NationStates Jolt Archive

The above poll should be pretty straightforward. For the sake of keeping the number of options low, and not having a million options that no-one's going to choose, I decided not to include options such as "Evolution, although Creationism is better" or "Creation, although Evolution is better". Obviously, if someone's going to believe something, they need a reason. The latter option would fall nicely under the "faith" poll option. Alas, the former is unaccomodated, because I can think of no ulterior motive to believe Evolution when you believe Creationism is better (i.e. no faiths that I know of).

The fifth poll option applies to both Evolution-believing people and Creationism-believing people that feel both ideas have equal merit (I decided not to break it up).

Anyways, a creationist's argument (in the other thread) prompted this thread and poll. Something started to bug me.

I don't understand why creationists try to refute evolution, and try to show how it's unverified and such. To me, both ideas come from completely different schools of thought. One comes from science, the other comes from faith. They cannot argue with one another, because they use completely different bases for their ideas.

Even if macroevolution is bad, and unverified, it is still the best thing we have towards explaining currently existing species. Creationism can never surpass it because it doesn't use logic or science. Evolution, although flawed, is the best thing our current logic and science has come up with.

Creationists seem to think that if another theory that is held in such high regard is slightly less logical than everyone thinks it is, then the alternative theory must be true. So let's just say I give up and accept that evolution has less basis than everyone thinks it does and you're right. It still has more basis than creationism! If you say it does not, then you're trying to make it equivalent to any random theory that some dude in his basement would come up with.

However, it is better than all of the other unbased theories, because it was created by great scientific minds, using already existing hard facts to derive this theory.

What I am trying to show to everyone is not that Evolution is better than Creationism. Rather, that Evolution and Creationism come from two completely different schools of thought, and that Creationism cannot establish supremacy in Evolution's domain (i.e. science) and vice-versa.

Because teaching mindless shit in schools (lo creationism) will destroy what little hope the United States has in the science fields of keeping any kind of lead.

Because teaching mindless shit in schools (lo creationism) will destroy what little hope the United States has in the science fields of keeping any kind of lead.

That somehow coalesces with my argument, although less offensive. Since they come from two different schools of thought, they should be taught differently. Evolution will take part of the Science area, and Creationism will take part of the Religious Studies area. Neither should come on the other's territory.

Yay! I haven't seen a Creationism vs Evolution thread in like...2 months! :D

How about we compromise? Evolution can have most of the mammals, including humans, reptiles, bacteria, insects, and plants.

God gets fish, amphibians, mushrooms, viruses, protozoa, and the duck billed platypus.

Everything else is up for grabs.

A thing is sometimes added to by being diminished and diminished by being added to.

This has gotta be an agree-to-disagree argument. Congress should then pass a law that makes all fifty-fifty, agree-to-disagree topics unsuitable for federal legislation via the 10th Amendment.

Honestly, does the answer, supposing there is one, to this quandary even matter? We're here, aren't we? How's about we invest all this creation/evolution energy into helping those of us here already who need it?

Yeah, I know, I know. "We LIKE our pointless debates, so take your Pollyanna horseshit somewhere else." Right. Got it. See ya.

This has gotta be an agree-to-disagree argument. Congress should then pass a law that makes all fifty-fifty, agree-to-disagree topics unsuitable for federal legislation via the 10th Amendment.

Honestly, does the answer, supposing there is one, to this quandary even matter? We're here, aren't we? How's about we invest all this creation/evolution energy into helping those of us here already who need it?

Yeah, I know, I know. "We LIKE our pointless debates, so take your Pollyanna horseshit somewhere else." Right. Got it. See ya.
Medical research, genetics, the entire field of biology, etc.

Medical research, genetics, the entire field of biology, etc.


How is believing that God(or a diety) created everything, going to stop someone from inventing a vaccine or learning about the body?

Honestly, does the answer, supposing there is one, to this quandary even matter? We're here, aren't we? How's about we invest all this creation/evolution energy into helping those of us here already who need it?It does matter, because it affects our ability to help those who already need it - as you put it.

Every time our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the world we live in increases, we expand our basis for - and eventually ability to - help ourselves & eachother.

The ISisms are basically just the STOP sign on the road to human enlightenment & progress. The agenda to indoctrinate innocents with it, can best be described as deliberate stupifying, learned blind faith & the end of curiousity - apparently because factual knowledge is a scary, scary bad thing.

One can't help wonder what it says about this designer being, if knowledge of it's methdology is evil.

It does matter, because it affects our ability to help those who already need it - as you put it.

Every time our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the world we live in increases, we expand our basis for - and eventually ability to - help ourselves & eachother.

The ISisms are basically just the STOP sign on the road to human enlightenment & progress. The agenda to indoctrinate innocents with it, can best be described as deliberate stupifying, learned blind faith & the end of curiousity - apparently because factual knowledge is a scary, scary bad thing.
One can't help wonder what it says about this designer being, if knowledge of it's methdology is evil.


Don't you think without some "isms" modern culture would be very barbaric? I mean, what if we never learned Love thy neighbor, or that to break the cycle of sorrow in life we have to lose our lust for material and earthly things? Are you saying that a world without these isms, presumably you refer most to those that pertain to belieng in a diety, would be a better one? I think it was because of these Isms that we are able to think freely, and obtain some sort of enlightenment.

Yay! I haven't seen a Creationism vs Evolution thread in like...2 months! :D

MyGod! You have been blind and I'm so glad you have recovered. :D

Creationism vs Evolution is just another chapter in the much documented war of religion vs science. Human curiosity will never cease, but also human desire for security is embraced by religion (for example, an afterlife).

I wonder what the next issue concocted by the men in white coats will anger the god-fearing among us.

Don't you think without some "isms" modern culture would be very barbaric? I mean, what if we never learned Love thy neighbor, or that to break the cycle of sorrow in life we have to lose our lust for material and earthly things? Are you saying that a world without these isms, presumably you refer most to those that pertain to belieng in a diety, would be a better one? I think it was because of these Isms that we are able to think freely, and obtain some sort of enlightenment.The golden rule existed before Christianity. For all I know, it always existed.

But apart from that, I wasn't arguing against religion or any other form of superstition. I was arguing against:
1. Forcing your superstition on others
2. Holding on to superstitions in the face of overwhelmin g abounts of evidence to the contrary.

The former is simply inhuman & evil, the latter is just bloodyminded idiocy.

MyGod! You have been blind and I'm so glad you have recovered. :D


The question is, who healed me? Was it God or science? dum dum dummmmm

/dramatic music

Don't you think without some "isms" modern culture would be very barbaric? I mean, what if we never learned Love thy neighbor, or that to break the cycle of sorrow in life we have to lose our lust for material and earthly things? Are you saying that a world without these isms, presumably you refer most to those that pertain to belieng in a diety, would be a better one? I think it was because of these Isms that we are able to think freely, and obtain some sort of enlightenment.
Ruling a large kingdom is indeed like cooking small fish.

The golden rule existed before Christianity. For all I know, it always existed.

But apart from that, I wasn't arguing against religion or any other form of superstition. I was arguing against:
1. Forcing your superstition on others
2. Holding on to superstitions in the face of overwhelmin g abounts of evidence to the contrary.

The former is simply inhuman & evil, the latter is just bloodyminded idiocy.


Well as far as I know, God creating the universe, the earth, life and so on, hasn't exactly been disproven yet. So Ill stick with that ;)

I believe in neither. I'm just a small, under-evolved mollusk who's having a really weird dream after eating a diseased sea-cucumber.

I demand that the figments of my imagination (often refered to as 'children') be taught the controversy! The old paradigm that we are an advanced breed of ape is unsustainable and based on circular reasoning. Present the facts and let the children decide whether they're delusional mollusks or not!

Microbes are more successful because there are more of them. Therefore they are superior. Therefore humanity should never have evolved OR should be evolving back. Thusly, creationism is more logical.

Ruling a large kingdom is indeed like cooking small fish.


It is. I can see it. With cooking the fish you have to make sure you cook it just right, holding it over the fire at the right spot, and for the right ammount of time. If you hold it there for too long, or too far into the fire, it will be burnt. Same with ruling a kingdom. You have to do things just right. If you push things too fast or too hard onto your people or your government, then everything could be burnt down :p

“Your god is dead and only the ignorant weep. And if you claim there is a hell, then we shall meet there.”

Ah, this poll would please Nietzsche. Most of those voting for creationism have voted that it makes more logical sense than evolution, despite the fact that they obviously have religious motivations. Otherwise, they would have voted that they had no strong opinions. You see, when the religious must contend with the obviously superior materialistic and scientific arguments for the Theory of Evolution by resorting to anything but faith, then God is dead. If a creationists simply says that they believe in Evolution because of their faith, fine, you can’t touch that, but if somebody refutes evolution with concocted and wrong pseudo-science (intelligent design), then they are no longer faithful, and will go to hell according to the teachings of their own religion.

Because the ignorant and willfully stupid insists that everyone follow their beliefs in an attempt to bring everyone down to their level, while the intelligent foster this misguided notion that you can teach the ignorant etc anything.

The golden rule existed before Christianity. For all I know, it always existed.

But apart from that, I wasn't arguing against religion or any other form of superstition. I was arguing against:
1. Forcing your superstition on others
2. Holding on to superstitions in the face of overwhelmin g abounts of evidence to the contrary.

The former is simply inhuman & evil, the latter is just bloodyminded idiocy.

Why must so many people refer to religion as superstition? Besides displaying a lack of respect for the genuine beliefs of others, that is. And you condemn "forcing a superstition on others;" would not telling creationists that their belief is wrong be the same thing, or trying to indoctrinate the people in evolution without providing a counter argument?

The question is, who healed me? Was it God or science? dum dum dummmmm

/dramatic music

Both? :confused: So, do I get the cookies? :)

Yay! I haven't seen a Creationism vs Evolution thread in like...2 months! :D

ha.. I just came from one... Evolution is an explanation of how life got to be what it is today - it answers "how does life exist as it does today?"; Creationism is an explanation of why life got to be what it is today - it answers "why does life exist as it does today?" Ergo, the two have very little in common - if only the fact that people are crazy enough to get into arguments [like ME!!! :)] about whether one contradicts the other.

I'd say more, but I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over again about this debate - somehow, it just goes to prove the ignorance of some people [particularly Americans].

It is. I can see it. With cooking the fish you have to make sure you cook it just right, holding it over the fire at the right spot, and for the right ammount of time. If you hold it there for too long, or too far into the fire, it will be burnt. Same with ruling a kingdom. You have to do things just right. If you push things too fast or too hard onto your people or your government, then everything could be burnt down :p
Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill.
Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt.
Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench.
Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner.

“Your god is dead and only the ignorant weep. And if you claim there is a hell, then we shall meet there.”

Ah, this poll would please Nietzsche. Most of those voting for creationism have voted that it makes more logical sense than evolution, despite the fact that they obviously have religious motivations. Otherwise, they would have voted that they had no strong opinions. You see, when the religious must contend with the obviously superior materialistic and scientific arguments for the Theory of Evolution by resorting to anything but faith, then God is dead. If a creationists simply says that they believe in Evolution because of their faith, fine, you can’t touch that, but if somebody refutes evolution with concocted and wrong pseudo-science (intelligent design), then they are no longer faithful, and will go to hell according to the teachings of their own religion.

God, I love nihilism... totally ironic...

Both? :confused: So, do I get the cookies? :)


Hehe. You get the cookies alright :)

Evolution is not the current accepted scientific explanation because is more logical. It is the accepted because is the one that better explains all the facts observed in nature.

Science is not about the search of logical explanations but natural explanations. Among 2 logical hipotheses the one that better explains observations of the nature is the selected one.

There was one U.S. state that redefined science to the search of "logical explanations" instead of "natural explanations" in order to go with creationism theories.

Sorry but I cannot cast my vote because of this very important difference.

“Your god is dead and only the ignorant weep. And if you claim there is a hell, then we shall meet there.”

Ah, this poll would please Nietzsche. Most of those voting for creationism have voted that it makes more logical sense than evolution, despite the fact that they obviously have religious motivations. Otherwise, they would have voted that they had no strong opinions. You see, when the religious must contend with the obviously superior materialistic and scientific arguments for the Theory of Evolution by resorting to anything but faith, then God is dead. If a creationists simply says that they believe in Evolution because of their faith, fine, you can’t touch that, but if somebody refutes evolution with concocted and wrong pseudo-science (intelligent design), then they are no longer faithful, and will go to hell according to the teachings of their own religion.

I don't understand the connections you're making here. Suddenly supporting Intelligent Design by using science to disprove the faulty logic in Evolutionary science is a direct shot to Hell? If the misconceptions of evolution are to be effectively refuted, then science must be used, as supporters will not accept the Bible as legitimate reasoning.

How is believing that God(or a diety) created everything, going to stop someone from inventing a vaccine or learning about the body?

Ever heard of Christian Science? It maintains that, to truly be healed in the righteous way, you mustn't have any help from actual science and must only be healed through god and prayer. I wonder how many people have died because they've rejected modern science in place of praying for their sickness to just go away - this is also harmful to those who would rather a priest or televangelist "heal" them and then insist that they're healed afterward even though they're only getting worse.

Why must so many people refer to religion as superstition? Besides displaying a lack of respect for the genuine beliefs of others, that is. And you condemn "forcing a superstition on others;" would not telling creationists that their belief is wrong be the same thing, or trying to indoctrinate the people in evolution without providing a counter argument?
If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial.

Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill.
Keep sharpening your knife and it will blunt.
Chase after money and security and your heart will never unclench.
Care about people's approval and you will be their prisoner.


Ok, so now you are confusing me here. What does this have to do with evolution vs creationism?

Personally, I'm for evolution. But that doesn't mean they can't teach both theories in school. What I don't understand is why some schoolboards in some places choose to only teach one and not the other. What are they so afraid of? They're simply theories, it doesn't mean they are necessarily true. And its not like they're being preached to the students. The students can freely make up their minds in what they want to believe. I think its important that students get exposure to various ideas and not just one thing.

God, I love nihilism... totally ironic...
If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish.

I see creationalism (not intelligent design, that's selling out IMHO) as the only logical theory at this point. Since there is no other valid theory (IMHO) God must exist. Thusly I am a Christian. (That's right, the only faith I have is that the Bible is infact a decent historical account and the Jesus was the son of God. As far as I'm concerned there is no alternative to the existence of God.)

Ok, so now you are confusing me here. What does this have to do with evolution vs creationism?
The world is sacred. It cannot be improved. If you tamper with it, you will ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you will lose it.

I don't understand the connections you're making here. Suddenly supporting Intelligent Design by using science to disprove the faulty logic in Evolutionary science is a direct shot to Hell? If the misconceptions of evolution are to be effectively refuted, then science must be used, as supporters will not accept the Bible as legitimate reasoning.
Your argument would have merit, if there was science on the side of intelligent design. There isn’t. The truth is that there is no serious debate going on in the scientific community about the factuality of the Theory of Evolution, and to say otherwise is dishonest.

Personally, I'm for evolution. But that doesn't mean they can't teach both theories in school. What I don't understand is why some schoolboards in some places choose to only teach one and not the other. What are they so afraid of? They're simply theories, it doesn't mean they are necessarily true. And its not like they're being preached to the students. The students can freely make up their minds in what they want to believe. I think its important that students get exposure to various ideas and not just one thing.

Evolution is an almost completely verified theory. Creationism is from a book that has almost no basis other than the fact that the book says the book is infallable and perfect. Which is able to be tested scientifically and verified to be true? Evolution. Why would something like Creationism be taught in school in something other than a religious studies class, much less the actual fucking science class?

If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish.


I do indeed :)

But I'd much rather prefer getting it right the first time...

I do indeed :)

But I'd much rather prefer getting it right the first time...
True perfection seems imperfect, yet it is perfectly itself.
True fullness seems empty, yet it is fully present.

Personally, I'm for evolution. But that doesn't mean they can't teach both theories in school. What I don't understand is why some schoolboards in some places choose to only teach one and not the other. What are they so afraid of? They're simply theories, it doesn't mean they are necessarily true. And its not like they're being preached to the students. The students can freely make up their minds in what they want to believe. I think its important that students get exposure to various ideas and not just one thing.

You are right on in what you say. However, logical thinking does not prevail in out society. :(

Evolution is an almost completely verified theory. Creationism is from a book that has almost no basis other than the fact that the book says the book is infallable and perfect. Which is able to be tested scientifically and verified to be true? Evolution. Why would something like Creationism be taught in school in something other than a religious studies class, much less the actual fucking science class?

Well, technically creationism IS still a theory no less.

How is believing that God(or a diety) created everything, going to stop someone from inventing a vaccine or learning about the body?
Your answer should be somewhere in here:

"Claim CA215:
The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application.

Source:
Lindsey, George. 1985. Evolution -- Useful or useless? Impact 148 (Oct.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252
Wieland, Carl. 1998. Evolution and practical science. Creation 20(4) (Sept.): 4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp

Response:
Evolutionary theory is the framework tying together all of biology. It explains similarities and differences between organisms, fossils, biogeography, drug resistance, extreme features such as the peacock's tail, relative virulence of parasites, and much more besides. Without the theory of evolution, it would still be possible to know much about biology, but not to understand it.

This explanatory framework is useful in a practical sense. First, a unified theory is easier to learn, because the facts connect together rather than being so many isolated bits of trivia. Second, having a theory makes it possible to see gaps in the theory, suggesting productive areas for new research.


Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.

Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).

Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

Evolutionary theory is being applied to and has potential applications in may other areas, from evaluating the threats of genetically modified crops to human psychology. Additional applications are sure to come.


Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent, has proven its usefulness:
Tracing genes of known function and comparing how they are related to unknown genes helps one to predict unknown gene function, which is foundational for drug discovery (Branca 2002; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

Phylogenetic analysis is a standard part of epidemiology, since it allows the identification of disease reservoirs and sometimes the tracking of step-by-step transmission of disease. For example, phylogenetic analysis confirmed that a Florida dentist was infecting his patients with HIV, that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were transmitted to humans from chimpanzees and mangabey monkeys in the twentieth century, and, when polio was being eradicated from the Americas, that new cases were not coming from hidden reservoirs (Bull and Wichman 2001). It was used in 2002 to help convict a man of intentionally infecting someone with HIV (Vogel 1998). The same principle can be used to trace the source of bioweapons (Cummings and Relman 2002).

Phylogenetic analysis to track the diversity of a pathogen can be used to select an appropriate vaccine for a particular region (Gaschen et al. 2002).
Ribotyping is a technique for identifying an organism or at least finding its closest known relative by mapping its ribosomal RNA onto the tree of life. It can be used even when the organisms cannot be cultured or recognized by other methods. Ribotyping and other genotyping methods have been used to find previously unknown infectious agents of human disease (Bull and Wichman 2001; Relman 1999).

Phylogenetic analysis helps in determining protein folds, since proteins diverging from a common ancestor tend to conserve their folds (Benner 2001).


Directed evolution allows the "breeding" of molecules or molecular pathways to create or enhance products, including:
enzymes (Arnold 2001)
pigments (Arnold 2001)
antibiotics
flavors
biopolymers
bacterial strains to decompose hazardous materials.
Directed evolution can also be used to study the folding and function of natural enzymes (Taylor et al. 2001).


The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering (Marczyk 2004).


Tools developed for evolutionary science have been put to other uses. For example:

Many statistical techniques, including analysis of variance and linear regression, were developed by evolutionary biologists, especially Ronald Fisher and Karl Pearson. These statistical techniques have much wider application today.

The same techniques of phylogenetic analysis developed for biology can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript (Barbrook et al. 1998; Howe et al. 2001) and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005).


Good science need not have any application beyond satisfying curiosity. Much of astronomy, geology, paleontology, natural history, and other sciences have no practical application. For many people, knowledge is a worthy end in itself.


Science with little or no application now may find application in the future, especially as the field matures and our knowledge of it becomes more complete. Practical applications are often built upon ideas that did not look applicable originally. Furthermore, advances in one area of science can help illuminate other areas. Evolution provides a framework for biology, a framework which can support other useful biological advances.


Anti-evolutionary ideas have been around for millennia and have not yet contributed anything with any practical application.
References:
Arnold, Frances H. 2001. Combinatorial and computational challenges for biocatalyst design. Nature 409: 253-257.
Barbrook, Adrian C., Christopher J. Howe, Norman Blake, and Peter Robinson, 1998. The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394: 839.
Benner, Steven A. 2001. Natural progression. Nature 409: 459.
Branca, Malorye. 2002. Sorting the microbes from the trees. Bio-IT Bulletin, Apr. 07. http://www.bio-itworld.com/news/040702_report186.html
Bull, J. J. and H. A. Wichman. 2001. Applied evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 183-217.
Cherry, J. R., and A. L. Fidantsef. 2003. Directed evolution of industrial enzymes: an update. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 438-443.
Conover, D. O. and S. B. Munch. 2002. Sustaining fisheries yields over evolutionary time scales. Science 297: 94-96. See also pp. 31-32.
Cummings, C. A. and D. A. Relman. 2002. Microbial forensics-- "cross-examining pathogens". Science 296: 1976-1979.
Dunn, M., A. Terrill, G. Reesink, R. A. Foley and S. C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309: 2072-2075. See also: Gray, Russell. 2005. Pushing the time barrier in the quest for language roots. Science 309: 2007-2008.
Eisen, J. and M. Wu. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and gene functional predictions: Phylogenomics in action. Theoretical Population Biology 61: 481-487.
Futuyma, D. J. 1995. The uses of evolutionary biology. Science 267: 41-42.
Galvani, Alison P. 2003. Epidemiology meets evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(3): 132-139.
Gaschen, B. et al.. 2002. Diversity considerations in HIV-1 vaccine selection. Science 296: 2354-2360.
Howe, Christopher J. et al. 2001. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 17: 147-152.
Marczyk, Adam. 2004. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary computation. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
Nesse, Randolph M. and George C. Williams. 1994. Why We Get Sick. New York: Times Books.
Relman, David A. 1999. The search for unrecognized pathogens. Science 284: 1308-1310.
Searls, D., 2003. Pharmacophylogenomics: Genes, evolution and drug targets. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2: 613-623. http://www.nature.com/nature/view/030731.html
Sutherland, William J., 2002. Science, sex and the kakapo. Nature 419: 265-266.
Taylor, Sean V., Peter Kast, and Donald Hilvert. 2001. Investigating and engineering enzymes by genetic selection. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 40: 3310-3335.
Vogel, Gretchen. 1998. HIV strain analysis debuts in murder trial. Science 282: 851-852."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html

The above poll should be pretty straightforward. For the sake of keeping the number of options low, and not having a million options that no-one's going to choose, I decided not to include options such as "Evolution, although Creationism is better" or "Creation, although Evolution is better". Obviously, if someone's going to believe something, they need a reason. The latter option would fall nicely under the "faith" poll option. Alas, the former is unaccomodated, because I can think of no ulterior motive to believe Evolution when you believe Creationism is better (i.e. no faiths that I know of).

The fifth poll option applies to both Evolution-believing people and Creationism-believing people that feel both ideas have equal merit (I decided not to break it up).

Anyways, a creationist's argument (in the other thread) prompted this thread and poll. Something started to bug me.

I don't understand why creationists try to refute evolution, and try to show how it's unverified and such. To me, both ideas come from completely different schools of thought. One comes from science, the other comes from faith. They cannot argue with one another, because they use completely different bases for their ideas.

Even if macroevolution is bad, and unverified, it is still the best thing we have towards explaining currently existing species. Creationism can never surpass it because it doesn't use logic or science. Evolution, although flawed, is the best thing our current logic and science has come up with.

Creationists seem to think that if another theory that is held in such high regard is slightly less logical than everyone thinks it is, then the alternative theory must be true. So let's just say I give up and accept that evolution has less basis than everyone thinks it does and you're right. It still has more basis than creationism! If you say it does not, then you're trying to make it equivalent to any random theory that some dude in his basement would come up with.

However, it is better than all of the other unbased theories, because it was created by great scientific minds, using already existing hard facts to derive this theory.

What I am trying to show to everyone is not that Evolution is better than Creationism. Rather, that Evolution and Creationism come from two completely different schools of thought, and that Creationism cannot establish supremacy in Evolution's domain (i.e. science) and vice-versa.

Not everyone shares your wisdom. Many people feel that creation can be made into a scientific idea and disprove evolution. That is why people fight about it. As far as I know most evolutionists do not deny the posibility of a creator, but simply argue that we evolved to the state we are in today.

Where is the option about the Flying Spaghetti Monster creating the universe in all his noodly wisdom?

Personally, I'm for evolution. But that doesn't mean they can't teach both theories in school. What I don't understand is why some schoolboards in some places choose to only teach one and not the other. What are they so afraid of? They're simply theories, it doesn't mean they are necessarily true. And its not like they're being preached to the students. The students can freely make up their minds in what they want to believe. I think its important that students get exposure to various ideas and not just one thing.

I'm for both. Micro and Macroevolution both exist, but I don't believe everything descended through cladogenesis from one or a few organisms. But I can't see creationism, with all of the slight twists you could make on it, taught in school. How do you take a test on that?

Your argument would have merit, if there was science on the side of intelligent design. There isn’t. The truth is that there is no serious debate going on in the scientific community about the factuality of the Theory of Evolution, and to say otherwise is dishonest.

Then I'll be dishonest and speak the truth: the theory of evolution is being seriously debated in the scientific community. And I'm not advocating that Intelligent Design has science on its side, as you said, it doesn't. I'm arguing against the faulty science used to further Theory of Evolution.

True perfection seems imperfect, yet it is perfectly itself.
True fullness seems empty, yet it is fully present.


If you want to concoct adages, be my guest. But lest you decide to find what hollow words you speak, I shall hear little from you. Is it of your capacity to quoe pithy phrases without truly understanding what it is that you intend to speak?

If your perfection is perfectly itself, what makes you decide that? Is the satisfaction of knowing it is perfect, or is it the genuine idea that you know whaht perfection is and thus are able to glance on your perfection as a perfect thing? What do you acknowledge in saying that? Is it that you know little of what makes perfection, but are content to guide others to their perfection? Unless you've seen years, I don't see much from you, let alone these words you speak. The first time seemed worthwhile; the second was disrespectful - I'll let you know that.

Unless you wish to add to these your own hollow words, say nothing at all.

How is believing that God(or a diety) created everything, going to stop someone from inventing a vaccine or learning about the body?
Try making a vaccine that protects against a moving target (AIDS) without believing in evolution. If one believes in ID, AIDS will never evolve a resistance to any drugs.

I'm for both. Micro and Macroevolution both exist, but I don't believe everything descended through cladogenesis from one or a few organisms. But I can't see creationism, with all of the slight twists you could make on it, taught in school. How do you take a test on that?
Teacher: Do you accept the Lord Our Savior, Jesus Christ?
Student: OK.
Teacher: A+!

Try making a vaccine that protects against a moving target (AIDS) without believing in evolution. If one believes in ID, AIDS will never evolve a resistance to any drugs.
Your right, the entire speicies will never evolve a resistance to anything, however certain groups of mutations will adapt. That isn't evolution, if it where evolution it would be inevitable.

If you want to concoct adages, be my guest. But lest you decide to find what hollow words you speak, I shall hear little from you. Is it of your capacity to quoe pithy phrases without truly understanding what it is that you intend to speak?

If your perfection is perfectly itself, what makes you decide that? Is the satisfaction of knowing it is perfect, or is it the genuine idea that you know whaht perfection is and thus are able to glance on your perfection as a perfect thing? What do you acknowledge in saying that? Is it that you know little of what makes perfection, but are content to guide others to their perfection? Unless you've seen years, I don't see much from you, let alone these words you speak. The first time seemed worthwhile; the second was disrespectful - I'll let you know that.

Unless you wish to add to these your own hollow words, say nothing at all.
Some say that my teaching is nonsense. Others call it lofty but impractical. But to those who have looked inside themselves, this nonsense makes perfect sense. And to those who put it into practice, this loftiness has roots that go deep.

Try making a vaccine that protects against a moving target (AIDS) without believing in evolution. If one believes in ID, AIDS will never evolve a resistance to any drugs.

Thats not true. I don't know how anyone could believe that God created organisms that stayed in an infinite state of stasis with all the problems we have with flu vaccines, or the common cold. Organisms change - it's a fact. That doesn't mean God didn't make them.

Try making a vaccine that protects against a moving target (AIDS) without believing in evolution. If one believes in ID, AIDS will never evolve a resistance to any drugs.

ID isn't a true science - its roots are based in the faith that this is the best world of best worlds possible, and that things are the way they are because they are for the best. In some creepy way, it ironically turns evolution into the deity, because ID proposes that evolution is the way that it is because it is the purpose of God. It's neither Christian [at least in my perspective] nor scientific.

Well I was taught both the Creationist and Evolutionist theories in my social sciences class in high school. And *gasp*, the world is STILL spinning! No harm in getting some exposure to various theories, thats all I'm saying.

Your right, the entire speicies will never evolve a resistance to anything, however certain groups of mutations will adapt. That isn't evolution, if it where evolution it would be inevitable.
Um, if we keep large amounts of selective pressure on the wild-types then eventually the mutant allele will become fixed, the entire species is resistant to the drug.

Some say that my teaching is nonsense. Others call it lofty but impractical. But to those who have looked inside themselves, this nonsense makes perfect sense. And to those who put it into practice, this loftiness has roots that go deep.

Then you should really know to whom you speak before you say things. Otherwise, it seems like a small prawn trying to make itself into a whale.

And saying it is "your" teaching seems at best arrogant.

Teacher: Do you accept the Lord Our Savior, Jesus Christ?
Student: OK.
Teacher: A+!

If that's the case, I'm all for creationism. I could use my grades getting a boost...

Teacher: Do you accept the Lord Our Savior, Jesus Christ?
Student: OK.
Teacher: A+!
Oh come on. The Muslim and Judaist religions teach the same thing. How about one question? "What is the theory of creationalism? A.That microbes slowly turned into better animals.(0%) B. That God created the universe. (25%) C. That a being created life. (100%)"

Thats not true. I don't know how anyone could believe that God created organisms that stayed in an infinite state of stasis with all the problems we have with flu vaccines, or the common cold. Organisms change - it's a fact. That doesn't mean God didn't make them.


YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you should really know to whom you speak before you say things. Otherwise, it seems like a small prawn trying to make itself into a whale.

And saying it is "your" teaching seems at best arrogant.
When they think that they know the answers, people are difficult to guide.
When they know that they don't know, people can find their own way.

Thats not true. I don't know how anyone could believe that God created organisms that stayed in an infinite state of stasis with all the problems we have with flu vaccines, or the common cold. Organisms change - it's a fact. That doesn't mean God didn't make them.
If you concede microevolution, you concede macroevolution. They're the same thing.

Then I'll be dishonest and speak the truth: the theory of evolution is being seriously debated in the scientific community.
It just isn’t. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are woefully misinformed and not just a typical evangelical liar.
And I'm not advocating that Intelligent Design has science on its side, as you said, it doesn't. I'm arguing against the faulty science used to further Theory of Evolution.
There is no faulty science in the Theory of Evolution. Otherwise, it wouldn't be universially accepted as a Scientific Theory.

Um, if we keep large amounts of selective pressure on the wild-types then eventually the mutant allele will become fixed, the entire species is resistant to the drug.
And you can guarantee that it will never revert? Even if the environment changes?

Your right, the entire speicies will never evolve a resistance to anything, however certain groups of mutations will adapt. That isn't evolution, if it where evolution it would be inevitable.

It is inevitable. The groups that develop mutations have evolved. The groups that have not developed mutations have not evolved. When treated with a drug that kills all of the old breed of AIDS the groups that have not evolved will be dead and the whole species will have evolved.

When they think that they know the answers, people are difficult to guide.
When they know that they don't know, people can find their own way.

When the teacher is dead, his wisdom is more appreciated.

And you can guarantee that it will never revert? Even if the environment changes?
Nope. It could mutate back. Two different events though.

Barring another mutation, it wouldn't revert.

There is no faulty science in the Theory of Evolution. Otherwise, it wouldn't be universially accepted as a Scientific Theory.
Because science has never been wrong before. :rolleyes:

When the teacher is dead, his wisdom is more appreciated.
What is rooted is easy to nourish.
What is recent is easy to correct.
What is brittle is easy to break.
What is small is easy to scatter.

Well as far as I know, God creating the universe, the earth, life and so on, hasn't exactly been disproven yet. So Ill stick with that ;)If I in any way said that religions had been disproven, then it was intirely unintentional.

And hey, I never said you should stop being superstitious. Just like you, I believe God created the universe, the Earth, life & so on. The only difference between us is that I know God is my girlfriend, so I have the benefit of a rather more intuiotive understanding of life, the universe & everything.. Of course, I'm also deathly afraid of it all, since I know how short a fuse my dear creator has.

Trust me, it's no fun spending a couple of millenia being reincarnated as a frog's meal, just because you forgot to do the laundry.


... Three cheers for random, unfounded sillyness.

And you can guarantee that it will never revert? Even if the environment changes?

If you change the selection pressure, then the organism(s) will adapt and evolve.
But if you keep the selection pressure the same, the organism(s) will stay the same.

It is inevitable. The groups that develop mutations have evolved. The groups that have not developed mutations have not evolved. When treated with a drug that kills all of the old breed of AIDS the groups that have not evolved will be dead and the whole species will have evolved.
Then why do we feel the need to preserve other creatures? We just happen to be pushing them out. If they can't adapt, we should be letting them die off. We aren't. How is that benefiting us? If it isn't then why did it evolve?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indeed. It should really end all discussion, but some people do attempt to make that very claim that god created a static world.

If you change the selection pressure, then the organism(s) will adapt and evolve.
But if you keep the selection pressure the same, the organism(s) will stay the same.
So an oscillation between two adaptations is evolution? Even if it’s never compounded?

So an oscillation between two adaptations is evolution? Even if it’s never compounded?
Straw man. Never happens.

Oh come on. The Muslim and Judaist religions teach the same thing. How about one question? "What is the theory of creationalism? A.That microbes slowly turned into better animals.(0%) B. That God created the universe. (25%) C. That a being created life. (100%)"
No, you come on. It seems to be that it only the Christian Right in America that is pushing for this ridiculousness.

Then why do we feel the need to preserve other creatures? We just happen to be pushing them out. If they can't adapt, we should be letting them die off. We aren't. How is that benefiting us? If it isn't then why did it evolve?

As humans we are very good at killing. Just because something can't instantly adapt to survive a nuclear explosion does not mean that we are obligated to kill it. We are dependant on a great deal for survival. We could kill off all plants but then we would not have any source of oxygen left. We could kill off all dogs, but then we would have to go pick up our frisbees ourselves.

Indeed. It should really end all discussion, but some people do attempt to make that very claim that god created a static world.

I am very disappointed that people are still talking, even though they just SAID it. There really is no more argument here, but people insist that they have to argue.

And Ginnoria, your comments fall upon ears that listen to the echoes of adages that come from the folk who straddle the agora, charging the citizen's youth for their wisdom. And I am only too grateful that there is no fee from your wisdom, because in truth, I've heard it before; I've learned from others; I've delved into my own, and saw something that sparkles in my mind. You speak only echoes; I don't even know if you have a voice.

If you have genuine respect, you will either start a new thread and stop intruding in this conversation between two camps settled on two different fields, or you will cease your words. Otherwise, I will have lost all respect for you [quite frankly, you're lucky that I have such a high tolerance for your arrogance - otherwise, I would have resorted to the childish obscenities that rattle this forum, but alas, I would be the child that you seek into which you would seek to empty your advice].

My advice for you - know to whom you preach before you spill your advice.

science as it is now termed was orginally a branch of philosophy...and philosophy is based on the concept that God does not exist....it is almost impossible to find a reasonable balance..... and going back to the original poster's comment that the religious shouldn't attempt to force the non religious to accept religious beliefs over their own....and yet it seems ok for the scientific Believers to do just that...Hmmm....Hypocrisy methinks....

Because sometimes, sexual masturbation isn't enough. People need the occasional mental circle jerk; pointless arguments serve that purpose.

science as it is now termed was orginally a branch of philosophy...and philosophy is based on the concept that God does not exist....it is almost impossible to find a reasonable balance..... and going back to the original poster's comment that the religious shouldn't attempt to force the non religious to accept religious beliefs over their own....and yet it seems ok for the scientific Believers to do just that...Hmmm....Hypocrisy methinks....

Science hasn't done that. Science hasn't broken into churches and demanded they teach the evolutionary theory. This has never happened.

science as it is now termed was orginally a branch of philosophy...and philosophy is based on the concept that God does not exist....it is almost impossible to find a reasonable balance..... and going back to the original poster's comment that the religious shouldn't attempt to force the non religious to accept religious beliefs over their own....and yet it seems ok for the scientific Believers to do just that...Hmmm....Hypocrisy methinks....

Philosophy is based on the concept that God does not exist?

Where do you learn that?

Science is not a "branch" of philosophy - philosophy is a way of life, to examine the world as the self. In Descarte's Meditations, he proceeds to prove the existence of the self, and only by the existence of God is he able to prove it. What you're probably thinking about is nihilism.

EDIT - I'm done...

and going back to the original poster's comment that the religious shouldn't attempt to force the non religious to accept religious beliefs over their own....and yet it seems ok for the scientific Believers to do just that...Hmmm....Hypocrisy methinks....

It is partly hypocrisy, but scientists have the ability to show you why they believe something.
For example, if i tell you that adding hydrochloric acid to calcium carbonate produces carbon dioxide, I only have to conduct a simple experiment to prove to you that that is what happens.
On the other hand, if I tell you God exists, I cannot go and get God and show you that he exists. I am not saying religion is wrong and false, I am saying that science has the ability to prove things.

definately thinking of science,......going back to the sixteenth century...before descarte.....The original study of the Physiks of nature...or the natural sciences as they were then termed...were a part of The school of philosophy...and Philosophy was and still is based around the concept of .....If there is no god how do we explain all this reality stuff

Science hasn't done that. Science hasn't broken into churches and demanded they teach the evolutionary theory. This has never happened.
Actually, I do break into churches and put stuffed monkeys on all the pews... but then I'm not science...

Teacher: Do you accept the Lord Our Savior, Jesus Christ?
Student: OK.
Teacher: A+!

Better still, how about an exam paper with two sets of possible answers? Let the student decide which exam they want to take and then everyone's happy:

1.) How did human beings come to exist in their present form? (3)

Evolutionary mark scheme:

1 mark for reference to random mutation.
1 mark for reference to natural selection.
1 mark for reference to a common ancestor.

Creationist mark scheme:

2 marks for 'God diddit'.
1 mark for equivocating evolution and atheism.

2.) How well does evidence support evolution? (4)

Evolutionary mark scheme:

Any two from (must include detailed explanation):
-Fossil record. (2)
-Genetic evidence. (2)
-Vestigal organs. (2)

Creationist mark scheme:

Any four from:
-Misrepresenting the theory of evolution. (1)
-Claiming that Darwin recanted on his death bed. (1)
-Misunderstanding the second law of thermodynamics. (1)
-Blaming evolution for Hitler and the Holocaust. (1)
-Pretending there's a difference between micro and macro evolution. (1)
-Pretending that there are no transitionary fossils. (1)

I am very disappointed that people are still talking, even though they just SAID it. There really is no more argument here, but people insist that they have to argue.
Why then are you so insistent on keeping it on topic:

And Ginnoria, your comments fall upon ears that listen to the echoes of adages that come from the folk who straddle the agora, charging the citizen's youth for their wisdom. And I am only too grateful that there is no fee from your wisdom, because in truth, I've heard it before; I've learned from others; I've delved into my own, and saw something that sparkles in my mind. You speak only echoes; I don't even know if you have a voice.

If you have genuine respect, you will either start a new thread and stop intruding in this conversation between two camps settled on two different fields, or you will cease your words. Otherwise, I will have lost all respect for you [quite frankly, you're lucky that I have such a high tolerance for your arrogance - otherwise, I would have resorted to the childish obscenities that rattle this forum, but alas, I would be the child that you seek into which you would seek to empty your advice].

My advice for you - know to whom you preach before you spill your advice.

Actually, I do break into churches and put stuffed monkeys on all the pews... but then I'm not science...

Did the preacher notice? ;)

I was quite angered to learn one of the egomaniac science teachers in my school is a creationist. Thankfully he was a chemistry teacher and not a biologist.

It is partly hypocrisy, but scientists have the ability to show you why they believe something.
For example, if i tell you that adding hydrochloric acid to calcium carbonate produces carbon dioxide, I only have to conduct a simple experiment to prove to you that that is what happens.
On the other hand, if I tell you God exists, I cannot go and get God and show you that he exists. I am not saying religion is wrong and false, I am saying that science has the ability to prove things.
thank you for your honesty...in your example of an experiment you can only show what you believe is happening and not why you believe it is truth...
and if we're talking about an omnipresent God...then there is no need to get him...surely he is everywhere..isn't that the point of God...?

Did the preacher notice? ;)
Well, the preacher man's son noticed.
How well I remember
The look that was in his eyes
Stealin' kisses from me on the sly
Takin' time to make time
Tellin' me that he's all mine
Learnin' from each other's knowin'
Lookin' to see how much we've grown

Why must so many people refer to religion as superstition? Besides displaying a lack of respect for the genuine beliefs of others, that is. And you condemn "forcing a superstition on others;" would not telling creationists that their belief is wrong be the same thing, or trying to indoctrinate the people in evolution without providing a counter argument?

Referring to someone's invisible friend(Santa Claus, for one example) as superstition is not offensive and illogical.

Wait we're talking about god? Oh, in that case it's HORRIBLY offensive! People can believe whatever they want and be right no matter how compelling the evidence. Everybody's right! don't hurt anybody by saying they're wrong ever!... friggin postmodern attitude..

Oh, ffs.

These topics will never end, will they? :p

Oh, ffs.

These topics will never end, will they? :p

Not so long as there are religious annoyances that insist on breaking into the classrooms they don't belong in.

Oh, ffs.

These topics will never end, will they? :p

No they will not. And niether side will alter their positions or their arguments one bit. It is fun to watch monkeys argueing over whether they were created or evolved though.

No they will not. And niether side will alter their positions or theur arguments one bit. It is fun to watch monkeys argueing over whether they were created or evolved though.

Nice.
:)

thank you for your honesty...in your example of an experiment you can only show what you believe is happening and not why you believe it is truth...
and if we're talking about an omnipresent God...then there is no need to get him...surely he is everywhere..isn't that the point of God...?

I was referring to God as not omnipresent to illustrate the point of proving existance, I do understand the importance of God being omnipresent.

Going back to my experiment, I can believe my experiment is truth because if I repeated the experiment I would find the exact same thing happened. If you gave me the ability to look at the reaction between the two chemicals atomically, then it would be possible to see two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom bonding to form carbon dioxide, then surely it cannot be denied that what we are witnessing is, in fact, untrue.

Not so long as there are religious annoyances that insist on breaking into the classrooms they don't belong in.

Here's an idea. How about we teach people both and let them decide?

Of course, that'd be no good, because there's the chance they might not choose evolution.

The obvious comeback is that there's too many religions to teach. Hence, teach none, and leave evolution out of school. Knowing the theory is of no benefit to most people - if they want to learn it, they can.

Both? :confused: So, do I get the cookies? :)

Agreed. God creates humans, giving them specific talents and skills, therefore the human ventures forth to create medicines and healing agents to aid his kind.

Here's an idea. How about we teach people both and let them decide?

Of course, that'd be no good, because there's the chance they might not choose evolution.

People -are- being taught both. In church, they are taught their religion. In school, they are taught their science. Christianity has, for some reason, chosen to break this and invade on the territory of science under false pretenses.

People -are- being taught both. In church, they are taught their religion. In school, they are taught their science. Christianity has, for some reason, chosen to break this and invade on the territory of science under false pretenses.

Evolution has also chosen to invade the territory of fact under false pretenses. It's taught in most schools as a fact, which it most certainly is not.

In NZ, it's somewhat amusing, because the textbooks used for evolution are significantly out of date, yet they still teach them with healthy self-righteousness. You think they'd at least bring them up to date.

Evolution has also chosen to invade the territory of fact under false pretenses. It's taught in most schools as a fact, which it most certainly is not.Blame the teachers, not the theory. Scientific theories aren't 100% certainties. They're "the most sensible explanations for the evidence at hand".

The thing about revering scientific theories as immutable facts, went out with the steady state theory around 2 generations ago.

Evolution has also chosen to invade the territory of fact under false pretenses. It's taught in most schools as a fact, which it most certainly is not.

In NZ, it's somewhat amusing, because the textbooks used for evolution are significantly out of date, yet they still teach them with healthy self-righteousness. You think they'd at least bring them up to date.

Evolution, even if you don't believe it is "fact" is just as good as being so. It is falsifiable, and it's been verified countless times in hypothesis testing. Most, if not all of its predictions have been correct, and we can see it happening, even over short periods of time. It's also a theory, which is a cogent, rational explanation of a given phenomenon. There is no other valid explanation, and, as I said, the overall process is verified consistantly through hypothesis testing.

Evolution existing is as factual as gravity existing. "It's only a theory LoLz101!!!" doesn't mean anything but that people don't understand what a scientific theory is. Nothing in science is 100% absolute beyond any doubt. That's a crappy criterion for a "fact." There's always some lame possibility.

It should be conveyed as fact. The evidence shows it's true. It's an artificial dichotom people create when they go "ZOMG! IT'S NOT FACT, only THEORY LoLz."

Because teaching mindless s*** in schools (lo creationism) will destroy what little hope the United States has in the science fields of keeping any kind of lead.


Interesting, because I find that drilling it into students' heads that they're nothing but animals with no accountability besides to the state in this life, and no hope but to be worm-food in the next, seems to foster a hopelessness and meaninglessness that sociologically destroys America's ability to keep up with the rest of the world. From my observatons, I find the more Evolution is stressed, the more people dedicate themselves to things like entertainment and drunkeness, not science. Because bottom line, nothing really matters. Why bother?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in science. The Scientific Law of Biogenesis: Living things have to come from other living things, and Like things beget like things. To truly believe in Evolution, one has to believe that scientific law was suspended (i.e., a Miracle occured). It takes a lot of faith to believe that absolutely nothing combined with absoultely nothing, nobody did anything to it, and nothing happened to that non-combined non-existant nothing that nobody made one non-day, and Poof! Everything came into being. It simply violates what we know of how this universe works.

Life has to come from something already living. Like things beget like things, not unlike. Those are scientific laws, not theories.
Louis Pasteur trumps Charles Darwin.

P.S. My favorite example of the Logic of Evolution. This guy on PBS a few years ago claimed that a computer program he wrote proves Evolution. He made a program that simulated the steps a virtual computer-generated organism takes to evolve. What he didn't realize, is that for the program to have really proved Evolution the way he was touting, the computer would have had to built itself, and the computer program (plus the language the program had been written in, as well as the operating system) would have had to be self-existing and self-installed on this self-building computer.... He didn't see that his experiment was flawed, because it had an Intellgent Design behind it that Created it....himself. Within the confines of his own experiment, he had unwittingly made himself into a vivid example of the very 'Watchmaker' he sought to disprove.

Here's an idea. How about we teach people both and let them decide?

Of course, that'd be no good, because there's the chance they might not choose evolution.

The obvious comeback is that there's too many religions to teach. Hence, teach none, and leave evolution out of school. Knowing the theory is of no benefit to most people - if they want to learn it, they can.
So in a rather round-a-bout way you're saying that, for the majority of the populace, ignorance is bliss?

While we're at it, let's teach about the Tooth Fairy at school, so we can balance out the theory of human dentition.

While we're at it, let's teach about the Tooth Fairy at school, so we can balance out the theory of human dentition.
Oh please, everyone knows that dentists are just figments of your imagination brought on by the tooth fairy's magic sparkle dust. Now in non-carcinogenic!

While we're at it, let's teach about the Tooth Fairy at school, so we can balance out the theory of human dentition.


Ah, but Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy don't upset people quite so much as the idea of God.

But if God doesn't really exist, then why does the very hint of the idea of Him make so many people so utterly violently livid?

I think it's because some want to live in a self-induced fantasy where there is no accountability for their actions. Then comes the theory of Evolution, which they grab ahold of and misuse as an easy defense for their rejection of moral authority.

Ah, but Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy don't upset people quite so much as the idea of God.

But if God doesn't really exist, then why does the very hint of the idea of Him make so many people so utterly violently livid?

I think it's because some want to live in a self-induced fantasy where there is no accountability for their actions. Then comes the theory of Evolution, which they grab ahold of and misuse as an easy defense for their rejection of moral authority.

Well, I take my kids home to learn about moral authority, and leave the teaching of pure science to the schools (although they get some of that at home as well). For extra moral authority, we go to church on Sundays.

Maybe some people can't separate their moral beliefs and incontrivertible scientific proof like I can.

P.S. My favorite example of the Logic of Evolution. This guy on PBS a few years ago claimed that a computer program he wrote proves Evolution. He made a program that simulated the steps a virtual computer-generated organism takes to evolve. What he didn't realize, is that for the program to have really proved Evolution the way he was touting, the computer would have had to built itself, and the computer program (plus the language the program had been written in, as well as the operating system) would have had to be self-existing and self-installed on this self-building computer.... He didn't see that his experiment was flawed, because it had an Intellgent Design behind it that Created it....himself. Within the confines of his own experiment, he had unwittingly made himself into a vivid example of the very 'Watchmaker' he sought to disprove.

Brilliant.

The basis of a belief in creation is in faith, since we can never get 100% concrete evidence. Sure, there is no need for faith when trying to prove a chemical reaction, because you can just go do it. But there is NOTHING in science that explains how everything evolved from nothing. It is said that from a an incredibly high level of improbability, organic life was made from a pre-biological soup, which formed on a perfectly positioned planet, formed from swirling dust around a star, formed from scattered gases in space. Then where did the gases come from? I'm not saying it's the level of probability that gets me, because even if it is high there is still a chance. It's the fact that at some point, there was'nt anything at all, anten with the help of nothing, there was something. If anything requires powerful faith, it is evolution.

Ah, but Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy don't upset people quite so much as the idea of God.

But if God doesn't really exist, then why does the very hint of the idea of Him make so many people so utterly violently livid?

I think it's because some want to live in a self-induced fantasy where there is no accountability for their actions. Then comes the theory of Evolution, which they grab ahold of and misuse as an easy defense for their rejection of moral authority.
It's rare that people ask my opinion of the Tooth Fairy. That sparkly whore...

Interesting, because I find that drilling it into students' heads that they're nothing but animals with no accountability besides to the state in this life, and no hope but to be worm-food in the next, seems to foster a hopelessness and meaninglessness that sociologically destroys America's ability to keep up with the rest of the world. From my observatons, I find the more Evolution is stressed, the more people dedicate themselves to things like entertainment and drunkeness, not science. Because bottom line, nothing really matters. Why bother?

Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

They are not mutually exclusive and I believe both.

How is believing that God(or a diety) created everything, going to stop someone from inventing a vaccine or learning about the body?

Because people are stupid! They think that "If God made this disease, then we have no right to cure it!" Even if God did make a disease, then He made it to test mankind to see if they can cure it.

The problem with the dabate is those that take a hard stand on either side don't have a clue as to what the other side believes or has to say. There is really no conflict between science and religion. Each supports the other to a "T".

God is the ultimate in intelligence and logic. "In the beginning was 'LOGOS' and LOGOS was with God and LOGOS was God." Logos is a Greek word that became logic in English. It implies that there was a reasoned, logical, ordered creation that could be discovered through debate. I haven't seen anything that science has discovered that shows the heavens and the earth to be anything other than reasoned, logical, and ordered. And this was written at a time when most religions saw humanoid Gods that were anything but logical.

Interesting, because I find that drilling it into students' heads that they're nothing but animals with no accountability besides to the state in this life, and no hope but to be worm-food in the next, seems to foster a hopelessness and meaninglessness that sociologically destroys America's ability to keep up with the rest of the world. From my observatons, I find the more Evolution is stressed, the more people dedicate themselves to things like entertainment and drunkeness, not science. Because bottom line, nothing really matters. Why bother?

And having a gigantic wizard waving his hands makes it more meaningful why?

Don't get me wrong. I believe in science. The Scientific Law of Biogenesis: Living things have to come from other living things, and Like things beget like things. To truly believe in Evolution, one has to believe that scientific law was suspended (i.e., a Miracle occured). It takes a lot of faith to believe that absolutely nothing combined with absoultely nothing, nobody did anything to it, and nothing happened to that non-combined non-existant nothing that nobody made one non-day, and Poof! Everything came into being. It simply violates what we know of how this universe works.

Life has to come from something already living. Like things beget like things, not unlike. Those are scientific laws, not theories.
Louis Pasteur trumps Charles Darwin.

P.S. My favorite example of the Logic of Evolution. This guy on PBS a few years ago claimed that a computer program he wrote proves Evolution. He made a program that simulated the steps a virtual computer-generated organism takes to evolve. What he didn't realize, is that for the program to have really proved Evolution the way he was touting, the computer would have had to built itself, and the computer program (plus the language the program had been written in, as well as the operating system) would have had to be self-existing and self-installed on this self-building computer.... He didn't see that his experiment was flawed, because it had an Intellgent Design behind it that Created it....himself. Within the confines of his own experiment, he had unwittingly made himself into a vivid example of the very 'Watchmaker' he sought to disprove.
p.s. that's as stupid as claiming that an experiment watching bacteria evolve in a petri dish is flawed because the dish was made by man, or watching birds speciate while living in wooden structures is flawed etc.

I was referring to God as not omnipresent to illustrate the point of proving existance, I do understand the importance of God being omnipresent.

Going back to my experiment, I can believe my experiment is truth because if I repeated the experiment I would find the exact same thing happened. If you gave me the ability to look at the reaction between the two chemicals atomically, then it would be possible to see two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom bonding to form carbon dioxide, then surely it cannot be denied that what we are witnessing is, in fact, untrue.
EXACTLY---Chemistry is the same under the same conditions everywhere everytime. Physics is the same under the same conditions everywhere everytime. In other words science proves that the universe is 100% organized. If it was put together by brainless chance then there would be randomness in the universe. But there is NO randomness in the entire universe. Everytime that science does an experiment and it DOESN"T come out random it shows a logical ordered universe not a random universe. How many times would you say brainless nature would have to roll the dice before an entire universe would come up non-random?

How many times would you say brainless nature would have to roll the dice before an entire universe would come up non-random?
At least once.

Creationism points to God or a god, depending on your state of beliefs and is mainly a Christian or merely relgious argument. At the very least, the connotation is relgious. For the reason of seperation of church and state, I believe creationismshould not be taught in schools.

However....there is intelegent design. Which, while it does not point to God,
does state the idea of an intelegent designer (which in theory could be God, or could simply be some unknown power, even aliens should you so choose to belive that). Intelegent design does not exclude evolution, unlike creationism where most of its followers try to dispute evolution. In fact, there are many signs in evolution that point to some omnipotent creator, or intelegent designer if you will.

Taking this comparison from a book (written by a physicist also well aquainted with the jewish bible), humans evolving from random mutations is about as likely as a tornado building a 747 by whirling through a junk yard. For our world to become what it is today, (i.e. liquid water, intelegent life, life at all for that matter, and other such conditions) is comparable to winning the lottery. Although not quite, consider the fact of how close we are to the sun..one lottery won; consider that had their been slight fluctions in temperatures, our earth could have never support life...another lottery jackpot; consider how our ozone and atmosphere formed, consider the formation of exactly the right conditoins to support life, the lottery jackpots just keep piling up on one another. Everybody can win the lottery, right? But does someone win as many times as it takes to form this earth randomly?

Random gene mutiations are very near to the same idea. We may have gotten through to today with evolution, whether it's "humans evolved from monkeys" idea or the "nature only makes jumps" idea. Perhaps even with only micro evolution or none at all. But complete and total randomness just doesn't cut it. I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't really know whether creationism or evolution is right, I wasn't there. What I do know is, there is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence of an intelegent designer.

Personally I belive in both of them. If it's only evolution, then how do you explain all the "randomness" that brought us here today. Unless it isn't truly random, hence the intelegent designer. If it's only creationism? Look at all the evidence science came up with. I'm not saying it's all completely right, the scientist are human too. To err is to be human. But there is some pretty strong, pretty solid evidence that we did not just appear overnight, or in six days (well, i've seen an argument that fits 16 billion years into 6 days via theory of relativity, but thats beside the point), whichever you prefer. The point is: one doesn't have to be opposed to the other.

Creationism points to God or a god, depending on your state of beliefs and is mainly a Christian or merely relgious argument. At the very least, the connotation is relgious. For the reason of seperation of church and state, I believe creationismshould not be taught in schools.

However....there is intelegent design. Which, while it does not point to God,
does state the idea of an intelegent designer (which in theory could be God, or could simply be some unknown power, even aliens should you so choose to belive that). Intelegent design does not exclude evolution, unlike creationism where most of its followers try to dispute evolution. In fact, there are many signs in evolution that point to some omnipotent creator, or intelegent designer if you will.

Taking this comparison from a book (written by a physicist also well aquainted with the jewish bible), humans evolving from random mutations is about as likely as a tornado building a 747 by whirling through a junk yard. For our world to become what it is today, (i.e. liquid water, intelegent life, life at all for that matter, and other such conditions) is comparable to winning the lottery. Although not quite, consider the fact of how close we are to the sun..one lottery won; consider that had their been slight fluctions in temperatures, our earth could have never support life...another lottery jackpot; consider how our ozone and atmosphere formed, consider the formation of exactly the right conditoins to support life, the lottery jackpots just keep piling up on one another. Everybody can win the lottery, right? But does someone win as many times as it takes to form this earth randomly?

Random gene mutiations are very near to the same idea. We may have gotten through to today with evolution, whether it's "humans evolved from monkeys" idea or the "nature only makes jumps" idea. Perhaps even with only micro evolution or none at all. But complete and total randomness just doesn't cut it. I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't really know whether creationism or evolution is right, I wasn't there. What I do know is, there is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence of an intelegent designer.

Personally I belive in both of them. If it's only evolution, then how do you explain all the "randomness" that brought us here today. Unless it isn't truly random, hence the intelegent designer. If it's only creationism? Look at all the evidence science came up with. I'm not saying it's all completely right, the scientist are human too. To err is to be human. But there is some pretty strong, pretty solid evidence that we did not just appear overnight, or in six days (well, i've seen an argument that fits 16 billion years into 6 days via theory of relativity, but thats beside the point), whichever you prefer. The point is: one doesn't have to be opposed to the other.
But one can't be studied in a science class.

No, you come on. It seems to be that it only the Christian Right in America that is pushing for this ridiculousness.
I agree. I wish they would use some other name than "Christian" it's ruining a good name.

But one can't be studied in a science class.
That is the problem. Science should be studied in science class. The problem is the neo-pharisees that call themselves "christian?" don't understand science or Christianity.

I believe creationismshould not be taught in schools.

It doesn't have to be that extreme. A religous studies class would be ok.


However....there is intelegent design. Which, while it does not point to God,

Actually it does. I read Dembski's book and not one chapter could not discuss God. A large part of the book was about how God was removed from science, etc.

Basically, ID was created as an attempt to fly under the Constitutions radar.


does state the idea of an intelegent designer (which in theory could be God, or could simply be some unknown power, even aliens should you so choose to belive that).

The stuff I have read doesn't talk about aliens or even offer anthing for aliens.


Intelegent design does not exclude evolution, unlike creationism where most of its followers try to dispute evolution.

Actually the IDers attack evolution all the time.


In fact, there are many signs in evolution that point to some omnipotent creator, or intelegent designer if you will.


Actually no there isn't.


Taking this comparison from a book (written by a physicist also well aquainted with the jewish bible), humans evolving from random mutations is about as likely as a tornado building a 747 by whirling through a junk yard.

A physicist? I am sure the physics community would listen to a biologist offering a theory about Quantem Mechanics.

Your physicist overlooked the fact that evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God.


For our world to become what it is today, (i.e. liquid water, intelegent life, life at all for that matter, and other such conditions) is comparable to winning the lottery. Although not quite, consider the fact of how close we are to the sun..one lottery won; consider that had their been slight fluctions in temperatures, our earth could have never support life...another lottery jackpot; consider how our ozone and atmosphere formed, consider the formation of exactly the right conditoins to support life, the lottery jackpots just keep piling up on one another. Everybody can win the lottery, right? But does someone win as many times as it takes to form this earth randomly?


What???


Random gene mutiations are very near to the same idea.

Actually no it isn't.


We may have gotten through to today with evolution, whether it's "humans evolved from monkeys" idea or the "nature only makes jumps" idea.

Actually we talk about the apes. Monkeys are a sign that somebody really hasn't looked into evolution.


Perhaps even with only micro evolution or none at all. But complete and total randomness just doesn't cut it.

Actually it does. Some random mutations gave a creature and advantage in it's environment. Others hurt.

Sycle cell anemia is actually useful if you live in a heavily malaria ridden area. Once malaria is more or less removed it becomes a detriment.


I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't really know whether creationism or evolution is right, I wasn't there. What I do know is, there is evidence for evolution, and there is evidence of an intelegent designer.

What? If you have a way to prove God's existence, you just changed the course of history.


Personally I belive in both of them. If it's only evolution, then how do you explain all the "randomness" that brought us here today.

I don't think you understand the process.


Unless it isn't truly random, hence the intelegent designer. If it's only creationism? Look at all the evidence science came up with. I'm not saying it's all completely right, the scientist are human too. To err is to be human. But there is some pretty strong, pretty solid evidence that we did not just appear overnight, or in six days (well, i've seen an argument that fits 16 billion years into 6 days via theory of relativity, but thats beside the point), whichever you prefer. The point is: one doesn't have to be opposed to the other.

One has to be opposed to Creationism and it's son Intelligent Design. They don't belong in the science class room.

But there is NOTHING in science that explains how everything evolved from nothing.

First of all, this is a strawman, since evolution doesn't say anything evolved from nothing. Where did you get this information that says it did?

Secondly, you are refering, again I mentioned earlier, to Abiogenesis, which is not a tenet of Evolution via Natural Selection. Even that, though, is not "something" comming from "nothing." I don't know where from you get this misconception.


It is said that from a an incredibly high level of improbability, organic life was made from a pre-biological soup, which formed on a perfectly positioned planet, formed from swirling dust around a star, formed from scattered gases in space.


The problem is that we know it can happen. We have created functional organic chemical chains from similar early-earth characteristics. Life can, in fact, form from non-life. The simplest life was simply a form of self-replicating molecule.

I also believe you are putting the cart before the horse. Our planet isn't perfectly tailored for us. We evolved to fit it. There could very well be life elsewhere on other planets. The fact that something might be improbable doesn't take into consideration the geological timeframes in which the Universe operates. Even "improbable" events can easily occure if given enough time.

Natural laws dictate how chemicals react. It's not even a random process as anti-evolutist activists try to claim. Evolution and Abiogenesis are very much directed, but not by intelligence--but by a mindless algorithmic process.



Then where did the gases come from? I'm not saying it's the level of probability that gets me, because even if it is high there is still a chance. It's the fact that at some point, there was'nt anything at all, anten with the help of nothing, there was something. If anything requires powerful faith, it is evolution.

Where did the gasses come from? All the energy and matter in the universe extended from the big bang. Different elements can be formed from other elements, given time. This is a process of breaking down or fusing together. Gasses can form naturally. But again, none of this has anything to do with evolution. Evolution merely means "the change in allelle frequency in a given population." It doesn't ask or prove "where life first orginated." That's a different theory, so bringing it up and making us answer it is a really clever Red Herring.

It doesn't take a "poweful faith" to believe in any of this. It's all observable. It takes no more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in Gravity. After all, both Gravity and Evolution are equally powerful theories for the phenomena they describe.


Humans also didn't come from monkies. Humans are a form of primate. We evolved from earlier forms of primates. It's not hard to follow, really, if you think about it. Say you have one population of primates that lives in area X. That population basically evolves as a whole, over time, as their genes change due to mutation and natural selection acting upon those genes. What works for that area stays in that area, barring freak accidents.

Now, let's say that population of primates finds itself separated into two or three groups that migrate somewherre else where there are different conditions. Naturally, as mutation occures, none of those populations, if they are geographically isolated, will intermix, thus the gene pools of the groups will grow ever different. If the selective pressures are different in those areas, you will further have different modifications. Evolution is merely descent with modification. If you wait long enough, small modifications will add up to big modifications. Eventually, a new species will be born in sexual organisms when they are no longer able to sexually interbreed as populations.

I believe this is called Allopatric Speciation (someone correct me if wrong).

Speciation can even occure, though, where there is no geographic isolation, but a form of ecological isolation. Either way, once the organisms in the separated populations become reproductively isolated, they are a new species. Some populations do not survive; that is, they die off due to being unable to meet the challenges of the environment. Those that do, change to meet it.

It takes MORE faith to believe that everyone was magically poofed into existence and no allelle modifications take place over time than to believe in Evolution.

But one can't be studied in a science class.

Eh. Maybe it could be used to demonstrate the difference between science and science fiction. After all the ID'ers keep talking about these aliens in order to avoid being pegged as religious, let them reap what they show.

I can see it now.

"Well class today we will be studying the difference between science and science fiction. Let's first examine an easy situation. Why things fall. If I were to devise a theory called gravity and come up with expriments to test it extensively; then, if the expriments don't disprove my hypothesis we have a scientific theory. If I were to say that things fall because the invisible creatures that inhabit the earth are always pushing down on everything, then I would be being unscientific.
"If we look at how humans came about and I said that tiny natural mutations acumulated over the years and resulted in life as we know it. If I submitted my theory to peer review and tested it against all the available evidence then I would have another scientific theory. If I were to look around me and say, 'Wow, this looks really complicated. I think that instead of thinking about how things might have gotten this way, I'll just say that some Flying Spaghetti Monster or perhaps aliens made everything'. Then I would be being both very lazy and very unscientific.
"Well class, I hope now you have a better idea of the difference between science and science fiction."

Put it in every third grade science class in America, and in twenty years we might be able to regain our position at the very cutting edge of scientific innovation. Probably not, we'd have to cut a lot of other crap before that could happen.

All I'm saying is that ID is not totally useless from a scientific standpoint. Everyone needs an example of what not to do.

What merciful god would create the platypus?

What merciful god would create the platypus?
Old Testament God.

Old Testament God.
How does the Old Testament God fall into the catagory of a merciful god?

Well, the NT god is really just the OT God with a different masquerade outfit on.

Well, the NT god is really just the OT God with a different masquerade outfit on.
True, but either way I don't really think they deserve the title of merciful.

How does the Old Testament God fall into the catagory of a merciful god?
He doesn't. That's why that was the one who created the platypus.

The problem is that we know it can happen. We have created functional organic chemical chains from similar early-earth characteristics. Life can, in fact, form from non-life. The simplest life was simply a form of self-replicating molecule.


Sorry, but are you saying that current science has allowed us to form biological matter with the criteria (cells, metabolism, reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli) of life, from elements without these criteria? I am assuming that self-repeating molecules do not have these attributes.

I'm not saying that we have to recreate the entire process, but that is where the ultimate irony comes in. WE make the early-earth conditions. WE attempt to achieve what already happened. WE conduct the experiment. And yet without humans, the experiment goes nowhere. It doesn't even begin. Scientific theories are nothing if there are no scientists. To deny that fact isn't improbable, it's impossible. Experiments aren't going to conduct themselves. There was intellegent design for them, and humans were the designers. The problem, and the irony, is that we are trying to recreate in order to prove a creator wrong, and in doing so, proving the creator right! The only difference is the Intelligent Designer beat us to it (which is good , because otherwise we wouldn't exist). I believe that because it is evident in the universe. I recognize that my own faith is necessary to believe this, and Evolutionists need some because not everything is observable, unless you happen to live to be millions of years old. Much harder to pin down facts about evolution than gravity. There is plenty of "unknown", and isn't the goal of science to make them known? This leaves huge gaps that we try to fill in. No matter how much sense evolution makes, we don't know everything. In fact, the only people who don't currently have any faith are people who respond to the question "Where did life come from?" with "I don't care."

I'm a Christian, and I believe in God, but even so, creationism is totally illogical. First of all, if it is correct, then we are left with one of two possibilities:
1) God tweaked everything to make it look like we evolved
2) Satan tweaked everything to make it look like we evolved.

The latter option implies that Satan can do whatever he likes to God's creation (thereby setting Satan up as a god in his own right, and therefore highly unmonotheistic); the former option is just totally pointless.

There is plenty of obvious metaphorical content in Genesis, I see no reason to believe that it is to be taken literally.

One last thought: If God had told the ancient Israelites that they had spent three billion years evolving through genetic mutations from single-celled prokaryotes too small to see through sea life and reptiles and mammals and finally primates, what would they have thought? If he had explained that life originated because of increasingly complex chains of amino acids, would they have had a clue what he was talking about or would they have ascribed it to the wine? And what if he explained that the entire universe was created in an instant, and matter and energy were roughly the same thing, and most elementary particles didn't even exist at the beginnning because the energy levels were too high? No, he let us figure that out for ourselves, and I think we may as well congratulate ourselves on figuring that stuff out.

[QUOTE=Technokratishe Staaten]
The problem is that we know it can happen. We have created functional organic chemical chains from similar early-earth characteristics. Life can, in fact, form from non-life. The simplest life was simply a form of self-replicating molecule.
[QUOTE/]

The definition of life is not the ability to self-replicate.
Life as we know it consists of attributes such as organization, reproduction, response to environment, adaptation, growth, metabolic pathways, plus we have only ever discovered life that is derived from an original (parent) life. The concept of life arising from non-life is only mythical status, since it exists only in our imaginations, as far as we know. It could be considered a modern myth, perhaps.

I'm a Christian, and I believe in God, but even so, creationism is totally illogical. First of all, if it is correct, then we are left with one of two possibilities:
1) God tweaked everything to make it look like we evolved
2) Satan tweaked everything to make it look like we evolved.

Or perhaps the 'looking like we evolved' is a problem with perspective. Even you would have to see that not everyone agrees that we 'look like we evolved'. Some people think that it looks like we did not evolve. In that case, your job is to show how your particular perspective is the right one, or at least better than those who have a different perspective.


There is plenty of obvious metaphorical content in Genesis, I see no reason to believe that it is to be taken literally.

Is that another problem with perspective?


One last thought: If God had told the ancient Israelites that they had spent three billion years evolving through genetic mutations from single-celled prokaryotes too small to see through sea life and reptiles and mammals and finally primates, what would they have thought? If he had explained that life originated because of increasingly complex chains of amino acids, would they have had a clue what he was talking about or would they have ascribed it to the wine? And what if he explained that the entire universe was created in an instant, and matter and energy were roughly the same thing, and most elementary particles didn't even exist at the beginnning because the energy levels were too high? No, he let us figure that out for ourselves, and I think we may as well congratulate ourselves on figuring that stuff out.

If you use that line of reasoning, then why did God use the six day creation terminology, like ''the evening and the morning were the six day''? He need not have mentioned the amino acids, but he could have let them know that it took 'slightly' longer (at least) than six days.

There wasn't really a good poll option for me.

My answer would be, "Evolution, because it is a well-grounded and impressively well-supported theory that can be directly applied to solve practical problems in the world. Also, because evolutionary theory is the reason I'm not dead right now."

There wasn't really a good poll option for me.

My answer would be, "Evolution, because it is a well-grounded and impressively well-supported theory that can be directly applied to solve practical problems in the world. Also, because evolutionary theory is the reason I'm not dead right now."

:D

There wasn't really a good poll option for me.

My answer would be, "Evolution, because it is a well-grounded and impressively well-supported theory that can be directly applied to solve practical problems in the world. Also, because evolutionary theory is the reason I'm not dead right now."

here here

.... although natural selection gave me great boobs

come to think of it.. it's probably good Genes :)

:D
Hey, it's factually true! My life was saved by a treatment that could ONLY have been developed with the aid of principles of evolutionary biology. That kind of thing tends to make a gal feel friendly toward the godless evolutionists. :)

Hey, it's factually true! My life was saved by a treatment that could ONLY have been developed with the aid of principles of evolutionary biology. That kind of thing tends to make a gal feel friendly toward the godless evolutionists. :)

Which principles were those, exactly?

Hey, it's factually true! My life was saved by a treatment that could ONLY have been developed with the aid of principles of evolutionary biology. That kind of thing tends to make a gal feel friendly toward the godless evolutionists. :)

I was affirming your statement ( as obvious antropocentric common sense ) , not detracting from it.
Despite the fact that I consider Evolution the mechanism God used to Create.

I was affirming your statement ( as obvious antropocentric common sense ) , not detracting from it.
Despite the fact that I consider Evolution the mechanism God used to Create.

:fluffle: < you 'created' a fluffle monster - what's it evolving into?

:p

If you use that line of reasoning, then why did God use the six day creation terminology, like ''the evening and the morning were the six day''? He need not have mentioned the amino acids, but he could have let them know that it took 'slightly' longer (at least) than six days.

Isn't the original Hebrew word yom meaning "day" also used for "era" in the same way that english words can have multiple meanings? There is a growing view that uses this mindset to prove creationism and evolution both true, with the emphasis on the creator.

Isn't the original Hebrew word yom meaning "day" also used for "era" in the same way that english words can have multiple meanings? There is a growing view that uses this mindset to prove creationism and evolution both true, with the emphasis on the creator.

I don't think yom is ambiguous with era. There may be some select contexts that it could mean that, but not in Genesis. Rather, the argument that each day in Genesis refers to an undetermined long period of time comes from exegesis based on Psalm 90:4 which states, "For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that has passed, like a watch of the night." (JPS)

The New Testament cites this verse as well in 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (KJV)

Sorry, but are you saying that current science has allowed us to form biological matter with the criteria (cells, metabolism, reproduction, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli) of life, from elements without these criteria? I am assuming that self-repeating molecules do not have these attributes.


No. I am not saying current science has done that. What I am saying is that biological experiments have been able to replicate early-earth conditions and the creation of the most fundamental, self-organising basic building blocks of organic life--organic monomers. I hit on this some in the post below this one. I am saying that we have reasonably understood how life likely formed.

Now, natural laws govern how chemicals interact, and under specific circumstances, life can auto-generate. Life didn't begin with a cell. That's a huge misconception. The process of life began with simple replicating molecules. Both the replication and metabolism process can form naturally, since they form as the result of several possible, specific organizations of chemical molecules. Life is made up of huge polymers of monomers. Experiments such as the one I list below, and many after it, have shown that life is simply a by-product of the self-organization of chemicals into monomers, which can further organize into polymers. DNA is a huge polymer; so is RNA. Life as we know it is simply a by-product of these combinations.

It's very likely that the first cell was a by-product of this process, especially when simple polymers became incased in a mebraneous material, which allowed for isolated metabolism to occure. HOwever, the process of metabolism can itself arise naturally without any intelligence. It's just a characteristic of the interaction of chemical compounds. Replication allows the foundations that produce these chareristics to perpetuate.


WE make the early-earth conditions.

We only made the early-earth conditions to test them. We didn't create them original. Nature did. All we are doing is testing hypotheses to see if it were true. I wouldn't get too caught-up in the fact that we did an experiment to recreate it.

WE attempt to achieve what already happened. WE conduct the experiment. And yet without humans, the experiment goes nowhere. It doesn't even begin.

Well of course no experiment beings without someone creating the experiment. However, humans are not necessary in nature. Experiments are just a product of our curiosity. Reality exists outside of what humans do.

Evolutionists need some because not everything is observable, unless you happen to live to be millions of years old. Much harder to pin down facts about evolution than gravity. There is plenty of "unknown", and isn't the goal of science to make them known? This leaves huge gaps that we try to fill in. No matter how much sense evolution makes, we don't know everything. In fact, the only people who don't currently have any faith are people who respond to the question "Where did life come from?" with "I don't care."

I don't mean to be offensive, so please don't take it that way, but the observation of science is usually misconstrued to mean "we have to see it happening right there." We don't have to travel back in time to see evolution at all. We can see it in the modern day over periods of decades. Also, observation doesn't need to be direct; it can be indirect observation. Science works off of tests and hypotheses. Evolution makes predictions of how things ought to happen given X, Y, and Z assumptions. We observe to see if those assumptions are true, and if they are, it lends credence to the theory.

I agree there are things science doesn't know, but that doesn't mean, IMO, we can fill it in with something else just in case.

The definition of life is not the ability to self-replicate.
Life as we know it consists of attributes such as organization, reproduction, response to environment, adaptation, growth, metabolic pathways, plus we have only ever discovered life that is derived from an original (parent) life. The concept of life arising from non-life is only mythical status, since it exists only in our imaginations, as far as we know. It could be considered a modern myth, perhaps.


You are misunderstanding anyway. No one said modern forms of life sprang out instantaneously. That's a gross simplification of the idea.

Life as we know it DOES have many characteristics, but those didn't all pop magically into existence at the same time. Self replication is one characteristic of life. I am saying that life can FORM, but one of the first steps is the coalescence of organic molecules into self-replicating chains. The theory is much more complex than what I said above. Early bacteria, prokaryotic organisms didn't spontaneously evolve as-is. If natural laws didn't govern the combination and behavior of molecules as they do, they wouldn't have eventually evolved.

The process of the formation of life didn't start with a fully functional cell, which is what a lot of irreducible complexity supporters seem to think. It's hardly mythical. I suggest you read a book on biology: this one is pretty good and explains the theory:

1. "Biology: Concepts and Connections" 5th edition

In the text, in chapter 16.2-5 they explain clearly that early LIFE is not what you think it was. As per the Stanley Miller experiment, scientists were able to have organic molecules--the basic building blocks of life-- form from a totally inorganic environment all by themselves. In said reducing environment, the chemicals are known to be able to spontaneously arrange themselves that could easily make "simple metabolism and self-replication." Both of which ARE characteristics of life. You have to understand that all life is a series of interconnected chemical processes, and humans are polymers of specific chemical molecules. Life as we know it occures today because early earth conditions allowed the most primitive forms of life to originate.

Natural laws control reactions of chemicals and the organization of molecules into compounds. Cells are simply larger networks of molecules, compounds etc. The modern cell wasn't the first step, nor did it exist exactly as it exists today. It was extremely simple and primitive.

The vast majority of scientists support modern Abiogensis, and comparing it to Louis Pastuer's experiment isn't accurate. It doesn't describe the same phenomenon, and his work was not based off of modern information, data collection, and understanding. The fact that someone said something long, long ago doesn't mean it holds up into perpetuity. Pasteur's argument only holds true for macroscopic--large--organisms spontaneously puffing into existence whole, not organic molecules or early life forms.

Big organisms are just organized, cooperative groups of polymers. Early life was simply vastly simpler, smaller collections of self-replicating, metabolizing polymers. The basic building blocks of those polymers were monomers of organic molecules that formed, ta-da, by themselves into the polymers. This is known to be true, since we can replicate it today. If it can happen today under the same conditions, it could logically happen then under the same conditions.

What do you think DNA and RNA are? How do you think they formed? Magic? They aren't mystical things. THey are polymers of chemical compounds. These thigns form naturally given the right conditions.

No intelligence made them do that. It was simply chemical reactions that would have occured if man didn't exist at all. The experiment shows that if earth were a reducing environment, organic molecules could form by themselves and those can easily form into more complex polymerchains, and in specific arangements, replication and metabolism are possible. As they combined, life could easily form. It's far more unlikely God did anything.


Life isn't magical, and neither are the basic building blocks and how they behave. Everything can be explained via reduction and naturalistic materialism.

Everything can be explained via reduction and naturalistic materialism.


Not love.

Because science has never been wrong before. :rolleyes:
Not on any level where a non-scientist would have a reasonable objection to it.

Or perhaps the 'looking like we evolved' is a problem with perspective. Even you would have to see that not everyone agrees that we 'look like we evolved'. Some people think that it looks like we did not evolve. In that case, your job is to show how your particular perspective is the right one, or at least better than those who have a different perspective.

You can start by pointing out that appealing to divine cause violates the principle of parsimony, since a 'theory' with a mysterious, inscrutable divine cause is capable of including any evidence but not of making any predictions.

Further, all evidence [fossil record, geology, vestigial structures, evidence of jury-rigged and poor design, over-complexity, modern evidence of speciation, etc] points to the fact that evolution both did happen and continues to happen. This or the 'creator' had a real thing about pointlessly making tens of thousands of species of beetles and was an incredibly shoddy designer.

You can continue by pointing out evolution both makes testable predictions and those predictions have been demonstrated time and time again to be accurate.

If you use that line of reasoning, then why did God use the six day creation terminology, like ''the evening and the morning were the six day''? He need not have mentioned the amino acids, but he could have let them know that it took 'slightly' longer (at least) than six days.

If you use that line of reasoning, how was there an evening and a morning before the existence of the sun? For that matter, how did plants exist before the sun? The Genesis account is obviously not intended to be taken as a literal record, otherwise it's tricky to explain how light and darkness can be seperated into day and night with nothing for the light to come from.

Also, how do you mesh this with 2 Peter 3:8, 'But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day?'