NationStates Jolt Archive


Evolution and Creationism

Cydial4xdude
05-04-2006, 05:28
Evolution:States that we come from a rock/primodialsoup. In a nutshell that's what it is. How does a cell know when to "evolve?"

Creationism: States that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Explain the dinosaurs, explain carbon dating, explain all these planets and stars we can see if the Earth is only less than 20,000 years old.

I personally go with niether. Why? Because there are too many inconsitancies on both sides. I used to be with evolution though.

Thank trisket 6666 from redvsblue.com for this article he wrote. I personally think the dudes a little bit over board with atheism, but I still like his threads and journals :)

Here are his views on how we came to be.

A.) A magical invisible wizard that lives in the sky created life, Cristians and Jews refer to him as "god", Muslims call him "allah".

B.) Although Earth was created around 4.5 billion years ago, life began to exist not long after. Due to the huge timescales involved, there is inconclusive evidence for exact dates, but nonetheless, the eagerness of life to exist was apparent from the beginning. Our Solar System was still young, and the Sun was still cooling down after its creation billions of years beforehand. The unique circumstances of our Solar System and our planet gave rise to life. This was due to a number of characteristics that are exhibited by our ecosphere, the area of a planet capable of sustaining life. Venus, one of our planetary neighbors, is closer to the sun, with the planet exhibiting characteristics that would not be able to support life. On the other hand, Mars is further away from the Sun, and too cold to naturally support life. However, with manipulation by man, via terraforming, Mars could indeed support life in its present state. However, Earth, for billions of years, has possessed all the materials and suitable conditions for supporting life. All living things possess the element carbon within them. In light of this, Earth had to have rich supply of carbon to support a rich diversity of life. This carbon was made available by the volatile nature of the Earth in the beginning, where volcanoes spewed various elements into the Earth's atmosphere. While other elements were present, various chemical reactions began to take place which would result in the creation of new compounds and elements. One of the family of compounds created over time were the amino acids, the building blocks of protein. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein, and thus the building blocks of life. The complex organisms of today harness the biological power of proteins in a variety of ways, such as the use of enzymes as a catalyst. In general, organisms over time in the evolutionary chain have grown and become more complex in their nature, i.e. the first origins of life were likely small, simple and not diversified. One understanding of the origins of life is that it would have been very unlikely that parasites were the beginnings of life. As parasites require biological hosts to reproduce and thus survive as a species, they would have been unable to successfully continue their species during this time period. In light of this, viruses and other parasites would have developed later on in the evolutionary chain. It is believed that heterotrophs were the first beginnings of life on Earth, inhabiting the sea and absorbing the organic material that was being created by the reactions of Earth at the time (i.e. the creation of amino acids). The building blocks of life created these organisms and also acted as a food source. This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time. Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth
A component of all existing life is that it adapts to survive. You either adapt or you already have adapted. If species did not have this instinctive nature via their genetic information, then they would have no desire to continue living as a species. Although the beginnings of life above were successfully reproducing, an economy of scale involving the organisms would point out that their food source (the organic soup) would not be able to sustain all life. In light of this, the organisms on Earth at the time would have to diversify over the long term to survive. It is suggested that around three billion years ago, autotrophic animals had diversified from previous species. These autotrophs are capable of synthesizing energy from inorganic material, i.e. via the sun and elements on the Earth. This had allowed life on Earth to tap into a whole new energy resource, one that was literally inexhaustible - the Sun. Life began to flourish, and the autotrophic organisms had tapped a new niche allowing the biomass of Earth at the time to dramatically increase. The autotrophs en masse were absorbing carbon and light. The light invariably would always be an available source for synthesizing energy, while the carbon was not. CO2 was constantly being absorbed by these organisms, and after the biological reactions responsible for creating energy in them, oxygen would be released as a by-product. This meant that oxygen began to accumulate in the oceans where life existed. This new material would in turn be taken advantage of by the adapting organisms, alias, leading to the creation of aerobic organisms, who used oxygen as a component of their energy creation. This is another example of life diversifying to adapt to its environment and exploit the niches that it could occupy. This type of evolution continued, where the supply of potential energy making elements and compounds outstretched the requirements of life, therefore organisms continued to adapt to fill all available niches as opposed to competing with one another. Pathogens existed by this time, and were able to leech resources from their single cell hosts, kill them, and move on to the next host after multiplying. On top of this, resources for all organisms alive at the time were being stretched by the increasing population of species' and also the diversity of unique species. Alias, the exhaustible materials used by species were limited, and they would have to 'fight for their right' to survive. To do this, natural selection would give them a competitive advantage over other organisms and perhaps relieve stress caused by competition within the species (intraspecific). One noted event in the origins of life is the emergence of protists. Although these organisms were single celled like all other organisms, they were notably bigger, some being visible to the human eye. This adaptation must have been a selective advantage at the time, either over competitors or taking advantage of an ecological niche.

What do you think?
Please no flaming.;)
Ladamesansmerci
05-04-2006, 05:29
*groan*

not another one! The other one hasn't even died yet!
Megaloria
05-04-2006, 05:29
I think I can see a sailboat in those monster paragraphs.

Or is it a schooner?
Potarius
05-04-2006, 05:30
I think I can see a sailboat in those monster paragraphs.

Or is it a schooner?

It's a junk! No, wait, it's a Dhow!!
Sarkhaan
05-04-2006, 05:31
I think I can see a sailboat in those monster paragraphs.

Or is it a schooner?
it's a dinghy.
Ladamesansmerci
05-04-2006, 05:31
I think I can see a sailboat in those monster paragraphs.

Or is it a schooner?

I see a fish...does that mean I'm crazy? :(
Megaloria
05-04-2006, 05:32
I'm disappointed in you people. Has no one seen Mallrats?!
Sarkhaan
05-04-2006, 05:34
I'm disappointed in you people. Has no one seen Mallrats?!
haha...yes. But I wanted to use the word "dinghy"
Free Soviets
05-04-2006, 05:38
I personally go with niether. Why? Because there are too many inconsitancies on both sides.

name one
Randomlittleisland
05-04-2006, 12:26
Evolution:States that we come from a rock/primodialsoup. In a nutshell that's what it is. How does a cell know when to "evolve?"

Evolution states that species change over time due to mutations and natural selection (not a great definition but a better one than the one you've got).

ABIOGENISIS is the theory that the first life came from primordial soup, and the possibility of this has been proven by several experiments.

A cell doesn't 'know' when to evolve, it doesn't work like that.
Zatarack
05-04-2006, 12:30
I see a giant "B."
Turquoise Days
05-04-2006, 12:32
*drowns in the sea of paragraphless text*
The Cat-Tribe
05-04-2006, 12:32
Evolution:States that we come from a rock/primodialsoup. In a nutshell that's what it is. How does a cell know when to "evolve?"

Creationism: States that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Explain the dinosaurs, explain carbon dating, explain all these planets and stars we can see if the Earth is only less than 20,000 years old.

I personally go with niether. Why? Because there are too many inconsitancies on both sides. I used to be with evolution though.

*snip*

*sigh*

When are people going to learn what the theory of evolution is before they spot off like this?

BTW, what you label creationism is a particular brand of creationism most often known as creation science. In the broader sense their is no contradiction between the belief that God created the universe, man, etc. and evolution.
The Emperor Fenix
05-04-2006, 12:39
What i cannot understand is why christain groups are demanding that creationism be taught as a science, just as the gay rights movement is demanding marriage. surely christians should be content with the theory being taught in religious studies (or its equivilant, RS in the UK at least is a mandatory subject for at least 2 years teaching the worlds mahor religions) and surely gay rights activists should be content with civil partnerships which afford all of the legal burdens withou any of the religious infringement. However both groups seem to be determined that their goals shall be all or nothing and no rhetoric be spared in the undertaking.

Such stubborness harms both their causes, this is probably their only similaritiy.
Drunk commies deleted
05-04-2006, 17:09
I'm disappointed in you people. Has no one seen Mallrats?!
A schooner is a sail boat. Satisfied?
Kerubia
05-04-2006, 17:29
The 56 million other threads on this topic have all come to the same conclusion:

Evolution: proven

Creationism: not proven

Any thread that hasn't come to that conclusion simply isn't long enough.
Free Soviets
05-04-2006, 17:32
*sigh*

When are people going to learn what the theory of evolution is before they spot off like this?

whoa, how did that bacon animal just go by outside my second story window?
Free Soviets
05-04-2006, 17:35
The 56 million other threads on this topic have all come to the same conclusion:

Evolution: proven

Creationism: not proven

Any thread that hasn't come to that conclusion simply isn't long enough.

or, more accurately:

evolution - as solid as anything in science is, to the point where one would have to be insane to reject it

creationism - false, unless our conception of the universe is fundamentally wrong and our senses cannot be used to gain knowledge


proof is for losers and logicians
Zolworld
05-04-2006, 18:16
I can't see the sailboat. damn these infernal magic eyes!
Oppressiah
05-04-2006, 18:26
Theists love pointing out that Evolution is only a 'Theory,' that it is not proven. You know what? Gravity is still just a theory. That is because it is not fully understood. If you ever drop something and it falls up, then the scientists will have to revise their theory.

While the theists have been sure that they are right for millenia, scientists have been actually studying how things work and, while they haven't figured out everything yet, they are far closer then the people who get their information from long dead primatives who thought that the Earth was flat, the sun revolved around the Earth, and that having a seizure meant that a god or a demon was inhabiting you.

"When on record, good scientists won't comment on the color of their socks without looking at their ankles." If I remember correctly, the latin root Scia means "To know." But I havent looked it up, so I could be wrong.

Ohh, a Junket!
Oxfordland
05-04-2006, 18:51
I speak for most of Christendom when I state that creationism is contrived nonsense. Please stop tarring us all with that brush.
Fascist Emirates
05-04-2006, 19:04
Here is the issue with people who defy creationism because of carbon dationg and the time it takes light to travel. Creationists can argue that god can create anything, including carbon isotopes in various states of decay and photons already traversing the dirac sea. Evolutionists can state that someday we will be involved in a thermonuclear war with dolphins.

I will not be taking a side in this over exumed debate.

(I am using exumed to state that people keep bringing this thread back after it is deceased)
Smunkeeville
05-04-2006, 19:24
I think I can see a sailboat in those monster paragraphs.

Or is it a schooner?
a schooner is a sailboat :rolleyes:




*man, I haven't seen that movie in years :(
Megaloria
05-04-2006, 19:31
A schooner is a sail boat. Satisfied?

Ya know what?!
THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY!

Yeah, satisfied.
Romanar
05-04-2006, 19:40
Theists love pointing out that Evolution is only a 'Theory,' that it is not proven. You know what? Gravity is still just a theory. That is because it is not fully understood. If you ever drop something and it falls up, then the scientists will have to revise their theory.



I may be wrong, but I thought the reason gravity is a "theory" is because we don't really know HOW it works. We do know that it does work. We've known that since some cavemen chased a mammoth over a cliff.

Likewise, we know that viruses adapt and mutate. We also know that dogs can be bred for a huge number of characteristics. We theorize that one species can eventually evolve into another, but we haven't PROVED it. Though the evidence points there, IMO.
Dempublicents1
05-04-2006, 19:41
Evolution:States that we come from a rock/primodialsoup. In a nutshell that's what it is. How does a cell know when to "evolve?"

*Sigh* Why is always the people who don't have a clue what they are talking about that feel the need to start these threads?

Evolution states no such thing. It simply states that life, over time, will change due to mutation and natural selection. One cannot invoke evolutionary theory until life has begun. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, refers to a theory of how life began on this planet - and involves the "primordial soup", as it were.

As for how a cell knows when to evolve, it doesn't. Evolution is not and has never been suggested to be a conscious process. Cells are in a constant state of mutation. All it takes is for the mutation to grant a selective advantage, and that lifeform will be able to reproduce more.

Creationism: States that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Explain the dinosaurs, explain carbon dating, explain all these planets and stars we can see if the Earth is only less than 20,000 years old.

That is one form of Creationism, yes.

I personally go with niether. Why? Because there are too many inconsitancies on both sides. I used to be with evolution though.

Thank trisket 6666 from redvsblue.com for this article he wrote. I personally think the dudes a little bit over board with atheism, but I still like his threads and journals :)

Here are his views on how we came to be.

*snip*

He essentially describes abiogenesis and evolutionary theory in a simplified manner - theories you just said you reject. So why post it, then?
Dempublicents1
05-04-2006, 19:44
I may be wrong, but I thought the reason gravity is a "theory" is because we don't really know HOW it works. We do know that it does work. We've known that since some cavemen chased a mammoth over a cliff.

You are wrong. Gravity is a theory because "theory" is the highest level an idea can reach in science. Even "law" is nothing more than, "theory that has stood the test of time and testing for so long we're pretty damn sure it is correct," and because some "laws" have now been disproven, scientists tend to shy away from using the designation anymore.

Once a hypothesis has gained support - by being the subject of experiments and never being disproven by them - it may gain the status of theory. There it will remain, until it is disproven or we all die.

Likewise, we know that viruses adapt and mutate. We also know that dogs can be bred for a huge number of characteristics. We theorize that one species can eventually evolve into another, but we haven't PROVED it. Though the evidence points there, IMO.

We actually have seen the evolution of bacteria into new species. We simply haven't been around and studying long enough to see a new multicellular species evolve.
Sarkhaan
05-04-2006, 19:50
Ya know what?!
THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY!

Yeah, satisfied.
yes there is...CToaN is real!
Krakozha
05-04-2006, 20:05
I may be wrong, but I thought the reason gravity is a "theory" is because we don't really know HOW it works. We do know that it does work. We've known that since some cavemen chased a mammoth over a cliff.

Yeah, you've got it right, in a nutshell. Scientists theorise that there has to be a carrier particle - a graviton, for gravity, as there is a carrier for the three other forces of nature - EM (photon), strong nuclear force (gluon) and the weak nuclear force (I can't quite remember, but it might be the electron. If anyone knows otherwise, please remind me).
Basically, gravity is WAY weaker than all the other forces. It takes a huge amount of mass to create a relatively weak gravitational pull. However, evidence that hte strong nuclear force is al around you - when you walk on the floor, it resists you, so that you don't fall through it and right down to the centre of the Earth (and therefore the centre of gravity), but no one knows why it's so weak.

so yeah, there's a lot about gravity that we don't understand, but we do know that it's effect follows the inverse square law (the force is proportional to the square of the distance between the two interacting objects). Other theories have been based on it's known effects (Keplers laws, gravitational lensing, etc, etc, etc), so it's generally understood, but the fundamentals beneath it are still to be revealed.
Evenrue
05-04-2006, 20:14
Evolution states that species change over time due to mutations and natural selection (not a great definition but a better one than the one you've got).

ABIOGENISIS is the theory that the first life came from primordial soup, and the possibility of this has been proven by several experiments.

A cell doesn't 'know' when to evolve, it doesn't work like that.
Because mutations are RANDOM...Of course the cell doesn't know when to evolve. It's JUST a cell. Mutations are random thogh they can be caused by outside factors. They just happen. Humans are still evolving. We are getting taller. Some say we're getting smarter(not sure if I agree with that but...). There have even been studies that are finding new changes in the human race that is pointing to continuing evolution. (I don't know what there are called so don't ask.)
Give me another problem with evolution.
Kevlanakia
05-04-2006, 20:57
...This is where the idea of a food chain becomes relevant. When these first autotrophs died, the organic material that they consist of would break down and add to the 'organic soup' that was feeding these organisms at the time. Alias, it is believed that heterotrophic bacteria was the first signs of life on Earth...

...This new material would in turn be taken advantage of by the adapting organisms, alias, leading to the creation of aerobic organisms, who used oxygen as a component of their energy creation....

...On top of this, resources for all organisms alive at the time were being stretched by the increasing population of species' and also the diversity of unique species. Alias, the exhaustible materials used by species were limited, and they would have to 'fight for their right' to survive....

Can one use the word "alias" in this way? I've never seen it before... I thought it just meant a sort of pseudonym or alternative identity.
Willamena
05-04-2006, 21:48
Can one use the word "alias" in this way? I've never seen it before... I thought it just meant a sort of pseudonym or alternative identity.
I think he meant, "Alas..."
Kerubia
06-04-2006, 05:04
or, more accurately:

evolution - as solid as anything in science is, to the point where one would have to be insane to reject it

creationism - false, unless our conception of the universe is fundamentally wrong and our senses cannot be used to gain knowledge


proof is for losers and logicians

Alright. I'll remember to use that instead next time.
The Beautiful Darkness
06-04-2006, 13:47
-snip-[/I] If I remember correctly, the latin root Scia means "To know." But I havent looked it up, so I could be wrong.

Ohh, a Junket!

Yeah, the Latin "to know" is "scio" :)
BogMarsh
06-04-2006, 13:57
or, more accurately:

evolution - as solid as anything in science is, to the point where one would have to be insane to reject it

creationism - false, unless our conception of the universe is fundamentally wrong and our senses cannot be used to gain knowledge


proof is for losers and logicians

It seems to me that the boldened bit is held as a clear and self evident truth by anyone who starts out from a religious, spiritual, or mystical point of view.
Which is a fairly large part of the human race.
This large part does reject the axiomatic correctness, or at least, completeness of sense-data.
Oppressiah
06-04-2006, 14:38
If I remember correctly, the latin root Scia means "To know." But I havent looked it up, so I could be wrong.

Yeah, the Latin "to know" is "scio" :)

That is why I am glad that I didn't claim to positively know it. That sure would have been ironic.
Free Soviets
06-04-2006, 15:55
It seems to me that the boldened bit is held as a clear and self evident truth by anyone who starts out from a religious, spiritual, or mystical point of view.
Which is a fairly large part of the human race.
This large part does reject the axiomatic correctness, or at least, completeness of sense-data.

firstly, i said nothing about axiomatic correctness or completeness of sense-data. i'm not saying that sense-data is the only possible way to gain knowledge, merely that it is a way to do so.

secondly, no, they don't. even the most hardcore fundie believes that their senses are a way of gaining knowledge.


creationism can only be right if sense data is always or systematically wrong - if we don't live in the universe that our senses tell us we do.