View Full Version : Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution
Skomatth
05-09-2005, 23:51
I have some trouble understanding evolution, but admittedly I have never studied it in depth. In order to understand better, I am going to post some objection of creation scientists which I hope someone can try to refute from the evolutionist perspective. Do not construe this post as my acceptance of creationism, which I do not adhere to, but merely as an attempt to better understand evolution.
The ten objections along with their brief explanations are found http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=813053
Here are the objections in short:
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
I only posted the five I'm interested in hearing answers to since the rest are rather goofy.
GodsPetMonkey
05-10-2005, 00:20
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
All species are transitory. The transitory species idea was one sf the first anti-evolution to come out, but it fails to take into account that evolution is an ongoing and continuing process, it doesn't pause.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Natural selection is not the ONLY way of advancement (its like these creationists are stuck in the 1850's!). It's part of a much more complex picture.
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Life from non-life, etc is not something I'm going to touch, for personal belief reasons, but I will say this, their attempts to use the laws of thermodynamics to disprove it are incorrect (this is also known as the entropy argument).
As for humans coming from animals... what’s their point? Are they affronted by the idea that they are just another kind of animal?
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Fossils tend not to come out of the ground in good condition, there are not that many great dinosaur skeletons.
I don’t know much more about them, these kinds of skeletons are extremely rare, its inevitable that some science reporters, and over eager scientists will make something out of nothing.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
Wow, the species of animals on the evolutionary path from ape to human are apes? Now that's a leap of logic. Next you know people will claim we are primates!
Steppe Merc
05-10-2005, 00:27
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
False. What is transitional anyway? You can see evolution in action everyday, and natrual selection. Ever breed horses or dogs, or hear about different strands of bacteria that are resitant to medicine? That's natrual selection.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Higher order? Whatever that means, they obviously don't understand natrual selection.
Say you start out with a bird species. Somehow, two seperate groups of the bird get seperated from each other. One on one island, the other on another, never mixing. Now, one island only has big seeds. The birds with small beaks would die off and starve, since they can't eat the seeds. The birds who through genetic mutation have larger beaks survive, and reproduce. The other island of birds continues to eat the same small seeds. Over time, the bird groups will become seperate species, as more and more mutations occur that would favor their environment. Evolution is very slow, and can result in evauntaully large changes, but it would take a very long time, and it would only look like large changes from viewing the whole process.
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Bull. Humans are animals, and we have genetic links to our relations.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Oh, like these idiots are clear? Real scientists acknoledge them. So what are they? Fakes? They certaintly aren't human, or ape.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
What idiots. Humans didn't evolve from today's apes per se. They evolved from a common ancestor. The some apes went one way, evauntually forming today's apes, while other apes went another, evautnaully evolving into today's humans. If they had any real proof, they would list the species, and why they believe they are apes or monkeys. And what about the other ones that they say aren't apes or monkeys?
A.Saturnus
05-10-2005, 00:34
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Every species is a transitional link in its own right. Of course, we do not have records for ALL transitions that ever occurred. All fossil records are based on unlikely circumstances so only a very tiny part of all creatures that ever lived are to be found as fossils. You cannot conclude from that that there is no evidence for evolution. A wide spectrum of findings support the theory of evolution.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
In the contrary, it is very capable of advancing organisms. That's what selection is all about. However, the concept of higher-order organisms is very vague. Organisms get adapted to their surroundings, evolution knows no direction.
[/QUOTE]3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
No. The first lifeforms where very primitive chemical structures, it's unintelligible why it should be impossible fro them to have resulted from non-living structures. In fact, we know structures today that stand between life and non-life. Humans are only animals adapted to a certain biological niche. There's nothing in humans that isn't also in gradation present in some other animals. The claim that matter resulted from nothing is not part of evolution theory.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Any evidence to back up this claim? What we know is that these bones are older than creationists say is possible and they are bones of hominids. Inconsistency in the geneology of humans - which is only a tiny part of evolution BTW - are far from surprising, given the scarceness of these findings.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.[QUOTE]
There are all primates, just like humans, only more primitive. Like our closest kin, the chimpansees. When precisely is something "part human"?
It seems to me that these objections go mostly along the line of "it can't be, it isn't so and it mustn't be". No real arguments. Saying that it's all impossible and all evolutionists are dirty liars is hardly scientifical.
Steppe Merc
05-10-2005, 00:36
But saying all creationists are dirty liars or misinformed is true. ~;)
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 00:45
Actually, they have made 'life' from 'non-life'. I think somebody's actually made nucleotide chains by electrocuting seawater with massive amounts of static electrical charge (like repeated lightning strikes).
Creationism is a religious outlook. Creation science is neither: creationism, nor science, and it's where those claims really break down. God planted dinosaur bones out in Utah to test the Faithful... give me a freakin break.
The thing I find funny is if they would just calm down, and quit taking Genesis (one of two creation stories contained therin, btw, which was right?) they'd actually see that Genesis mirrors the more complete picture of what we've come to know about cosmology and evolution, which is now thought to be quantitized (rapid bursts of species diversification, with large stagnant periods in between).
Templar Knight
05-10-2005, 00:46
God planted dinosaur bones out in Utah to test the Faithful... give me a freakin break.
lmao
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present. Forget the fossils. Genes already support this.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order". Mutation and evolution is random. Do you think there are coconuts that didn't float in the ocean? The only coconuts that survived are the ones that can float. Natural selection.
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world. ~:confused: Life is a human definition. It's just a natural phenomenon special to this planet. But that doesn't mean there aren't other "natural phenomenon" in other pockets of the universe.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were. Forget the bones, there's a lot of genetic evidence. That's horribly obsolete. Mixed genetic material is just being passed from one generation to another. Whichever product that survive will reproduce again, etc.
A lot of people complain about same-sex marriage. Don't fret, it's natural. Guess what, they can't reproduce. That's nature to you. Female-Female, and Male-Male cannot reproduce. We humans are the most sophisticated machines the world.
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. There are many theories, but they all involve branching out. A lot of animals that existed before are extinct. That doesn't mean they didn't live. We are all related.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 01:10
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
You cannot conclude from that that there is no evidence for evolution. A wide spectrum of findings support the theory of evolution.
Micro yes Macro no
Every species is a transitional link in its own right.
Do we have a clue as to where man came from? Are we evolved from the apes?
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Mutation and evolution is random. Do you think there are coconuts that didn't float in the ocean? The only coconuts that survived are the ones that can float. Natural selection.
Were thost that floated more advanced?
I dont think we have a clue as to how we got to be here only educated guesses and creationism is as good a guess as any.
The points you ask about have already been addressed wel by others, so I'll just reiterate a few of them, and expand a bit on what has already been said.
One cannot view evolution as a dogma, or evolutionary thinking as a dogmatic one. Species did not evolve in the "God created this, and then God created that" fashion. It's a continuous process that usually takes many many generations of (more or less) gradual change, and the changes between generations (gene pools between generations, to be precise) are predominantly minuscule.
The creationist thinking in this matter reminds me of the arrow paradox. If you shoot an arrow, it travels from point A to point B. If at any given point in time you look at the arrow in a freeze frame manner, it's actually standing still. Now, you could claim that the arrow is not moving at all, since every time you get to look at it it's standing still, but does that mean that it's not really moving at all? It's the same thing with evolution and fossil record. What you get are the random snapshots ages apart, and just because you cannot see the whole picture in excruciating detail, does not mean it wasn't there. Besides, even if you could get a specimen from every generation, you'd still be in the dark about the actual change, since it's all about populations and not individual organisms. In other words, you'd have to sample an entire population of organisms, take into account what traits are heritable, which organisms and in what exent are going to transfer their genetic material to the next generation, which populations interbred or will interbreed at some point in future, etc. etc. You cannot take two random specimens that are separated by millions of years and exclaim that the link isn't there, and at the same time refuse to apply any deductive thinking in the process to boot.
Another pitfall of creationist thinking (and early evolutionists too to an extent), is impying that evolutionary change is goal-oriented. "It all lead to the evolution of humans" or "Evolution is progressive in that it creates 'higher' beings from 'lower' ones" are statements that show profound misunderstanding of evolution, biology, and natural sciences in general. There is no goal behind it, no intention, and no dogma either. Certain organisms just outreproduce their peers due to the set of everchanging circumstances that are acting upon the population at a given point in time - they did not intend to or want to or meant to do it.
And humans vs. animals etc. are just arbitrary categories we use to sort out things we observe. There are more issues with semantics than with anything else here. If we didn't call them that with those same words, or categorize them in this fashion, it wouldn't mean they were not there. Sure, we use some overarching characteristics to help us sort everything out, but system is not and was never meant to be absolute. It just helps us think - if I say "fish", you'll have a general idea of what I'm talking about. Just because early amphibians cannot quite be described by the image I invoke in you when I say "fish" does not mean they are impossible or unreal. Also, for reference on life vs. non-life, see also classic early experiments by Oparin and Haldane (and other things as well, like basic descriptions of subcellular life-forms, ribozymes (nuceliec acid enzymes that can reproduce themselves))....
I dont think we have a clue as to how we got to be here only educated guesses and creationism is as good a guess as any.
Creationism is not science. Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 01:34
Creationism is not science. Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.
He voted for Bush, I don't think anything logical will sway him into the obvious truth.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 01:34
Creationism is not science.
Neither is evolution.
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 01:38
ev·o·lu·tion [èvvə lsh’n, və lsh’n]
(plural ev·o·lu·tions)
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.
Biology is a science!
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 01:40
He voted for Bush, I don't think anything logical will sway him into the obvious truth.
There you go again MR Troll. First off I didnt vote for Bush. Secondly I believe in micro evolution . As far as macro evolution goes I dont see any more proof that its correct anymore than I do that creationist are correct. Im not picking either of them as the gospel truth. I feel the truth lies somewhere in between. You shouldnt speak on things you have absolutley no knowledge of.
Teach it in Sunday schools and religious classes along with other genesis stories, but it does not abide by the rules set forth by scientific method, and hence has no place in science classroom.
I never claimed it should be taught in science clas. But I also feel that they dont stress enough that what they are teaching is the THEORY of evolution not the science of evolution.
Neither is evolution.
On that you are wrong. Evolution and associated research abides by the logic behind the scientific method and the scietific method itself, along with peer review and everything else that is included in that term. Therefore, it has every right to be included together with all other scientific disciplines - it plays by the rules, and the rigors associated with those rules. In that it's no different than any other scientific discipline - anything contrary would be like suggesting that, say, nuclear physics, biochemistry or calculus are not sciences either because some people don't believe in their postulates and/or conclusions.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 01:47
On that you are wrong. Evolution and associated research abides by the logic behind the scientific method and the scietific method itself, along with peer review and everything else that is included in that term. Therefore, it has every right to be included together with all other scientific disciplines - it plays by the rules, and the rigors associated with those rules. In that it's no different than any other scientific discipline - anything contrary would be like suggesting that, say, nuclear physics, biochemistry or calculus are not sciences either because some people don't believe in their postulates and/or conclusions.
You can apply the scientific method t almost anything including creationism. That doesnt make it a science. There are sciences and there are sciences. There are exact ones and others like those you mentioned.
I never claimed it should be taught in science clas. But I also feel that they dont stress enough that what they are teaching is the THEORY of evolution not the science of evolution.
If you had more scientific education, you would have known that THEORY is yet again another semantic problem. But nothing more than that. Scientific theory is based on a certain methodology and associated selection processes. It's not pulled out of the thin air, or dreamt up by some delusional professor. Theory in scientific terminology means something different than theory in colloquial conversation. Just like SEAL does not really mean an all-capitalized pinniped when speaking in military terms.
You can apply the scientific method t almost anything including creationism. That doesnt make it a science. There are sciences and there are sciences. There are exact ones and others like those you mentioned.
So, if I am a theoretical biologist by occupation, or an atomic physicist for that matter, that means that I'm the same as a magician or a priest when it comes to my expertise's relatedness to science?
You cannot apply scientific method to creationism. It is not science because it does not play by the book. End of story.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 01:57
Technically speaking, calculus is a language not a science. It takes abstract concepts and gives them verbal and written form.
And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary! ~:eek:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 01:58
If you had more scientific education, you would have known that THEORY is yet again another semantic problem. But nothing more than that. Scientific theory is based on a certain methodology and associated selection processes. It's not pulled out of the thin air, or dreamt up by some delusional professor. Theory in scientific terminology means something different than theory in colloquial conversation. Just like SEAL does not really mean an all-capitalized pinniped when speaking in military terms.
Another one who thinks he is the only educated person among us. Ill have you know I understand therums and postulates as well if not better than most here. I averaged 100 in geometery and also got 100 on the regents and won a scholarship to college for it where I majored in of all things biology. I was studying to be a vet. I then joined the Marines and went through 3 years of electronics school. I understand science and its principles very well thank you. By a theory its meant that its not an exact science and is not provable beyond a doubt but that scientific evidence points to this as the right direction or idea.
And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary! ~:eek:
There are zealots in biology as well as in any other occupation. Some people religiously believe that evolution is true, and it has become their creed in effect. When the scientific things start to get viewed as being the dogma, which they do sometimes and by some, they lose credibility in terms of scientific thinking.
It is not wrong to ask questions, and challenge the logic behind conclusions. In fact, it furthers our understanding of the issues to do so, even though not all questions necessarily have (satisfactory) answers (for now). However, when the answer to every question is "God", and it's that even before you have asked anything, that resoning cannot be claimed to be scientific, nor does it have place in the science classrooms.
Another one who thinks he is the only educated person among us. Ill have you know I understand therums and postulates as well if not better than most here. I averaged 100 in geometery and also got 100 on the regents and won a scholarship to college for it where I majored in of all things biology. I was studying to be a vet. I then joined the Marines and went through 3 years of electronics school. I understand science and its principles very well thank you. By a theory its meant that its not an exact science and is not provable beyond a doubt but that scientific evidence points to this as the right direction or idea.
If this is so, I wonder why do you insist on dogmatic perspective then? You surely must know that you cannot "prove" anything in science then as well, since "proofs" as this word is colloquially used are nonexistant in science. There are no absolute truths in science, and one should not look for them there, nor should one expect to find them there either, no matter how 'exact' the discipline is. You shouldn't be thinking in terms of the absolute, but rather thinking in terms of the probability then. There are no scientific disciplines that are exact to the point of the absolute.
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 02:27
Creationism fails when the rigours of scientific theory/validation/methodolgy is applied.
The theory of evolution is itself evolving.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 02:32
Hey, I agree with you Hvorej. I'm actually think quantum evolution has a lot to offer in terms of explaining the shortcomings of evolution. I see nothing in it that precludes some divine force acting behind it, yet nothing that requires it either.
All I'm saying is you have to agree that dogmatism has a way of creeping into any system of beliefs, including science. I'm an electrical engineer, and trust me, most of the problems we can't solve today are because we think we can't because somebody said so. I imagine it's much the same in other disciplines.
All I'm saying is you have to agree that dogmatism has a way of creeping into any system of beliefs, including science.
Very true, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Skomatth
05-10-2005, 03:00
hrvojej your first post in this thread was very hepful to me, thank you.
I was wondering if you could expand more on the proposed mechanism by which evolution occurs. I am familiar with the example of the proto-chicken and the egg. Is this pretty much all there is to it?
|OCS|Virus
05-10-2005, 03:03
everyone else seems to have stated the obvious reasons that that article shows just why creation scientists that don't believe in evelution are, quite wrong. Granted if they had given the answere that "God put the fully evolved humans here" I would be more inclined to say that is mearly a difference of opinion. But when they try to scientificly prove the fact that we didn't evolve is obserd. Were do they propose we came from then? Or am I to assume that they think we were indeed put here by god? I didn't see any mention of that in the link. Anybody know were they think we DID come from?
Creationism is a religious outlook. Creation science is neither: creationism, nor science, and it's where those claims really break down. God planted dinosaur bones out in Utah to test the Faithful... give me a freakin break.
two of the funniest things you've ever said Don
As far as macro evolution goes I dont see any more proof that its correct anymore than I do that creationist are correct.
There is a relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny.
If one looks at the developmental stages of mammals, for example, one sees the embryo starts out quite undistinguishable from other mammals but as it grows into a fetus it shows more and more differentiation until it is recognizable as the species it is.
This is due to the information that has been stored in the genetic code through billions of years of evolution. Clear and convincing evidence, stuff that is subject to confirmation through the scientific method.
Creationism involves faith, faith in untestable things. That's the difference between science/fact and theory/myth.
ichi :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:12
If this is so, I wonder why do you insist on dogmatic perspective then? You surely must know that you cannot "prove" anything in science then as well,
I dissagree.As I said there are exact sciences like some math. I dont insist on a dogmatic perspective. I just think that both are correct. I think god created everything and that evolution is one of his means of doing so. I believe many people share this view if not most.
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 03:22
You cannot prove everything in maths (axioms and such).
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 03:23
NOOOO! PAPE why did you change your ultra-cool avatar!?!? :cry:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:26
You cannot prove everything in maths (axioms and such).
Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 03:36
NOOOO! PAPE why did you change your ultra-cool avatar!?!? :cry:
Because after getting to 6k posts I felt like a change and the Geisha while colourful was already taken...
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 03:38
Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.
Are maths axioms universal?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:49
Are maths axioms universal?
I dont know but as axioms they are not part of what Im speaking about. Im talking basic math.
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 03:54
Maths is only exact within boundary conditions.
Example one.
1010 in Base Ten is one thousand and ten.
1010 in Base Two is ten. The boundary conditions have changed so a different result is found.
Example two.
A triangle has a total internal angle of 180 degrees. This is true only on a flat surface.
If you drew the triangle on a sphere the total internal angle would change.
Maths is only right within a very tight set of rules. This is the same for most sciences, the larger the scope of the boundary conditions the less it is likely to get an 'exact' (high probablity) model.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 04:00
Yes I agree with all that. Whats your point?
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 04:07
IMDHO
Science is not absolute as people assume.
Some areas are more precise then others. But there is a tendancy for the broader the boundary conditions (the more the particular theory/model covers) the less exact it is.
The Theory of Everything is still just a goal. While the tighter boundary conditions on the four basic forces means that we have a more precise model of them.
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 04:14
I think that the idea of humans coming from apes is a conspiracy by the evil Gilette corporation. They want us to be afraid of being hairy.
*Takes another banana and waits for the next episode of the jungle book to start.*
Adrian II
05-10-2005, 07:24
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Lol! This is surely the funniest. Show me one evolutionist who states that matter resulted from nothing. On the other hand, creationists do believe that matter resulted from nothing. Boy, are these guys confused.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 07:27
OK wise guy where do scientists say matter came from? ~:) and do you dispute the other two points?
Adrian II
05-10-2005, 07:39
OK wise guy where do scientists say matter came from? ~:)You know very well that any basic science book will tell you about some of their hypotheses; no need for me to unpack that here. They certainly do not state that God somehow pulled the world out of his butt.
(..) and do you dispute the other two points?Certainly not. Why would I?
EDIT
Elementary wise guy link (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99019.htm)
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 07:45
Where matter came from is in the realm of Astrophysics and Quantum physics. Those theories do not rely on evolution nor vice a versa.
It not a good form to bundle a theory with other ones.
Evolution is one thing.
'Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use. Scientists refer to things like the Big Bang, Star Sequence, Star (Solar) System formation, Planetary formation. Which for some reason creationists try and bundle altogether with evolution.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 08:04
Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use.
Is that so?
MACROEVOLUTION
Were Darwin's extrapolations justified? Judging from the conclusions of many of the scientists attending one of the most important conferences in evolutionary biology in the past forty years, the answer is probably not.
"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...
In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."
* Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883
"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."
* Feduccia, Alan (1985)
"On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers"
The Beginning of Birds
Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76
"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."
* Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,"
Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361
This theme is developed at much greater length, and with considerable insight, in Rudy Raff's new book, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (520 pages, $29.95 in paperback).
"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."
* Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940)
The Material Basis of Evolution
New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, p. 8
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has not clothes.'"
* K. Hsu (1986)
"Darwin's Three Mistakes"
Geology, vol. 14, p. 534
(K. Hsu is a geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich.)
"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."
* Simpson G.G. (1949)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p97
"[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known."
* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45
"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."
* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206
Its a commonly used term and was not made up by creationist but by the . I suppose these guys are creationists
Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process. With its unique time perspective, paleontology has a central role to play in this area: the fossil record provides a direct, empirical window onto large-scale evolutionary patterns, and thus is invaluable both as a document of macroevolutionary phenomena, and as a natural laboratory for the framing and testing of macroevolutionary hypotheses. This is a vibrant field (if underpopulated relative to the wealth of material and questions within its domain), with a steady stream of papers, books and symposia and an increasing interaction with a broad range of disciplines from astrophysics to developmental biology. The result has been a number of insights into the processes that have shaped the major evolutionary patterns of present-day and ancient organisms.
LINK (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html)
Maybe you meant scientists have a differnt definition of Macro evolution. In that case I agree. Evolution cannot account for the creation of man nevermind the universe. You mention the big bang theory. Where di the matter come from and how did it get condensed and the explode in the first place? This is where it gets heavy. Does everything have a beggining and an end? Or is it a never ending circle ?
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 08:10
The formation of matter is not a theory involving evolution unless you are one of these creationists with their version of macro-evolution.
I've seen posted a few times Macro-evolution in the creationist sense including the big bang, planetary formtation and a host of other things.
Where matter comes from does not change how evolution occurs.
Adrian II
05-10-2005, 08:13
Please, let's stop the nonsense that 'no transitional forms have been found'. Here's something about whales for y'all. Fill in the rest for yourself if you want, but don't repeat cr@p from creationist websites without doing a little checking.
Link (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm)
Papewaio
05-10-2005, 08:17
The Big Bang was the beginning it was the start of space, time, energy and matter. What happened beforehand is taken as unknowable. It may have spawned off another universe. The thing about the Big Bang is it isn't just the matter and energy that was created it was also the laws of physics.
Evolution quite easily explains how humans came into being. It is rather a simple process to create a human from a single cell. It is actually proportionally more complex to create the single cell from the basic building blocks.
Ja'chyra
05-10-2005, 09:24
At least science offers supporting evidence which you can decide to trust, or not, what does creationism offer? Faith and an ancient comic book? No thanks.
KafirChobee
05-10-2005, 09:55
Ignorance, breeds ignorance. Not sure who said it, but they were right.
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.
Trying to sell a biblical concept, is like accepting mythology. The perceptions of men do not out weigh the scientific advances of same. To argue that man has not progressed beyond the groveling to wish that the GOD of harvest bring them rains, or GOD of war bring them victory, or the GOD of ... what ever do what ever? Well. maybe. For some. For those that accept that they truely do not grasp the concept of a supremebeing or imagine his (her) abilities.
First off, God's name is Sally. I know this because he told me so. He doesn't mind if you call him Sal, unless he is in drag of course.
Now. A few other things I must mention - please, understand it ain't me - it's God .... er, Sally ... laying this down.
First off, Sally, admits we came from apes - it was just easier that way.
Go read, "Letters from EARTH", by Mark Twain - and grow the hell up.
:balloon2:
KafirChobee
05-10-2005, 10:07
Ignorance, breeds ignorance. Not sure who said it, but they were right.
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.
Trying to sell a biblical concept, is like accepting mythology. The perceptions of men do not out weigh the scientific advances of same. To argue that man has not progressed beyond the groveling to wish that the GOD of harvest bring them rains, or GOD of war bring them victory, or the GOD of ... what ever do what ever? Well. maybe. For some. For those that accept that they truely do not grasp the concept of a supremebeing or imagine his (her) abilities.
First off, God's name is Sally. I know this because he told me so. He doesn't mind if you call him Sal, unless he is in drag of course.
Now. A few other things I must mention - please, understand it ain't me - it's God .... er, Sally ... laying this down.
First off, Sally, admits we came from apes - it was just easier that way.
Go read, "Letters from EARTH", by Mark Twain - and grow the hell up.
:balloon2:
yey! I just found proof that evolution exist in a way that animals adapt to its enviroment.
Swedish; "illustrated science" talks about a lizzard that has hornes and it is usually hunted by a certain bird. The intresting thing is that the bird usually attacks the lizzards with shorter hornes and as a result of that the lizzards in generall are now growing larger hornes. 10 procent in 20-35 years.
There you have it, evolution exist. :bow:
SwordsMaster
05-10-2005, 10:53
1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
What are transitional links? See, the average rate for a mutation to occur is about 1 every 1million copies of that gene. i.e, every time a cell copies itself the genetic content can change. So you think that you could see a difference in 1 accumulated genetic change from one generation to another? No chance. You probably wouldnt see them even every 10 generations.
Besides, most of the fossiles encountered are bones. And the possibility of 1 out of a million mutations affecting a bone is even smaller. Thats why there are not so many recognizable "transitory" species. Although such thing as transitory species doesnt exist. Because technically all species are transitory.
2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
There is no such thing as higher order in nature. Some of the most complex organisms are Bacteria and other microscopic systems. And they have much better chance of survival as a race than humans have. So which is higher order?
3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Well, as someone said before, placing a few suitable elements in a very rich environment and then electrocuting it with a decent enough voltage did produce simple "life".
And humans did not result from animals, we ARE animals.
4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Well, there are some that are quite well studied and most scientists agree on their significance, one of them could be Lucy (the skeleton of a female hominid found in Africa) and there are others. Obviously as those bones are usually thousands of years old, they are never complete or perfectly conserved. But with that argument you could also say that the romans went to battle with rusty swords with no edge and dressed in rags. Yeah, we never discovered a shiny roman toga, did we?
5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
And what about the other 4? The fact that there are 9 that are closer to the apes than to humans doesnt mean they didnt evolve, but confirms the theory. They had accumulated a number of mutations that separated them from the rest of the apes' species (thats the concept of species) but were not successful in reproducing (as they are extinct) thus they were extinguished and their habitats taken by more able individuals.
Boy, thats a long post...
SwordsMaster
05-10-2005, 10:57
Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.
Thats why when mathematicians say "clearly" and "obviously" means that they cant prove it but they hope it is like they say. ~;)
I dissagree.As I said there are exact sciences like some math. I dont insist on a dogmatic perspective. I just think that both are correct. I think god created everything and that evolution is one of his means of doing so. I believe many people share this view if not most.
Don Corleone said it all
I see nothing in it that precludes some divine force acting behind it, yet nothing that requires it either.
While I personally don't believe in it and you do, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - plausibility of evolutionary thought. Divine origin of this or that is not a part of evolution or science in general, it's a matter of philosophy and religion, and the distinction should be made clear. Science cannot provide evidence about the existence (or non-existence) of God, and it shouldn't deal with those questions either as they are not the part of it in the first place. But in the same vein, one should not try to use religion and creed to pass judgements on scientific things and issues. In short, science and religion do not necessarily conflict each other, but rather they deal with different questions and using different approaches.
If it would make it more approachable to you, you can think of evolution as studying the methodology of how it all came to pass, while retaining your beliefs about how it all begun. But that doesn't mean that the answer to everything that doesn't seem logical in science comes down to a singular answer of divine intervention.
hrvojej your first post in this thread was very hepful to me, thank you.
I was wondering if you could expand more on the proposed mechanism by which evolution occurs. I am familiar with the example of the proto-chicken and the egg. Is this pretty much all there is to it?
Erm, I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what you mean by "protochicken and the egg" example, but I'll try to briefly summarize on the proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Natural selection is in fact differential reproduction. Mutations provide the basis for the selection to occur, since mutations mean that not all organisms in a given population will be genetically identical, and hence not equal in their potential when it comes to interaction with the environment. Gene frequencies in the subsequent generations will be different from the paternal generation due to many factors.
Some of these factors are brand new mutations, which happen for a number of reasons, and can be immediately beneficial, immediately detrimental, and neutral (no net costs or benefits right now, but that doesn't mean this couldn't change in future). Other factors are due to the differential ability of parents to produce offspring which will survive to reproduce - and this is the natural selection in a narrow sense of the term. This is usually considered as the most important evolutionary force, but by no means the only one.
Yet other forces inculde migration between populations, which changes the gene frequencies in future generations irrespective of the mating sucess of the focal parent population. Then there is genetic drift, where some gene variants can be simply taken out of the population through chance events. For example, let's say that a youngster is born who is incredibly smart, and that this smartness is heritable. If this youngster is then killed in a volcanic eruption before it had a chance to reproduce, its genes which coded for smartness will be lost. This will change the relative gene frequencies of subsequent genrations, and its (potentially benefical in this case) genes will be lost to the population. Then there is also nonrandom mating, i.e. sexual selection. Mating success doesn't always depend on the ability to survive, it also depends on the ability to attract partners/reproduce. This is where inbreeding etc. also comes to play, and a similar aspect would be kin selection. Finally, there are other genetic mechanisms which influence gene frequencies, such as which chromosomes get to form the gametes that will later form the zygote(s), the 'crossing over' events where genetic material between complimentary chromosomes is exchanged, the associated issues with the distance between certain genes (the closer they are the more likely they will be to get inherited together as a cluster), and a few other mechanisms in the same vein.
While this post turned out to be longer than I expected despite my attempts to do the opposite, I nevertheless hope this answers your question in a satisfactory manner.
Cheers,
Productivity
05-10-2005, 14:11
Actually, they have made 'life' from 'non-life'. I think somebody's actually made nucleotide chains by electrocuting seawater with massive amounts of static electrical charge (like repeated lightning strikes).
Abiogenesis isn't it?
I think actually it wasn't just seawater, it was what the earth was thought to contain at the time life first emerged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 15:52
While I personally don't believe in it and you do, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - plausibility of evolutionary thought.
Look I find evolutin not only plausible but likely. I just feel theres more to it than we will ever know. I doubt the true cause of the the world and universe we life in will ever be known. Science is great but it can only go so far. Religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable. Science does basicly the same thing. We think weve explained somethings but were not sure. I my book science is nothing more than another religion. This does not make it bad or evil but like all religions a seeker of the ultimate truth.
English assassin
05-10-2005, 16:09
Religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable. Science does basicly the same thing. We think weve explained somethings but were not sure. I my book science is nothing more than another religion. This does not make it bad or evil but like all religions a seeker of the ultimate truth.
That is profoundly not true. The scientific method could not be more different from religion. A scientist makes a guess (a theory) about how the world works consistent with data he himself has observed (or others he trusts has observed). He then tests his theory by seeking data that would disprove it.
A religious thinker formulates his ideas based largely on "revealed" "truth" (eg a holy book) and then seeks to avoid having them tested at all. Certainly his ideas can never be disproved (if they could by golly we'd have done it by now).
Both may "seek truth" but to say they are alike is like saying a cow is like a fish because both taste good with chips
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 16:20
That is profoundly not true. The scientific method could not be more different from religion. A scientist makes a guess (a theory) about how the world works consistent with data he himself has observed (or others he trusts has observed). He then tests his theory by seeking data that would disprove it.
Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt? Its only our educated guess and rationalization.
A religious thinker formulates his ideas based largely on "revealed" "truth" (eg a holy book) and then seeks to avoid having them tested at all.
I think you couldnt be more wrong. These holy books were written after thousands of years of observing human behavior and most of what they say still rings true today. If your talking about creation then you have a point . But again science can do no better job on the subject. Im still waiting to hear how scientists explain where matter came from.
Ironside
05-10-2005, 16:47
And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary! ~:eek:
The scientiffic community has always been very conservative. The positive is that a new theory needs much ground to stand on. The downside is that most of the guys with good ideas will be celebrated post-mortum.
Adrian II
05-10-2005, 16:52
Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt?That's right: what it does is refute untenable claims and views. Such as the claim that the Earth was created 6651 years ago (or thereabouts) out of nowhere...
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 16:55
That's right: what it does is refute untenable claims and views. Such as the claim that the Earth was created 6651 years ago (or thereabouts) out of nowhere...
Are you sure? ~D
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 17:01
Hell even Sumerians lived before those 6651 years. Gawain if your last resonce isn't a joke, you are much smarter then I originally thought. ~D
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
05-10-2005, 17:09
Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt? Its only our educated guess and rationalization.
That quote is a good starting point to explain why creationism is not a science...
I'd not say it's a rationalization, but would agree that nothing in science is provable.
However, sciencitific theory can be proven wrong! Experiment proved that Newton was wrong, etc, etc... Most of the scientific experiment are designed to prove a theory wrong. The way it works is; you make guess from the theory, make an experiment, and see if it works. If it does not; the theory is wrong, if it does, that just means the theory is not proven wrong .... yet :p.
As some theories have been working throught a lot of experiment they are thought as reliable... But they still got the "proven until wrong" status.
The greatest diservice a creationist can handle to creationism is to claim it can't be proven wrong.
Although this creationist would be right; you can't prove anything wrong once an omnipotent being comes into play, he would also prove that creationism is not a scientific theory, for it can't be proven wrong!
Louis,
But the clever creationist would say that his God (omniscient like many of todays more acknowledged gods) created the basis for life knowing exactly how it would evolve into todays species. (I think this is the basis for the Intelligent design process, but don't ask me how it's supposed to work, or why it would end up with any different product than 4.5 billion years of random genetic sequencing with failure cut-offs).
mfberg
Precisely, Louis.
I always thought that a scientific theory has the potential to be proved or disproved. Perhaps one day we can verify if evolution works the way evidence suggests.
Creationism is a dead end street. How can we hope to prove it? Wait around for the rapture?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 18:16
That quote is a good starting point to explain why creationism is not a science...
I never claimed it was. In fact I would call a creationist scientist a sort of oximoron.
But the clever creationist would say that his God (omniscient like many of todays more acknowledged gods) created the basis for life knowing exactly how it would evolve into todays species. (I think this is the basis for the Intelligent design process, but don't ask me how it's supposed to work, or why it would end up with any different product than 4.5 billion years of random genetic sequencing with failure cut-offs).
Exactly.
I always thought that a scientific theory has the potential to be proved or disproved. Perhaps one day we can verify if evolution works the way evidence suggests.
Only to a certain extent.
Skomatth
05-10-2005, 21:09
Gawain here is a quote from The Fabric of the Cosmos , a sort of cosmology for dummies book by Brian Greene a professor at Columbia I believe.
A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory...that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.
So you won't get any scientific answers about your matter question. The big bang assumes a huge density of matter and energy at the time when space began to expand. This is the big bang, not some miraculous flash of energy into existence, but rather the evolution of mass and energy once it was in existence.
Edit:
Link to the same at NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
There is a fascinating book called "The Feathered Onion" which is really interesting and edges into a lot of this, and some cell biology. And it's actually readable too (my textbook authors could take notes on this).
Papewaio
05-11-2005, 02:41
Gawain here is a quote from The Fabric of the Cosmos , a sort of cosmology for dummies book by Brian Greene a professor at Columbia I believe.
So you won't get any scientific answers about your matter question. The big bang assumes a huge density of matter and energy at the time when space began to expand. This is the big bang, not some miraculous flash of energy into existence, but rather the evolution of mass and energy once it was in existence.
Edit:
Link to the same at NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
GAH! Please don't mix the word evolution in with the Big Bang. It might be a viable thing when comparing multiverses and ones that can bud off other universes to talk about evolution.
But in this discussion it will be confused with biological evolution.
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 05:52
The discussion starts to feel like the movie 13th floor..... ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 05:55
As we used to say as kids no shite sherlock
A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory...that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.
As we used to say as kids no shite sherlock
In other words like I said thier cluless on the matter of where matter came from.
Papewaio
05-12-2005, 06:00
Not clueless at all. The Big Bang is the best theory that models the evidence at hand. Also matter can be spontaneoulsy created in a vaccum or converted from energy.
On the other hand creationism does not fit the evidence at hand.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 06:22
Not clueless at all. The Big Bang is the best theory that models the evidence at hand.
Im not talking about the big bang theory
Also matter can be spontaneoulsy created in a vaccum or converted from energy.
Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?
On the other hand creationism does not fit the evidence at hand.
It certainly does if you believe all we see and know is the work of the hand of god. Again I think a combination of the two is the most likely scenario. Of course you are free to think what you like but you cannot prove anything. You have faith in science. Its a religion as I said.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
05-12-2005, 06:36
There is no combination of the two possible; once you open the "God" can of worm, everything is possible.
I disagree with Pape when he said "creationism does not fit the evidence"; the problem is that creationism fit ANY EVIDENCE . That's God omnipotence for you...
Gawain, some people may have faith in science, but that's as unscientific an opinion as having faith in religion is.
Scientific mind is not about having faith, it's about disproving theories with experiment and fact. What makes the Big Bang a good theory so far is that no experiment has proved it wrong yet. Same goes with evolution.
I am sure you and many creationist will be happy the day someone will come up with some evidence that evolution is flawed or Big Bang was the wrong idea about it all; oddly, it will be the vctory of science. That's how science works. Then the next theory will come up and will be tested and tried again. Until it fails too. And then we start again. It will never end.
That will never happen with any work that include the Hand of God in there. That's why it's not science.
Louis,
bmolsson
05-12-2005, 06:43
Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?
The energy comes from Bubba. ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 06:57
There is no combination of the two possible; once you open the "God" can of worm, everything is possible.
Is it me or did you just condratict yourself in one sentence?
I disagree with Pape when he said "creationism does not fit the evidence"; the problem is that creationism fit ANY EVIDENCE . That's God omnipotence for you...
Thas basicly what I said.
Gawain, some people may have faith in science, but that's as unscientific an opinion as having faith in religion is.
Scientific mind is not about having faith, it's about disproving theories with experiment and fact. What makes the Big Bang a good theory so far is that no experiment has proved it wrong yet. Same goes with evolution.
.
I think you missunderstand me. Again I have a very scientific mind and approach to almost everything. I majored in it in college. I always excelled at math , science and history. As you can see english has always been my weak point. Theres no need to explain any of this scientific stuff to me as I already know it very well.
I am sure you and many creationist
Whoa whoa whoa . Im no creationist. I dont believe that god created the earth in 6 days . If anything Im a total skeptic. I dont believe anything you cant prove to me for the most part. This is why I stopped being a catholic. I question everything. Ive said this in the past but I really try to look at bothsides of an arguement to the point where I can usually argue either side pretty well. I guess its because Im a Gemini. Astrology now theres a science ~D
That will never happen with any work that include the Hand of God in there. That's why it's not science.
I never claimed it was in fact ve said just the opposite in this thread. In other words Im backing both horses in this race until I can see a clear winner.
Papewaio
05-12-2005, 07:17
Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?
Quantum Vacuum.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
05-12-2005, 08:27
Is it me or did you just condratict yourself in one sentence?
LOL.
Thas basicly what I said.
Certainly not.
I think you missunderstand me. Again I have a very scientific mind and approach to almost everything. I majored in it in college. I always excelled at math , science and history. As you can see english has always been my weak point. Theres no need to explain any of this scientific stuff to me as I already know it very well.
And college degrees are absolute bullshit. I know trouble are coming when someone says "I know this, I studied it in college". College is the basic, like the alphabet, the very first step of education.
You learn to read in college, but you have not read anything yet. Real stuff starts later. Don't bring degrees to the discussion, as they are irrelevant anyway.
You sure don't know it very well, or we would not have this discussion.
...
I never claimed it was in fact ve said just the opposite in this thread. In other words Im backing both horses in this race until I can see a clear winner.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CLEAR WINNER IN SCIENCE.
It's only a question of not failing yet.
On the other hand, THERE IS NO WAY CREATIONISM CAN "LOSE", and that's the reason why it does lose as a science.
(go ahead pick again a contradiction... ~D )
Can't you see that backing both horses is not a consistent position?
Louis,
Problem is people see Humans as the "Center" of the universe. On the contrary, we're just the "Freaks" of the universe.
Just because we're here 'alive' doesn't mean there is an "intelligent design" of 'god' which we are the final product of.
Paul Peru
05-12-2005, 13:03
It certainly does if you believe all we see and know is the work of the hand of god.
There is, however, no evidence that fits better with the existence of any deity than with its non-existence.
You have faith in science. Its a religion as I said.
No it isn't, for reasons others have stated.
Scientific theories are based on empirical observations, and can be proved wrong.
Religion is based on hearsay, brain disorders etc., and there's no way in lala-land we can disprove an omnipotent fairy-tale creature that moves in mysterical ways. We can show how the systems of belief currently in fashion have evolved from earlier ones, though. ~:)
Minor concession: You may say that "Thunder and lightning is caused by the god Thor riding across the sky with his paraphernalia" was a scientific theory, because it was as good an shot at explaining it as the people who believed it had. It is now proven to be wrong, and noone believes in it anymore.
Most natural phenomena have reasonable scientific explanations by now. This is very useful. ~;) One problem remains: How come the universe exists? Of course we wouldn't be wondering if it didn't. ~;) "God created it" may be as good an answer as any, but given the track record of religious attemts at giving explanations for real stuff, I'd say probably not. Which deity the creator would be is also something for which no convincing argument has been heard, and how come that deity existed in the first place? Turtles all the way down?
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
05-12-2005, 13:56
...and there's no way in lala-land we can disprove an omnipotent fairy-tale creature that moves in mysterical ways.
One got to love when typo meet poetry ~D
~:cheers:
Louis,
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.