Evolution or Creation

After all you can't get something from nothing which is where Creation comes in and environments change all the time meaning we have to evolve which is self explaintory.

Exactomundo.

Just to throw this in here, even Darwin himself said that to think the human eye, with all its complexities and reflecting and absorbing light and reversing images, etc, is a product of natural selection and chance, is "absurd in the highest degree."

 

You can't get something from nothing

Ah, but you can.

Link

Dammit. It's not up yet. Just go to the book store and read Discover magazine... it's the cover story of the April issue.

 

You forgot to give the full quote from Darwin. Here is the rest of it:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."


Here is a good article on how photoreceptor cells may have evolved into the eye:


Life's Grand Design


Excerpt from the article:

The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, is a perfect place to start. We have already sung the virtues of this organ, and described some of its extraordinary capabilities. But one thing that we have not considered is the neural wiring of its light-sensing units, the photoreceptor cells in the retina. These cells pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain. Given the basics of this wiring, how would you orient the retina with respect to the direction of light? Quite naturally, you (and any other designer) would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural wiring connections should be placed on the side that faces the light, rather than on the side away from it. Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed.

What are the consequences of wiring the retina backwards? First, there is a degradation of visual quality due to the scattering of light as it passes through layers of cellular wiring. To be sure, this scattering has been minimized because the nerve cells are nearly transparent, but it cannot be eliminated, because of the basic flaw in design. This design flaw is compounded by the fact that the nerve cells require a rich blood supply, so that a network of blood vessels also sits directly in front of the light-sensitive layer, another feature that no engineer would stand for. Second, the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells must be carried to the brain, and this means that at some point the neural wiring must pass directly through the wall of the retina. The result? A "blind spot" in the retina, a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside, and consequently nothing can be seen. Each human retina has a blind spot roughly 1 mm in diameter, a blind spot that would not exist if only the eye were designed with its sensory wiring behind the photoreceptors instead of in front of them.

Do these design problems exist because it is impossible to construct an eye that is wired properly, so that the light-sensitive cells face the incoming image? Not at all. Many organisms have eyes in which the neural wiring is neatly tucked away below the photoreceptor layer. The squid and the octopus, for example, have a lens-and-retina eye quite similar to the vertebrate one, but these mollusk eyes are wired right-side-out, with no light-scattering nerve cells or blood vessels above the photoreceptors and no blind spot.

None of this should be taken to suggest that the eye functions poorly. Quite the contrary, it is a superb visual instrument that serves us exceedingly well. To support the view that the eye was produced by evolution, one does not have to argue that the eye is defective or shoddy. Natural selection, after all, has

 

Whoo, I can see I sparked something with that half-quote of mine.

Sorry, I didn't know/have access to the rest of the quote to post it.

My point is, I believe God, being the "intelligent designer" as this article put it, created the laws of science and how everything works and interconnects in this world. That includes evolution. If everything stayed the same on this earth, not only would that not work, since the earth itself is changing geologically all the time, but it would be quite boring. Somehow, I don't think that's how God is.

It's the complexity of design. Design of the ultimate mind. I find it fascinating. Thanks for posting that article.

 

"Were animals not created before man, and therefore. before sin? What did the carnivores eat? They cannot chew plant matter, they have no flat grinding teeth."


Before the flood, every type of animal ate plants. And during the millenial reign of Christ, every animal will again eat plants.


"It's possible that the Bible God created the earth, but it's also possible his methods were evolution."


No it's not. He said He did it in six days. Well, the Bible says He did it in six days. Which means that if we're talking about the Biblical God, and the Bible that speaks of Him says He did it in six days, then you have to accept that He did it in six days. If days = era, then how, might I ask, did plantlife survive? Plants were created on the third day, I believe. The next day the sun was created. Don't you think that those plants would have had a hard time survivng? And what about insects who polinate the plants? They weren't created till "eons" later. ? Plus, the Bible says that "the evening and the morning were the first day." If the days were actually eras, then how would living things survive until the next "day"?


"But, i don't think it's possible that Noah had one of each dinosaur on the ark, or that the universe is 6000 years old."


Regarding the dinosaurs, there's a verse that says that God put a firmament in the heavens which devided the two waters. There's another verse in the Bible (I forget where) that says the earth was above the waters and below them. This means that there was once a sphere of water above the earth, and there was a layer of water below the earth's crust. The water above the earth would have created a greenhouse effect. The air pressure would have been twice the ammount it is today, which would make things gigantic. Lizards would have been big (dinosaurs...), trees and other plants would have been big, and humans would have been big. It is possible that Noah put dinosaurs on the ark.


Regarding the age of the earth, the moon is moving away from the earth an inch every 3 years. If the universe really was here for billions of years, then wouldn't the moon be extremely far away by now? I mean a lot farther than it is now? One inch every 3 years, for billions of years, would put the moon way out of the earth's gravity field by now. And let's not forget the moon dust argument.

 

Let me elaborate on those last two points.


The sphere of moisture around the earth would have at least doubled the protection from harmful UV rays, gamma rays, radiation and and much more. This being said, things would have been given much more time to grow, as they wouldn't age as quickly. Plus, desease wasn't as bad as it is now. Add all that to the fact that nothing ate meat, well, people would have lived to be around 900 years easily. Plants would have grown extremely large, and that could be one reason why dinosaurs were the as large as they were. Like all animals, reptiles would have been extremely large. But anyway...


The other point about the moon moving away from the earth... Well, seeing as how it's fairly close to the earth, that means that billions of years ago it would have been way too close. The tides would be so huge... Nothing would have survived.

 

Those crazy mad scientists and their almost unanimous agreement on the oldness of the universe! Fools i tell you!

 

Just because the majority agrees with something doesn't mean it's true.


The only thing scientifically proven about the whole theory of evolution is evolution within kinds.


Everything else is just speculation.

 

Fair enough. I speculate that the earth was created by hot dogs. The same elements in hot dogs are in the universe, although it's speculation it deserves just as much respect as one of those crazy off the wall theories with math and science and stuff.

 

I don't see why people think the two terms are mutually exclusive. Isn't it possible to believe in both evolutionism and creationism?

 

I think it is, but i don't think the word creation has to be exclusive to the god of the old testament.

 

There cant be life without creation, and life cannot last without evolution.

 

I disregard most scriptural accounts of how life began because they all lack empirical, intrusive, scientific proof with even stastistically significant (not 100%) consistency.

I chalk up these arguments as mostly self-perpetuating delusions... they claim they are true because they say so, and by their saying so, everything within their account must also be true.

This is no less absurd than if I were to claim I am god because I say I am... and furthermore, that if you disagree with me, you're going to burn in hell. And I bet I can pay off five friends and relatives to "substantiate" my claim (with nothing more than their own testimony, of course.).

The latest scientific proof for evolution comes in the discovery that genes are triggered in groups. Recent scientific evidence points to sets of "master genes" being responsible for triggering the massive mutations behind evolution. A mutation in one of these master genes, that controls an entire area of development, affects many other genes that define how that developmental subset is carried out.

An example of this was a recent study in which the gene that triggers eye development was mutated in a batch of flies. They created a batch of flies born with no eyes as a control for the experiment. Then, as a variable, they took the same gene, which triggers eye development (but doesn't define the particular formation of the eye specific to that species), from a pig and placed it into the genome of a fly.

The flies were born normally, with normally developed fly eyes... not pig eyes.

What happens is that genes operate in a pyramid. A mutation in one or two master genes could affect hundreds of others. Scientists now believe they have the key to understanding how quantum leaps in evolution were made... e.g. from quadrupedal to bipedal skeletal structures, etc.

In the meantime... Creationists have gathered no further empirical evidence to prove their theory which, in some circles, is now being referred to by Creationists as "Intelligent Design" theory... that is, that all creatures on earth were created purposely by a higher power in an already "perfect" form (assuming such a thing exists on earth), as they are now and evolution by natural selection is not, therefore, valid.

The unfortunate problem with Creation/ID theory... is that it represents only one theological view of the world... it doesn't speak for Hinduism, Buddhism, and a variety of other belief systems which have their own interpretations of how life came to where it is now.

Evolution theory is more widely accepted throughout the world community of scientists and students of science or laypersons than creation theory is accepted by the world community of theologians or believers.

 

Jedi_Master201:
Before the flood, every type of animal ate plants. And during the millenial [sic] reign of Christ, every animal will again eat plants.

That could be tricky. There is a reason that herbivorous animals have the teeth that they do, while carnivorous animals have the teeth that they do.

Plus, the Bible says that "the evening and the morning were the first day." If the days were actually eras, then how would living things survive until the next "day"?

While we are on the subject, how is it that god created light a few days before the sun, for example? (For that matter, what is a day without the sun?)

The water above the earth would have created a greenhouse effect. The air pressure would have been twice the ammount [sic] it is today, which would make things gigantic.

??? Where did you come up with "twice" the pressure? A guess? And in what way would high pressure make things "gigantic?"

Lizards would have been big (dinosaurs...), trees and other plants would have been big, and humans would have been big.

So you claim, but one could just as easily claim that alleged "high pressure" could makes things small. By the way, dinosaurs were not lizards.

It is possible that Noah put dinosaurs on the ark.

Even ignoring the measurements given in the bible (which indicate a vessel much too small), the issue is not the availability of wood. Even if the many millions of species from all over the world somehow crossed oceans and mountains and thousands of miles to get to Noah, and even if Noah had the benefit of modern shipbuilding facilities and technology, it is simply not possible to build a wooden boat big enough to accommodate them all (to say nothing of their food). Then, of course, you have to feed and clean them. No, the "Noah's Ark" story is a myth, even if we ignore the plentiful evidence that there was no global flood, that there was no global bottleneck in species of organism, that there was no global interruption of history, etc.

Regarding the age of the earth, the moon is moving away from the earth an inch every 3 years. If the universe really was here for billions of years, then wouldn't the moon be extremely far away by now? I mean a lot farther than it is now? One inch every 3 years, for billions of years, would put the moon way out of the earth's gravity field by now. And let's not forget the moon dust argument.

Even if we ignore the possibility that the moon only started orbiting the earth relatively recently, this argument falls flat on its face. I suggest you read the article at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html, but in short:

Although it may seem to the casual reader that the Earth-moon system is fairly simple (after all, it's just Earth and the moon), this is only an illusion. In fact, it is frightfully complicated, and it has taken over 100 years for physicists to generate the mathematical tools, and physical models, necessary to understand the problem. Slichter's dilemma, as I called it, was a theoretical one. He lacked the mathematical tools, and the observational knowledge, to solve his problem. But those who came after got the job done. Slichter's dilemma is today, essentially a solved problem. Once all of the details are included in the physical models of the Earth-moon system, we can see that there is no fundamental conflict between the basic physics and an evolutionary time scale for the Earth-moon system.

However, you might want to ask yourself why the astrophysicists have not risen up in protest against the generally accepted estimate of about 4.5 billion years of age for this planet. After all, these are the people who study things like the earth-moon system. What do you know/understand that they do not? Or is there some sort of conspiracy?

The sphere of moisture around the earth would have at least doubled the protection from harmful UV rays, gamma rays, radiation and and [sic] much more.[/blockquo

 

P.S.

The only thing scientifically proven about the whole theory of evolution is evolution within kinds.

I forgot to mention:

What the heck are "kinds?" Creationists love to use this wiggle-word, and avoid defining it at all costs. Scientists do not use the term "kinds" at all. There are species, genus', families, etc., but no "kinds." So, if you think that evolution within "kinds" has been proven, and evolution between "kinds" has not, it should be no problem for you to define this important term for us. So, what is a "kind?"

Peez

 

Very, very well said, Peez.

I couldn't agree more.

EDIT: JM201, you might want to quit while you're behind. " " Though... before you do... feel free to explain to those of us who apparently haven't studied microbiology well enough to understand this new scientifc principle of "kinds", and be sure to arm yourself with the decades of research on "kinds" that demonstrates irrefutably that evolution only occurs within "kinds", despite the findings of the recent genetic study on "master genes" I cited in my previous post.

I'm all ears for your explanation of how genetic mutations, both small-scale and large-scale, are just some sort of design flaw that god must have overlooked or forgotten, despite his omnipotence, when he was in such a damned hurry to create this all-important speck of cosmic crap we call "earth".

 

"kinds" are most likely on the phyla level. Forgive the Hebrews for not having our classification system.

Oddly enough, we don't have any definite observations or data from the beginning of the world. We have certain facts which can be seen as you want it to be.

Creation theory is actually a very indepth and scientific field with a cross of biology, geology, geography, astrophysics, physics, and chemistry.

 

<---------Christian/Penacostal.
Some may call themselves Christian but aren't TRUE Christians.

 

I second Cydonia's posts.

 

?

 

The middle. Intelligent evolution.

 

"kinds" are most likely on the phyla level. Forgive the Hebrews for not having our classification system.

I would have no problem with that, if only any creationist had be "kind" enough to provide scientists with this definition. Yet, never have I seen a clearcut (understand: not so vague that it becomes useless) definition of a kind.

Surely, if "Creation theory is actually a very indepth and scientific field", and if creation scientists come to the conclusion that evolution is only possible within kinds, then we should see that definition somewhere... where is it?

Oddly enough, we don't have any definite observations or data from the beginning of the world. We have certain facts which can be seen as you want it to be.

There are lots of observations about the various species that lived on earth, and although there is an error margin, saying that you can "see it as you want" is an exxageration: no specialist has ever found a T-Rex fossil dated from 10000 years ago, or anything ressembling a human being dated from 65 millions years ago.

To deny this, creation scientists need to deny the results of many fields of mainstream science. This is probably why creation science is such "a cross of biology, geology, geography, astrophysics, physics, and chemistry."

 

Palpazzar, your wealth of ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

"kinds" are most likely on the phyla level. Forgive the Hebrews for not having our classification system.

Forgive the Hebrews for not having our understanding of microbiology, genetics, endocrinology, cardiovascular medicine, pulmonology, nephrology, hematology, neurology...

EDIT: It's one thing to not be able to prove a hypothesis or construct (e.g. "kinds"), but to attempt to have it accepted without first having even a coherent definition of what you're attempting to prove?! In the scientific world any scientist armed with such a poorly constructed hypothesis would be sent back to the drawing boards with muffled laughter.

Oddly enough, we don't have any definite observations or data from the beginning of the world.

Oddly enough, neither do creationists...

We have certain facts which can be seen as you want it to be.

Yeah, C14 radiocarbon dating and accelerator mass spectrometry are so inconsistent in their results... All those humans they found dating back to 265 billion years... (I think one was buried inside a 25 million year old McDonalds restaurant) and those hundreds of pteranodons they found in my backyard that was dated back to 1824... let me tell you what a mess of ptero-poop they left...

Creation theory is actually a very indepth and scientific field with a cross of biology, geology, geography, astrophysics, physics, and chemistry.

Too bad that the majority of biologists, geologists, astrophysicists, physicists and chemists accept evolution theory far more than they accept creation theory.

Too bad that creation theory isn't even completely accepted by all Christians working in scientific fields...

Too bad that all other competing theories of evolution have failed and natural selection has persisted, not withered away, with the accumulation of more scientific knowledge (e.g. mapping of the human genome) and development of newer scientific methods of analysis that didn't exist in van Leeuwenhoek's, Mendel's, Darwin's, Lamarck's or even Watson and Crick's time (e.g. AMS, C14 dating, Scanning-Tunneling Electron Microscopy, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, protein folding simulations...).

Meanwhile, the more historical and scientific knowledge has been gained... the more we've learned that the world isn't 6000 years old, it's not flat, bloodletting doesn't cure everything, the moon isn't made out of cheese, and the earth is not the center of our solar system... and concurrently, the knowledge base Creationists rely upon has not grown at all in 2000 years.

You'd think god would at least feel bad for Creationists and give them something to chew on out of sympathy... but no, not even one burning bush or frog falling from the sky in recent observation. And where's Jesus, anyway? He was supposed to make this big comeback but... guess he forgot or something. Jesus really needs a PDA, or at least a day-planner.

Hey, what about all those demonically possessed people we used to use bloodletting and lobotomy on? These convulsing, mouth-foaming demons seem to have mysteriously vanished when we gained more knowledge of neurological disorders... such as epilepsy.

 

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.


"It's one thing to not be able to prove a hypothesis or construct (e.g. "kinds"), but to attempt to have it accepted without first having even a coherent definition of what you're attempting to prove?! In the scientific world any scientist armed with such a poorly constructed hypothesis would be sent back to the drawing boards with muffled laughter."

- I say most likely because as with all science, there are no absolutes. Assumptions of fact can be dangerous. And no the Bible is not specific on exactly what Kinds are although a logical guess can be made.

"Yeah, C14 radiocarbon dating and accelerator mass spectrometry are so inconsistent in their results... All those humans they found dating back to 265 billion years... (I think one was buried inside a 25 million year old McDonalds restaurant) and those hundreds of pteranodons they found in my backyard that was dated back to 1824... let me tell you what a mess of ptero-poop they left..."

- I'll look up my specific facts here, but the gist is this. Carbon14 does not have convergent validity with other methods of dating. Routine practice in testing includes asking the suspected date of a target. One of the purposes of that is to disregard dates that do not match the target date. It is a valuable tool, but there are limitations which must be considered. Nevertheless, I am not concerned with earth dating since this is not that important.

"Too bad that the majority of biologists, geologists, astrophysicists, physicists and chemists accept evolution theory far more than they accept creation theory."

The majority of teachers, medical professionals, and people on the street believe that cocaine has terrible effects upon babies. The truth is "coke babies" are born sooner and smaller. The original study was extremely flawed. The doctor who did it had no research training and the confounding varibles were mind boggling. The point is even the majority can be wrong.


Does the age of the earth really matter? I don't think so. I don't care how old it really is. And it is not so much evolution that is absurd as is the concepts of abiogenesis and macroevolution. Evolution happens in its proper and true form. Side note: Did you know creation theory actually relies on horizontal evolution for support?

 

I say most likely because as with all science, there are no absolutes. Assumptions of fact can be dangerous. And no the Bible is not specific on exactly what Kinds are although a logical guess can be made.

If logical guesses aren't good enough for proving Evolution Theory, why should they be good enough for proving the competing theory? The burden of proof is on you, my friend... evolution theory is a theory, but it is widely accepted as the most likely possibility.

The Bible isn't specific at all about where the millions of species came from, and no, there wasn't any ship's manifest for Noah's ark listing the millions of species that were supposedly carried on this boat to the four corners of the world... nevermind the flood story is actually a borrowing from the Epic of Gilgamesh... a work of fiction.

The Bible also doesn't make any specific statements about horizontal evolution or "kinds" to my knowledge. These are vague inferences made by creationists from even more vague passages of the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it outline precisely what the equivalent of a day was before the Earth's axial rotation (23h 56m) was there to define it... nor does it precisely state any particulars about earth's orbit, the electromagnetic and gravitational forces which affect the elliptical orbit that varies from 91 to 94 million miles... and so on... many of these figures were calculated by astronomers such as Aryabhata and Galileo... only the church wanted Galileo dead... only to admit hundreds of years later that he was right.

And it is not so much evolution that is absurd as is the concepts of abiogenesis and macroevolution. Evolution happens in its proper and true form. Side note: Did you know creation theory actually relies on horizontal evolution for support?

Leave it to Palpazzar the world's foremost expert on genetics and microbiology, to be more knowledgeable than the entire world community of scientists on what "proper and true" evolution is... Read this article from UCSD, for a better understanding of the first genetic evidence of how major changes in body shapes occurred during early animal evolution.

The majority of teachers, medical professionals, and people on the street believe that cocaine has terrible effects upon babies. The truth is "coke babies" are born sooner and smaller. The original study was extremely flawed. The doctor who did it had no research training and the confounding varibles were mind boggling. The point is even the majority can be wrong.

And one study in cocaine babies has precisely what to do with numerous decades and even centuries of studies in evolutionary science? Is this always going to be your method of argument? To pull out the most random, unaccepted, isolated scientific study to compare and contest the thousands of studies that have been rigorously tested, consistently-proven beyond reasonable doubt and accepted in the world court of scientific opinion? I believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, but even I won't dare be seen quoting the rantings of Fletcher Prouty anywhere (this is the widely debunked kook whose conspiracy theories were personified as "Mr. X" in Oliver Stone's JFK).

I'll look up my specific facts here, but the gist is this. Carbon14 does not have convergent validity with other methods of dating. Routine practice in testing includes asking the suspected date of a target. One of the purposes of that is to disregard dates that do not match the target date. It is a valuable tool, but there are limitations which must be considered. Nevertheless, I am not concerned with earth dating since this is not that important.

Yeah, earth dating isn't important... forensic evidence... who needs it? If it disproves creation "science", it's not important... but hot damn, if it proved the Shroud of Turin was real instead of fake.. you'd somehow try to prove to me that C14 dating only works some of the time, right? Yeah, nevermind