NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you think the world came about? Was it by a superior being, or from a giant explosion that sent matter flying into each other which created the stars and galaxies and planets.

Side A: Evolution/Big Bang

This has been proven...to some extent, evoluton does have a vaild claim, so does the big bang, yet how did the big bang happen anyway, and where did the matter to produce the bang come from?

Side B: Creationism

This also has some decent merit, though being an athiest I dismiss the ideology that a "God" created the universe, however a superior being creating the universe and creating hman kind does seem kind of unlikely...

Anyway all opinions are being accepted, probably most of you come from free nations where freedom of speech and expression is perfectly legal so feel free to join in.

i must say that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive

Evolution, of course. The Big bang was created because the negative energy in the quantum vacuum, a hole in the universal nothing, a void in the void if you want so.

i must say that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive

I must say that evolution and creation are not mutally exclusive.

However, the idea of Creationism is based entirely on the idea that evolution is wrong.

However, the idea of Creationism is based entirely on the idea that evolution is wrong.
Hmm?
I thought there were people that believed God created the Earth and evolution and all that?
Or does that not fall under creationism?

How do you think the world came about? Was it by a superior being, or from a giant explosion that sent matter flying into each other which created the stars and galaxies and planets.


Both of course. God just sort of started the ball rolling!

Hmm?
I thought there were people that believed God created the Earth and evolution and all that?
Or does that not fall under creationism?

No, that falls under creation.

Creationism is the belief that everything in Genesis is absolutely literal and can be scientifically proven.

No, that falls under creation.

Creationism is the belief that everything in Genesis is absolutely literal and can be scientifically proven.
Ahh, I had terms confused.
It all makes much more sense now.

Hmm?
I thought there were people that believed God created the Earth and evolution and all that?
Or does that not fall under creationism?
Nope. That's more along the lines of TE or Evolutionary Creationism, which, despite its name, is not creationism. Which one depends on whether one feels that the process of evolution was guided or not.

Evolution, of course. The Big bang was created because the negative energy in the quantum vacuum, a hole in the universal nothing, a void in the void if you want so.
If void is the absense of all things, then how is there energy? energy=matter so therefore, there is no void

Another one of these threads?. Why not just latch onto an existing one. Also, they are both wrong. I created the universe 20 minutes ago for the sole purpose of writing this message. I shall promptly destroy it.

The Keebler Elves baked the universe in their trans-dimensional cookie kitchen.

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.

So you're backing me up right?. I made the universe to be as unusual as possible whilst still seeming to make sense.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.

What about archaeopteryx? The lobe-fin fish, Eusthenopteron?

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.
And what cave did you crawl out? Is there the remote possibility that you get your information from very, very biased sources? Else you could show them.

Does it really matter? all that matters are that people are happy with what they believe in, no man has the right to take that away by saying that the other side is wrong.

Is there any possibility that "God" created everything with the Big bang? This is, of course, excluding the theory that someone created the universe 20 minutes ago.

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.


1. true, but you left a part out. the full statement is now 'energy cannot be created nor destroyed, EXCEPT in nuclear fission/fusion.
EDIT: i cant remember if it is just fission, just fusion, or both...

2. yes, nothing goes from chaos to order. However, entropy can be decreased if energy is applied.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
also, the whole the world was created in seven days bit could be true after all. we see seven days and think seven days; when in fact seven days to 'God'(depending on your religion you may have a different name for him) could have been millions of years in our time.

Evolution, of course. The Big bang was created because the negative energy in the quantum vacuum, a hole in the universal nothing, a void in the void if you want so.
Which has nothing to do with evolution

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

You misunderstand the physics rules. Energy *can* be created from matter. It is the total sum of energy and matter that cannot change.

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.

There is no such law. The only law is that, in a closed system, the entropy must remain the same or increase. The Earth is not a closed system.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.

(a) Scientists do not teach any theory as fact.
(b) Those hoaxes which have actually been disproven have been removed from the theory.

(c) Try doing your own research instead of accepting some propoganda you read off a website - or maybe a bathroom wall.

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.
First 2 points have nothing to do with evolution

And for 3 have any evidence?

Does it really matter? all that matters are that people are happy with what they believe in, no man has the right to take that away by saying that the other side is wrong.

...but only science can be taught in a science classroom.

First 2 points have nothing to do with evolution

And for 3 have any evidence?


Good point.

...but only science can be taught in a science classroom.
Yup

People seem to get confused ... thoes arguing that creationism should not be taught in a science classroom are not arguing that it should not be taught

Rather it should be put where it belongs ... theology or philosophy (or another social area)

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?


that applies equally to creationism...

If energy can be neither created nor destroyed, how did god create a universe?

who created god?

just before this goes any farther, i hope everyone realizes that this isn't going to go anywhere. :headbang:

Rather, Creationism could be taught as a theory, just as Evolution is. Nothing can be proven as fact because we cannot go back in time.

just before this goes any farther, i hope everyone realizes that this isn't going to go anywhere. :headbang:
then it cant go any further, so your post was pointless

Rather, Creationism could be taught as a theory, just as Evolution is. Nothing can be proven as fact because we cannot go back in time.
Creationism is not a scientific theory either (if it was I wouldent be arguing)

that applies equally to creationism...

If energy can be neither created nor destroyed, how did god create a universe?

who created god?


Nothing. If you were theologically literate, you would know that.

Rather, Creationism could be taught as a theory, just as Evolution is. Nothing can be proven as fact because we cannot go back in time.

Not in a science class, as creationism does not follow the scientific method. In fact, the only way Creationism could be used in a science class is to teach the students what constitutes bad science.

People need to go back and reread the first chapter of their high school textbooks where the differences between the layman's use of the word "theory" and the actual definition of a scientific theory are enumerated. A scientific theory is not just "I have an idea!"

then it cant go any further, so your post was pointless

not pointless, just redundant. you also misunderstood me, i was merely stating that no matter how much we argue, no one will have a different opinion.

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.

1. I believe the current theory is the destruction of matter/anti-matter within the first seconds of the universes existence. However, you have to understand that the 'laws' of physics get thrown out the window here.

2. No. Wrong. Read the law (second law of thermodynamics), and realise that it is talking about a closed system. Order can arise (and does arise) from disorder, but only at the expense of energy from the rest of the universe.

3. No. I can get you a nice list of them if you want.

Not in a science class, as creationism does not follow the scientific method. In fact, the only way Creationism could be used in a science class is to teach the students what constitutes bad science.

People need to go back and reread the first chapter of their high school textbooks where the differences between the layman's use of the word "theory" and the actual definition of a scientific theory are enumerated. A scientific theory is not just "I have an idea!"


Then what is it, pray tell?

Not in a science class, as creationism does not follow the scientific method. In fact, the only way Creationism could be used in a science class is to teach the students what constitutes bad science.

People need to go back and reread the first chapter of their high school textbooks where the differences between the layman's use of the word "theory" and the actual definition of a scientific theory are enumerated. A scientific theory is not just "I have an idea!"
Which is why I had my “not a scientific theory” comment :)

In scientific method you cant start with the conclusion (creationism puts forth a conclusion which is not allowed to be false) then finds evidence only to support that theory.

Not correct method
(I know you understand depub just expanding)

Then what is it, pray tell?
the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


One is the scientific definition, six is the common one.

1. Energy cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. That being said where did the energy from the big bang come from?

2. It is a law of physics that nothing goes from chaos to order. The big bang theroy goes completely contrary to a law that scientists (Issac Newton I believe) have put in place.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.
1 The laws of physics don't come into effect until after the big bang.

2 See number one.

3 There are plenty. You need to read some books not written as propaganda by creationists.

Then what is it, pray tell?
A hypothesis that is taught as a conclusion which does NOT follow the scientific method (if it did it would be tested for validity and if enough evidence supported it, it would become a theory if not it would be dropped)

Then what is it, pray tell?

Creationism?

It's an idea that a lot of people believe in without any real reason to do so other than "My preacher said so."

the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


One is the scientific definition, six is the common one.


Yup notice why I added “scientific” as a qualifier

It is a theory just not a scientific one

Maybe if people weren't so biased against the bible/christianity/theology/religion in general, this argument would have a point, possibly. Just because what the bible says can't be "proven", as the argument here seems to be, doesn't mean it didn't happen. :headbang:

A hypothesis that is taught as a conclusion which does NOT follow the scientific method (if it did it would be tested for validity and if enough evidence supported it, it would become a theory if not it would be dropped)

Bleh. Stop beating me to the point! =)

Ok, you can continue.

Creationism?

It's an idea that a lot of people believe in without any real reason to do so other than "My preacher said so."


I meant theory. If it is not someone having an idea about something, than what is it? usually you can't have a theory without someone having an idea.

Maybe if people weren't so biased against the bible/christianity/theology/religion in general, this argument would have a point, possibly. Just because what the bible says can't be "proven", as the argument here seems to be, doesn't mean it didn't happen. :headbang:
Does not mean it did either

I meant theory. If it is not someone having an idea about something, than what is it? usually you can't have a theory without someone having an idea.
See my definition of it...

I have a feeling this is going nowhere fast, and that I seem to be contributing to the void. My apologies for my ignorance.

I meant theory. If it is not someone having an idea about something, than what is it? usually you can't have a theory without someone having an idea.
Still does not make it a scientific theory (theory and scientific theory are two different things) theory is generally number 6 (on CSW’s posting of dictionary.com)

Scientific theory is generally number 1 on that same post

Bleh. Stop beating me to the point! =)

Ok, you can continue.
:-) :fluffle:

I have a feeling this is going nowhere fast, and that I seem to be contributing to the void. My apologies for my ignorance.
Its fine lol its just an online forum and we like to argue :) hell half the time I argue the other side of the story (who better to poke a hole in a theory then one that believes in it) sort of idea

Maybe if people weren't so biased against the bible/christianity/theology/religion in general, this argument would have a point, possibly. Just because what the bible says can't be "proven", as the argument here seems to be, doesn't mean it didn't happen. :headbang:

It has nothing to do with bias. If something does not follow the scientific method, it cannot be taught as science. It has nothing to do with what you wish to believe. If you wish to believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago, you could do so - but it would be a non-testable hypothesis and thus would be non-scientific.

Meanwhile, anyone who has done an in-depth study of the theology involved knows that there are two separate creation stories in Genesis. A few people have tried to reconcile them, but without much success. Which do you adhere to?

I meant theory. If it is not someone having an idea about something, than what is it? usually you can't have a theory without someone having an idea.

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly backed up by evidence. However, it is falsifiable. If evidence to the contrary arises, the theory is either scrapped or changed.

It has nothing to do with bias. If something does not follow the scientific method, it cannot be taught as science. It has nothing to do with what you wish to believe. If you wish to believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago, you could do so - but it would be a non-testable hypothesis and thus would be non-scientific.

Meanwhile, anyone who has done an in-depth study of the theology involved knows that there are two separate creation stories in Genesis. A few people have tried to reconcile them, but without much success. Which do you adhere to?


Are you speaking of Adam and eve, and then the Noah sotry? I adhere to both, in that case. Unless you are speaking of another one that I might not have read about?

It has nothing to do with bias. If something does not follow the scientific method, it cannot be taught as science. It has nothing to do with what you wish to believe. If you wish to believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago, you could do so - but it would be a non-testable hypothesis and thus would be non-scientific.

Meanwhile, anyone who has done an in-depth study of the theology involved knows that there are two separate creation stories in Genesis. A few people have tried to reconcile them, but without much success. Which do you adhere to?
And we can move beyond that … what about other religions creation story (they are not creationists per se … look at the definition of creationism if you (non specific you) are wondering) creationism is the belief in ONLY the bible story

(ok going to post it cause people will be too lazy to look it up)


cre•a•tion•ism P Pronunciation Key (kr - sh -n z m)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Are you speaking of Adam and eve, and then the Noah sotry? I adhere to both, in that case. Unless you are speaking of another one that I might not have read about?
Noah is not a creation story

Why assume an "either-or" relationship between creationism and evolution? There is some evidence in the Genesis creation accounts for evolution, and St. Augustine's doctrine on seminal reasons can accomodate a doctrine of evolution.

Are you speaking of Adam and eve, and then the Noah sotry? I adhere to both, in that case. Unless you are speaking of another one that I might not have read about?

No. There is the priestly (6 days creation), immediately followed by the Adam and Eve creation story which was written by a different author, with a different tone, to convey a different point.

There are several inconsistencies between the two.

Are you speaking of Adam and eve, and then the Noah sotry? I adhere to both, in that case. Unless you are speaking of another one that I might not have read about?
Two accounts of the first creation showing god creating stuff in a different order each time.

Why assume an "either-or" relationship between creationism and evolution? There is some evidence in the Genesis creation accounts for evolution, and St. Augustine's doctrine on seminal reasons can accomodate a doctrine of evolution.
Read my definition of creationism … now I have not seen the proof that the literal interpretation from the bible allows for evolution

Noah is not a creation story


In a way it is because nearly on the earth died, and the land was changed some. Ok, so maybe not. I am just having trouble dechipering what he means.

In a way it is because nearly on the earth died, and the land was changed some. Ok, so maybe not. I am just having trouble dechipering what he means.
(btw depub is a girl) and she posted the answer (I know you probably posted fast and did not see it ... posts are comin fast)

No. There is the priestly (6 days creation), immediately followed by the Adam and Eve creation story which was written by a different author, with a different tone, to convey a different point.

There are several inconsistencies between the two.


ah. that is but one creation story. You notice that in those 6 days, he also created Man, and out of man created women. And while they may have been written by different authors, they do convey the same point that God created everything.

ah. that is but one creation story. You notice that in those 6 days, he also created Man, and out of man created women. And while they may have been written by different authors, they do convey the same point that God created everything.
But again creationism is the LITTERAL translation belief NO leeway … those few errors in that very short story should make all the difference

ah. that is but one creation story. You notice that in those 6 days, he also created Man, and out of man created women. And while they may have been written by different authors, they do convey the same point that God created everything.
But again creationism is the LITTERAL translation belief NO leeway … those few errors in that very short story should make all the difference

ah. that is but one creation story. You notice that in those 6 days, he also created Man, and out of man created women. And while they may have been written by different authors, they do convey the same point that God created everything.

Wrong. People believe this due to mistranslations and the idea that their preachers told them that the stories are contiguous.

In the first story, human beings are made male and female concurrently.

In the second story, all animals are made *after* man but *before* woman (very different from the first story. There are other inconsistencies as well.

There is also a difference in the tone of the two stories. The first is meant to convey two ideas: 1-God is all-powerful and 2-Humankind is the pinnacle of creation.

The second is meant to convey that all, including woman, was made for man. It also portrays God as *not* being all-powerful and even making mistakes sometimes.

not pointless, just redundant. you also misunderstood me, i was merely stating that no matter how much we argue, no one will have a different opinion.
i understood you perfectly

i just chose to interpret it differently

Nothing. If you were theologically literate, you would know that.
so...he just appeared one day?

but energy can be neither created or destroyed...so thats impossible


although did Einstein not say that energy can be created from matter (e=mc2 and all that)...and thats what nuclear physics is all about?

Energy and matter are made of the same whatever the fricking hell they're made of.

i must say that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive

Debatable. The problem with merging the two is the question on testing the existence of God.

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found save for the few forgeries that desperate scientists crafted (i.e. Neanderthal was a normal human being with advanced scoliosis, the model for Cro-Magnon man was made from an inch of what was later determined to be the skull of a pig, and another one [I forget specifically] what a human jaw grafted onto a gorilla skull.) They have all been disproven but scientists still teach them as fact.

I see 1 and 2 being discussed so I will take on 3.

You can't really dismiss it because you have to have the right conditions in order to preserve bones, etc.

Now Neanderthal. Scoliosis? Ok how does that make it a forgery? Ever examine the cranial capacity of the Neanderthal vs everybody else? Now lets not forget they found Neanderthals in France, Germany, Portugal, and Israel. Neanderthals placement is debated in itself. Was he a progression of our evolution or was he some strange offshoot that was absorbed or wiped out.

There is even recent evidence to suggest they traded with Homo Sapians.

Cro-Magnon man was never a forgery. You are thinking of the Piltdown man which everybody(well except the people that hold the bones) says it is. It was made from the jawbone of a pig and the skull of a Orangutan.

So you are mistaken to say that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon are forgies that are being taught as facts.

The (non-scientific) theory that creationism proposes is inherently unable to be proven in accordence with Christian doctrine.

(1) Jesus asks us to accept god in faith, not from reason or logic. (Romans 14:23, Hebrews 11:6, Mark 11:23)
(2) The bible is either written or inspired by god, and in either case it is an extension of god.
(3) Since we must accept god in faith and without proof, we must accept all of his extensions, the bible included without proof, for they are a part of him.
(4) Genesis and the story of creation are part of the bible, and thus an extension of god, so we must accept them on faith as well.
(5) Any attempt to justify or prove anything is mutually exclusive with faith in given thing.
(6) Therefore, any attempt to justify or prove the story of genesis is in direct conflict with god's will and Christain doctrine.

This argument can also be used to prove that any proof of the christian god is un-christian. Oh, the irony.

I'm an atheist, by the by.

Of course there are faults to both sides, Evolution: How did the matter to create the bang get there

Creationism: How do you explain the parts of the Bible that have been proven to be fake, and explain that the dinosours existed before "God" created humans...

Of course there are faults to both sides, Evolution: How did the matter to create the bang get there

Try again. The Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

Try again. The Big Bang has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

meh, true... I was just trying to make a point, when evolution/creationism are broken down into smaller and smaller components, i.e. Humans=Monkeys, Monkeys=Small Mammal, Small Mammal=Microbe, Microbe=?, if you're a creationist this formula is completly different such as Humans=Earthy figure of God, God=?.

Of course there are faults to both sides, Evolution: How did the matter to create the bang get there

Creationism: How do you explain the parts of the Bible that have been proven to be fake, and explain that the dinosours existed before "God" created humans...


What parts of the Bible have been proven to be fake?

In the beginning God created everything. The last thing he created was Man.

In Genesis it talks about strange looking creatures that roamed the Earth. In Revelations it also does. In various spots in the Bible it also talks about different strange creatures. These creatures can in fact be what we know today as "dinosaurs"

:: sarcasm :: I just love how people here feel the need to say

"i'm an atheist btw"

Say what you have to say. You being an atheist doesn't really show what you really believe in.

Allow me to pose the simple conjecture that you are all wrong.

The universe was neither created from the so-called "Big Bang" or by some mystical being whom I shall call "God" (a la "creationism"). The universe as it is, is just is. It is an unchanging medium upon which all changes are manifest. The universe is not the createe, but the creator. In essence, for those seeking a higher form of clarification, the universe IS God.

Disprove that bitches!

What parts of the Bible have been proven to be fake?

In the beginning God created everything. The last thing he created was Man.

In Genesis it talks about strange looking creatures that roamed the Earth. In Revelations it also does. In various spots in the Bible it also talks about different strange creatures. These creatures can in fact be what we know today as "dinosaurs"

Not valid. What creatures are they talking about?

To some cultures a horse is strange looking.

A bear would look strange to an African.

A sloth.......

Allow me to pose the simple conjecture that you are all wrong.

The universe was neither created from the so-called "Big Bang" or by some mystical being whom I shall call "God" (a la "creationism"). The universe as it is, is just is. It is an unchanging medium upon which all changes are manifest. The universe is not the createe, but the creator. In essence, for those seeking a higher form of clarification, the universe IS God.

Disprove that bitches!

Arguement is based on Faith.

How would you test your hypothesis? How do you prove or even disprove it?

What evidence do you have that suggests it's true?

In the beginning God created everything. The last thing he created was Man.

until you get to chapter two. at which point man gets created before plants, animals, and human females.

Rather than try once again to go blow by blow on the points that Inflamus or whatever his name was, I will simply reprint something I wrote a few weeks ago which should cover the situation nicely.

As a side note, I was pleased to note that Bottle gave this her seal of approval, so the example contained within is officially a-o-k.

********************************************************
Well, there are a few arguments, but all of them can be fairly easily debunked.

For starters, there is the standard Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. It's odd that this one is still trotted out, given that it's been refuted decisively for about 250 years now (David Hume debunked it during the time of the American Revolution, people). Basically, this is the argument that "Well, the universe must have a cause, and only God must have a cause, therefore God exists." This I think is what, in fairly primitive form, all those people who were critiquing the Big Bang Theory (which is odd, as the Big Bang theory, of all theories, leaves the widest gap for the existence of God) were talking about when they talked about how "you don't know what happened before the big bang, so nyah!", as well as the Pales' Watch Argument, and so on.

Basically, the counterargument goes something like this:

Dramatis Personae:
Secularist Devil
Knight of Faith

Act 1, Scene 1:

KoF: God created the Earth!
SD: How do you know this?
KoF: Everything must have a cause, and only God could be the cause of everything, therefore God exists!
SD: So what created God?
KoF: What do you mean what created God?
SD: Well, if everything has a cause, and God exists, then God must have a cause. . .
KoF: . . .Er, God created himself. Yeah, that's it!
SD: If God has the ability to create himself, why can't the universe have that same power?
KoF: . . .Let's change the subject.
End scene

Simply put, the Cosmological "causal" argument just doesn't hold up very well, because in order to make it work, you have to assume (arbitrarily) that the causal chain stops at God. However, so long as you're being arbitrary about it, the causal chain can just as easily stop at the universe itself. God, therefore, is not needed nor sufficient to explain the existence of the world.

The other major argument I've heard runs something along the lines of how it is very improbable that the universe, acting on its own, could have spawned life. Some of the arguments run along the lines of how life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is the law stating that the general tendency of all things is towards greater disorder. Now, some other people have refuted this already, but I'd like to go for a deeper attack on this, so as to undercut the entire probabilistic argument altogether. First of all, the funny thing about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that it talks about a tendency, not an ironclad, irrefutable motion of nature.

Take, for example, a thought experiment involving a box with a divider that completely seperates two equal quantities of water. In one half of the box, I saturate the water with red food dye, and in the other half, I saturate the water with blue food dye. Then I remove the divider. Now, the natural tendency of the food dye is to merge and diffuse throughout the expanded container, so that eventually the water is a uniform purple color. This is completely in accord with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, there is also nothing that prevents those red and blue dye particles to, purely through random bouncing against other particles and water, to eventually return their old positions within their respective halves of the container, such that once again the water is half red and half blue. Statistically improbable for certain, but there is nothing in the 2nd Law to make it impossible.

Moreover, there is a funny thing about statistics that creationists tend to overlook, and that is that it is often the case that while particular examples of a phenomenon are quite rare, general instances of such a phenomenon are at the same time usually quite common. To give you an example, let's say, hypothetically, that later this evening, Bottle and I (her being a woman and I being a man) meet for dinner, hit it off, and have sex once. Again, remember, I am speaking of this as a hypothetical situation, so don't all of you bring in Bottle to have her e-attack me. Now, supposing this was the one time we ever had sex with each other (I wasn't the lover she was hoping for, or something to that effect), what would the probability be that precisely 27 weeks from today, Bottle gives birth to the child of that pairing? The odds, truth be told, are pretty slim. If even one of us was using protection, the odds of conception are already down in the 1 in 10,000 range, with both, almost too low to compute. Then you have to factor in the fact that the egg is only viable for one day in the entire 28 day cycle, and sperm can only survive in the vagina/uterus for 5 days, so there is only a 5/28 chance of them even being within the same area alive at the same time. Of those living eggs and sperm, very often they fail to meet, so the odds of actual conception are fairly low. Even supposing the egg becomes fertilized, there is a very high probability that (somewhere around 66-75%, IIRC) the fertilized egg will never implant on the uterine wall. Even if it does implant on the uterine wall, only one of three zygotes live past the blastocyst (sp?) stage. Supposing that it does implant, and it does live past the first stage to become a full-blown embryo, and further assuming that Bottle doesn't abort it, there is about an 80% chance that it will develop into a healthy fetus. However, it is fairly unlikely that it will be born in exactly 27 weeks.

What was the point of this story? Well, not to tick off Bottle (hope you didn't mind being the subject of that hypothetical example, B) so much as to point something out: it is extremely unlikely from a statistical standpoint that the particular incident in question, namely me having sex with Bottle sometime tonight, will have the effect of a baby sired by us arriving promptly 27 weeks later. However, would you then be willing to say, from this thought experiment, that it would be impossible for a general someone, despite having protection and the overall statistical unlikelihood of the event, from having a baby exactly 27 weeks later from such a pairing? Of course not; it probably happens far too often. As such, we can see that while individual, specific events are often very rare, a generic type of that event can still be, and often is, a very common occurance. The same thing is true from an evolutionary standpoint: while it is extremely unlikely that at some specific time x proteins y and z merged into amino acid w, that does not mean that it is therefore incredibly unlikely that at any time, two instances of proteins y and z did not merge purely by chance into amino acid w. In fact, it was almost cartain that at some point in history, they did. Perhaps to put it more strongly, a world where those proteins never combined would be far more difficult to explain than one where they did. If so, then probability theory alone can explain how the proverbial 747 got assembled in the junkyard of ancient Earth, and God is not necessary.

This isn't to say that God doesn't exist, but dagnabbit, if you all want God, you need to learn how to properly argue for his existence. Arguing against evolution doesn't earn you a hill of beans in that respect.

This has been done to death to death, but meh.

I'm an evolutionist because there is absolutely no proof for creationism except one book which has been/is:

1) Full of inconsistencies and errors
2) Been edited and translated many times throughout history

Because of that, evolution, with its mounds of evidence, is the most plausible theory.

That, and I'm an Athiest.

P.S. Nice post Xenophobialand!

I'm not usually one for replying to this sort of forum (Nationstates forums posters are so much more blatantly rude and can be disrespectful of any faith not conforming to their own) but I felt that I might reply to this particular post.

I won't argue for or against evolution against Creationism (In any form as you care to believe; I personally hold a middle view, while others I know hold the Young Earth Creationist view... look it up)

I just want you to think about a few points:

Life is exceedingly complex. I am studying Biology at university, and professors will not fail to emphasize this point. Even what we're taught here is simple compared to what is known (or unknown) about Life. In fact there is no simple definition for Life. For Life to occur, one needs the following:

1. Metabolism- Metabolism involves all the chemical reactions that produce the hormones, metabolites, intermediates and even toxins that our cells or unicellular organisms need to continue living, to reproduce or to escape predators. These processes are controlled by intricate positive and negative feedback mechanisms to maintain homeostasis. Homeostasis is determined by receptor and target cells, which are created during development by the instructions of proteins.

Now, proteins are coded for by the sequence of nucleotides in the double helix strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA for you middle high and high schoolers) and are created in a process called protein synthesis, which involves enzymes (also made of proteins) to open DNA strands for mRNA nucleotides to join their complementary DNA nucleotides, This mRNA strand leaves the cell and, on a ribosome, will receive amino acid groups attached to tRNA molecules that join their complementary mRNA nucleotides. The amino acids, once joined by peptide bonds, will form the primary structure of a protein, which will fold into its tertiary structure with the aid of noncovalent forces (Van der Waals, charge-charge, H-bond...). This tertiary structure may join others like it and form complex proteins.

Doesn't look too simple, does it? And that's only the simplified version, something I put together for this little post...

2. Nonrandom organization-- This is pretty simple, if you were to look up the Cell Theory (Schleiden & Schwann's theory that makes up the central dogma of Biology), you'd find that a) Cells are the basic unit of organization in an organism, there is nothing more fundamental, and b) all organisms are made of one or more cells. (also, c) ALL CELLS COME FROM PRE-EXISTING CELLS, but some of you choose to ignore that point :p )

Cells are structured, not randomly placed in an organism.

3. Growth must occur-- Obviously. Its somewhat mindboggling, though, from an ecological point of view that this first cell (or other spontaneous cells if that's what you believe) were ecologically 'fit' enough to survive and grow in the primordial seas when it was spontaneously created with DNA ensuring its survival. How did it get the nutrients and energy needed to sustain itself and reproduce? How did it use this matter as it did, when there was no pre-existing genetic information to 'tell' the cell how to use it?

4. A system of heredity and reproduction must exist-- Another obvious fact. But, meiosis and mitosis (along with cell fission and budding that those of you who know Biology would point out) are controlled by 'signals' (proteins, enzymes made in protein synthesis) and are essentially controlled by DNA. This DNA of the 'first primordial cell' just HAPPENED to encode the proper proteins for reproduction to happen?

5. A capacity to respond to the environment must exist.-- This comes to my last point (for now) This capacity to respond to the environment is, again (I know I keep coming back to this, but it's really important) partially determined by the genetic makeup of the organism. An organism can only live within its niche, and any of its abilities to receive sensory information from its surrounding (or environment) are a result of the sensory system. The sensory system is ultimately produced and encoded-for by genes in DNA, making the proteins necessary for all life processes to happen. Would the first cell have had the right 'blueprint' for all these adaptations in an unknown environment to occur?


In short, life is far more complicated than you try to make it sound. All I wanted to make you think about what you're arguing for/against. Citing websites or National Geographic won't cut it (It's a biased magazine, many professors will not accept is as acceptable material for references), but books or Scientific journals that explain these points I brought up would be welcome.

Thank you.


A reference to this is Botany, Introduction to Plant Biology, Third Edition. Mauseth, J. D. Page 10.

Biochemistry, third edition, Mathres, Van Holde, Ahern. Chapters 4-7. 2000.

Biology, sixth edition, Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece. Read it. Goes into great lengths about how you are incredibly wrong. I fail to see how your professors managed to skip over the entire small steps leading towards more complex organisms and how you have such an incorrect view of the mechanisms of evolution.

Well, I'm going to have to go with creationism because what started the matter that caused the big bang. And if there was a big bang how where early creatures able to produce since they had not yet developed sexual organs.

Well, I'm going to have to go with creationism because what started the matter that caused the big bang. And if there was a big bang how where early creatures able to produce since they had not yet developed sexual organs.
Asexual reproduction.

Well, I'm going to have to go with creationism because what started the matter that caused the big bang. And if there was a big bang how where early creatures able to produce since they had not yet developed sexual organs.

creationism is not the same as belief in a first-cause creator being. creationism means believing the the book of genesis is literally true.

and you are aware that most of the individual organisms currently alive don't have sexual organs, yes?

Basically, the counterargument goes something like this:

Dramatis Personae:
Secularist Devil
Knight of Faith

Act 1, Scene 1:

KoF: God created the Earth!
SD: How do you know this?
KoF: Everything must have a cause, and only God could be the cause of everything, therefore God exists!
SD: So what created God?
KoF: What do you mean what created God?
SD: Well, if everything has a cause, and God exists, then God must have a cause. . .
KoF: . . .Er, God created himself. Yeah, that's it!
SD: If God has the ability to create himself, why can't the universe have that same power?
KoF: . . .Let's change the subject.
End scene



Let's just say that any self respecting "Knight of Faith" would never claim that God created Himself, as they would believe that God never was created, but always existed.

This is simply a Strawman argument.



The other major argument I've heard runs something along the lines of how it is very improbable that the universe, acting on its own, could have spawned life. Some of the arguments run along the lines of how life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is the law stating that the general tendency of all things is towards greater disorder. Now, some other people have refuted this already, but I'd like to go for a deeper attack on this, so as to undercut the entire probabilistic argument altogether. First of all, the funny thing about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that it talks about a tendency, not an ironclad, irrefutable motion of nature.

Take, for example, a thought experiment involving a box with a divider that completely seperates two equal quantities of water. In one half of the box, I saturate the water with red food dye, and in the other half, I saturate the water with blue food dye. Then I remove the divider. Now, the natural tendency of the food dye is to merge and diffuse throughout the expanded container, so that eventually the water is a uniform purple color. This is completely in accord with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, there is also nothing that prevents those red and blue dye particles to, purely through random bouncing against other particles and water, to eventually return their old positions within their respective halves of the container, such that once again the water is half red and half blue. Statistically improbable for certain, but there is nothing in the 2nd Law to make it impossible.


You have a point that particles in water will move in a random manner, BUT you ignore the fact that in any unaided movement of particles (diffusion, osmosis with permeable membranes) that the random movement is limited by the concentration gradient of the fluid. If more particles are closer together (i.e. greater concentration of blue or red particles in one end of the tank) they will collide more frequently and will move randomly into an area of lesser concentration, so the 'disorder' of both colours of dye is maintained and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is followed.


Moreover, there is a funny thing about statistics that creationists tend to overlook, and that is that it is often the case that while particular examples of a phenomenon are quite rare, general instances of such a phenomenon are at the same time usually quite common.

Are you referring to the Rare Event approach? That was a pretty vague comment, but when a Rare Event happens, the statistical probability of it occuring again is extremely low that it may in fact be an extreme outlier in the Normal distribution. This means that they are still rare, no matter the case. . . and if they are not Rare, but "quite common" as you say, then it is no longer a Rare Event. And perhaps you should consider the statistical probabilities of the points I posted earlier.


To give you an example, let's say, hypothetically, that later this evening, Bottle and I (her being a woman and I being a man) meet for dinner, hit it off, and have sex once. Again, remember, I am speaking of this as a hypothetical situation, so don't all of you bring in Bottle to have her e-attack me. Now, supposing this was the one time we ever had sex with each other (I wasn't the lover she was hoping for, or something to that effect), what would the probability be that precisely 27 weeks from today, Bottle gives birth to the child of that pairing? The odds, truth be told, are pretty slim. If even one of us was using protection, the odds of conception are already down in the 1 in 10,000 range, with both, almost too low to compute. Then you have to factor in the fact that the egg is only viable for one day in the entire 28 day cycle, and sperm can only survive in the vagina/uterus for 5 days, so there is only a 5/28 chance of them even being within the same area alive at the same time. Of those living eggs and sperm, very often they fail to meet, so the odds of actual conception are fairly low. Even supposing the egg becomes fertilized, there is a very high probability that (somewhere around 66-75%, IIRC) the fertilized egg will never implant on the uterine wall. Even if it does implant on the uterine wall, only one of three zygotes live past the blastocyst (sp?) stage. Supposing that it does implant, and it does live past the first stage to become a full-blown embryo, and further assuming that Bottle doesn't abort it, there is about an 80% chance that it will develop into a healthy fetus. However, it is fairly unlikely that it will be born in exactly 27 weeks.


You're right, normal development should take about 36 weeks.

I'm also a bit concerned by these statistical values you're giving; sperm live about 3-4 days (those living longest are affectionately called "supersperm" ) But you're correct with the age of the egg before it disintegrates. The other stats, though, are debatable. Don't you think there are other factors at work than just 'random chance'? The body is a complex structure, and there are suspected chemicals it the body that may aid the zygote (which develops into a morula, then a Blastula , and gastrula, and on) to implant.

As such, we can see that while individual, specific events are often very rare, a generic type of that event can still be, and often is, a very common occurance. The same thing is true from an evolutionary standpoint: while it is extremely unlikely that at some specific time x proteins y and z merged into amino acid w, that does not mean that it is therefore incredibly unlikely that at any time, two instances of proteins y and z did not merge purely by chance into amino acid w. In fact, it was almost cartain that at some point in history, they did. Perhaps to put it more strongly, a world where those proteins never combined would be far more difficult to explain than one where they did.

Proteins don't 'merge' into amino acids, Xenophobialand, amino acids are linked together with peptide bonds to form chains of protein, which fold into a 3-D structure and may join other such folded subunits to create a complex protein .


This isn't to say that God doesn't exist, but dagnabbit, if you all want God, you need to learn how to properly argue for his existence. Arguing against evolution doesn't earn you a hill of beans in that respect.

I agree proper aguing is necessary, but if you hold certain premises in the fields of Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Statistical methods that are not well thought or outright false, then you should reconsider the argument and refine it to include the truth.

Information is the key.

This may be a bit simplistic, but here are my year 12 notes on evidence for evolution.

1. Paleontological evidence:
Phyletic change, ie the changes a single lineage undergoes over time. These changes continue until speciation occurs, such as in the case of the horse and its ancestors.
Cladogenesis is the splitting of lineages, as was seen in the finches of the Galapagos, where different species all came from a single precursor.

2. Transitional forms:
I already outlined this... The existence of forms between two taxonomic groups, suggesting that one evolved from the other- i.e. archaeopteryx., a featehred bird like creature with teeth and other reptilian characteristics.

3. Biogeography:
Where the climate and condiditons are similar, the organisms are similar, even though they are evolutionarily different. This is called convergent evolution. E.g. the animals and plants of England and Japan resemble one another.

4. Comparative embryology:
The theory that embryos trace the evolution of a species during their development- like human embryos having gill slits. (aka recapitulation)

5. Comparative anatomy:
Homologous structures exist across species. They have a common origin but may have evolved for a different purpose. E.g. The pentadactyl limb, present across mammals from humans, to bats, to whales. Also the presence of vestigial structures such as tail bones in mammals.

6. Biochemisry:
Homologies at molecular level are thought to imply common ancestry.- see cytchrome C

No, that falls under creation.

Creationism is the belief that everything in Genesis is absolutely literal and can be scientifically proven.

oh, i wanna see this "proof."

Biology, sixth edition, Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece. Read it. Goes into great lengths about how you are incredibly wrong. I fail to see how your professors managed to skip over the entire small steps leading towards more complex organisms and how you have such an incorrect view of the mechanisms of evolution.

I have it. It was my first year biology book, and I used it for 3 courses. I also have 7 other Biology textbooks; all are very pro-evolutionist, and all skim over other details that are puzzling to evolutionists.

Take Botany. The inconsistencies in the phylogenies of the algas and 'fern-like' plants are astounding, and poorly explained as of yet. And my prof is an evolutionist; he teaches Evolution and will never admit to anything else.

I'm not unfamiliar with the mechanisms of Evolution (I'm not sure if you're talking about Lamarckian evolution or Darwinian evolution, and the four principles of gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, and mutation, but I assure you, I know them)

Finally, I work in the Biology department in the summer, and for the evolutionist profs nonetheless!

Besides, do you really think a first year textbook would even consider giving out the inconsistencies with the phylogenies that 'prove' evolution?

I would, however, like to see where my reasoning is incorrect. Details and text sources would be nice.

oh, i wanna see this "proof."
Dempublicants never stated there was a proof, just that creationism believes there is one.

What parts of the Bible have been proven to be fake?

In the beginning God created everything. The last thing he created was Man.

In Genesis it talks about strange looking creatures that roamed the Earth. In Revelations it also does. In various spots in the Bible it also talks about different strange creatures. These creatures can in fact be what we know today as "dinosaurs"

That's funny. In the Adam and Eve story, animals are created after Adam.

Biology, sixth edition, Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece. Read it. Goes into great lengths about how you are incredibly wrong. I fail to see how your professors managed to skip over the entire small steps leading towards more complex organisms and how you have such an incorrect view of the mechanisms of evolution.

That's one of the books on my biology shelf!!

Ok, so it really isn't, I have the 5th edition, but yeah, whatever.

oh, i wanna see this "proof."

Yeah, me too.

Allow me to pose the simple conjecture that you are all wrong.

The universe was neither created from the so-called "Big Bang" or by some mystical being whom I shall call "God" (a la "creationism"). The universe as it is, is just is. It is an unchanging medium upon which all changes are manifest. The universe is not the createe, but the creator. In essence, for those seeking a higher form of clarification, the universe IS God.

Disprove that bitches!

Physicists have found that the universe's 'borders' are accelerating and expanding all the time. It's not unchanging. Thus, the universe would have to have started from a point, and should not have always been .

I fail to see how your professors managed to skip over the entire small steps leading towards more complex organisms and how you have such an incorrect view of the mechanisms of evolution.

What I described were not the mechanisms of evolution, but the basic requirements for something to have Life. If you indeed did think they were mechanisms of evolution, take a few more courses (Ecology, Botany, Genetics, Cell Biology, Biochemistry and Diversity of Life would do nicely) and help me out then.

Physicists have found that the universe's 'borders' are accelerating and expanding all the time. It's not unchanging. Thus, the universe would have to have started from a point, and should not have always been .
Though if the universe were cyclic that would solve expanding borders (yes I know argument against mass amounts and heat death but there is some cool new astrophysics going on out there that is showing that the “proof” of infinite expansion is not necessarily true yet either)
Anyways point is moot … the universe had to have some starting point even if it was not in this “cycle”

What I described were not the mechanisms of evolution, but the basic requirements for something to have Life. If you indeed did think they were mechanisms of evolution, take a few more courses (Ecology, Botany, Genetics, Cell Biology, Biochemistry and Diversity of Life would do nicely) and help me out then.
So your argument boils down to “you don’t know as much as me so meeeahh come back when you know more”

What a poor attitude … I personally find I can learn from anyone (even if it is only a general POV to start analyzing from)

What about archaeopteryx? The lobe-fin fish, Eusthenopteron?


You named three that might, maybe, could be these fabled creatures BUT there should be hundreds of thousands and over the course of the last billion years (or however long our beloved scientists believe evolution took) the planet should be a veritable gold mine of transitional forms.

So your argument boils down to “you don’t know as much as me so meeeahh come back when you know more”

What a poor attitude … I personally find I can learn from anyone (even if it is only a general POV to start analyzing from)

My argument is that if you're not familiar with basic Biology, Ecology or Chemistry, arguing for a point in those subjects becomes less reliable; you'd have less overall knowledge in the field and may not be aware of certain new developments that have changed scientists perspectives on how to approach the theory of evolution.

Nothing is concrete, not even the classification system. Public schools, due to underfunding, are not always up to date unless they happen to have very aware and proactive teachers that keep up with developments.

If I wanted the argument to '[boil] down to “you don’t know as much as me so meeeahh come back when you know more”, I could've just claimed so. I don't know how much Biology education you've taken; you might be in your 3rd or 4th year of a university Biology degree for all I know, but its easy to go with popular thought and accept everything they tell us as fact and then repeat it to others; that to me seems like a poor way to fight for your cause.

But I'm curious; did you at least read my original post on page 6, and did you at least give any thought to it?

My argument is that if you're not familiar with basic Biology, Ecology or Chemistry, arguing for a point in those subjects becomes less reliable; you'd have less overall knowledge in the field and may not be aware of certain new developments that have changed scientists perspectives on how to approach the theory of evolution.

Nothing is concrete, not even the classification system. Public schools, due to underfunding, are not always up to date unless they happen to have very aware and proactive teachers that keep up with developments.

If I wanted the argument to '[boil] down to “you don’t know as much as me so meeeahh come back when you know more”, I could've just claimed so. I don't know how much Biology education you've taken; you might be in your 3rd or 4th year of a university Biology degree for all I know, but its easy to go with popular thought and accept everything they tell us as fact and then repeat it to others; that to me seems like a poor way to fight for your cause.

But I'm curious; did you at least read my original post on page 6, and did you at least give any thought to it?

Yes I did but I choose to comment on your comment that boils down to “don’t try to tell me anything unless you have higher degree then me”

I personally am not a biology major (I am computer networking / Computer Information Security major) biology is not my strongpoint

But I do not need to know biology to reflect on your individual comments

So your argument boils down to “you don’t know as much as me so meeeahh come back when you know more”

What a poor attitude … I personally find I can learn from anyone (even if it is only a general POV to start analyzing from)
i saw his attitude as more comparable to saying "you don't appear to speak the language of science, so perhaps you should expand your vocabulary before claiming your definitions of words are scientifically valid, or trying to tell scientists what their terms mean."

saying that you can learn from anyone is an irrelevant statement by virtue of its extreme vagueness...yes, you can certainly learn things from people who know nothing about Biology, but you can't learn anything about Biology from them. a person who has majored in Biology isn't going to be able to learn anything more about Biology from somebody who hasn't taken a single Bio course.

Yes I did but I choose to comment on your comment that boils down to “don’t try to tell me anything unless you have higher degree then me”

I personally am not a biology major (I am computer networking / Computer Information Security major) biology is not my strongpoint

But I do not need to know biology to reflect on your individual comments

Ok.

The only thing I ask is that people don't use the wrong ideas to bash others on what they believe in; I've seen lots of Creationism bashing that has no scientific follow-up on why Creationism is wrong.

And I'm sorry that I sounded like an obtuse, know-it-all :)

(And sorry Bottle, I'm a 'She' :p )

i think his attitude was more comparable to saying "you don't appear to speak the language of science, so perhaps you should expand your vocabulary before claiming your definitions of words are scientifically valid."

saying that you can learn from anyone is an irrelevant statement by virtue of its extreme vagueness...yes, you can certainly learn things from people who know nothing about Biology, but you can't learn anything about Biology from them. a person who has majored in Biology isn't going to be able to learn anything more about Biology from somebody who hasn't taken a single Bio course.
Sure they can … you can gain new perspectives all the time … maybe not the end knowledge but people have the amazing ability to come up with fresh idea’s even in fields you think you are totally competent

Example
I am 1 semester away from my masters in Computer network modeling and was teaching an intro to computer course (169) and students come up ALL the time with ideas that I never considered before … I mean the end knowledge was not there but they come up with a unique WAN patter that I have never seen before or make an adjustment

They may not completely understand how it will effect the situation but it is the conceptual idea that I learn all the time (just like with kids fresh minds having a fresh viewpoint can teach you volumes if you listen)

Ok.

The only thing I ask is that people don't use the wrong ideas to bash others on what they believe in; I've seen lots of Creationism bashing that has no scientific follow-up on why Creationism is wrong.

And I'm sorry that I sounded like an obtuse, know-it-all :)
That’s ok I tend to be the same way with computers … :) it happens in places you are comfortable with

Such is life

Wow! All these forums seem to end up in a kinda "I'm better than you, ner!" type standoff!

On the whole "can non-bio people teach bio students stuff" issue: I'm one of those university students learning all about this stuff, my non-bio minded family still give me new points of view to consider, but they do not actually teach me things - they suggests areas for further consideration/research, but not tell me the answers.

I do not believe that the world(/universe/creation/whatever it is we live in!) was created in 6 days as we know them. I do believe that God created it though. I cannot prove this. I don't feel the need to prove it. Everyone here as strong opinions & since both sides are impossible to prove (there is no evidence stating the world was not created in 6 days, or even just one! - if God created the world he could easily have created all the fossils etc that make us believe he didn't - I'm not saying that's true... just that it could be.) Why bother arguing?

Lets consider more important things such as which type of chocolate is best? White, milk or dark? Discuss in no more that 200 words! :)

What about archaeopteryx? The lobe-fin fish, Eusthenopteron?


You named three that might, maybe, could be these fabled creatures BUT there should be hundreds of thousands and over the course of the last billion years (or however long our beloved scientists believe evolution took) the planet should be a veritable gold mine of transitional forms.

Minable gold-bearing rocks are rare. Fossils are rare. (Rarer, in fact, because once weathered they're just particles of rock, while weathered gold-seams are still gold.)

It is so difficult to get a fossil, you know. Maybe not so hard to form (though it is fairly difficult), but to then be at (or very close) to the surface when the fossil-hunter comes round the corner looking for something interesting (and not still feet underground, already worn away, lost forever in subduction zones or in a vegetation-covered area that no-one has any hope of finding anything in) is near impossible. But there are so many that some have been found and a good proportion of them are possible transitional forms...

And just three were named by the prior correspondant, but that was in response to the assertion that "there are no transitional forms". A statement which is plainly wrong, unless you have issues with the level of proof for the above in which case we can discuss this aspect first...

That’s ok I tend to be the same way with computers … :) it happens in places you are comfortable with

Such is life

I'm not expert in anything, least of all computers :) I'm impressed though, a almost finished a Master's in computer science? Very cool!

I get along fairly well with the computer at the moment, but if computers in general began changing [gene] frequencies and devoloped into more complex machines, oh boy wouldn't my survival be threatened ;)

(Just noticed; accidently got logged in as Hectanooga, but I'm still Veaux de Poitiers!)

I'm not expert in anything, least of all computers :) I'm impressed though, a almost finished a Master's in computer science? Very cool!

I get along fairly well with the computer at the moment, but if computers in general began changing [gene] frequencies and devoloped into more complex machines, oh boy wouldn't my survival be threatened ;)
Actually computer networking (I will expand … at most collages networking is indeed lumped with CS but in our school it is a separate major (and therefore has separate graduate level classes as well) I am also 1 semester from getting my BS in Computer Information Security (emphasis on cryptography and network security)

I work fulltime for the collage I go to (dorm network coordinator) so I get up to 12 credits free a semester on top of the full time job :)

Physicists have found that the universe's 'borders' are accelerating and expanding all the time. It's not unchanging. Thus, the universe would have to have started from a point, and should not have always been .

Ah, you may think yourself clever, but you forget the second most important part of my conjecture - the changes we see take place on the unchanging medium of the universe. What we observe is not the universe itself, but the changes occuring on it. It is claimed that the borders of the universe are constantly expanding, then, pray tell, what is beyond those borders? Since the term "border" implies a separation between two things. The answer is - the universe! So, by simple deductive reasoning, the universe is not expanding, only our perception of it.

Some of you may be asking yourself why the most relevant part of the discussion is only the second most important part of my statement. Well, here's the answer - the first part of my statement, and the most important point, is that you are all wrong. Once you are able to deal with that fact, everything else will fall into place.

Mmmmm, pontification - another word for philosophical masturabation.....

You named three that might, maybe, could be these fabled creatures BUT there should be hundreds of thousands and over the course of the last billion years (or however long our beloved scientists believe evolution took) the planet should be a veritable gold mine of transitional forms.

Well fossilisation requires very specific conditions to occur, including very rapid covering of the body in silty soil... I cant be bothered looking into it, but it's NOT a common event. And I only cited TWO examples. ;) Nevertheless I'm sure there are more as I'm no expert on the matter.

"fabled creatures"- lol- irony...

I believe that God created everything by faith, but I'm not about to argue to anyone that I'm right. I really don't have any proof to back my views up. But at the same time, why is that that many people who believe in evolution try to push thier personal belief as fact? Neither of the two beliefs have solid proof behind them, so why get all pissy when someone else puts thier theory on the table?

Now on to the theory of evolution. There are a few problems with the theory that just make it kind of hard to swallow for me, maybe I'm just overlooking some things, but here it goes.

1)Where did the first living cells come from? I know that there are several theories that try to explain how they came about, but still, nobody can be sure. This actually isn't too important in making the theory work, but it's an interesting thing to ponder on.

2)According to the theory, A. Anamensis and A. Afarensis; A afarensis and A. Africanus; A. Africanus, H. Rudolfensus and H. Aethiopithecus; H. Aethiopithecus, H. Rudolfensis, H. Habilis, A. Rubustus, A. Boisai and H. Erectus; blah blah, blah blah, all the way to H. Neanderthanensis, H. Heidelbergenthis and H. Sapiens all shared time periods with each other. (The ones grouped within the semi colons, sorry if it's a little unclear.) Anyway, the whole point that I'm trying to make is that if evolution was a slow and gradual process over billions of years, why is it that the groups of human links in the evolutionary process overlap as much as they do?

3)The absence of intermediate species in the fossil records. In other words, those all important missing links.

4)The mathematical improbability of anything evolving to such a complex state from basically nothing, and the improbability of so many different variations of species evolving from one single original living cell.


It also amazes me how hard people try to make the theory work, everything from people constructing fake links in the human evolutionary chain, to people who believe that aliens dumped off space garbage and we evolved from it. I'm not saying that all people are this fanatical about the theory, and there are definately people who try to justify thier faith in God by making up silly stories and hoaxes. It just goes to show that there are people that put an amazing amount of faith in the concept only to fall flat on thier faces when thier bs is shot down. I'm really not sure that this paragraph has much to do with my disbelief in the theory. Just making a point that evolutionary theory can be just as much of an issue of faith or it's own little religion of sorts as anything to some.

That is all. Someone please correct me if I'm terribly wrong in some aspect of my ramblings.

Well, I'm not really a scientist, but I'll take a crack. I'm more than likely to be wrong here at some point, so please correct me if you see fit.

1. I believe it involves amino acids and chemical reactions of some kind. I'm not really an expert here, as you guys can see.

2. Also according to the theory, species adapt to their environment in order to survive better and thus have more time to reproduce. As these species spread, we have them adapting to different environments in the same time period. Granted it's not as clear cut as that, as there are some spacial overlaps too, but the point is that evolution is determined by more than time.

3. There are plenty of fossils for "missing links." Just not very good ones for humans that we know of.

4. Given the size of the universe, all the planets, the conditions, blah blah blah, the mathmatical chance of earth as we know it happening isn't really THAT small.

Once again - I'm not an expert. If you're looking for more authoritative answers to your questions, look elsewhere.

In retrospect, maybe answering this wasn't a great idea. :P

Yeah, me too.


wtf? i was asking YOU for the proof that you stated is there.

I'm not usually one for replying to this sort of forum (Nationstates forums posters are so much more blatantly rude and can be disrespectful of any faith not conforming to their own) but I felt that I might reply to this particular post.

I won't argue for or against evolution against Creationism (In any form as you care to believe; I personally hold a middle view, while others I know hold the Young Earth Creationist view... look it up)

I just want you to think about a few points:

Life is exceedingly complex. I am studying Biology at university, and professors will not fail to emphasize this point. Even what we're taught here is simple compared to what is known (or unknown) about Life. In fact there is no simple definition for Life. For Life to occur, one needs the following:

1. Metabolism- Metabolism involves all the chemical reactions that produce the hormones, metabolites, intermediates and even toxins that our cells or unicellular organisms need to continue living, to reproduce or to escape predators. These processes are controlled by intricate positive and negative feedback mechanisms to maintain homeostasis. Homeostasis is determined by receptor and target cells, which are created during development by the instructions of proteins.

Now, proteins are coded for by the sequence of nucleotides in the double helix strands of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA for you middle high and high schoolers) and are created in a process called protein synthesis, which involves enzymes (also made of proteins) to open DNA strands for mRNA nucleotides to join their complementary DNA nucleotides, This mRNA strand leaves the cell and, on a ribosome, will receive amino acid groups attached to tRNA molecules that join their complementary mRNA nucleotides. The amino acids, once joined by peptide bonds, will form the primary structure of a protein, which will fold into its tertiary structure with the aid of noncovalent forces (Van der Waals, charge-charge, H-bond...). This tertiary structure may join others like it and form complex proteins.

Doesn't look too simple, does it? And that's only the simplified version, something I put together for this little post...

2. Nonrandom organization-- This is pretty simple, if you were to look up the Cell Theory (Schleiden & Schwann's theory that makes up the central dogma of Biology), you'd find that a) Cells are the basic unit of organization in an organism, there is nothing more fundamental, and b) all organisms are made of one or more cells. (also, c) ALL CELLS COME FROM PRE-EXISTING CELLS, but some of you choose to ignore that point :p )

Cells are structured, not randomly placed in an organism.

3. Growth must occur-- Obviously. Its somewhat mindboggling, though, from an ecological point of view that this first cell (or other spontaneous cells if that's what you believe) were ecologically 'fit' enough to survive and grow in the primordial seas when it was spontaneously created with DNA ensuring its survival. How did it get the nutrients and energy needed to sustain itself and reproduce? How did it use this matter as it did, when there was no pre-existing genetic information to 'tell' the cell how to use it?

4. A system of heredity and reproduction must exist-- Another obvious fact. But, meiosis and mitosis (along with cell fission and budding that those of you who know Biology would point out) are controlled by 'signals' (proteins, enzymes made in protein synthesis) and are essentially controlled by DNA. This DNA of the 'first primordial cell' just HAPPENED to encode the proper proteins for reproduction to happen?

5. A capacity to respond to the environment must exist.-- This comes to my last point (for now) This capacity to respond to the environment is, again (I know I keep coming back to this, but it's really important) partially determined by the genetic makeup of the organism. An organism can only live within its niche, and any of its abilities to receive sensory information from its surrounding (or environment) are a result of the sensory system. The sensory system is ultimately produced and encoded-for by genes in DNA, making the proteins necessary for all life processes to happen. Would the first cell have had the right 'blueprint' for all these adaptations in an unknown environment to occur?


In short, life is far more complicated than you try to make it sound. All I wanted to make you think about what you're arguing for/against. Citing websites or National Geographic won't cut it (It's a biased magazine, many professors will not accept is as acceptable material for references), but books or Scientific journals that explain these points I brought up would be welcome.

Thank you.


A reference to this is Botany, Introduction to Plant Biology, Third Edition. Mauseth, J. D. Page 10.

Biochemistry, third edition, Mathres, Van Holde, Ahern. Chapters 4-7. 2000.
Sigh...if you wish.

1. Except you don't need half of that for simple life. Life as it is today is extremely complex, however, at its core it needs nothing more then a phospholipid bilayer, RNA and a handful of amino acids. You should know that. Chapters 18, 26, and the first 5-6.

2. First point is given, second is irrelevant, the cell theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis does not prove or disprove the cell theory. See the experiments of Miller and Urey along with chapter 26...

3. Light/chemical reactions (see chemoautotrophs, chemoheterotrophs) for the more complex ones, the first few could have used sulfur and iron to make their ATP, and its simply a matter of RNA encoding for a few genes (randomly assembled) that can splice and replicate themselves (ribozymes)

4. Nope, it didn't. It's debatable if they had DNA at all, but that's irrelevant. The important part is that it mutated so much and the copying was so inaccurate that the RNA/DNA changed so rapidly to allow all these neat things you see today to occur. Again, you should know this.

5. No. It would have the 'blueprint' for its own environment (or it wouldn't survive), but no plant, animal, or fungi has the 'blueprint' for every environment. We are adapted to the environment that we live in, much like a salt water fish would die in fresh water or a human would die near the hot sulfur vents at the bottom of the sea.


That's from my 'first year' book.

Yeah. I don't have time to read this all so I will say:

Evolutionism and creationism are the same thing, one is for a religous sect and the other for science answers.

I am to busy to get involved more.

But at the same time, why is that that many people who believe in evolution try to push thier personal belief as fact?

We try to push our belief as being the dominant scientific theory right now, being as much of a fact as the theory of relativity or the theory of plate tectonics.

Neither of the two beliefs have solid proof behind them, so why get all pissy when someone else puts thier theory on the table?

Because creationism is not a scientific theory, and should not be treated as such.

Now on to the theory of evolution. There are a few problems with the theory that just make it kind of hard to swallow for me, maybe I'm just overlooking some things, but here it goes.

1)Where did the first living cells come from? I know that there are several theories that try to explain how they came about, but still, nobody can be sure. This actually isn't too important in making the theory work, but it's an interesting thing to ponder on.

Yep, we're not sure... there are some hypotheses floating around which seem possible, but we don't know which one is right, if any.

2)According to the theory, A. Anamensis and A. Afarensis; A afarensis and A. Africanus; A. Africanus, H. Rudolfensus and H. Aethiopithecus; H. Aethiopithecus, H. Rudolfensis, H. Habilis, A. Rubustus, A. Boisai and H. Erectus; blah blah, blah blah, all the way to H. Neanderthanensis, H. Heidelbergenthis and H. Sapiens all shared time periods with each other. (The ones grouped within the semi colons, sorry if it's a little unclear.) Anyway, the whole point that I'm trying to make is that if evolution was a slow and gradual process over billions of years, why is it that the groups of human links in the evolutionary process overlap as much as they do?

Why wouldn't they? Evolution isn't a linear progression from Species A to species Z. Part of species A might split off into species B, C, and D; of which C over time turns into E and then F, while B dies out and D stays unchanged for a while; maybe a while later, splinter groups of D break off and form species G and H, which soon die out, leaving us back at D and and F; ...and so on. When we finally get to species Z, we'll look back and say "hmm, Z evolved from A," but in the middle there are side branches and dead ends, linear progressions and really branched trees, and so on. In that sense, no one species is a "missing link" - they're all missing links, and it's pretty damn difficult to figure out which ones were direct ancestors of us and which were just close relatives of direct ancestors. There really *isn't* a way to tell.

3)The absence of intermediate species in the fossil records. In other words, those all important missing links.

Um, there ARE intermediate species in the fossil record... for example, the ones you mentioned in your previous question... or, if you're looking for ones besides the human-ape transition, there's archaeopteryx, for one - the best-known and first transitional species...
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html has a much more complete list.

4)The mathematical improbability of anything evolving to such a complex state from basically nothing, and the improbability of so many different variations of species evolving from one single original living cell.

Heh. It doesn't seem to improbable to me, on the timescale of the three-some billion years that living things had to evolve. And again, the example I like - rolling a 536512146637435 on a 999999999999999-sided die is very improbable, but not if you roll the die 10000000000000000 times.


It also amazes me how hard people try to make the theory work, everything from people constructing fake links in the human evolutionary chain, to people who believe that aliens dumped off space garbage and we evolved from it. I'm not saying that all people are this fanatical about the theory, and there are definately people who try to justify thier faith in God by making up silly stories and hoaxes. It just goes to show that there are people that put an amazing amount of faith in the concept only to fall flat on thier faces when thier bs is shot down. I'm really not sure that this paragraph has much to do with my disbelief in the theory. Just making a point that evolutionary theory can be just as much of an issue of faith or it's own little religion of sorts as anything to some .

Oh, I'm sure there are some people that take it too far. They're generally shot down soon enough. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc. The theory goes on, it's well-founded enough so that no individual piece of evidence is crucial.

That is all. Someone please correct me if I'm terribly wrong in some aspect of my ramblings.

Sure, my pleasure. :-p

I believe that God created everything by faith, but I'm not about to argue to anyone that I'm right. I really don't have any proof to back my views up. But at the same time, why is that that many people who believe in evolution try to push thier personal belief as fact? Neither of the two beliefs have solid proof behind them, so why get all pissy when someone else puts thier theory on the table?Others have answered the main questions well. As for "Neither of the two beliefs have solid proof behind them", well the proof for Creationism is the Bible. Maybe you take it as gospel (pun intended) but it's not really proof. The proof for evolution is many, many fossils, experiments with drosphilia, observation of the variety of interrelationships of natural species, genetic analysis..., the list goes on. While there's 'wiggle room' in the proof (it's not 100% solid) until someone knocks holes in it, which I don't see as being imminent, it's the best place stand at the moment.

It also amazes me how hard people try to make the theory work, everything from people constructing fake links in the human evolutionary chain, to people who believe that aliens dumped off space garbage and we evolved from it. I'm not saying that all people are this fanatical about the theory, and there are definately people who try to justify thier faith in God by making up silly stories and hoaxes. It just goes to show that there are people that put an amazing amount of faith in the concept only to fall flat on thier faces when thier bs is shot down. I'm really not sure that this paragraph has much to do with my disbelief in the theory. Just making a point that evolutionary theory can be just as much of an issue of faith or it's own little religion of sorts as anything to some.Most people don't 'try to make the theory work'. If the theory doesn't quite fit and they think have proof that it doesn't then they're more likely to double check themselves, get a peer review and get the theory modified accordingly with their name attached. Finding some (repeatable/checkable) error in a theory is what drives most people in the field.
What you've got with the 'fake-makers' is someone who cannot get the proof they need for their varient of the larger theory (which has usually turned out to be wrong) and, in desperation or seeking glory of some kind, concoct that proof to prop up their ideas. This does not invalidate the larger theory itself, thought undoubtedly provide psychological ammo for those who reject it, and causes problems if further (honest) people build upon the tainted evidence. Bad science is bad for everyone but those who think all science is bad.

As for the 'aliens' thing, you're not talking about panspermia (the 'seeding' of life on Earth through natural deposition of organic and possibly even biotic compounds) are you? That's a competing theory to that of fully in-situ abiogenesis that I (personally) think isn't as likely, but it doesn't involve aliens and it doesn't affect evolution.

I don't 'believe' in evolution. I am of the opinion that it is the best theory that anyone has put forward. I don't 'faithfully' trust the associated evidence, but I do feel I can accept that the 'facts' that I do not personally have expertise in are being/have been presented by people who are/were peer-reviewed by equivalent experts with integrity. Show me some counter-proof and I will attempt to apply similar (not greater) principles to that new evidence also.

Yeah. I don't have time to read this all so I will say:

Evolutionism and creationism are the same thing, one is for a religous sect and the other for science answers.

I am to busy to get involved more.Well, I've seen people saying "I can't be bothered reading the 20 previous pages" and I've seen people saying "I won't be contributing to this thread any more" but to meld the two into one perfectly formed message is an art...

So what you're saying (assuming you ever get to read this) is that you want to post your POV but aren't bothered about anybody else?

:)

(And let the first part of my previous message explain my position on "evolution and creationism are both beliefs, get over it"-type statements.)

The thread is fallicious. Creationism is an idea that someone had thousands of years ago with absolutely no proof. Evolution talks about how DNA changes and changes through natural selection based on its environment. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life. It just tries to explain how life changes and adapts, that's it. There's nothing more spiritually profound. It doesn't either prove or disprove creation. It has nothing to do with creation. This is an OLD argument, it's fallacious, spurious and a ridiculous waste. With that said, I'm done wasting my time on it. I've got better things to do then to argue with the creationists who have no doubt taken up residency on this thread to vigorously debate anyone who supports evolution as a tenable theory.

'Nuff said. Have a nice evening all. :cool:

3. Transitional forms? They should be abundant but none have ever been found...

The world is filled with transitional forms. It's not like evolution ended a few decades ago and all life-forms on Earth right now are the final versions.

Actually Vynnland, evolution is concerned with the origin of life. It's just that that is the hardest question of all.

It's all the same seemless process from simple organic compunds (amino acids) right up to us.

But the question is how did the replication process begin? What were the conditions? It's for certain the first replicators weren't DNA as we know it but something that could evolve into DNA.

The origin of life was an environment of resources and conditions that allowed a molecule to produce identical (mostly) copies of itself. These copies would do likewise and compete with each other. Sometimes differences occur, molecules with advantageous changes would flourish.

We would never see these original molecules these days in nature, because after billions of years of evolution they wouldn't stand a chance.

If you're interested in this stuff I'd recommend The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. A friend of the late great Douglas Adams.

Saying evolution happened and is happening is not expressing an opinion, it is just the stating the facts which has been seen.
Creationism is the opinion of someone who has not seen the facts and who is trying to guess.

Saying evolution happened and is happening is not expressing an opinion, it is just the stating the facts which has been seen.
Creationism is the opinion of someone who has not seen the facts and who is trying to guess.

As an avid proponent of evolution and the scientific method, I have to say that stating that 'evolution happened' is not expressing fact, it is expressing opinion. The same as expressing that it did not. Speciation happen in lab environments (and the wild). Mutations happen in genes. Fossils exist. These are facts. What we extrapolate from these facts is idea and opinion. Especially considering that direct observation of the past is impossible, one is forced to use circumstancial and/or forensic evidence to theorize or model the past.

The difference between the two ideas lies in what they are based on. Evolution is based on the facts. It has to be to be considered science. It is modeled and adapted to adhere to any observable evidence and is required to withstand peer review and questioning.

This is in direct contrast to all other models (Especially Young Earth Special Creationism) currently existing for the explanation of the proliferance and diversity of life on this planet, which have not met those criteria and are often in direct dispute with the facts.

The current theory of Evolution (Natural Selection, and Diversity Origin), may be as close to fact as science ever gets, but it is no more fact than the theory of gravity or of atomic structure. The beauty of science is that a competing and more accurate Idea can come along at any moment and completely rewrite our understanding of the facts. Tomorrow some paleantologist could write a competing paper with a different hypothesis, different tests (or the same) and different supporting evidence (or the same), publish it, have it confirmed, and it be much simpler than darwin's (possibly even having evidence to conflict with it) and therefore more likely to be true. The chances of this are extremely small (in the googol:1 range), but they still exist.

As an avid proponent of evolution and the scientific method, I have to say that stating that 'evolution happened' is not expressing fact, it is expressing opinion.

unless by 'evolution happened' one does not mean that 'the theory of evolution is the exact mechanism of change that has occured', but rather that 'things have evolved over time' or more precisely 'the allele frequencies in populations has changed over time'.

The Keebler Elves baked the universe in their trans-dimensional cookie kitchen.
Yum!

I watched this program on PBS the other night and it described lizards living in Cuba. There are something like 500 diffrent types of the same lizard living on different mountaintops that evolved while the rest of Cuba was under water. Why would God create 500 diffrent types of the same lizard that all do the same thing? Or look at the different but same types of finchs that exsist. God got the ball rolling long ago then just sat back and chilled for the greatest reality TV show ever, because before the big bang programming in heaven was lame. Also, God created other lifeforms so he could switch stations...

In advance, I want to apologize for using some technical terms :P I don't know how else to describe some of these concepts. . .

Sigh...if you wish.

1. Except you don't need half of that for simple life. Life as it is today is extremely complex, however, at its core it needs nothing more then a phospholipid bilayer, RNA and a handful of amino acids. You should know that. Chapters 18, 26, and the first 5-6.

A phospholipid bilayer is composed, of course, by lipid molecules [Glycerol, fatty acids and phosphate molecule] and various imbedded or surface proteins. Non-polar lipid molecules in polar water will group together, so there's nothing wrong with that. It's a chemical rule. This 'simple' form of life could not live without the outside environment [i.e. as a closed system] no matter how simple or what method it uses to synthesize its energy. That's what transport proteins in the membrane are for.

Proteins are just not simple to make. That's what protein synthesis is for! And yes, RNA can control protein synthesis and replicate itself, but the problem is where that original RNA came from! If you assume that RNA can randomly assemble itself, then you'd be underestimating the importance of RNA structure and how it affects which amino acids are assembled in the peptide strand, how the charges and polarities of the amino acids interact and form stabilizing bonds, and how the peptide strand folds into a protein subunit, or how that subunit interacts with other units for making complex proteins!

Since these proteins were necessary for the cell to survive, how could they be made to precise-fitting shapes (because proteins won't serve their function if they don't have correctly shaped active sites) by 'randomly assembled' RNA? While some simple proteins will be formed abiotically, the text also says "under the right conditions they will be formed".


2. First point is given, second is irrelevant, the cell theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis does not prove or disprove the cell theory. See the experiments of Miller and Urey along with chapter 26...

The modern cell theory has 3 principles: 1) all organisms are composed of one or more cells, all which have systems of heredity and metabolism, 2) cells are the basic unit of organization, and 3) cells arise by division of a previously existing cell. Abiogenesis is contrary to the cell theory in its entirety. Louis Pasteur did some well-known experiments with broth, bacteria and a swan-necked flask to disprove abiogenesis, which for some reason is held as a popular theory of how life originated. Looking at the Miller and Urey experiement, I agree that many organic molecules could have been present early in Earth's history, as well as many lethal molecules. One thing about early experiments like that is that they keep the experiment under controlled conditions. The planet's atmosphere, even eons ago, would have fluctuated in temperature daily, reversing reactions. . .


3. Light/chemical reactions (see chemoautotrophs, chemoheterotrophs) for the more complex ones, the first few could have used sulfur and iron to make their ATP, and its simply a matter of RNA encoding for a few genes (randomly assembled) that can splice and replicate themselves (ribozymes)

Sulfur and Iron aren't used in ATP production, but that's besides the point. ATP production requires an initial investment of energy by the cell, which must come from somewhere. . . Genes, should they be randomly assembled, are unlikely to 'happen' to encode for the enzymes and proteins involved in glucose cleavage and production of pyruvate. . .

Just to lighten it up, I was told today the odds of randomly assembled genes, composed of 1000's of nucleotides in a specific order, are "About as likely as if you had all the parts of a dishwasher lying on the ground, and a tornado came by and put all the pieces together, with the machine fully loaded and ready to go" :D


4. Nope, it didn't. It's debatable if they had DNA at all, but that's irrelevant. The important part is that it mutated so much and the copying was so inaccurate that the RNA/DNA changed so rapidly to allow all these neat things you see today to occur. Again, you should know this.

The earlier organisms may not have had DNA, only RNA. You're right. Genes can mutate by environmental conditions and by errors in genetic replication. On a unicellular level, mutations are much more important than on a multicellular level; we ourselves are genetic mosaics, with some cells exhibiting recessive or dominant traits. Errors in copying increase the number of alleles (evolution) but are also likely to be detrimental or even lethal to a single cell. Coupled with the harsh environment this early cell is supposed to have been formed in, it's a wonder it could have survived!


5. No. It would have the 'blueprint' for its own environment (or it wouldn't survive), but no plant, animal, or fungi has the 'blueprint' for every environment. We are adapted to the environment that we live in, much like a salt water fish would die in fresh water or a human would die near the hot sulfur vents at the bottom of the sea.


That's from my 'first year' book.

I didn't say anything had the genetic background to adapt to all niches of the planet; a given organism has a fundamental niche, and it will not survive well outside of that niche. What my statement meant was that to survive, the organism must be able to respond to the stresses of the environment without risking disruption of metabolic reactions that are keeping it alive. It's basically adaptation, but to live in an environment, the environment must be within the boundaries of the niche. Non-fatal random mutations and character displacement allow organisms to exploit new niches, but the time frame for that should be much greater than the life span of a few, early cells living in hostile, unstable environments.

I don't deny evolution occurs. Evolution is defined as the change in the frequency of genes/alleles in a population over time. That happens whenever a child is born, or whenever a disaster affects a subset of a population. Gene flow and genetic drift have drastic effects on small population, like isolated communities.

Its the beginnings that are debatable! To say evolution v.s Creationism is not a good argument, because Creationism is an idea of how life began (though also trying to explain the diversity of life), while evolution [change in gene/allele frequencies in a population over time] describes why things are as they are, not how life began.


Biology, 6th Edition. Raven, Johnson. McGraw Hill. 2002.

Biochemistry, third edition. Mathews, Van Holde, Ahern. Addison Wesley Longman. 2000.

Essentials of Genetics, fifth edition. Klug, W.S., Cummings, M.R. Pearon Prentice Hall. 2005.

General Ecology, second edition. Krohne, D. Chapter 2. Brooks/Cole Thompson Learning. 2001.

Actually Vynnland, evolution is concerned with the origin of life.

What are you talking about? Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, those theories are entirely seperate. You have abiogenesis, panspermia, and a few others to choose from. THOSE discuss the origin of life, evolution simply tries to explain how life can change.

As an avid proponent of evolution and the scientific method, I have to say that stating that 'evolution happened' is not expressing fact, it is expressing opinion. The same as expressing that it did not. Speciation happen in lab environments (and the wild). Mutations happen in genes. Fossils exist. These are facts. What we extrapolate from these facts is idea and opinion.
Great, now all you need to do is apply natural selection and you will have evolution, which as you have just demonstrated as a fact. The matter of how long it's been going on is another matter. Evolution doesn't discuss the past, it just addresses how life can change through mutation and natural selection. If you want to address the past, then you have a different field called paleontology.

Great, now all you need to do is apply natural selection and you will have evolution, which as you have just demonstrated as a fact. The matter of how long it's been going on is another matter. Evolution doesn't discuss the past, it just addresses how life can change through mutation and natural selection. If you want to address the past, then you have a different field called paleontology.

:) Well, I'm not sure I'd completely agree with that; evolution does address how populations change through mutation and natural selection [and gene flow and genetic drift, and then you could consider the other theories in the field, some which say natural selection really only has a small part in evolution], but evolution also addresses the past. Without the study of the past, the theory of evolution would have less scientific proof; Darwin's expedition on the Beagle for 3 years involved studying fossils in South America.

If evolution didn't address the past, then we couldn't ask, "Why are the modern populations like as they are now? What factors were important in deciding what heritable traits benefited the offspring and increased their survival fitness?"

1. Actually, it could. You are forgetting that various substances can cross the membrane without a transport protein (H2O for example), and yes, you can make RNA very easily just from random combinations of various nucleotides, and quite obviously, the ones that work would be coded by the RNA. It's like taking the letters nucleotide and mixing them up until you get a legitimate word, its just a matter of time. As for your protein section, it really doesn't matter, as once again, you are forgetting the fact that once it works, it will become dominant and will reproduce millions of times over.

2. Pasteur did not disprove abiogensis, he disproved spontaneous generation (ie it doesn't come about every day, and in the conditions we have now). As for the rest, reactions don't tend to be reserved by temperature that easily, the composition of the atmosphere was relatively stable, as was the temperature and everything, and even those small fluctuations wouldn't do anything so drastic as to cause a 'reversal' of the creation of organic molecules, and lethal chemicals which may be lethal to use certainly wouldn't be lethal to them as they are adapted to live in an environment where the environment would be lethal to us.

3. You've obviously never heard of a chemoautotroph. Look em up. You're also confusing energy with ATP, energy can come from other sources besides ATP, many chemical reactions throw off tons of heat energy, and absolutely no one is saying that glucose was broken down at the beginning. A photoautotroph/chemoautotroph has no real need for glucose anyway (at least when unicellular) as the process produces ATP by itself...

4. Of course an error might be lethal to a single cell, but those errors over time in a large population lead to change...change that leads to what we see today in animals and plants. You're making the assumption that there was only one 'first cell', which is incorrect, as that first cell would lead to literally millions of 'second cells' (mutations would be in those). Many of those 'second cells' would die, but those that remained would be stronger/the same as the first, and so on.

5. The environment wasn't that unstable, and let's remember that they are adapted (created) to live in that environment, so they would be fine there. Remember, a hypothesis for the location of the first cells include down deep under the ocean, where water acts as a temperature stabilizer, and there is a continuous form of energy from the deep sea vents.

I am sick of this whole argument. :mad:

Teach evolution in schools and creationism in church.

1. Actually, it could. You are forgetting that various substances can cross the membrane without a transport protein (H2O for example), and yes, you can make RNA very easily just from random combinations of various nucleotides, and quite obviously, the ones that work would be coded by the RNA. It's like taking the letters nucleotide and mixing them up until you get a legitimate word, its just a matter of time. As for your protein section, it really doesn't matter, as once again, you are forgetting the fact that once it works, it will become dominant and will reproduce millions of times over.

Water doesn't cross membranes without transport proteins; they're called aquaporins, and they are proteins just as any other transport protein.

In fact, osmosis dictates that something is needed to regulate water transport in and out of a cell; a cell is hypoosmotic in water. If freshwater were free to move in and out the cell, water would rush in and cause the cell to swell until it burst.

Random bits of RNA could group together, but how much time do you think the first cell would have had to 'experiment'? An average single cell doesn't live long, and if it did not initially have the RNA sequence that coded for all of its needs, then it wouldn't survive. Only transposons 'juggle' around parts of nucleotide sequences; they cause serious defects and are responsible for many of our own genetic diseases. A unicellular organism would the nnot be likely to 'juggle' its sequence.

2. Pasteur did not disprove abiogensis, he disproved spontaneous generation (ie it doesn't come about every day, and in the conditions we have now). As for the rest, reactions don't tend to be reserved by temperature that easily, the composition of the atmosphere was relatively stable, as was the temperature and everything, and even those small fluctuations wouldn't do anything so drastic as to cause a 'reversal' of the creation of organic molecules, and lethal chemicals which may be lethal to use certainly wouldn't be lethal to them as they are adapted to live in an environment where the environment would be lethal to us.
Spontaneous generation is the formation of life from non-living matter {abiogenesis}. . . If you still do not believe me, http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0660500.html .

But why was this primordial atmosphere so stable? Wasn't electricity part of the picture in the Miller-Urey experiments? Electricity isn't something you get in stable, unchanging environments (though they're never like that), but when hot & cold air fronts collide, and unequal charges are present. Temperature probably wouldn't have been stable, and not all reactions are unaffected by small fluctuations in temperature, pH and catalysts in the atmosphere or ocean.

And adapation takes time! It's not an instantaneous, "I'm able to survive in this place, and, wow, now I can survive here!"

3. You've obviously never heard of a chemoautotroph. Look em up. You're also confusing energy with ATP, energy can come from other sources besides ATP, many chemical reactions throw off tons of heat energy, and absolutely no one is saying that glucose was broken down at the beginning. A photoautotroph/chemoautotroph has no real need for glucose anyway (at least when unicellular) as the process produces ATP by itself...

Your rudeness is astounding. Yes, I know what a chemoautotroph and a photoautotroph is. And, ATP is merely a molecule, but it's the removal of a phosphate group that produces the energy. ATP is an ancient molecule, made in our cells by mitochondria. If you didn't already know, mitochondria in our cells are thought to be an example of an ancient symbiosis between heterotrophic eukaryotic cells and photoautotrophic (or chemoautotrophic) prokaryotic cells. This ATP production and destruction has been used a long time; why not in the beginning? In any case, remember the equation for photosynthesis, i.e, what's in photoautrotrophs? CO2 + H20 --> C6H12O6 + 6O2, and ATP can come from the hydrolysis of glucose (C6H12O6)

4. Of course an error might be lethal to a single cell, but those errors over time in a large population lead to change...change that leads to what we see today in animals and plants. You're making the assumption that there was only one 'first cell', which is incorrect, as that first cell would lead to literally millions of 'second cells' (mutations would be in those). Many of those 'second cells' would die, but those that remained would be stronger/the same as the first, and so on.

If spontaneous generation is so rare and unreplicable an event as scientists will tell you it is, why would there be multiple 'first cells'? A cell, as I know you know, will divide to form two daughter cells. You're making the assumption that 1) a cell created abiotically and spontaneously is able to survive conditions it would have 'adapted' to, but adaptation requires time and previous experience, 2) the cells had a mechanism for reproduction (binary fission, maybe), and 3) environmental conditions don't change. Of course they do, just as we have seasons now, they were present then. The earth still rotated around the sun, and tilted on its axis. Tempratures fluctuated, and those cells probably did not have previous adaptations for that.

5. The environment wasn't that unstable, and let's remember that they are adapted (created) to live in that environment, so they would be fine there. Remember, a hypothesis for the location of the first cells include down deep under the ocean, where water acts as a temperature stabilizer, and there is a continuous form of energy from the deep sea vents.

I agree with you that the water would stabilize temperature. The way you are stating your fifth point, however, sounds like they were specially made like that, and with purpose (teleology). Cells don't 'decide' to adapt (anthropomorphism), nor do they do anything to acheive a purpose.

The compunds needed for life were available if you go with the atmospheric theory, but hostile conditions very likely existed. With the deep sea vents, all those compounds have not yet been found, but time will tell, I guess.

Simple, Creationists and Evolutionists both seek to define the debate in such a way that if the debate was defind as such, their side would be the winner. This intire debate is about how you define the debate.

YES evolution in the past can never be totally proven

YES national selection as a process has been shown to work in present time

YES God can never be factually proven and the definition of inteligent design is
non-static and thus provable from perpective only.

YES the universe has some unknown meaning and hidden fasits that can only be described as religious

:) Well, I'm not sure I'd completely agree with that; evolution does address how populations change through mutation and natural selection [and gene flow and genetic drift, and then you could consider the other theories in the field, some which say natural selection really only has a small part in evolution], but evolution also addresses the past. Without the study of the past, the theory of evolution would have less scientific proof; Darwin's expedition on the Beagle for 3 years involved studying fossils in South America.

If evolution didn't address the past, then we couldn't ask, "Why are the modern populations like as they are now? What factors were important in deciding what heritable traits benefited the offspring and increased their survival fitness?"
You can't have evolution without some form of selection. There HAS to be selection, or else there is no evolution, you only get random and short lived mutations. Sharks, for example. Sharks have had almost no natural pressures put upon them since they first came into existence, thus they have remained almost completely unchanged. No selection = no evolution. You don't have to have natural selection, but before man, there was no other kind of selection.

Evolution doesn't explain the past, it uses evidence throughout time as supportive proof. The study of the past is a different field of study.

And, ATP is merely a molecule, but it's the removal of a phosphate group that produces the energy. ATP is an ancient molecule, made in our cells by mitochondria. If you didn't already know, mitochondria in our cells are thought to be an example of an ancient symbiosis between heterotrophic eukaryotic cells and photoautotrophic (or chemoautotrophic) prokaryotic cells. This ATP production and destruction has been used a long time; why not in the beginning? In any case, remember the equation for photosynthesis, i.e, what's in photoautrotrophs? CO2 + H20 --> C6H12O6 + ATP, and the ATP part is from the hydrolysis of glucose (C6H12O6)
Just a nitpicky point, mitochondria does not make ATP. ATP is use by fast-twitch muscle fibers which use ATP (and no oxygen) as an energy source. ATP is made from creatine phosphate, glycogen, glutamine and a few other ingredients stored in our muscles.

Mitochondria uses oxygen (and no ATP) to fuel slow-twitch muscle fibers through the Krebs cycle. The slow twitch muscle fibers use an aerobic system as opposed to the anaerobic system fast-twitch muscle fibers use. They are almost completely seperate, and have almost no cross over at all.

Just a nitpicky point, mitochondria does not make ATP. ATP is use by fast-twitch muscle fibers which use ATP (and no oxygen) as an energy source. ATP is made from creatine phosphate, glycogen, glutamine and a few other ingredients stored in our muscles.

Mitochondria uses oxygen (and no ATP) to fuel slow-twitch muscle fibers through the Krebs cycle. The slow twitch muscle fibers use an aerobic system as opposed to the anaerobic system fast-twitch muscle fibers use. They are almost completely seperate, and have almost no cross over at all.

Thanks :) (Though isn't the nucleotide group adenosine, rather than glutamine? :p It doesn't really matter, I know!)

And the electron chain transport system that makes ATP is in the mitochondion too. . . That would be the reaction that needs oxygen, like you mentioned. . .and Kreb's cycle also takes place in mitochondria, making 4 ATP units and NADH/FADH2.

Great, now all you need to do is apply natural selection and you will have evolution, which as you have just demonstrated as a fact. The matter of how long it's been going on is another matter. Evolution doesn't discuss the past, it just addresses how life can change through mutation and natural selection. If you want to address the past, then you have a different field called paleontology.

The "Theory of Evolution" (what I was referring to) as part of the book The Origin of the Species, has two central points and a hypothesis derived from these. That species change over time (allelle shifting), and that the probabilities favor the better adapted over the lessor (natural selection). Derived from these central thesis is the theory that the diversity of life currently seen on earth can be explained by these two phenomenon.

I agree with this. I think it is true (certainly VERY close). I haven't ever heard of any evidence, ever, that even suggested it may be untrue. It holds up to every test we have yet come up with, it is defended by the fossil record, and seems highly unlikely to need updating ever. As scientists though, we have to fundamentally accept that EVERYTHING we know can change, sometimes in a single test. We must never become so dogmatic as to espouse a theory as being empirical fact, it is always one test away from being dismissed.

This is the fundamental difference between science and religion.

Most people accept that there are universal physical, maybe even spirtual, laws that govern the universe. People who believe in a creator-god argue from this that these laws had to come from somewhere, they had to be created. But that doesn't answer the question. Positing an all-powerful deity as the creator of the universe simply begs the question - where did he/she/it come from? The Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition (yes, it is one tradition) counters that God/Allah "is, was, and always shall be", but from a strictly logical point of view this doesn't hold any more water than the assertion that matter has always existed (hence the philosopher Spinoza equated God with the sum total of matter and energy in the universe).

It is important to distinguish between evolution and its mechanism, what Darwin called "natural selection". Evolution, the idea that all life on earth is descended from a single ancestor, is a theory with serious flaws, but it is a theory that explains the empirical data better than any other. Natural Selection, on the other hand, is fact. Scientists can grow single-celled organisms in a laboratory that have a very short life span and a very short reproductive cycle. They can "breed" these organisms for hundreds of generations in a few months or years. In these conditions, it is clear that genetic mutations occur and are selected "for" or "against", and the gene pool of that organism is changed. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of generations, it is believed that speciation occurs, i.e. that a new species will evolve. One need only consider the HIV virus, which has already mutated several times in the past 25 years and become more difficult to destroy.

Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is not a scientific thoery. It does not meet any of the criteria of a scientific theory. This is not to say that it is wrong, but that it is not scientific. If intensely religious people insist on fighting this battle in the realm of science, then they will lose. They need to argue that faith is more important with regard to issues like this than science. Or they can decide that the biblical account of the creation is metaphorical and not literal.

{"Pasteur did not disprove abiogensis, he disproved spontaneous generation"}
Spontaneous generation is the formation of life from non-living matter {abiogenesis}. . . Except that Pasteur's "Spontaneus Generation" (capitalised for clarity) was of the everyday transformation of dead meat into live maggots (for example) whereas the theory of Abiogenesis deals with the (uncapitalised) spontaneous generation of the first 'forms of life' from an environment totally devoid of prior life.

(And a lot of the difference is that we know these days a lot more about what is living and what is dead and how they relate to what is biological and what is not (very loosely, in that dead isn't necessarily not biological), and don't have a need to define a 'spirit' or essence of life that a lot of people used to believe in.)

The debate between evolution and creationism is not a debate over evolution in the sense of macro-organisms evolving over time, rather it is a debate over the length of time creation took to achieve. I honestly do not get hung up over the amount of time it took God to create the world. However, to say that out of chaos comes order is not very scientific. In order for something to be good science, it should be able to be duplicated in a lab. However, every single time that a bomb goes off, it leads to more chaos not order. Those are some of my thoughts on it.

Militant Protestant

However, every single time that a bomb goes off, it leads to more chaos not order.
The problem here lies in the fact that it is possible, though extremely unlikely, that when said bomb goes off, it will cause everything to form some sort of order. Now, usually it won't happen, but if done an exorbitantly large amount of times it becomes more and more probable that it has happened. Now, we can't know what happened before the Universe was created, so it may be the case that there were more of whatever the creation event is that we can even conceive of. It might be the case, it might not, but we can't ever hope to prove it. That's one of the reasons why neither siide can really prove the point on the issue.

Would it be more logical to conclude that the order that we enjoy on this planet originates from a Creator? DNA is complex and complicated to a degree that science has only begun to understand it. To say that the complexity of life on the planet as well as the order that can be found in every single facet of the planet is the work of the "cosmos" would seem to be the more illogical statement. The evidence cries out that there is a creator. I'm not here to discuss who the creator is at this point, but I want to point out evidence for a creator.

Would it be more logical to conclude that the order that we enjoy on this planet originates from a Creator? DNA is complex and complicated to a degree that science has only begun to understand it. To say that the complexity of life on the planet as well as the order that can be found in every single facet of the planet is the work of the "cosmos" would seem to be the more illogical statement. The evidence cries out that there is a creator. I'm not here to discuss who the creator is at this point, but I want to point out evidence for a creator.
TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
(2) Only God could have made them so complex.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

or

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), aka GOD OF THE GAPS, aka TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn't X amazing!
(2) I don't understand how X could be, without something else (that I don't really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can't come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Would it be more logical to conclude that the order that we enjoy on this planet originates from a Creator? DNA is complex and complicated to a degree that science has only begun to understand it. To say that the complexity of life on the planet as well as the order that can be found in every single facet of the planet is the work of the "cosmos" would seem to be the more illogical statement. The evidence cries out that there is a creator. I'm not here to discuss who the creator is at this point, but I want to point out evidence for a creator.Not necessarily. There's a lot of cosmos, there's been a lot of time that has so far occured in the cosmos. If anywhere in that cosmos, and at any time since its start, the dice rolled such that apparent order occured (and especially self-organising order) and started wondering about why it was ordered, then "because you got lucky and that's why you're here to wonder" seems to me a much better answer than "because of some external guiding entity that appears to have had no cause in itself". There's been a lot of time and space for that to occur. It's indeed improbable (though there's no precise calculation or evidence-based assessment about this statement, as yet) that Earth is the only place it has done. Never mind that there may be many other combinations of rolls than ours that produce equally enquiring minds...

I'm much more ready to believe that 'stuff' happened spontaneously, which then ended up forming us over in an obscure corner of the cosmos, than 'God' doing it all (with all the inherant contradictions). Not that I reject the second option (it just needs more 'sponteneity' than the first), but I've seen (and even made) systems that produce order out of apparent chaos.

For a system that's even evolving (though in a narrower sense of the term than any biological system) see the Darwinian Poetry (http://www.codeasart.com/poetry/darwin/html) experiment... Some of the more recent constructions are quite good. (The site is on a low-power link and/or machine, I think, so bear with it if it goes a bit flaky at times...)

e.g. completely at random, recent Poem #17130:
words nor content considered
here fervent
imagine humming forest the unleafing legs
everything now frozen strangely in question
for now everything sat

Not bad, considering how it's made... No 'aim' to it, though, save to follow the will of natural forces (the contributions by visitors of merely 'which poem is better').

There are faults with it, but they aren't the point. Maybe the poems aren't 'self-aware' in any way, or able to question their own existence, but that's because of the limited universe they inhabits, the limited building blocks and methods of interaction. Compare with our existence and you can see how our own universe has the components to construct us... All it has to do is do so, and there's evidence to suggest that it has done (apart from 'us existing', there's the historic findings showing how we came to be like we are from what we were, and the observations of physical and astronomical processes that show how that all came about over billions of years...)... Evidence that works independantly of any ineffable deity. Evidence that the deity could have planted, sure, but why make leaps of faith when it isn't necessary to do so and still have a coherent explanation?

Would it be more logical to conclude that the order that we enjoy on this planet originates from a Creator? DNA is complex and complicated to a degree that science has only begun to understand it. To say that the complexity of life on the planet as well as the order that can be found in every single facet of the planet is the work of the "cosmos" would seem to be the more illogical statement. The evidence cries out that there is a creator. I'm not here to discuss who the creator is at this point, but I want to point out evidence for a creator.
If complexity demands a creator, then who created the creator? Now you're stuck in an infinite regress.

However, to say that out of chaos comes order is not very scientific. In order for something to be good science, it should be able to be duplicated in a lab.

Would it be more logical to conclude that the order that we enjoy on this planet originates from a Creator?

Except that a Creator has so much LESS evidence for it than evolution. We can duplicate the first stage of so of abiogenesis in a lab - amino acids we can create, at least. We can duplicate the later stages of evolution in the lab - we can observe species splitting into two, we can observe species changing.
We can also simulate evolution of non-biological things, and see that indeed, it does result in complexity.

What can we duplicate in a lab to test the hypothesis of a Creator? Nothing at all. Hence, such a hypothesis has no place in science.

It's fine in religion, but not in science. And the study of evolution is science, not religion.

1. Water can pass through, it just can't pass though easily, and once again, no, it really wouldn't, not the first cell as it would be formed in an area where the cell contents would be isotonic to the surrounding environment.

Long enough (that is to say, by the time the next division comes around the RNA will be (mis)copied twice, hopefully able to work (better) in one of the two new daughter cells). You're right, it wouldn't live long, but the fast turn over rate and the high rate of mutation would create many genetic variants within a short period of time that would lead to at least some of the cells surviving, if not thriving.

2. Handled by someone else, but the point of the matter is, if it formed in an area, it can live in an area. It is adapted to the environment it came from.

3. Cyclic photophosphorylation. Just an example. You could do roughly the same with chemical sources or as someone has pointed out above.

4. It is rare now, it wasn't rare then. Change in environment, and new cells that would form today would be at a tremendous evolutionary disadvantage so more then likely we wouldn't ever know that they existed. Temperature fluxations at the bottom of the ocean? I think not. Conditions change rapidly at the bottom of the ocean? I think not.

5. Adaptation isn't quite the right word to use here. It would be better to say that because they arose in that environment, they are native to it and are thus able to survive in it. It's like saying that it's a miracle that our body pH is around 7...well, of course it would be around 7, as that's the environment that we evolved in (a pH of roughly neutral)

If complexity demands a creator, then who created the creator? Now you're stuck in an infinite regress.

i wonder how many times this has been pointed out over the past few thousand years? it seems so obvious

i wonder how many times this has been pointed out over the past few thousand years? it seems so obvious
And yet creationists still insist on arguing for a creator using the argument from complexity.

Let's just say that any self respecting "Knight of Faith" would never claim that God created Himself, as they would believe that God never was created, but always existed.

This is simply a Strawman argument.

With all due respect, V, I'm not sure it is. In either case, you are talking about a causal chain that terminates with God. Whether the response is "God created himself", or "God always existed, and was never created", this is true; in neither case does God need a causal agent to explain his existence. If that is true, however, then why must we presume that the universe needs a causal agent to explain its existence?


You have a point that particles in water will move in a random manner, BUT you ignore the fact that in any unaided movement of particles (diffusion, osmosis with permeable membranes) that the random movement is limited by the concentration gradient of the fluid. If more particles are closer together (i.e. greater concentration of blue or red particles in one end of the tank) they will collide more frequently and will move randomly into an area of lesser concentration, so the 'disorder' of both colours of dye is maintained and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is followed.


I don't ignore it; but it is not an ironclad law of nature that the random motion you describe must automatically cause the dye in this experiment to automatically move to an area of lesser concentration. They could randomly collide in a way that maintains or even goes against the concentration gradient. This is highly uncommon, but there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.

Granted, I am not the foremost expert on the subject of theoretical physics. If you want to look further into it, I'd suggest you consult A Brief History of Time, which is where I got the example from. Note that this is not an appeal to authority; Hawking can be and has been wrong about things in the past.


Are you referring to the Rare Event approach? That was a pretty vague comment, but when a Rare Event happens, the statistical probability of it occuring again is extremely low that it may in fact be an extreme outlier in the Normal distribution. This means that they are still rare, no matter the case. . . and if they are not Rare, but "quite common" as you say, then it is no longer a Rare Event. And perhaps you should consider the statistical probabilities of the points I posted earlier.


Ah, it appears my example was unclear, so I will try again.

Simply put, I am pointing out that while unique events of a kind are rare, general events of that kind, conversely, tend to be very common.

Instead of using humans, whose maternity I am less familiar with, I'll try horses, who I am far more familiar with, as I've raised them for most of my life. Your average horse gestates in 11 months. I have a female horse. Without using numbers, and just using the general ideas, suppose I ask how likely it is that, by A.I.ing the horse on Feb. 1, I will have a baby horse the following Jan. 1 (i.e. some sperm released in this particular artificial insemination induces a causal chain that results in a baby that gestates and delivers precisely on Jan. 1)? Obviously, the correct answer would be synonymous with "pretty low." It depends on the horse somewhat, but generally speaking, it takes two or three goes before the mare "takes", if you will, so generally speaking, the odds that a sperm from this particular bout of artificial insemination will cause a baby is less than 50%, even without factoring anything else in).

Furthermore, there are quite a few factors that play into impregnating a mare. For example, mares usually come into heat about a week or two after delivering their foal, and if they are not in heat, then you could pump sperm in with a fire hose to no avail, since they just aren't going to have an egg to fertilize. There are also mares that have extreme difficulty conceiving, and others that tend to abort quite easily. If the mare in question is one of those, as is statistically implausible but conceivable, then you have even more problems. Then you have to factor in that mares don't necessarily drop come hell or high water when they hit the magic 11: mares going a month over were not an uncommon occurance.

Now, how does this relate to the overall question? Well, semantic questions aside about whether I'm spot on about them being 11 months in gestation, or whether they really come into heat 7-14 days after birth, you and I should both agree that it really is improbable that given a particular mare, and given that said mare was inseminated on Jan. 1, would therefore have a product of that insemination on Feb. 1. However, would you therefore say from that experiment that it is extremely implausible that any mare was ever inseminated on Jan. 1, resulting in a filly or colt on Feb. 1? Of course not. It is indeed extremely likely that at least once, possibly more times per year, a horse is born who fits just those requirements that I laid out.

Now, how does this relate to intelligent design? Well, your argument is premised on the very same kind of assertion that I just said was ridiculous when applied to horses: you are saying that because it is difficult to get amino acids to combine into proteins in particular instances (thank you for the correction), it is therefore unlikely that they were ever able to combine on their own, thus requiring outside help. My response to this is to say that this is absurd. Even given the statistical improbability, the primordial world was quite likely swimming in amino acids, and as amino acids do indeed, at least sometimes combine on their own, the overall likelihood, therefore, that some amino acids combined into protein fragments sometime during the course of primordial world's evolution was therefore quite high.


You're right, normal development should take about 36 weeks.


As long as we're talking about Strawmen. . .


I'm also a bit concerned by these statistical values you're giving; sperm live about 3-4 days (those living longest are affectionately called "supersperm" ) But you're correct with the age of the egg before it disintegrates. The other stats, though, are debatable. Don't you think there are other factors at work than just 'random chance'? The body is a complex structure, and there are suspected chemicals it the body that may aid the zygote (which develops into a morula, then a Blastula , and gastrula, and on) to implant.

Proteins don't 'merge' into amino acids, Xenophobialand, amino acids are linked together with peptide bonds to form chains of protein, which fold into a 3-D structure and may join other such folded subunits to create a complex protein .

Okay, I readily concede that I don't have the experience with biology that you obviously do (I was unaware that 5 days was too long for sperm to survive in the cervical canal, for example, although it may be that I just added a few days just to be sure of no "accidents", shall we say.) Nevertheless, that says nothing about the underlying argument. The underlying assertion I was making with that argument was not that babies are born in 3/4 of the time your biology textbook says they are, but to assert that intelligent designers like yourself commonly make a fallacious assumption about probability: that because certain events are rare, the general kinds of events they belong to will be as well. The point of the example was to show how this could be, and in fact is, an incorrect assumption.

To give you another example: say we were to get 100 random people in a room, and ask everyone their birthday. What would you say is the probability that another person shares the same birthday as I do (Oct. 6, for the record)? The answer is probably fairly low; you could in fact get ten thousand people into that room, and there still might not be anyone who shares my birthday out of that group of people. What if, then, I asked you about the probability that any two people in that room share a birthday? The answer is actually quite high; well over 50%.

[quote=Vieux de Poitiers]
I agree proper aguing is necessary, but if you hold certain premises in the fields of Biology, Physics, Chemistry and Statistical methods that are not well thought or outright false, then you should reconsider the argument and refine it to include the truth.

Information is the key.

Generally speaking I agree, however I do not necessarily think that just because I couldn't tell you exactly how many weeks a human baby gestates that you should dismiss my argument entirely out of hand. The statistical argument in particular is one of the foundations of modern statistics.

As for the Cosmological Argument, my suggestion is to drop it, and I'm not saying this as a threat or taunt. I'm saying it because your argument is singularly untenable. If you really want me to break out my texts on Hume and allow him to explain, in painstaking detail, why it is a ridiculous notion, I can, but I'd prefer not to.