work, and some that don't. What millions of years of environmental change and genetic propagation does is it weeds out the combinations that don't work, and proliferates the ones that do... and the ones that do occasionally, once in a very remote while, have mutations of their own, within existing genetic material, and with the addition of new material such as in the case of Klinefelter syndrome.

The remarkable thing is that one doesn't need to work forwards from a dead end to imagine how this works. But if I had to, I'd logically look at the situation and find, based on a very elementary understanding of DNA transcription, that if an individual with, say, Klinefelter syndrome, combined it's DNA with other individuals with Klinefelter syndrome in a somewhat homozygous pairing... the new chromosomal formation would propagate. Not only that, but in a few million generations, the extra material in that additional chromosome can mutate itself to create new subsets of information that have absolutely nothing to do with Klinefelter syndrome, but depending on how those new allele pairs merge with other allele pairs in further reproductions, new codon sequences, new combinations of amino acids, and thus new instruction sets can develop and carry information that was never there before... in addition to information that may have laid dormant for generations and become active through the mutation of my aforemention of Hox genes... Who cares where the new genetic material came from? If it's going to come from somewhere, it's going to happen during reproduction... and the first place to look are the reproductive sex pairs of chromosomes... What, did you think it was going to just emerge out of thin air? That wasn't your original point anyway.... you only challenged that it didn't form at all...

Gene pools allow for plants and animals to diverge or converge BUT they do not gain information.

....and I merely pointed out that you're wrong, because gene pools do gain information, not only through chromosomal growth, but also through Hox gene mutation.

The recent discoveries of the propertie

 

I have told you time and again what creation is. If you want to examine the research, then look it up. I don't have to report on findings which I fully admit I do not have training to understand.

However, the example of magnetic fields that I referred to used a creationist model of planetary conditions to predict the strength of fields around other planets in the solar system. According to the study I read which I have not mentioned because I have not fully checked its validity yet (and I hate to report possibly flawed studies).

Nevertheless, according to the study, the predictions were supported after the fact by the Viking satellite. I believe that Uranus was the planet cited in the study. This is science.


Anywho, creation did start with the literal interpretation of Genesis, but as Creationists are scientists, they also know that the Genesis account cannot be proven. The method is not possible. So instead, creationists look toward other questions. That is what plenty of sciences have done, psychology for example.

I cannot believe how unwilling people are to think for themselves. All you have accepted is creation is about proving God created the earth. No. Creationism uses the scientific methods of research, hypothesis, experimentation, interpretation, peer review, and reevaulation. Science isn't believing in evolution and accepting nothing else. Science is using objective data to search for truth. That is what creationists do.

Snowdog, I would suggest for you that you do what you claim you have done all along, break out of your preconceptions and look at the evidence of how creationism works. I know you will not agree with the findings. But if you would look at the ontology, epistemology, and methodology you would see Creationism is a science. That goes for others as well.

 

Nodule,

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not used by Creationists in the field. That is the argument of laymen only. Even I disregard it now.

 

Hmmm...."the facts that I regurgitate" Wow, so that's NOT a flame, Snowdog? You criticize me for saying "blob" in my report, and now you compare what I am saying to me literally throwing up facts. And you guys call Christians hypocrites!

Snowdog, a while ago you said something like "in my culture, we call it karma."

Are you Hindu?

If you're asking me why I believe in something written 2000 years ago that you think is not proven.....you obviously haven't the smallest idea how historically and prophetically correct the Bible is!

The Bible has fulfilled hundreds of prophecies, many more than any other religions' text (including Hinduism). The Bible is so historically correct that archeologists use it as a reference and study guide to ancient Semite and Middle-Eastern life! Yet this is the same Bible that you say cannot be proved to be correct!

If the Bible is so much more HISTORICALLY and prophetically true than any other religous book around, but you and the other evolutionists on this board regard it as "scientifically unproven".......I wonder how much more "true" a.k.a. "totally false" your other religious texs are.

To the person who asked me "If God is omni-powerful as you say He is, why did He have to rest on the 7th day?"
-God "rested" is not to be taken literally as 'He slept.' The actual translation can be 'He did not work on the 7th day'.

Before you all go criticizing the Bible, perhaps you should first get the smallest notion of what you are talking about. In case you didn't know, the Bible is translated from 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) and has now been translated into English. Write a sentence and put it through a translator 3 times (each through a different language), then tranlate it back into English. Are you going to get the same definition for "slept"? Of course not!

If you want to think that you are right and that I am wrong, even though I too list my facts that I believe to be true.....you are being a naive hypocrite! If evolution is a theory and not a law, it cannot be right in every aspect! Get over it!

If you cry for me, thank you for your cause of concern. Perhaps you secularists here aren't as cold-hearted and anti-Christian as you make yourselves out to be.

I mourn for you becuase I KNOW what will happen to you if you don't change your ways. However stubborn you want to be, the Bible, THE most prophetically correct book in the history of the World (!) says, that one day "every knee will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Don't even try to argue RELIGION with me and how my religion is wrong if YOUR religious books can't even compare to the historical and prophetical truths of the Bible.

Watch this, Palpazzar. They will probably accuse ME of being close minded "just like every other Christian," when they themselves shut off all the scientific truths of Creationism and the numerous flaws in Evolutionary theory......total hypocricy. They will even deny being hypocrites!


I have a question for those secularist evolutionists here. Do you believe in, do you have faith in, do you KNOW that what you say is true? Are you willing to to risk your soul on the theory of Evolution?

You may tell me that my belief is false. IF you were right ("if" meaning: no, there is no if) in saying that my religion is wrong and that your beliefs are correct.....so what? If Hinduism is correct, I have lived a good life so I will be reincarnated in a better life. If you believe that life "just ends", well, it just ends then, and you would never know that you were correct, because you would also cease to exist. If ("if" now meaning: yes it is right) I am right and you are wrong, there are no second chances, and there is no abrupt end. I will spend the rest of eternity with my Heavenly Father in Heaven, and you will not.....you'll spend your eternity separated from God, in Hell. Even if you don't like Christianity, it is still theoretically the "safest" religion.

I believe in, I have faith in, and I absolutely, wit

 

Palpazzar:

from the second page of this thread:

Olivier, I will find you a site that outlines the theory. Usually, it is only found in parts and not as a unified whole which troubles me as well.

If you have time for this, I'd still be interested to see what sites you had in mind. Thanks.

 

"scientific truths..."

That is why you fail.

Science does not deal in Truth(tm). That is the realm of philosophy and religion. If you can't grasp such a basic concept, any further discussion is fruitless.

And better to spend an eternity in Hell with the likes of Ghandi than an eternity in Heaven with the likes of you.

 

Fat_Fett

The Bible is so historically correct that archeologists use it as a reference and study guide to ancient Semite and Middle-Eastern life! Yet this is the same Bible that you say cannot be proved to be correct!

If the Bible is so much more HISTORICALLY and prophetically true than any other religous book around, but you and the other evolutionists on this board regard it as "scientifically unproven".......

The acient greek writers gave us a fairly accurate account of historical events (like the Athen/Troy war) and an accurate description of Greece (as well as Egypt) at that time. Does it mean that scientists (and you!) should consider their mythology as true, especially their own myth of creation?


As for your appeal to Pascal's wager, I'd say that it is quite irrelevant here, for several reasons:
_ aknowledging the validity of the theory of evolution does not imply atheism (or disbelief in the christian God), and many christians don't believe that the biblical account for creation should be taken literally.
_ what is at stake here is the scientific validity of evolution (or creation).


PS: I hope you realize that it can be applied to most religions.

PPS: Pascal's wager is not flawless:
wager

 

Nor's that link ...

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/hilde/Philhandouts/pascal.html

 

1stAD, you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Your overconfidence is your weakness.

If you had any notion whatsoever of how bad hell is, you wouldn't say that. Ghandi, huh? Yea, also Hitler, Marx, Mao........sounds likes paradise already.

 

LOL... you're right, Force of Nature.
(btw, I used "not flawless" as an euphemism )

 

For those of you who don't believe that evolution could have ever worked.

Program a genetic algorithm and then watch it run. You will see the prrof right there in front of your eyes that shows that evolution works as theorized.

Creationism on the other hand is a story - told to illustrate a point.

Let's just assume for a second that creationism was inccorect.

Do you think then that Genesis would have read something like:

"And on the first day amino acids were created. Element 1 reacted with element 2 and element 3 was formed and this was the basis for life."

"On day two signle celled creatures appeared"...

No, it wouldn't because it is not a technical document.

 

The other problem with creationism is that it is religion specific.

If I am not a christian then what good reason is there for me to believe in creationism as defined in the Bible?

There isn't one.

I mean look at the explanations of almost everything in the world. None of the major ones are religion specific.

Relativity.
Gravity.
Quantum Physics.

Do they require that you believe in X religion for them to hold true?

No they do not. They transcend religion.

To say that creationism is correct means that you are at the same time saying that christianity is the only true religion - the others are all 'fake'.

That in itself is wrong. No religion is more 'right' than any other religion. There is no living person here on Earth who can tell us what religion is 'correct' even if it was a fact that one of them was indeed 'correct'.

Look at the leaders of the Catholic church for example. They tolerate and accept other religions. The Pope is not going to tell Muslim religios leaders that their religion is wrong and they are going to burn in hell. He is going to accept the fact that they have differing beliefs and he is going to respect that. As a matter of fact he may even make it his personal goal to learn more about that religion so he can understand the views of other people.

Maybe more Christians need to start acting like that instead of going around and criticizing other religions and calling them 'untrue' while calling catholisicm the 'true' religion.

 

Palpazzar:
OK, we have Darwin, and we have Mendel. Two men working at roughly the same time. One describes evolution; one begins the study of genetics. Darwin gets his theroy by looking at birds and describing how their genetics changed to better suit the environment. He simply reasons this out because he cannot observe such a process. Mendel looks at how traits are passed down causing variations in things like plants.

Note that Darwin knew that inheritance worked, that offspring tend to look more like their parents than like other members of the population, but he had no clue about how genetics worked (he actually had a theory, but it did not stand up). The idea of evolution was around before Darwin brought it up, and there were even published works about how it might work. Darwin made two contributions: common descent (the pattern of evolution) and the theory of evolution (the mechanism of evolution). Darwin drew on many things, not just one population of birds (he studied many species of birds, plants, mammals, reptiles, insects, etc.), and even from economic theory.

Now in Mendel's work, red and white flowers were crossbred to create pink ones. Are the pink flowers on an evolutionary rung above the red and white ones? No. The genetic traits were passed according to observable patterns.

All of this comes to one point: Gene pools allow for plants and animals to diverge or converge BUT they do not gain information. The pink flowers did not gain a 'pink' gene, they had white and red - previously existing traits.

Are you being serious? Do you think that any biologist would consider incomplete dominance as evolution? You clearly have no clue as to what evolution is.

The birds that Darwin observed were on an island where there was an isolated gene pool. The finches he observed were recombinations of existing finch DNA, not some evolved form of Finch.

I suggest that you read about evolution. I also recommend that you find out what "Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium" is. For the moment: the isolation of the population of birds is what made evolution of adaptations to the local environment possible, and the observed evolution did not have to involve new genes (though it might have) but it was still evolution.

Lindsley & Grell found something interesting. In 1910, the first mutation was discovered in bred fruit flies. Since then, only 3,000 mutations have been found. All have either had no effect on the fruit fly or have been harmful to it. None of these mutations involved the sudden adding of genetic material. DNA strands did not suddenly gain the information to create the fly equivalent of Broca's Area in the brain. The implication is clear: mutation does not result in evolution.

The average fruit fly has at least one mutation, that is at least one gene that is different than any that the parents had. How many fruit flies have been born since 1910? I expect that 100 million would be very conservative. So, you are claiming (a reference would be appropriate) that only 3,000 mutations have been found, what about the other 999,997,000 (at least)? And that is only about 90 years, what about 1,000 years, or 1,000,000 years, or 1,000,000,000 years? Once you have explained all that, you might want to explain why we should expect a mutation that would improve fruit flies in some way, since billions of generations of natural selection have already chosen the best genes for these organisms. Finally, why are you expecting a sudden drastic adaptive change to occur due to mutation? Once again, you betray your lack of understanding: such evolutionary "jumps" are not what we expect according to the theory of evolution.

So my challenge is this. If someone wants to begin to convince me that evolution rather than genetics is responsible, then show me where a mutation has resulted in the addition of genetic information that was not previously present in a species' genetics.

Genetics rat

 

"The Bible is so historically correct that archeologists use it as a reference and study guide to ancient Semite and Middle-Eastern life! Yet this is the same Bible that you say cannot be proved to be correct! "

Read Wellhausen and learn how the bible is completely INCORRECT.

If you want scientific creationism - read about Quarks and their spontaneuos generation in quantum theory.

 

Off topic:
You got something against Marx, Fat_Fett? If so, you've got a funny definition of evil - Marx would be horrified to see how his theories were warped by the likes of Stalin.

And I agree with 1stAD - I don't form my belief's according to Pascal's Wager.
/Off topic