NationStates Jolt Archive

i thought i'd only do a thread about religion once, but here goes another one - creationism vs evolution. this (http://darwinsucks.com/) website (Darwin Sucks (http://darwinsucks.com/)) is one of those 'trying to dismantle evolution with logic' websites we've seen around (hell you've probably seen this one too (i don't know who i am talking to))

anyway, reading this lead me to question what is the fundamental difference between creationists and evolutionists. it boils down, i think, to the way they view humanity and the universe, plus an unquestioniing (at least past a point) mentality. christians are not explicitly taught to challenge or scrutinise the bible or the church, and they are brought up to believe that humans are 'Gods chosen animals', his 'favourite' - in a way that God created this world (the entire universe?) for us. reminiscant of 'the earth is flat' or 'the sun revolves around us' arguements, anyone?

point is, the arguement on the site that got me started is this:

Question #6 Given all the complexities of earths distance from the sun, its tilt and rotation, the balance between land, water and atmosphere, what are the mathematical odds that all these things could have occured by random chance?

it hasn't all occured by chance. creationists need to open their minds and realise that the evironment doesn't suit us, we just suit the environment.

and thats just the Earth. the universe is better. what is the chance of a star in our universe having an orbiting planet capable of supporting life of any kind? few. very few. say, 1 in a million, for arguements sake. we are only here to question why we are here because we ARE that one in a million - we are the lifeforms on one of those lucky, lucky stars with an orbiting planet capable of supporting life. and this particular version of that 1-in-a-million star is us, and our particular distance from the sun, our rotation, our temperatures, our atmosphere, our tectonic plates - all of it is what makes us that very very special planet. it does happen by chance and we are here because we have been lucky to be the winning one. our version happens to have this particular environment, and we have adapted to suit it, starting from the primordial soup and single-cell organisms - not the other way around where, in creationism, God created this planet and its exact environment because that is what WE need. no, we adapted to what the environment DEMANDS.

this is where creationists don't get it. this CAN happen by chance and it DOES because we are living proof, orbiting the sun on one of the very few lucky planets. this require an open mind, and a sceptical attitude to your faith to understand

hope this is interesting to someone :)


ps: sorry for the bad title but i had to be an attention grabbing whore

Wait, I thought you said you were done with serious debate. :confused:

Wait, I thought you said you were done with serious debate. :confused:
PWNED

this CAN happen by chance and it DOES because we are living proof,

Firstly, as Christians we are told to scrutinise everything and to check our beliefs and what we are being taught.

Secondly, you are defending against a little used argument. Normally the question would be something more along the lines of "how long does it take an amino acid to evolve into a suitable form to match the environment?" Which as I'm sure you are aware, is quite a long time! (I don't have the exact figures with me now, but if you look up all the basic elements required for an Amino Acid chain, work out the variations, reactions, the basic proteins that they come from and the reproduction rate, then give yourself a factor of 1000 improvement in the rate of success, it should still take about the same length of time as the universe has existed for).

Lets look at something more practical and familiar. What about irreducable systems such as the knee joint. Speaking as an engineer, a 4bar system such as the knee joint cannot evolve (as any evolution requires all 4bars at the same time, otherwise 3 are redundant and would be lost), so how has this come into being?

Firstly, as Christians we are told to scrutinise everything and to check our beliefs and what we are being taught.

Lets look at something more practical and familiar. What about irreducable systems such as the knee joint. Speaking as an engineer, a 4bar system such as the knee joint cannot evolve (as any evolution requires all 4bars at the same time, otherwise 3 are redundant and would be lost), so how has this come into being?

As someone who is not an engineer, I'm still willing to tell you that irreducable complexity arguements are complete BS. They operate under the assumption that everything has always had the purpose it has today, indeed, that it has always had a purpose.

Wait, I thought you said you were done with serious debate. :confused:
i lied! mwuahahaha! my secret agenda is revealed!
http://www.ironmaiden.org/images/smilies/eyes.gif

PWNED

PWNED
lmao! :p

As someone who is not an engineer, I'm still willing to tell you that irreducable complexity arguements are complete BS. They operate under the assumption that everything has always had the purpose it has today, indeed, that it has always had a purpose.

Evolution states that anything without a purpose will evolve away, so that is half your argument gone. So the trickier half left! Ok, then give me another purpose for a 4 bar linkage that connects two (main acting) bones together. Alternatively, show me where to find a fossil that shows this progression :)

I'm trying to keep this light hearted BTW, I'm fed up with abusive threads :rolleyes: :cool:

A Creationist can believe in Evolution...

IT can be said, that either G-d assisted in the evolution, or G-d didn't interfere, and let evolution happened on it's own, Evolution is not strictly for Atheists.

Firstly, as Christians we are told to scrutinise everything and to check our beliefs and what we are being taught.

Secondly, you are defending against a little used argument. Normally the question would be something more along the lines of "how long does it take an amino acid to evolve into a suitable form to match the environment?" Which as I'm sure you are aware, is quite a long time! (I don't have the exact figures with me now, but if you look up all the basic elements required for an Amino Acid chain, work out the variations, reactions, the basic proteins that they come from and the reproduction rate, then give yourself a factor of 1000 improvement in the rate of success, it should still take about the same length of time as the universe has existed for).

Lets look at something more practical and familiar. What about irreducable systems such as the knee joint. Speaking as an engineer, a 4bar system such as the knee joint cannot evolve (as any evolution requires all 4bars at the same time, otherwise 3 are redundant and would be lost), so how has this come into being?
ah but this is what it all boils down to - the fundamental belief behind all creationist arguements, one that stems directly from what the bible and church teach, that we are 'God's children', 'created in his own image' and that this planet has been, bluntly, taylor-made for us.

if it were not for that fundamental, core belief, creationism would not exist. the religious doctrine on which creationism is based is inherantly closed minded and does not take the factors in my OP into account - it does not comprehend them (at least not in the way an evolutionist might).
i'm not attacking it at all, people can believe whatever the hell they like as far as i care, but i just thought it would be interesting for a debate (especially at 3am here... all the americans are coming online and i wanna hear a stereotypically overtyly religous opinion or two :D )

ah but this is what it all boils down to - the fundamental belief behind all creationist arguements, one that stems directly from what the bible and church teach, that we are 'God's children', 'created in his own image' and that this planet has been, bluntly, taylor-made for us.

if it were not for that fundamental, core belief, creationism would not exist. the religious doctrine on which creationism is based is inherantly closed minded and does not take the factors in my OP into account - it does not comprehend them (at least not in the way an evolutionist might).
i'm not attacking it at all, people can believe whatever the hell they like as far as i care, but i just thought it would be interesting for a debate (especially at 3am here... all the americans are coming online and i wanna hear a stereotypically overtyly religous opinion or two :D )

Aha, you're in the UK too then...!! :cool:

Actually, I got to creationism (or I prefer designerism!) by looking at it from the way that you point out, taking firstly into account the way that we suit the environment, how we could have reached that stage and the evidence for it.

All views are close-minded really. Most evolutionists forget that and have their own assumptions (not that thats wrong if we note where they are from the beginning).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

I don't agree that we should find millions of fossils, but I would agree that there should be something.

A Creationist can believe in Evolution...

IT can be said, that either G-d assisted in the evolution, or G-d didn't interfere, and let evolution happened on it's own, Evolution is not strictly for Atheists.



Intelligent design, a theory that G-d assisted in evolution . Makes sense, unless of course your an Athiest. But this thread really doesnt deal with how evolution happened, it deals with if, so who cares?

Evolution states that anything without a purpose will evolve away, so that is half your argument gone.

Not really, useless organs/structures can stick around for quite some time. Only when a mutation causes this structure to disappear, and only if this mutation is beneficial, not nuetral.

So the trickier half left! Ok, then give me another purpose for a 4 bar linkage that connects two (main acting) bones together. Alternatively, show me where to find a fossil that shows this progression :)

Again, I'm no engineer, so I wouldn't know, but immediately dismissing it as irreducably complex (a notion that, in all actuallity, doesn't really exist) is quite naive.

I'm trying to keep this light hearted BTW, I'm fed up with abusive threads :rolleyes: :cool:

We all are, I'm sure, but some arguements just really get to me.

Aha, you're in the UK too then...!! :cool:

Actually, I got to creationism (or I prefer designerism!) by looking at it from the way that you point out, taking firstly into account the way that we suit the environment, how we could have reached that stage and the evidence for it.

All views are close-minded really. Most evolutionists forget that and have their own assumptions (not that thats wrong if we note where they are from the beginning).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

I don't agree that we should find millions of fossils, but I would agree that there should be something.
absolutley, us evolutionists have our own assumptions, and i suppose athieism (or angnoticism like me) must be one of them. i'm having a hard time thinkig of any others tho...

and to be honest i understand and almost see how one could accept the creationist theory - if one believes in the right things of course.

but i don't think this is just about faith, its about a logical explaination in favour of evolutionism and deriding creationism (which relies on you having faith, which means it is about faith.... oh damn i should have gone to sleep already :headbang: )

you get what im saying right?

the way that we suit the environment, how we could have reached that stage and the evidence for it.
that is pretty much what i've done, yeah. except i came to the other conclusion ;)

Aha, you're in the UK too then...!! :cool:

Actually, I got to creationism (or I prefer designerism!) by looking at it from the way that you point out, taking firstly into account the way that we suit the environment, how we could have reached that stage and the evidence for it.

All views are close-minded really. Most evolutionists forget that and have their own assumptions (not that thats wrong if we note where they are from the beginning).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

I don't agree that we should find millions of fossils, but I would agree that there should be something.
Do you know how hard it is for something to be fossilized? Conditions for a passable fossil have to be perfect, and so not all stages will be documented. On top of that, fossils are easily damaged or destroyed by natural occurances. Also, many animals lack the body structure to be fossilized. On top of that, how would a creationist explain fossils of species that don't exist now? God made extras, and got rid of them? That seems extremely malevolent to me, and doesn't really fit the all-caring and all-loving to me...

it hasn't all occured by chance. creationists need to open their minds and realise that the evironment doesn't suit us, we just suit the environment.

Terry Pratchett had a great line about this.

It's like a puddle of water wondering what are the odds of it landing in a hole that's just the right shape for it.

God made extras, and got rid of them? That seems extremely malevolent to me, and doesn't really fit the all-caring and all-loving to me...


All-loving and all-caring is kind of a new testament thing, old testament is alot meaner G-D that would smite everything and everyone that got out of line.

Do you know how hard it is for something to be fossilized? Conditions for a passable fossil have to be perfect, and so not all stages will be documented. On top of that, fossils are easily damaged or destroyed by natural occurances. Also, many animals lack the body structure to be fossilized. On top of that, how would a creationist explain fossils of species that don't exist now? God made extras, and got rid of them? That seems extremely malevolent to me, and doesn't really fit the all-caring and all-loving to me...

Not to mention that it directly contradicts the Bible. The bible says that all the species that were ever created now exist. Either there never was a T-rex, or there's still at least one hiding somewhere.

Intelligent design, a theory that G-d assisted in evolution . Makes sense, unless of course your an Athiest. But this thread really doesnt deal with how evolution happened, it deals with if, so who cares?

Well it suffers from the same drawbacks as creationism in that it's not a theory. You can't test it. The mechanism by which Darwinian evolution would work is proven to exist. If you keep killing the skinniest pigs on your farm you will eventually have incredibly fat pigs. That's how we ended up with turkeys with 1/3 the brain size of a wild turkey and many times the muscle mass.

There is no evidence to suggest that God directly intervened to make evolution happen. He might have, but it's just an idea, not a theory, except in the coloquial sense, but certainly not the scientific sense. At least until someone takes two stupid bulky turkeys makes them mate and then witnesses God replace the fat stupid offspring with a slender wily wild turkey.

you get what im saying right?

Yup :)

that is pretty much what i've done, yeah. except i came to the other conclusion ;)

:cool:

Industrial experiment... I haven't immediatly considered 4bar linkages as irreducable. Since first studying them years ago, they just keep on popping back up into my thinking. The knee joint is a strange one, as it is so unique, the system is completely redundant as soon as one tendon is broken (hence knee injuries being very common) and the method of getting these systems continues to be a problem in engineering today, as we could economise greatly if we could find a way of reducing them, or constructing them from simpler systems to begin with.
I feel that we have a lot to learn from nature!

Anakian...I'm well aware of the difficulties of fossilization, especially somewhere like the UK where there is a distinct lack of nn exo-skeleton fossils. Which is why I do not expect there to be huge amounts of evidence, however I would expect something (it may be that we haven't found it yet). Archaeology is a strange one (or so my archaelogical friends tell me...btw their careers are in ruins :D ) in that it is all based on initial assumptions, thus producing a kind of round (though possibly correct) argument. Factors of error increase greatly though as time increases.

I don't believe that God made extras and then killed them off in a God style hunting spree (with lightning instead of rifles :D ) but that after the fall (of whatever description (the fact that the world is no longer perfect) these animals could not continue to adapt to the environment (adapt not evolve ;) ) Much like the Dodo, that couldn't adapt to be better at hiding when the hunters came along!

Not to mention that it directly contradicts the Bible. The bible says that all the species that were ever created now exist. Either there never was a T-rex, or there's still at least one hiding somewhere.

Where does it say that?! :)

Not to mention that it directly contradicts the Bible. The bible says that all the species that were ever created now exist. Either there never was a T-rex, or there's still at least one hiding somewhere.
Actually, I have to confess about that. There is one, two actually - a male and a female. They are hiding in my backyard, so God mught be right. But don't tell anyone :)

bumpage :)

Aha, you're in the UK too then...!! :cool:

Actually, I got to creationism (or I prefer designerism!) by looking at it from the way that you point out, taking firstly into account the way that we suit the environment, how we could have reached that stage and the evidence for it.

All views are close-minded really. Most evolutionists forget that and have their own assumptions (not that thats wrong if we note where they are from the beginning).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of palaeontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/palaeontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)

I don't agree that we should find millions of fossils, but I would agree that there should be something.
How ridiculous. Because we haven't found the links between species, therefore they don't exist. Lovely bit of circular argumenting there.
The above statement implies that God created each species seperately and intact as we find it. If we are to believe that this is true, then it follows that God has been creating and recreating animals throughout History. Which goes contrary to the Bible, and raises the question of why isn't He still doing it now?
As for the knee argument, you mention about how it can't operate without all 4 tendons being there, how easily injuries are and how much better designs it could have been. So why did God decide on this pig's breakfast of a design? Surely He should have put in a bit more time and effort and given everyone a better joint. It either shows laziness on His part or that He didn't know of any other way. Not what I'd expect from an Omnipotent Being.

No, thats not what I was arguing. I was saying that you cannot make an argument from silence (as most people appreciate). Therefore, if the fossils aren't there, you can't claim that you know what the links are. I think you'll see in my post that I said "there should be something".

Knee argument...once again you are misreading what I am saying. What I am saying is that we know that the knee joint has 3 degrees of freedom, which is possible with a 4bar mechanism, as the knee joint has. There appears to be no simpler way to achieve the same flexibility, rotation and strength. But for this to be effective, all parts need to be there at the same time, as to take one out makes the mechanism redundant.
I'm saying that we haven't found a better design, and the only way it could be better would be if it wasn't irreducable, ie we could build up to it with all parts -n (where n ranges from 0-4) being in the same position and as effective.

If it has evolved, then we should be able to see similar 4bar mechanisms that are reducable. As yet, these haven't been seen in any field (even those where people dedicate their lives to engineering 4bar linkages).

...given everyone a better joint...
hehehe :p

Terry Pratchett had a great line about this.

It's like a puddle of water wondering what are the odds of it landing in a hole that's just the right shape for it.

I think it was douglas adams actually, he was really interested in evolution and wrote some great stuff on it.

hehehe :p
Whoops. Freudian Slip there... :)