NationStates Jolt Archive

Which is the right theory?

Who said either had to be right?

Who said either had to be right?

true enough. though creationism (in so far as it is testable) is false.

Both, kind of.

Ok, then, which theory do you believe in and why?

One or the other has to be correct. Unless evolution is God's work, but that idea can be lumped together with Creationism.

I believe in evolution because it has been demonstrated with scientific rigour (don't give me that BS about science not having all the answers to observed phenomena). Creationism and indeed the whole idea of a Supreme Being is an act of faith which cannot be backed up by repeatable trials and observation.

i beleive that the devil is the true god. he shat us into being, whilst god was clipping his nose hairs. :)

I think they're both right as god created the world and the animals evolved

I think they're both right as god created the world and the animals evolved

That's pretty much what I believe. :)

Evolution is closer to the truth, but neither are completely correct... I like to believe that God created everything through evolution and the laws of science :P.

Although, a lot of my die-hard christian friends take the bible like it was the ultimate truth, and tell me the earth was created in 7 days, and it is only a couple thousand years old... instead of the PROVEN 4 billion (somewhere around there) years old it is...

eh, i hate arguing with people who base all of their points and proof on a book that has no proof or studies behind it -_-.

Neo Nuria

Excerpts from conversation:

"So, you really think the world was created in 7 days?"

"NO! thats stupid, the world was created in 6!"

I think the Theory of Evolution is correct, because most of it has been proven or made very plausible, as opposed to creationism, which hasn't been proven or made plausible at all.

Any hypothesis has to be falsifiable in order to have any status. I say *any status*, because this applies not only to the scientific world, but physical reality itself.

If one puts forward an idea which, by its nature, is capable of being proved incorrect, then it has grounding in physical reality. For example, the theory that mass and energy are equivalent is a valid theory, and crucially, enjoyed that status before it was shown to be a physical law, because it is possible to disprove it by performing experiments and/or making observations and saying, "actually, this does not adequately explain observable reality". As it turned out, the theory was shown to give a good explanation for observable (ie physical) reality.

The same goes for evolution. Look at a sufficiently large number of fossils all over the world, dating back reasonably close to the emergence of life, and it is possible to say whether or not the theory fits the data. Again, as it turns out, it does.

Creationism and wider speculation about the existence of a Supreme Being do not lend themselves to falsification. In other words, it is impossible to repeatedly demonstrate whether it is true or not. There is no natural phenomenon which can be used as a measurand to prove or disprove the idea. Therefore, it is not a theory, and *has no grounding in physical / observable reality*. It is merely a widely shared emotional belief. Very important to many people, yes, but irrelevant as far as physical reality is concerned.

Social reality is a different matter, of course. I will not go into that. But do not confuse physical and social reality. To do so is simply stupid. The two are different.

Hmm.. their should be a third option which would be something like: Something we haven't figured out yet.

And then of course Hindus believe that the world has always existing and is ever changing and that kind of thing.. so there are more options.

The key word is belief here. Even science is based on belief because no one can actually proove that the outside word is true, not just in your mind or some supreme beings mind. Usually you believe things because they are coherent and seem to work in practise. Evolution seems to be a theory like this.

More than creatinosim atleast. But I think there is much more to it than has been found out yet...

Do all of you evolutionists believe that all creationists insist on a 6- or 7-day creation? Some of us don't require the biblical account to be read as a science text. I believe the biblical account is a poetic retelling of how God is outside of His creation, and that when He created all things from nothing, it was good. I also believe that some (obviously not all) scientists are beginning to doubt neo-darwinism, as they see evidence in the macrocosm and the microcosm that suggests "intelligent design." I vote for creationism. Evolution requires too much faith in impossible odds.

I should say that the conflict between science and religion is largely due to the fact that the two sides can be said to inhabit these two distinct realities - observable and observable/social, respectively. In pure science, reality is only what is observable. In religion, abstract emotional notions such as faith and belief enjoy equivalent status, resulting in a sort of overlap. Religion insists on the overlap, pure science rejects it. Thus you have a sort of territorial struggle.

It does not have to be this way, if only the two sides did not interfere in each other's affairs. But such conflicts are human nature, I guess.

Regarding impossible odds, that is all they are. Odds. Simply odds. Nothing more than that. Something cold, mathematical, the existence and properties of which have been extensively studied in science.

I accept that intelligent life is one hell of a long shot, yet here we are.

The existence of a supreme intelligence overseeing and directing physcial reality and even human endeavour, on the level of individuals, is a far more difficult idea to accept than the outcome of a probability accumulator.

Both ideas seem to explain how life came about - a lot of known events all happening at particular times in a particular sequence, the successful outcome of which was extremely unlikely, or the deliberate actions of a supreme intelligence.

Which is more acceptable to an individual?

Some choose the latter, because it makes more sense to their world view and perception of the boundaries of reality.

Others choose the former, also because it makes more sense to their world view, and their different perception of the boundaries of reality.

Each individual is entitled to make their choice. Each individual has their own perception of reality.

Who said both could'nt be right? God can do anything so maybe he created evolution.

I also believe that some (obviously not all) scientists are beginning to doubt neo-darwinism, as they see evidence in the macrocosm and the microcosm that suggests "intelligent design." I vote for creationism. Evolution requires too much faith in impossible odds.

Actually, support for evolution in the scientific community is overwhelming, except for a few dissenters. Here is a good faq which points that out, and has links to lists of both supporters of evolution and detractors of evolution. The entire website is actually very helpful if you have questions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Incidentally, they're both just theories. There just happens to be concrete, verifiable evidence for one. The other theory requires a bit more...ah, personal view of the subject matter? They could both be wrong, you know. :wink:

I believe that God created the world.

With respect, that is bypassing the lines of rational inquiry.

Having it both ways like that is, for lack of a better word, god-moding. Pun unintentional.

One cannot simply say that God is the driver of evolution, because evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis and God is not. If one takes the two ideas and makes a logical AND statement, one produces another unfalsifiable hypothesis, with no foundation in observable reality.

It is like taking a real number and multiplying it by infinity. It does not matter what the real number is, because as long as the infinity is in the statement, the result will be infinity.

And so the relationship of God to evolution is irrelevant as far as such inquiry is concerned. As long as the statement assumes the existence of God(s), it is unfalsifiable, thus having no implications for observable reality.

Again, I stress the difference between observable reality, the definitions of which are pretty strict and preclude the existence of God(s), amongst other things, within its boundaries, and social reality, which can be said to contain the ideas of people.

Obviously, Gods do exist within the social reality. The general social reality contains them all, those of individuals mostly contain only one.

Wow. This could just be one of the most civil and reasonable debates on personal beliefs the General Forum has ever had. I hope no racists come along and gatecrash it.

Do all of you evolutionists believe that all creationists insist on a 6- or 7-day creation? Some of us don't require the biblical account to be read as a science text. I believe the biblical account is a poetic retelling of how God is outside of His creation, and that when He created all things from nothing, it was good. I also believe that some (obviously not all) scientists are beginning to doubt neo-darwinism, as they see evidence in the macrocosm and the microcosm that suggests "intelligent design." I vote for creationism. Evolution requires too much faith in impossible odds.

old-earth creationists are heretics to the young-earthers. unless they are teaming up against the godless evilootionist barbarians.

and intelligent design "theorists" can't come up with a coherent theory at all. but they are really good at finding things they think can't be explained by science and saying "the intelligent designer did it". just because they don't always explicitly claim that it is the christian god that does the designing does not make their "goddidit!" any more scientific than that of the young-earthers. intelligent design is just an argument from ingorance. even worse, it is usually personal ignorance, not even general ignorance.

Who said either had to be right?

true enough. though creationism (in so far as it is testable) is false.

Let's say you beleive in the big bang theory. It may be correct but where did it come from? Where did anything come from? Who said that God didn't create the big mass of matter and created to so eventually we would evolve on the 3rd rock.

Let's say you beleive in the big bang theory. It may be correct but where did it come from? Where did anything come from? Who said that God didn't create the big mass of matter and created to so eventually we would evolve on the 3rd rock.
Sure, but is there anything about that theory that we can test? Anything we can observe? If not, that's at best speculation.

Let's say you beleive in the big bang theory. It may be correct but where did it come from? Where did anything come from? Who said that God didn't create the big mass of matter and created to so eventually we would evolve on the 3rd rock.
Sure, but is there anything about that theory that we can test? Anything we can observe? If not, that's at best speculation.

*Precisely!* If your hypothesis, in this case God and Creation, is not falsifiable, then it exists as a purely emotional argument. Evolution is subject to physical examination resulting in proof or dis-proof on the balance of probabilities. Religious ideas are not. It does not matter how many rhetorical questions you ask, along the lines of "Who said God didn't...?"; it will forever remain in the irrational, emotional domain, out of reach of logic, reason and measurement.

I say again: An idea which cannot be proved or disproved is, by definition, *not* a theory, and by definition has *no* implications for observable reality. Evolution is one of countless theories which *is* subject to such tests, and it has been proved to be true beyond reasonable doubt.

To doubt it is reasonable only if the doubter has a falsifiable hypothesis to counter it. Invoking God(s) is godmoding. It adds nothing worthwhile to the model of observable reality.

Religion has no place in the scientific domain. Logic itself has barred it. The proper place of religion is in the social domain, where rigorous standards of proof and rational thought are unnecessary.

Tactical grace, I love your posts. I give you credit for how reasonable this debate has been so far.

Anyway, here's what I have to say:

I don't think belief has anything to do with evolution. I don't "believe" in evolution. I see it. There is lots of proof that supports it, and none that contradicts it.

Sure, it may not be right, but right now it's the best thing we got, and it works. It actually COULD be true. So I don't believe in it. It is a theory, there is no belief required when there is physical evidence and you keep the reservation that, like any theory, it could still be proven wrong by not-yet-detected evidence.

However, Creationism requires pure belief. THere is no physical proof of it whatsoever. And you have to go all-out if you believe in creationism. You can't believe in creationism without fully believing in a god. There is no reservation, no maybe-it's-not-true...you have to BELIEVE it.

So I prefer to go with the idea that has some proof as opposed to the one with NO proof.

And to anyone who tries the "where you do you think the big bang came from, huh? It must have been God!!!" argument:

<b>NO</b>

It actually could be an unlimited number of possible causes that we haven't discovered, and perhaps can't even imagine. That does NOT mean that it had to be a god. I mean, look back a few hundred years at what science knew, and you'll understand why I think that there's still a lot out there for us to figure out. We didn't know what germs were, hell, we didn't even know that there was a universe outside of our little sphere.

There is no "REASON" to believe in a god.

both, and they are the same, creation through evolution.

both, and they are the same, creation through evolution.

This has been proved to be a dumb theory.

both, and they are the same, creation through evolution.

What? So are you saying the big-ole omnipotent god needed to use evolution or he wouldn't be able to create? Or that some god guided evolution, even though it was a logical progression that very well could ahve happened without him (that's why they call it "natural selection" not "what-god-liked selection")? Would a god really let evolution take billions and billions of years if he was guiding it? Wouldn't he be able to speed up the mutation and selection a little?

You know I saw the topic for this post and was worried that i would have to pull out the ol' guns and once again defend evolution against my old enemey, the creationists. I was pleasantly surprised to read not only an intelligent slew of evolutionist retorts but reasonable responses from the creationists. Good job folks, I'm proud of you. I'll just add my two cents, God is a concept I can't really wrap my mind around any longer so I'm gonna take the cop-out and declare myself an agnostic. I simply don't know and for that matter I don't care. Besides human logic is based upon whatever mathematical realizations our minds can agree upon. Since god is an infinite concept, unbound by the basic laws of math and physics we can't really formulate any substantial theories about an entity know as "God". So the point is, people have been dewilling on this issue far too much as of late. We are in a world full of serious real problems that need to be addressed not by prayer or hypothesizing but serious thought. I think its time we worry about the here and now instead of the there and then.

We are in a world full of serious real problems that need to be addressed not by prayer or hypothesizing but serious thought. I think its time we worry about the here and now instead of the there and then.

And some of those problems you can't solve by NOT praying. :lol:

We are in a world full of serious real problems that need to be addressed not by prayer or hypothesizing but serious thought. I think its time we worry about the here and now instead of the there and then.

And some of those problems you can't solve by NOT praying. :lol:

Was that supposed to be a bad joke, or was there supposed to be some serious message there?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

We are in a world full of serious real problems that need to be addressed not by prayer or hypothesizing but serious thought. I think its time we worry about the here and now instead of the there and then.

And some of those problems you can't solve by NOT praying. :lol:

Was that supposed to be a bad joke, or was there supposed to be some serious message there?

Serious message.

We are in a world full of serious real problems that need to be addressed not by prayer or hypothesizing but serious thought. I think its time we worry about the here and now instead of the there and then.

And some of those problems you can't solve by NOT praying. :lol:

Ugh, i recend some of my previous statement, not all of the responses have been rational.

Science has proved Creationism wrong. Big bang, carbon dating, ring a bell!

"Science is the 21st centuries' biggest religion, bigger then Christianity"

-Padmasa

Science has proved Creationism wrong. Big bang, carbon dating, ring a bell!

"Science is the 21st centuries' biggest religion, bigger then Christianity"

-Padmasa

HAHAHAHAH! A BANG OUTTA NOTHING! COOL!

The most prominent pro-Creation argument against the Big Bang theory of cosmology- which most contemporary evidence supports, probably to the utter disgust of the Hoyles, if they're still alive (I forget, if not, they're probably creating a modified unsteady state revolving in their graves right now)- besides the 'statistically unlikely' one, which I'll briefly comment on in a moment, is the argument from Causation.
Creationists, rightly, say that in order for the universe to have developed from nothing (if that is what is being implied), then the First Cause must have been something which does not conform to the ordinary physical laws of the universe, in that it must have been itself Uncaused (or Its Own Cause, which is the same thing renamed to try to avoid getting found out) Traditional scientific thinking postulates a singularity ("Where all known physical laws cease to exist") at this point.
The next stage of the Creationist argument here is to say that this doesn't make sense. This is the first place where I feel the argument falls down, since 'making sense' is, by and large, subjective. There are two meanings- the first is that cause is inconsistent with effect, which is largely objective, although it can simply mean that the observer is inadequate, and the second is that it relies upon highly unlikely statistical outcomes. Once again, I'll look at the probability point in a moment.
Now, the Creationists say, the way out of this is to have a nice, omnipotent God, who can create your universe for you, wrap it up, and even deliver it. To this, I would ask: Err... why is this a get out? God's quality as Creator as distinct from that of an exploding singularity is that he is directed (self-directed, in fact). He is still an entity, and as such, according to the Creationist argument, to say that he 'comes from nowhere', is 'begotten not created', is his own cause, or is uncaused, makes no more 'sense' than to say it of a singularity.
Please note I'm not turning this into a 'Does God exist?' thread, as we've got enough- I'm simply pointing out that to argue "A Big Bang can't exist by itself, because something must have triggered it, and something must have triggered that and in the end you need God" is not a valid argument, because if God can somehow 'be his own cause', why can't a Big Bang? Creationists occasionally fall back on the "makes sense" or "easier to imagine" argument here... well, I don't you about you, but if anything's going to be spontaneously created in an apparently uncaused manner out of random quantum fluctuations the background radiation field of the universe, I'd put more money on it being a simple singularity than being a hugely complex aware and active entity.
Now, I promised I'd briefly tackle the "The odds against X occurring/evolving/exploding into the universe just by chance are astronomical" question. Well, yes, they are, but that doesn't mean that X can't occur, and, don't forget, we're observers in a universe where X, or we wouldn't be talking about it. If Y, then we'd be discussing why Y happened... or we wouldn't be here at all to discuss it, depending on what X was. Suppose an infinite number of universes, where every possibility is hypothetically played out (Many Worlds Hypothesis, quantum theory): The state of affairs which arises in our iteration is that state of affairs simply because it is the state of affairs in our iteration of the universe. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in Many Worlds, because it only serves as an example by bringing the other possibilities into simultaneous being. Even if only our iteration exists in actuality, the argument still holds. Probability can only be used as a tool for argument so far.

None of this, of course, is in any way evidence against Creationism. Modern science has, however, demonstrated enough fallacies in Scripture based information to make it plain that, irrespective of whether or not God exists, taking Scripture (of any religion) as scientific information in any context is unreliable at best, and that it may easily be discounted in favour of almost any scientifically observable phenomena which contradict it.
The arguments presented above are intended as a rebuttal to some of the charges laid against the Undirected Creation/Natural Selection directed Evolution account of the development of the universe and life generally favoured in the world today. It neither demonstrates the proof of one theory nor the falsehood of the other, but does show that, contrary to the claims of some of the more aggressive Creationists, their argument that Evolution/the Big Bang doesn't make sense, but Creationism does, is inherently false.

Tactical grace, I love your posts. I give you credit for how reasonable this debate has been so far.

Anyway, here's what I have to say:

I don't think belief has anything to do with evolution. I don't "believe" in evolution. I see it. There is lots of proof that supports it, and none that contradicts it.

Sure, it may not be right, but right now it's the best thing we got, and it works. It actually COULD be true. So I don't believe in it. It is a theory, there is no belief required when there is physical evidence and you keep the reservation that, like any theory, it could still be proven wrong by not-yet-detected evidence.

However, Creationism requires pure belief. THere is no physical proof of it whatsoever. And you have to go all-out if you believe in creationism. You can't believe in creationism without fully believing in a god. There is no reservation, no maybe-it's-not-true...you have to BELIEVE it.

So I prefer to go with the idea that has some proof as opposed to the one with NO proof.

And to anyone who tries the "where you do you think the big bang came from, huh? It must have been God!!!" argument:

<b>NO</b>

It actually could be an unlimited number of possible causes that we haven't discovered, and perhaps can't even imagine. That does NOT mean that it had to be a god. I mean, look back a few hundred years at what science knew, and you'll understand why I think that there's still a lot out there for us to figure out. We didn't know what germs were, hell, we didn't even know that there was a universe outside of our little sphere.

There is no "REASON" to believe in a god.

Thank you. I fully agree with what you, Alexandersburg and Montmirail say on this subject. All too often people approach it blindly believing one idea or the other, with only age-old rhetoric to back up what little argument they are capable of making, leading to the "so *there!*" standard of childish debate. I am glad to see that this has so far not been the case on this occasion.

A related matter is the Creationists' attempts to put their beliefs on an equal footing with science by lobbying to have their beliefs accepted in law as a theory, as valid as that of evolution.

Few people are prepared to examine their beliefs in terms of how they are grounded in logic. Few people are willing or able to first define the terms which they are using to make their argument.

For example, the famous attempts in Kansas of forcing the teaching in schools of Creation as a competing theory to evolution were flawed, because no consideration was given to what constitues a theory. The Creationists treated the word as though it was just science jargon for idea / belief / etc. But of course a theory is so much more - it must not only explain past events, but make predictions which can be tested repeatedly by different people at different times, and justify those predictions with verifiable arguments. The well-known theories of relativity and special relativity used a recognised mathematical framework to make predictions which could be repeatedly tested by observation. To say that belief in the actions of a supreme intelligence is equally valid on these terms is clearly absurd. But that can *only* be agreed by both parties if said terms are made clear. Which is very rare indeed.

The events in Kansas demonstrated to me that no reasonable debate between Evolutionists and Creationists, let alone agreement to disagree, is possible without a prior discussion of the terminology used in such debates.

Regarding the choice to Believe or believe, I too have made my own decision - long ago I chose to believe in evolution for the very reasons you give. It has been tested and found to give a good explanation of what we see around us. No testable challenge to it has survived detailed examination. It also makes sense to me as a person, and fits in with my world-view. A Creator is an added and unnecessary complication to the model of observable reality - if it is possible for the Universe as we see it to exist without one, then there is no need to propose one.

Of course, to believe in Creation is a choice which others are free to make. To them, it too makes sense and fits in with how they see the world. But crucially, they have not had their beliefs tested and verified, and as I have demonstrated, their ideas can never be tested and proved or disproved. The religious get around this obstacle by "having faith" - they freely admit that they do not require supporting evidence and do not mind the impossibility of ever acquiring such evidence in order to believe their explanation of how the world we see came about. They can get along just as well in life without having their beliefs open to experiment. It does not seem to bother them, but I can certainly say that it would bother me.

Good thread people. Of course I take credit for that with my incisive first post. ;)

Well done.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask Tactical Grace a question.

On the argument of "theories must be falsifiable" etc: Your logic follows but I take issue with your foundational assumption. You say that God cannot be proven or disproven to exist, and therefore any theory based on his existence is not a theory, simply a hypothesis.

But why stop there? If God cannot be disproven to exist, then is any theory based upon his non-existence also not a theory? It seems to me that most all questions in life, whether scientific, philosophical, or, as you rightly point out, social, come down to a question of Either God Exists or He Does Not. That is the starting point: to assume one or the other. Neither can be proven, so one must be assumed.

Also, you say, again rightly, that a theory must be observable and repeatable in order to truly be a theory. But just as no one was there to observe any Creation, neither was there an observance of the Big Bang. Obviously neither can be repeated or tested. Both are after-the-fact explanations of what we see in the physical world. Thus I propose that neither are more than hypotheses.

I agree with Die Uber.

"When God Began Creating the Heavens and the Earth, the Earth was at first a shapeless, chaotic mass, with the spirit of God brooding over the vapors" The Living Bible- Paraphrased

Now if I read my bible correctly, there was something there for him to work with, ie, the shapeless, chaotic mass.

Now as a Christian, I believe that God created the Earth and the animals and everything as we know it. The bible does not say how long the Holy Spirit brooded over the vapors, (or waters if you if you are a KJV or NIV person).

So it would stand to reason to me that dinosaurs and everything existed. We have the proof. Go to any museum of Natural History and you can see for yourself. I just believe that they existed before God created the Earth as we know it

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask Tactical Grace a question.

On the argument of "theories must be falsifiable" etc: Your logic follows but I take issue with your foundational assumption. You say that God cannot be proven or disproven to exist, and therefore any theory based on his existence is not a theory, simply a hypothesis.

But why stop there? If God cannot be disproven to exist, then is any theory based upon his non-existence also not a theory? It seems to me that most all questions in life, whether scientific, philosophical, or, as you rightly point out, social, come down to a question of Either God Exists or He Does Not. That is the starting point: to assume one or the other. Neither can be proven, so one must be assumed.

Also, you say, again rightly, that a theory must be observable and repeatable in order to truly be a theory. But just as no one was there to observe any Creation, neither was there an observance of the Big Bang. Obviously neither can be repeated or tested. Both are after-the-fact explanations of what we see in the physical world. Thus I propose that neither are more than hypotheses.

I don't know what tactical grace will say to this, but I feel compelled to respond, or at least ask for clarification:

How would you, or at least your devil's advocate, respond to the explanation that the Big Bang theory can be considered a theory because it fits with physical evidence? I wouldn't say that the God hypothesis is demonstrated physically any more than the hypothesis that aliens created the universe or any other bit of guesswork. One of the thing that turns me off about the idea of God is that it could be used to explain literally anything, there is no way to falsify it.

What I'm trying to say, in the above long-winded paragraph, is that the Big Bang is falsifiable, we could conceivably find evidence that it was not true. There is no way to find evidence for or against god.

Your comment about the nonexistence of god being just a hypothesis: I'd have to agree with you. But at the same time, I don't think it matters in a scientific realm whether or not god exists. He could theoretically be responsible for the big bang, or evolution. They are not dependent on his existence or non-existence, so we don't need a basic assumption about the existence of god to put stock in evolution or the big bang as valid theories rather than simply hypotheses.

What do you all think?

I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask Tactical Grace a question.

On the argument of "theories must be falsifiable" etc: Your logic follows but I take issue with your foundational assumption. You say that God cannot be proven or disproven to exist, and therefore any theory based on his existence is not a theory, simply a hypothesis.

But why stop there? If God cannot be disproven to exist, then is any theory based upon his non-existence also not a theory? It seems to me that most all questions in life, whether scientific, philosophical, or, as you rightly point out, social, come down to a question of Either God Exists or He Does Not. That is the starting point: to assume one or the other. Neither can be proven, so one must be assumed.

Also, you say, again rightly, that a theory must be observable and repeatable in order to truly be a theory. But just as no one was there to observe any Creation, neither was there an observance of the Big Bang. Obviously neither can be repeated or tested. Both are after-the-fact explanations of what we see in the physical world. Thus I propose that neither are more than hypotheses.

I don't know what tactical grace will say to this, but I feel compelled to respond, or at least ask for clarification:

How would you, or at least your devil's advocate, respond to the explanation that the Big Bang theory can be considered a theory because it fits with physical evidence? I wouldn't say that the God hypothesis is demonstrated physically any more than the hypothesis that aliens created the universe or any other bit of guesswork. One of the thing that turns me off about the idea of God is that it could be used to explain literally anything, there is no way to falsify it.

What I'm trying to say, in the above long-winded paragraph, is that the Big Bang is falsifiable, we could conceivably find evidence that it was not true. There is no way to find evidence for or against god.

Your comment about the nonexistence of god being just a hypothesis: I'd have to agree with you. But at the same time, I don't think it matters in a scientific realm whether or not god exists. He could theoretically be responsible for the big bang, or evolution. They are not dependent on his existence or non-existence, so we don't need a basic assumption about the existence of god to put stock in evolution or the big bang as valid theories rather than simply hypotheses.

What do you all think?

Regarding the Big Bang, Die Uberkonigin suggests that the Big Bang theory is merely fitting an explanation to observed reality, that no-one was there to witness it, and that the process cannot be repeated or tested.

I would have to disagree. We have much evidence in the form of the expansion of the Universe (the redshift of galaxies), the cosmic background radiation (2.7K in the microwave spectrum), etc to suggest that there was a singularity at the start of the Universe - therefore a Big Bang. The detection of gravitational waves, as predicted by the Theory of Special Relativity, would constitute the final piece of the puzzle. A number of experiments (eg Gravity Probe B) are being run in an effort to detect gravitational waves. Sometimes in science you cannot directly detect or measure the thing you are trying to measure - you have to detect or measure something else, and use the results of past experiments to infer the existence/properties or non-existence of what you are after. No detector can allow us to "see" subatomic particles - there is a fundamental limit to the resolution of any instrument. Yet they can be detected by the tracks they make inside a particle accelerator, and their properties determined by examining which way they curve, how tightly, etc. Just because you are not witnessing the event directly, does not invalidate your conclusions. Indirect measurements are perfectly valid - without them, you would not have a computer. And the things that I have mentioned here are observed repeatedly. Galactic surveys, Hubble's constant, the cosmic background radiation, etc are all measurements subject to repetition and refinement. The Big Bang itself is falsifiable - but it has stood the test of time. There have been competing theories - Hoyle's Steady-State Theory was by far the most famous one. It was Fred Hoyle, in fact, who coined the term "Big Bang" with sarcasm. In the event, his (valid and falsifiable) theory that the Universe was homogenous and in a permanent state of equilibrium was discounted as a result of experiment and measurement in favour of the Big Bang. Can religion offer us a theory such as Hoyle's to show that the Big Bang had a Divine driving intelligence? A falsifiable one? Making justified predictions which can be measured indirectly? If a person could be shown to repeatedly perform miracles, that perhaps could count as an indirect detection of God. But nothing that religion has offered us has withstood scientific inquiry so far.

Aerosaucer's statement that the existence or non-existence of God(s) is of no consequence to the function, process and results of science is exactly what I have been saying when I spoke of its lack of consequences for observable reality. There is no need to assume the existence or non-existence of God(s) when forming a theory, or to consider the existence or non-existence of God(s) when performing observations, because God(s) by definition is a concept resident outside of observable reality. Since the existence of such an entity cannot be verified, its inclusion in the scientifc realm is of no benefit, and is in fact a hinderance. To include the assumption of God(s) in your model of reality is to set up a situation whereby you are tempted to ignore certain lines of inquiry, because they can be accounted for by God(s). In science, that is counterproductive. Similarly, including the assumption that there is no God(s) adds nothing useful to any theory.

To sum up the last sentence in a more easily digestible fashion, there is no unfalsifiable "no God(s)" hypothesis in science, as Die Uberkonigin suggests. No scientific theory begins with the assumption that there is no God(s). The idea of a supreme being is merely dismissed by science as irrelevant to considerations of the Universe. The choice of believing or disbelieving in God(s), with the latter technically counting as a religious belief in its own right, is up to the individual but has no place in science.

Regarding the Big Bang, Die Uberkonigin suggests that the Big Bang theory is merely fitting an explanation to observed reality, that no-one was there to witness it, and that the process cannot be repeated or tested.



Well... we could try... but it'd be a very bad idea.

Another difference between a theory and a doctrine- a theory changes to fit new facts (evolution already has, several times- Darwin proposed his theory of Natural Selection before we even knew about DNA, for instance... but it is predictive of the discovery of DNA, in a sense, and that discovery modified it) while doctrines, on the other hand, cannot be easily changed, because there's too much emotional baggage wound up with them, so when new facts are discovered which contradict them, crises result. See Galileo. That's not to say that scientific theories cannot occasionally become doctrines- trust me, I live in Oxford, dogmatic scientific academics are ten-a-penny, but because because the requirement for supporting evidence is so much higher, and emotional involvement only coincidental, rather than intrinsic, they are less vulnerable to it than religious ideology tends to be.

I would have to disagree. We have much evidence in the form of the expansion of the Universe (the redshift of galaxies), the cosmic background radiation (2.7K in the microwave spectrum), etc to suggest that there was a singularity at the start of the Universe - therefore a Big Bang. The detection of gravitational waves, as predicted by the Theory of Special Relativity, would constitute the final piece of the puzzle. A number of experiments (eg Gravity Probe B) are being run in an effort to detect gravitational waves. Sometimes in science you cannot directly detect or measure the thing you are trying to measure - you have to detect or measure something else, and use the results of past experiments to infer the existence/properties or non-existence of what you are after. No detector can allow us to "see" subatomic particles - there is a fundamental limit to the resolution of any instrument. Yet they can be detected by the tracks they make inside a particle accelerator, and their properties determined by examining which way they curve, how tightly, etc. Just because you are not witnessing the event directly, does not invalidate your conclusions. Indirect measurements are perfectly valid - without them, you would not have a computer. And the things that I have mentioned here are observed repeatedly. Galactic surveys, Hubble's constant, the cosmic background radiation, etc are all measurements subject to repetition and refinement. The Big Bang itself is falsifiable - but it has stood the test of time. There have been competing theories - Hoyle's Steady-State Theory was by far the most famous one. It was Fred Hoyle, in fact, who coined the term "Big Bang" with sarcasm. In the event, his (valid and falsifiable) theory that the Universe was homogenous and in a permanent state of equilibrium was discounted as a result of experiment and measurement in favour of the Big Bang. Can religion offer us a theory such as Hoyle's to show that the Big Bang had a Divine driving intelligence? A falsifiable one? Making justified predictions which can be measured indirectly? If a person could be shown to repeatedly perform miracles, that perhaps could count as an indirect detection of God. But nothing that religion has offered us has withstood scientific inquiry so far.

Aerosaucer's statement that the existence or non-existence of God(s) is of no consequence to the function, process and results of science is exactly what I have been saying when I spoke of its lack of consequences for observable reality. There is no need to assume the existence or non-existence of God(s) when forming a theory, or to consider the existence or non-existence of God(s) when performing observations, because God(s) by definition is a concept resident outside of observable reality. Since the existence of such an entity cannot be verified, its inclusion in the scientifc realm is of no benefit, and is in fact a hinderance. To include the assumption of God(s) in your model of reality is to set up a situation whereby you are tempted to ignore certain lines of inquiry, because they can be accounted for by God(s). In science, that is counterproductive. Similarly, including the assumption that there is no God(s) adds nothing useful to any theory.

To sum up the last sentence in a more easily digestible fashion, there is no unfalsifiable "no God(s)" hypothesis in science, as Die Uberkonigin suggests. No scientific theory begins with the assumption that there is no God(s). The idea of a supreme being is merely dismissed by science as irrelevant to considerations of the Universe. The choice of believing or disbelieving in God(s), with the latter technically counting as a religious belief in its own right, is up to the individual but has no place in science.[/quote]

Evolution is the theory with the most evidence supporting it, whereas creationism has just about none, thus I am compelled, in a spirit of humanism and empiricism, to support evolutionism.

Another difference between a theory and a doctrine- a theory changes to fit new facts . . . while doctrines, on the other hand, cannot be easily changed, because there's too much emotional baggage wound up with them, so when new facts are discovered which contradict them, crises result. See Galileo. That's not to say that scientific theories cannot occasionally become doctrines . . . but because because the requirement for supporting evidence is so much higher, and emotional involvement only coincidental, rather than intrinsic, they are less vulnerable to it than religious ideology tends to be.


True. Arthur C Clarke always believed in Martians, but when it turned out there were none, he took it gracefully. When the Mariner fly-by images came back, he didn't grumble that they had retreated underground, he accepted the fact live on TV.

The same thing when the temperature of Venus was taken. Lots of people had assumed it was like primordial Earth, but they accepted the proof.

On the other hand, Fred Hoyle's Steady-State theory was proven to be incorrect, but he would not let it go, not even when the cosmic background radiation was found in the 1960s. And that takes some doing, considering he was still in his teens when Edwin Hubble discovered the redshift of galaxies. He must have had too much of an emotional attachment to his theory, it must have become a personal doctrine of sorts, which everyone but him quickly deserted.

There are constant shifts of understanding in science. What if the existence of the Higgs Boson is disproved at all energies? Or if the Riemann Hypothesis (distinct from a theory, as it makes a testable prediction only, with no explanation) is somehow proven to be false, when so much mathematics rests on the assumption that it is true? The people who care about such things would check it out for themselves, reach a consensus and move on, taking this change in their understanding in their stride. They would not see it as an affront necessitating anyone's persecution or holy war. Science accepts such changes - indeed that is part of the foundation of its progress.

In contrast, religion is indeed dogmatic - it finds it difficult to adapt to new ideas which contradict it. The Earth-centric model of the Universe was defended by the Catholic Church right up to the bitter end, because it contradicted their doctrine that the Earth must at the centre of all Creation ("It must be, we are special!") while it later endorsed the Big Bang theory as proof of a moment of Creation, since it did not disagree with anything specific and was broadly in keeping with contemporary religious attitudes. Clearly, the religious do not like to hear dissenting voices until they are too loud and mocking to be ignored, while the scientifically-minded recognise that they must listen in order to make progress.

Such wisdom does not however, prevent people from falling victim to conspiracy theories. As an aside, it is interesting to note that some, such as kidnappings by the Greys, are not falsifiable, while others, such as the faking of the Moon landings, are. Yet both enjoy followings the nature of which can only be described as dogmatic and almost religious.

Evolution, of course. :D

Now, I want to preface my words by saying that I do not wish to say what I personally think here, but I do know people who would say the following, "By simply NOT including God in a theory, it is practically if you are saying that He does not exist just because you do not include Him."

Putting God in a theory, without any verifiable predictions, would then not make it a theory either.

Now, I want to preface my words by saying that I do not wish to say what I personally think here, but I do know people who would say the following, "By simply NOT including God in a theory, it is practically if you are saying that He does not exist just because you do not include Him."
Same with telekinetic green aliens, it's so silly of us to dismiss them when we make our theories :)

Evolution, of course.

According to M. Wong at stardestroyer.net, mixing different groups with different genes(such as races) increases the chance of survival of the whole species.

I know that the vast majority of scientists maintain the orthodoxy of darwinism. But I'd like to humor you with some evidence that is beginning to upset the establishment.

In his book "Darwin's Black Box," microbiologist Michael Behe describes how evolution doesn't work on the cellular level. One of his many points (I won't go into all of them) focuses on "irreducible complexity," in which internal cellular systems (e.g. protein ingestion) require all the parts of the system to be present. Logically, how can a system "evolve"? Cells don't have "research and development" departments with lots of spare parts lying around. (I can imagine a mitochondrion admiring the evolution of a cellular system, thinking to itself: "Just imagine, in a few hundred years, that's going to do something important!") Behe uses the example of a mousetrap (which is vastly more simple than the incredible complexity of a protein). For a mousetrap to function, each part must have the correct size, placement, and composition. If even one part is missing, the wrong size or composition, the system won't work. Likewise, the complexity of systems like eyesight and blood-clotting require not only the individual cells working properly internally, but also in concert with other cells.

Behe also states that the probability of the first living cell spontaneously forming with intact systems would require the age of the universe to be many times greater than the largest current astronomical estimate. It seems to me that evolutionists often tack on more time to gain more favorable odds. The problem is, astronomy has provided an upper limit to the age of the universe.

"Intelligent design" is the "improbable solution" of Sherlock Holmes, who said, "Eliminate the impossible, and whatever is left -- no matter how improbable -- is the solution."

Speaking of cells evolving.....I had a really weird science teacher try to tell me that cells were originally all individual organisms who came to gether to live off each other for symbiotic purposes. That, to me, is a crazy idea.

In re Aerosaucer and Tactical Grace (I don't want to quote the whole long thing),

To answer the both of you, let's narrow the terms down to the original discussion: Creation or Evolution. So now we are speaking of, not just God, but rather God's plan of the creation of the universe as laid out in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. While God's existence or non-existence cannot be falsifiable as per the above arguments etc, creationism, theoretically, can be.

So we are working with two theories (or hypotheses) that attempt to offer explanations of origin and history of the physical world that we can observe. They both attempt to do this using physical evidence *as we see it right now.* This was the point I was alluding to earlier, I'll try to expand my idea--

One of my biggest problems with creation/evolution debates is that they seem often to degenerate into each side taking his respective mountain of "proof," retreating to opposite corners, and sitting atop his pile of evidence, with tongue sticking out, and sneering "oh yeah, well *my* mountain of proof is bigger than *yours*!!"

Closer to the truth would be *one* mountain of evidence (not "proof") from the physical world, and differing interpretations of that evidence. Both sides are working with the same material, but coming to separate conclusions. This was my point about the necessary foundational assumption on the existence of God. You can try to make God irrelevant to science, but to *not* assume his existence *is* to assume his non-existence; and vice-versa. There is no "proof," only evidence open to interpretation. There is very reliable and often repeated evidence, and this we call a scientific law. But it is still only evidence, not proof. Interpretation is always subjective, and I take issue with your attempt to compartmentalize life.

For instance, the Big Bang is one interpretive explanation for the data we have that the universe is expanding. Creationists could propose Job 37:18, which speaks of how God "spread out the skies."

To say that creationism has no evidence is wrong; it has the same evidence as evolution, it only interprets that evidence differently. To say that it, as a hypothesis/theory, cannot be falsified is also wrong; the existence of God in general may be beyond falsification, but a specific theory based on the words of Scripture is certainly open to critique and testing. Some creationist theories have been abandoned in light of further research (moon dust, canopy). The problem with creation scientists in general is that they seem to devote all their time to picking holes in the evolution model instead of building a positive model of their own. This is why creationism cannot be taught in schools -- it does not possess its own full-scale interpretive model. Right now, creation science has a rather clown-like image, and for good reason. But that does not mean that it is completely without merit, only that its proponents have thus far been going about it in a defensive and reactionary way.

T.G. -- "Clearly, the religious do not like to hear dissenting voices until they are too loud and mocking to be ignored, while the scientifically-minded recognise that they must listen in order to make progress."

The only thing I have to say to that is that it is a gross over-generalization, and it is, for lack of a nicer term, rather self-righteous to assume that a-theistic scientists have a monopoly on intellectual honesty.

internal cellular systems (e.g. protein ingestion) require all the parts of the system to be present. Logically, how can a system "evolve"? Cells don't have "research and development" departments with lots of spare parts lying around...the complexity of systems like eyesight and blood-clotting require not only the individual cells working properly internally, but also in concert with other cells.


I cannot deny that the theory of evolution is incomplete. It has already undergone more than a century of refinement as our understanding increases and new ideas are put forward. Creationists still spend much of their time looking for such gaps and exploiting them to their advantage. That is to be expected - one always attacks an enemy's weaknesses rather than strengths. But science has the mechanisms and procedures in place to fill such gaps. I am confident that at some point a reasonable explanation (perhaps one involving stem cells, who knows?) will emerge and gain acceptance as it is verified.

One of my biggest problems with creation/evolution debates is that they seem often to degenerate into each side taking his respective mountain of "proof," retreating to opposite corners, and sitting atop his pile of evidence, with tongue sticking out, and sneering "oh yeah, well *my* mountain of proof is bigger than *yours*!!"

Closer to the truth would be *one* mountain of evidence (not "proof") from the physical world, and differing interpretations of that evidence. Both sides are working with the same material, but coming to separate conclusions.


Yes, that does seem to be the case. Two castles, each unassailable, laying seige to each other. The problem is that Creationists and Evolutionists are incapable of agreeing to a common territory over which to fight - this mountain of evidence open to interpretation - each insists on a different battlefield. Evolutionists, and scientists in general, like their "home ground" of observable reality. Creationists want to bring the social domain into it. And so we are left with an eternal artillery duel.


This was my point about the necessary foundational assumption on the existence of God. You can try to make God irrelevant to science, but to *not* assume his existence *is* to assume his non-existence; and vice-versa. There is no "proof," only evidence open to interpretation. There is very reliable and often repeated evidence, and this we call a scientific law. But it is still only evidence, not proof. Interpretation is always subjective, and I take issue with your attempt to compartmentalize life.


I have difficulty accepting the idea that failing or refusing to assume the existence of God(s) is an automatic endorsement of atheism. Surely that is what agnostics are? People who say that they can never know whether there is a God(s), and so do not care? I think that there is a middle ground here. A refusal to make any assumptions regarding Gods' existence cannot be filed under either set of beliefs. To do so would be simplistic.

Regarding "proof", very reliable, repeatable, not self-contradictory evidence supporting a theory, if present in sufficient quantity is considered to be proof in science. Biology just happens to be particularly unlucky, in that other disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, etc can offer absolute proof which is not open to interpretation, while biology is burdened with having to accept proofs on a balance of probabilities. This makes it particularly vulnerable to criticism.


For instance, the Big Bang is one interpretive explanation for the data we have that the universe is expanding. Creationists could propose Job 37:18, which speaks of how God "spread out the skies."


So we have a different, this time ancient, poetic and metaphysical, way of accounting for observed phenomena such as the recession of galaxies. It is a different interpretation to the one offered by science, but whether it is equally valid is (forever) debatable. In the end, it is up to the individual to decide.


To say that creationism has no evidence is wrong; it has the same evidence as evolution, it only interprets that evidence differently.


Well yes, the different interpretation being "OK, we'll give you evolution, but God set it in motion". One side offers an interpretation, another insists on sticking God(s) into it. As we see every day, there is little potential for rational debate in a situation like that.


To say that it, as a hypothesis/theory, cannot be falsified is also wrong; the existence of God in general may be beyond falsification, but a specific theory based on the words of Scripture is certainly open to critique and testing. Some creationist theories have been abandoned in light of further research (moon dust, canopy).


Perhaps everything in religious texts that can be falsified eventually will be. Then what will remain is only what is open to interpretation. And it will be up to the individual to decide upon his/her interpretation.


The problem with creation scientists in general is that they seem to devote all their time to picking holes in the evolution model instead of building a positive model of their own. This is why creationism cannot be taught in schools -- it does not possess its own full-scale interpretive model. Right now, creation science has a rather clown-like image, and for good reason. But that does not mean that it is completely without merit, only that its proponents have thus far been going about it in a defensive and reactionary way.


I agree with you there, they need to develop some sort of framework for justifying their theory, the way that biologists have.


T.G. -- "Clearly, the religious do not like to hear dissenting voices until they are too loud and mocking to be ignored, while the scientifically-minded recognise that they must listen in order to make progress."

The only thing I have to say to that is that it is a gross over-generalization, and it is, for lack of a nicer term, rather self-righteous to assume that a-theistic scientists have a monopoly on intellectual honesty.

Yes, that was a rather offensive generalisation. There are of course plenty examples of scientists who have pursued dogmatic thinking. Perhaps a less contentious way of putting it is to say that science has developed a very effective framework for handling dissenting opinions, while religion has been slow to realise that it needs one.

I never really gave creation science much thought until i found an increasing number of people using the evolution and big bang theory to question my faith in God.

So i went away and did some reasearch on the evolution theory to see what their point of veiw was. They had all this stuff about humans evolving from apes and theories about macro evolution.

Then i thought that these were nice and all but where was there evidence that they could question my faith in God. So then i looked a little further, and in many text books and web site they used Micro evolution as a basis for macro evolution (that has not been observed ever) which i thought wasn't enough to convince me.

Then i looked at some of the evidence they provided for the Ape to Human theory. And some of the evidence provided was a bit sketchy to say the least.

So for me both theories come down to a matter of faith.

I believe that God Created the world. And as there is no definative proof whether either theory is true i just wish people wouldn't go around questioning my faith like they no all. If they wish to believe in evolution cool but it don't mean i have to :wink:

Unfortunately the human race is too big for evolution to make much more of an effect upon our physiologies. Unless we make it! We have something no species in the history of teh Earth has been able to have and that is technology and a free mind. That virtually ensures against extinction unless something REALLY extraordinary happens.

Regarding _Darwin's Black Box_: The guy obviously knows next to nothing about cellular biology if he says things like that. The modern cell is not the simplest thing there is. The simplest thing there is is a DNA strand, which is basically a step up from the development of amino acids (add some phosphates here, some dihydrogen bonds there, and *voila*). As for those, it was proved in the 1950s that if you replicate the presumed conditions of the young Earth, it takes less than a week ( :!: ) to produce them.

I find it funny that mitochondria were brought up. The going theory is that mitochondria were originally some other sort of micro-organism that set up shop inside cells for symbiotic benefits (not a crazy idea at all, Ferngully, if you take Genetics). See? Cells do take a long time to develop into their full-blown glory. For example, way back in the mists of time, when plants and animals were separated, the plant-animals of the time didn't have vacuoles. Well, plants do now, in addition to some other cool stuff they didn't use to have way back when (like chromoplasts). Animal cells have their own nifty accoutrements. This is clear evidence that, in the evolutionary world, cells used to be lots more primitive than they are now. In fact, certain organisms don't even have cell nuclei, which shows that the hypothetical Ur-Cell didn't have -- or particularly need -- one. Anyway, cells didn't start out with mitochondria, so it's funny that you'd picture a mitochondrion floating around admiring the potential of the whole thing. Mitochondria are just additional evidence that the "irreducible complexity" of cells isn't what it's cracked up to be, much like the "irreducible complexity" some people used to think atoms have (no such luck, as it turned out :) ).

Granted, cells work better with all the modern bells and whistles (just like human eyes are much better and more complicated than the light-sensitive spots on paramecia), but you'd be surprised how simple the bare-bones Ur-Cell was while still able to function. I'm not a microbiologist, but it wouldn't surprise me to know that there's some part of a cell that could, if need be, be entirely self-sufficient. Mitochondria, maybe, since they must obviously have been winging it on their own before joining up with cells.


By the way, just so certain Christians don't leap on me: you should know that, like many of the Christians who wrote before me, my views of evolution are in no way incompatible with my religious views. I am in fact an extremely religious Christian, but I don't brook any sort of stupidity about unscientific claptrap. As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (a Jesuit paleontologist, as incongruous as that sounds) said, evolution and everything that allowed it to happen are together an inspiring demonstration of the marvelous way in which God ordered the universe.

And I'd appreciate it if certain non-Christians didn't jump on me as being "illogical". Faith and reason operate in entirely different spheres of influence, and a person is not a certifiable loony for having both.

And for those thinking that God being responsible for evolution is a dopey idea because, after all, he'd want to speed it up a lot instead of taking billions of years: when you've been around as long as God, you aren't in very much of a hurry about that sort of thing. :wink:

And for those complaining about micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution, I got news for you: there's no difference but scale. As for observability of either, we're already beginning to see it because (for an example) Chihuahuas can't mate with Great Danes (at least not under natural conditions). :idea: There ya go, textbook speciation! Species are separated based on whether they can mate together or not; we are thus beginning to see a split in dogs where not all kinds of dogs can mate with all other kinds of dogs. Give it a few hundred more years, and the piling up of divergences will probably even render impossible the formation *in vitro* of half-Chihuahua-half-Great-Dane dogs. By that time, it would not be a surprise if *Canis familiaris*, after several thousand years of rudimentary animal husbandry (I'm not even talking about genetic engineering), had speciated into two or more separate species.

I just listened to two apologists on the radio on this issue. Actually the issue was sort of proving the existence of God. The first man argued that it makes logical sense that God did in fact create the universe. I think it will be well worth your while to go to www.rzim.org next go to broadcast archives the very first recording will be the one adressing the issue. It is entitled: "Top 5 Questions from Students" It is only a half hour long.

::The going theory is that mitochondria were originally some other sort of micro-organism that set up shop inside cells for symbiotic benefits (not a crazy idea at all, Ferngully, if you take Genetics).:: Greater Switzerland

It may make sense to science, but not to me. It almost disproves that humanity is a single being and that we are not special. If we are an amalgum of other beings, we become no better than animals and that idea is repugnant.

If we are an amalgum of other beings, we become no better than animals and that idea is repugnant.
I am seriously beginning to wonder where I got the idea of truth from, and the idea that truth is somehow important... it's seeming more and
more like those ideas aren't commonly shared, like I once thought.

(That might sound like an insult. I don't mean it to be.)

::The going theory is that mitochondria were originally some other sort of micro-organism that set up shop inside cells for symbiotic benefits (not a crazy idea at all, Ferngully, if you take Genetics).:: Greater Switzerland

It may make sense to science, but not to me. It almost disproves that humanity is a single being and that we are not special. If we are an amalgum of other beings, we become no better than animals and that idea is repugnant.

This again is part of the difference between theory and doctrine- scientifically, one only dismisses evidence if it is flawed, or so grossly outweighed by counter evidence that it's clear it must be flawed, even if the flaw isn't yet apparent, not because one dislikes the conclusion on an emotional level.

This alleged 'specialness' of the human race in its own eyes is one of the reason we're in such a mess, globally speaking, IMHO.

Extract from a true conversation, held with a door-stepping Jehovah's Witness on the origin of the species:

JHW: Evolution makes no sense! I mean, seriously, do you want to have been created by a divine being, or descended from an animal- a monkey.

Householder: I'd rather be descended from a monkey than from a religious bigot. Good day to you. SLAM

The Witness' "argument" is incredibly sloppy reasoning. How, exactly, does what our species 'wants' to have come from make a theory which proposes (in their view) less glamourous origins nonsensical? It implies that the universe is built on wishful thinking.

As I think Tactical Grace said, the Creation doctrine's greatest weakness of all as a theory is possibly the poor arguing of its proponents.

I am an athiest and firmly believe in evolution. The "superiority complex" of religion is one of the many factors that turned me off it.

::The going theory is that mitochondria were originally some other sort of micro-organism that set up shop inside cells for symbiotic benefits (not a crazy idea at all, Ferngully, if you take Genetics).:: Greater Switzerland

It may make sense to science, but not to me. It almost disproves that humanity is a single being and that we are not special. If we are an amalgum of other beings, we become no better than animals and that idea is repugnant.

Many of the great ideas are initially found repugnant and later on are not (except by cranks, anyway, like the people who think that flying machines are an elaborate hoax, or the ones who think that the Earth is flat and is made to appear otherwise because of a conspiracy). But, in any case, whether it makes sense to you, or anyone else, is not really the point. Saying ideas are repugnant is opinion, not science, and the inferences you make are emotional rather than logical. There is no reason to infer that, because humans have a lot of the same ingredients as animals, they are not any better, or not special, or not a single "being" (whatever that means; we are a single species, but we're not a single being in any other sense).

In any case, I assume that after billions of years of symbiosis, mitochondria and everything else are so bound up together that the individual components can no longer survive on their own, much as a human muscle cell or a human brain cell can't survive by itself; thus making us a synthesis rather than a jumble of heterogenous stuff. I hope you don't feel bad because you're an amalgam of different kinds of specialized cells, but whether you do or not -- no offense -- is quite beside the point and doesn't make a difference scientifically.


By the way, the major weakness of creationism is not the stupidity or ignorance or obnoxiousness of its proponents, but the basic fact that the whole thing is not science, because it's "deus ex machina" and has no explanation for phenomena which are easily observed and attributable to evolution (such as the stages of embryonic development, or vestigial reflexes that an intelligent designer wouldn't need to give humans). My point of view on these issues is the counter of "if God wanted you to fly, he'd have given you wings": "if God didn't want you to contemplate the universe in a logical manner, he wouldn't have given you brains."

I also am an atheist and believe firmly in evolution - after reviewing the hard work of a lot of very smart people who have tested both sides of this argument, the vast majority of whom have come to the conclusion that evolution is how it (the origin of species) happened.
For the record, I do not find it repugnant that we are 'no better than animals'. I do not think there is an insurmountable difference between Homo sapiens and other species. The major difference is language, and some of our monkey cousins have shown the ability to learn very rudimentary forms of communication with humans. We are still poor communicators with other species!
I also find the 'superiority complex' of creationism irritating. We should feel more empathy with many non-human animals, when we realise that like us, they can feel pain, fear, happiness and affection. If we were truly superior beings we would also know humility.

"That's what I do, because I'm a buddhist" - God (South Park)

Unfortunately the human race is too big for evolution to make much more of an effect upon our physiologies. Unless we make it! We have something no species in the history of teh Earth has been able to have and that is technology and a free mind. That virtually ensures against extinction unless something REALLY extraordinary happens.

:lol: HAHAHA! :lol:

Type "world oil production" into Google, and read through the first 200 results. Then perhaps you will be qualified to begin to discuss such things. Flippant remarks like that - teeheehee! By the way, I work in the energy industry, just starting out, I admit, but I know a lot more about the future of industrial civilisation than you do!

If we were truly superior beings we would also know humility.
Can't emphasize this enough. One of the major things they used to teach me when I was Christian was humility... seems a lot of people are being taught something else...

I apologise for the above off-topic rant. It annoys me greatly to see ignorant people making trite observations or predictions about serious matters about which I am considerably better informed. This free-market "Mankind's endless ingenuity" BS is just as annoying to me, who can see energetic limits to growth (and indeed energetic imperatives for decline) as I would imagine a door-stepping religious fanatic would be to a student of evolution.

Anyway, a couple of interesting points have been raised.

Firstly, I feel that belief in evolution is not entirely a matter of faith, as has been suggested by some. As far as I can see, science has now accepted evolution as being proven to be a true picture of the emergence of the life we see today, with bacteria as a starting point. Thus if one chooses to believe in it, one believes in the truth, does one not? To believe in the creation of Man by a supreme intelligence, with no intermediate steps (ie the very first model being identical to the production model we see today), is to disbelieve in the truth. To believe in evolution, but also believe in a divine controlling force, is to believe in the truth but with added unverifiable embellishments.

Ignoring God(s) for a moment, if something, in this case the process of evolution, be it driven by the nature of life itself or by a divine entity, has been shown to be true, is accepting that fact merely belief? Or is it something greater than belief? Certain knowledge? This question could be discussed forever. I just wish to say that I do not consider belief in the process of evolution to be simple belief, but something of a rather different quality.

The more fanatical religious people would doubtless point out that they do not merely believe in their God, but know of His existence. But of course, we know that this is just belief.

Secondly, there is indeed a fundamental human need to believe in ourselves as something special. As the Jehovas Witness said, what would we prefer to believe? That we are extremely intelligent monkeys? Or something so great as to be in the realm of the supernatural? What arrogance!

Through recorded history, this has manifested itself in several different ways. Here is a list not intended to be exhaustive:

- Earth as the Universe.

- Earth as the centre of the Universe.

- Humans as beings created by a Supreme Being, according to some even in His own image, for a special purpose.

- Humans being distinct from animals in a way somehow deeper than differences in intelligence.

- Humans as masters of their environment - if not the weather, than certainly all living things. (Look where this has gotten us).

- More recently, infinite human ingenuity. An excellent example of this widely-shared view is the post to which I have so strongly objected, namely the idea that since our technological progress has so obviously freed us from the forces of evolution, it must have also freed us from the threat of extinction or social collapses of the sort observed throughout recorded history, since the foundation of the first city-state. "Thanks to our intelligence, the future can only get better" sort of thinking. "Ahead there is only growth."

Humans have shown and still show remarkable resistance to any suggestion that we are not as special as we so arrogantly assume. The revulsion felt by so many religious people at the suggestion that we are the descendants of animals past rather than the direct result of divine artifice is but one example.

Obviously, we can think in a way that other animals cannot. We can use tools and adapt ourselves to different situations, in ways that other animals cannot. We have altered the process of natural selection which had acted upon us. Yet despite these unique traits, we are animals in all other respects, and are subject to the same environmental influences and events. We simply respond differently, though far from always. Indeed, our special skills do not always act in the favour of the race. They are certainly not doing so now. For some reason, we have great difficulty accepting this.

I am increasingly of the opinion that religion as a whole is simply the rationalisation of these feelings, with Creationism being just one of many attempts to elevate us above our already high status.

Both are right. 8)

Oops, double post. Removed it now.

Though I believe in evolution its simply because it 'seems' more likely. Sadly it is a theory that cannot be subjected to scientific tests.

You can not experiment to confirm whether or not evoultion is responsible for present life forms and you can not experiment to confirm whether or not evolutionary processes lead to anything but micro-evolutionary changes.

I don't know how or why scientists can, but I don't think it is appropriate to leave emotion out of things.

Though I believe in evolution its simply because it 'seems' more likely. Sadly it is a theory that cannot be subjected to scientific tests.

You can not experiment to confirm whether or not evoultion is responsible for present life forms and you can not experiment to confirm whether or not evolutionary processes lead to anything but micro-evolutionary changes.

we have observed macro-evolution because we have observed speciation. speciation is macro-evolution. and so we know for an absolute fact (in so far as there are absolute facts) that evolution, micro and macro, occurs. and even if we hadn't observed speciation, the claim that species can only vary "within their own kind" isn't very stable. if you accept that variation occurs at all you would need to come up with a mechanism that stops the accumulation of variations over multiple generations. after all, all macro-evolution is is the accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time. i've never seen such a mechanism described at all.

and evolutionary theory is totally testable. more than that, it passes every test thrown at it. it is one of the most robust and best confirmed scientific theories around.

Personally, I will only believe evolution when I see two seemingly ordinary humans produce a new species through mating.

Personally, I will only believe evolution when I see two seemingly ordinary humans produce a new species through mating.

so you would only believe in evolution when something that evolution predicts cannot happen occurs? strange.

Personally, I will only believe evolution when I see two seemingly ordinary humans produce a new species through mating.

er, you really have no clue what "evolution" means, do you? sorry, but if two humans mated and produced a new species that would be a slap in the face of evolution and would require a total revision of said theory.

who created the creator?

I don't know how or why scientists can, but I don't think it is appropriate to leave emotion out of things.

and that is probably why your views are so illogical and misguided. instead of actually learning about the physical realities around you, you fall back on emotions and wishful thinking.

and if you don't understand how it is possible to do something (i.e. remove emotion from discussion of facts) then how can you judge it by saying it's not appropriate?

Personally, I will only believe evolution when I see two seemingly ordinary humans produce a new species through mating.

er, you really have no clue what "evolution" means, do you? sorry, but if two humans mated and produced a new species that would be a slap in the face of evolution and would require a total revision of said theory.

The same teacher I mentioned who told me that cells used to be all different organisms that came together for symbiotic purposes also told me that evolution would eventually lead to a being actually giving birth to a new species. That is why I said what I said.

I don't know how or why scientists can, but I don't think it is appropriate to leave emotion out of things.

and that is probably why your views are so illogical and misguided. instead of actually learning about the physical realities around you, you fall back on emotions and wishful thinking.

and if you don't understand how it is possible to do something (i.e. remove emotion from discussion of facts) then how can you judge it by saying it's not appropriate?

I do not understand how you can bring yourself to do it simply because I think it is inappropriate. If I can't imagine myself being able to do something, it is even harder for me to imagine someone else doing it either. Is that clearer?

Who created the creator? Well I think that is a serious question so I will address it even if I am tired.

What makes God god? So many people ask this question. God is the only being who does not need to look outside himself to find out why he exists. We of course do. Therefore the "creator" did not need to be created.

Ok, the Bible has been around since day one and Darwin has been around since mid-1800s. When Darwin wrote his book "Origin of Species" aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he spent half the book giving the proof against his theory. Today in public schools, kids are tought only the half supporting the theory. I prefer to believe that I was intelligently greated instead of thinking I came from an ape. However I believe that certain scientists who embrace this flawed theory just may have evolved from a very low life form!

Whoa! I knew that we had nutcases here, but 13%!
Do these people realize the "creationism" has zerobasis in fact?
You do the world a disservice by even posting this. This is like asking "Which is right: 'If somebody insults me I get to kill him' or 'murder is wrong'"
Of course come to think of it the former might get a lot of votes.
Hmm...

Whoa! I knew that we had nutcases here, but 13%!
Do these people realize the "creationism" has zerobasis in fact?


What you don't know, you can't say it isn't true.

Firstly, I feel that belief in evolution is not entirely a matter of faith, as has been suggested by some. As far as I can see, science has now accepted evolution as being proven to be a true picture of the emergence of the life we see today, with bacteria as a starting point. Thus if one chooses to believe in it, one believes in the truth, does one not? To believe in the creation of Man by a supreme intelligence, with no intermediate steps (ie the very first model being identical to the production model we see today), is to disbelieve in the truth. To believe in evolution, but also believe in a divine controlling force, is to believe in the truth but with added unverifiable embellishments.

Science has accepted evolution to be true because modern society is essentially secular, and evolution is the only halfway credible theory explains life without bringing God into the picture. It has far too many holes in it to be called "truth" just yet! It seems to me that its wide, unchallenged acceptance may be one reason for these holes to go undiscussed and unknown to most people (not most scientists, just most of the general public). Speaking of intermediate steps, is it not true that the stubbornness of the fossil record to produce said intermediate steps is one of the biggest problems with the theory? As a theory, or as I call it, a hypothesis, it simply has too many gaps for me to believe (yes, believe) in it.

Evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. Has anyone been there at that time to prove it true? No.

I agree that it is not rational to believe in creation just because you don't want to be descended from a monkey. I wonder, though, how many evolutionists believe in evolution because they don't want there to be a God? I still maintain that it all comes down to presuppositions.

Evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. Has anyone been there at that time to prove it true? No.


but it is a theory accepted by all serious scientists, on upon which much modern understanding of nature is based. its not just a guess its 150 years of scientific study.

also, has anyone put any thought to how we acquired so many pairs of chromosomes. Mutation, when it does not lead to neutral or negative effects, can only explain new traits not extra chromosomes. Also, there is something called scientific positivism. This is the belief, made on a sort of faith in its own right, that science is the only thing that can prove facts. In reality, most of what we except as scientific fact are only theories, and it is ridiculous to say that only empirical data can prove anything. For all we know this world is an illusion and we do not exist.

A theory is still an educated guess. Science held that the fetus became fully human after 40 days for a man, and 8o days for a woman for 3000 yrs. How many believe that now.

A theory is still an educated guess. Science held that the fetus became fully human after 40 days for a man, and 8o days for a woman for 3000 yrs. How many believe that now.

i doubt that very much. science in the modern sense is not 3000 years old.

I tbelieve God created the Earth, and the first organisms. The he gave them a push on the right direction, and helped out occasionally.

also, has anyone put any thought to how we acquired so many pairs of chromosomes. Mutation, when it does not lead to neutral or negative effects, can only explain new traits not extra chromosomes. Also, there is something called scientific positivism. This is the belief, made on a sort of faith in its own right, that science is the only thing that can prove facts. In reality, most of what we except as scientific fact are only theories, and it is ridiculous to say that only empirical data can prove anything. For all we know this world is an illusion and we do not exist.

Wonderful, another philosopher! :D Yes, without first believing in the existence of God, you have no reason to assume anything other than solipsism. You have no basis for the assumption that the universe exists, is orderly, has understandable and quantifiable order, is testable, constant, repeatable, or anything else. There is no basis for assuming that our minds are capable of understanding the universe that we don't know exists. On the other hand, if you do first assume the existence of God, then you have reason to believe that the universe exists (he said he made it), that it is understandable, and that we were not given minds for nothing, but rather to understand.

Like I have said before, it all comes down to basic presuppositions. Nothing is completely empirical; nothing can be "proven."

if god created the world who created god. if god didn't need to be created then why did the world. i believe the universe just is, that seems more logical than believing it was created by a god who just is, or believing it was created by something that was in turned created ad nauseum. in the end the first thing to exist must exist just because it does with no earilier cause, i think believing that of the universe is more reasonable than cluttering things up with a diety which doesn't actually explain things any better.

Yes, without first believing in the existence of God, you have no reason to assume anything other than solipsism. You have no basis for the assumption that the universe exists, is orderly, has understandable and quantifiable order, is testable, constant, repeatable, or anything else. There is no basis for assuming that our minds are capable of understanding the universe that we don't know exists.
Basis? You can have as much or as little basis for whatever you want. There is no end-all basis that you can point to and say that it is self-evident.
On the other hand, if you do first assume the existence of God, then you have reason to believe that the universe exists (he said he made it), that it is understandable, and that we were not given minds for nothing, but rather to understand.
Sure, that works. I think people already know that religion can give fairly definite answers.

Some people seek answers. Others seek knowledge. Still others seek understanding. Whatever floats your boat.

Ok, the Bible has been around since day one and Darwin has been around since mid-1800s. When Darwin wrote his book "Origin of Species" aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he spent half the book giving the proof against his theory. Today in public schools, kids are tought only the half supporting the theory. I prefer to believe that I was intelligently greated instead of thinking I came from an ape. However I believe that certain scientists who embrace this flawed theory just may have evolved from a very low life form!

First: What gives the Bible any precedence simply because it is older? You do realize that we posessed far less knowledge about the world around us in Biblical times than in the 19th century. That is why systems of gods were created - Roman, Babylonian, etc. - to explain otherwise inexplicable natural phenomena.

Next: The Old Testament route of creation may seem ideal to you, but did it ever occur to you that maybe someone else, 2000+ years ago, also thought of it as the ideal means of creation? In the era in which the Bible was written - as I have already said - people were more primitive, more naive; They believed in the strangest things, such as the Greek system of gods, and nobodytoday really believes that this system is credible anymore, right? So why is creationism any different? Because you were brought up to believe in the Creation? Since when does blind faith take precedence over knowledge and discovery?

Next: What is so ugly and unintelligent about an ape? It, like us, is a marvelous collection of trillions of individual cells, capable - as a whole - to survive on its own and to reproduce, to think like no other kind of being has before, and have the capability to advance as a species to an even greater and more intelligent successor: ourselves.

Finally: At the core of each one of our minds is the concepts of logic and rationality, not faith, not blind acceptance. Evolutionism is the product of this method of thinking as much as creationism, but only to their respective creators. The evil we perpetrate upon ourselves is accepting a theory through the absence of these processes of thought. We abandon them, not knowing that they are the reason we exist as the Earth's dominant species, never questioning nor discovering for oursevles what course of knowledge we choose to accept as correct. We let our parents and our peers decide for us. The ideal of Christianity perpetrates this injustice. It tries to destroy the capability of discovery by requiring that parents give their children a proper religious education. Where does science commit such an injustice? Modern science - the product of generations of rational, logical and inquisitive thought - is constantly evolving and rethinking the way it looks at the universe. It is in all aspects and at all levels a stage for trial and error, for experimentation and discovery. It inherently instills no method of thought, because that method is always under question, always under free and open scrutiny. If you personally don't like it, fine. But it will do you nothing to assume the irrational, to accept the illogical. Because this is science, not religion.

Evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. Has anyone been there at that time to prove it true? No.

there is no such thing as "evolutionism".

theory and fact are not different levels on some truth scale. facts are the actual observations about the world. theories are structures created to explain the known facts. good theories explain facts that aren't known when the theory is created.

the theory of evolution is the scientific theory that explains the observed fact of evolution. the fact of evolution is remarkably well documented. and the theory of evolution is amazingly good for explaining all of the known facts and any additional facts that become known. creationism, in so far as it is testable, has utterly failed to explain the known facts.

Ok, the Bible has been around since day one and Darwin has been around since mid-1800s. When Darwin wrote his book "Origin of Species" aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he spent half the book giving the proof against his theory. Today in public schools, kids are tought only the half supporting the theory. I prefer to believe that I was intelligently greated instead of thinking I came from an ape. However I believe that certain scientists who embrace this flawed theory just may have evolved from a very low life form!

you haven't actually read any darwin, have you?

darwin used the ingenious method of writing down the objections to his theory as he presented it for the first time, thereby making work that much harder for future opponents. he neglected to realize the stupidity/gullibility of creationists and the underhandedness of their leaders. for example, creationists will usually trot out a quote from darwin about the eye.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

what they leave out is the rest of the section or even the rest of the paragraph.

"...Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/Origin/origin_6.html#xtocid1864548 if anyone is interested.

It has far too many holes in it to be called "truth" just yet!

The advantage that evolutionism has over creationism lies in what you said: "just yet". Evolutionism is itself under a constant state of evolution; with enough discovery and knowledge, it might just one day fill in your supposed "holes."

But how about creationism? The principles and ideals of this method of thought were set in stone thousands of years ago. It is unchanging and unquestionable, so as to prevent the exposure of its own holes. Throughout every attack upon the theory, the only agument presented is that creation belongs in the realm of God, and that we are lowly humans (an injustice in itself) who cannot possibly know the motives and true means of our origins. It cannot be figured out, only believed. If it is not accepted at its present state, then it will never be accpeted, no matter how hard someone tries to convince you.

And why can't God's creation be a scientific theory itself? If it is as true as many of you claim it to be, then why can it not be considered a scientific fact? Science is the logical method of thought we employ to explain the world, it opposes nothing except irrationality. If creationism is as logical and concrete as you believe it to be, then why do you base science as your theory's enemy?

Evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. Has anyone been there at that time to prove it true? No.

there is no such thing as "evolutionism".



There is. Evolutionism is THE word of the 'Theory of Evolution'. Obvious, isn't it. :roll:

also, has anyone put any thought to how we acquired so many pairs of chromosomes. Mutation, when it does not lead to neutral or negative effects, can only explain new traits not extra chromosomes.

copying errors. iirc, human chromosomes differ from other ape chromosomes mainly in that two of the chromosomes fused together at some point in human evolution. the rest of the apes have 24 pairs, humans have 23. and i think it is fairly easy to tell which pair got fused together. iirc that is. in other species some chromosomes are obviously duplicates of other ones (with a bunch of genetic drift and such, obviously). chromosomes aren't much of a mystery really. got another mystery to toss out?

Evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. Has anyone been there at that time to prove it true? No.

there is no such thing as "evolutionism".



There is. Evolutionism is THE word of the 'Theory of Evolution'. Obvious, isn't it. :roll:

not obvious. evolutionism is a word designed to make evolution sound like a political or religious belief. it is not. it is a scientific theory. are there such things as quantum mechanicism or newtonian gravitationism?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/


for a minute there, i thought you'd referred us all to the bad, horribly biased one. it's called something similar.

Ok, the Bible has been around since day one and Darwin has been around since mid-1800s. When Darwin wrote his book "Origin of Species" aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, he spent half the book giving the proof against his theory. Today in public schools, kids are tought only the half supporting the theory. I prefer to believe that I was intelligently greated instead of thinking I came from an ape. However I believe that certain scientists who embrace this flawed theory just may have evolved from a very low life form!

you did not come from an ape. nor did anyone here (unless we have some super-intelligent apes on here) we evolved from early primates. we may share a common ancestor with apes, but we did not come from them. actually, we are more related to chimpanzees than we are apes.

you did not come from an ape. nor did anyone here (unless we have some super-intelligent apes on here) we evolved from early primates. we may share a common ancestor with apes, but we did not come from them. actually, we are more related to chimpanzees than we are apes.

um, chimps are apes too. apes are gorillas, orangutangs, chimps, bonobos, humans, gibbons, and that other one whose name i forget.

you did not come from an ape. nor did anyone here (unless we have some super-intelligent apes on here) we evolved from early primates. we may share a common ancestor with apes, but we did not come from them. actually, we are more related to chimpanzees than we are apes.

um, chimps are apes too. apes are gorillas, orangutangs, chimps, bonobos, humans, gibbons, and that other one whose name i forget.

meh, i was thinking of the more specific deal. *shrugs* sorry about that.

you did not come from an ape. nor did anyone here (unless we have some super-intelligent apes on here) we evolved from early primates. we may share a common ancestor with apes, but we did not come from them. actually, we are more related to chimpanzees than we are apes.

um, chimps are apes too. apes are gorillas, orangutangs, chimps, bonobos, humans, gibbons, and that other one whose name i forget.

meh, i was thinking of the more specific deal. *shrugs* sorry about that.

is alright, all is forgiven

Who said either had to be right?

true enough. though creationism (in so far as it is testable) is false.

Ok, that is like saying, 'well... both could be right, but this one is wrong'.

:roll:

And besides, no one on here is going to sway anyone to their side of the theory. So it is irrelevant.

we are all just mutated pak breeders left on our own after all the pak protectors died out and no more could be created because the tree of life wouldn't produce the proper fruit because a lack of sufficient celenium in the soil.(larry niven's known space future history)

Who said either had to be right?

true enough. though creationism (in so far as it is testable) is false.

Ok, that is like saying, 'well... both could be right, but this one is wrong'.

:roll:

And besides, no one on here is going to sway anyone to their side of the theory. So it is irrelevant.

nah, its more like they both could be wrong, but this one is absolutely definitely wrong.

and people do sometimes stop being creationists. it all depends on how deeply they feel that evolution is evil and whether they are willing to move beyond ignorance. and showing them how often their leaders blatantly lie to them is sometimes useful too.

who is to say creationist think evolution is evil. Furthermore, you would be suprised at the empirical data (that is scientific) for creation. Ever read Darwin's Black Box, or Darwin on trial. I myself believe in a theory of Theistic Evolution. But the argument for creation is not as dumb as most think, they just never hear the other side.

Furthermore, you would be suprised at the empirical data (that is scientific) for creation.

I hope you're not talking about the anthropic principle?

Some info on creation/evolution. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/

who is to say creationist think evolution is evil. Furthermore, you would be suprised at the empirical data (that is scientific) for creation. Ever read Darwin's Black Box, or Darwin on trial. I myself believe in a theory of Theistic Evolution. But the argument for creation is not as dumb as most think, they just never hear the other side.

creationists say that evolution is evil. frequently and at length. and the only thing surprising about the empirical data for creationism is the amazing lack of it.

but theistic evolution i have no problem with.

i am just saying the other side isn't always bible thumping christians who can see anything outside of rose colored lenses. There is more to the debate then people assume

Some info on creation/evolution. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/

From what I can see just skimming these articles, there is no empirical evidence for creation there are simply a number of scientific theories that have been deliberately contrived so as not to directly contradict the bible.

personalyy i think the debate is stupid. It does not matter whether God created the world in six days or whether through some longer process. one can even interpret the "let the earth bring forth" as implying a process. The only debate Christians should argue is against atheistic evolution. But, i must defend creationist i know who are intelligent and actually have valid points. They are not motivated because evolution is evil (not the ones i know) but are motivated in trying to prove the bible. When your faith is sola scriptura the bible must be defended, and interpreting it deifferent can be see as wishy washy. They just want to make it sound as if the bible is easily intepretable by defending most passages (as long as they don't seem to disagree with them) as literal.

i have to go to bed, but look up darwin's black box. it is not written by a fundamentalist, but rather a gelogist (i think, its some type of scientist i haven't read it in a while).

Ho ho, get a load of this:

The key to much of the evolution controversy lies in the recognition of the necessity and propriety of descriptions of the same phenomena on different levels of reality. Even a complete biological description does not do away with the need for a theological description, any more than a complete theological description does away with the possibility of a compatible biological description. Evolution can be considered without denying creation; creation can be accepted without excluding evolution. Evolution is a scientific question on the biological level; it would be unfortunate indeed if a scientific question were permitted to become the crucial point for Christian faith.

i am just saying the other side isn't always bible thumping christians who can see anything outside of rose colored lenses. There is more to the debate then people assume

except that there really isn't. i have followed the creationists and their tricks for like 6 years now. when i was 16 i met my first outright creationist. she was my boss. she brought some books by what i later learned were the big names in "creation science" to show me. skimming through them i saw so many things factually incorrect that it was just ridiculous. later, after a new round of attempts to get evolution out of schools, i started paying attention to creationists on the internet. and i've seen every argument they have to offer and not a single one of them holds any water at all. seriously.

eventually i came to the conclusion that many others do - to be a creationist you must be either ignorant (sometimes willfully so) or a liar. mostly its just the leaders and prominent speakers that are the liars. everybody else has just been taken in by them based on a lack of information.

unfortunately they have also taken creationism to be an essential part of their religion and therefore hold onto it on a purely emotional level. that leads them to take an attack on creationism as an attack on their religion (which it isn't necessarily) and makes it harder for people to objectively judge the arguments and evidence.

i am just saying the other side isn't always bible thumping christians who can see anything outside of rose colored lenses. There is more to the debate then people assume

except that there really isn't. i have followed the creationists and their tricks for like 6 years now. when i was 16 i met my first outright creationist. she was my boss. she brought some books by what i later learned were the big names in "creation science" to show me. skimming through them i saw so many things factually incorrect that it was just ridiculous. later, after a new round of attempts to get evolution out of schools, i started paying attention to creationists on the internet. and i've seen every argument they have to offer and not a single one of them holds any water at all. seriously.

eventually i came to the conclusion that many others do - to be a creationist you must be either ignorant (sometimes willfully so) or a liar. mostly its just the leaders and prominent speakers that are the liars. everybody else has just been taken in by them based on a lack of information.

unfortunately they have also taken creationism to be an essential part of their religion and therefore hold onto it on a purely emotional level. that leads them to take an attack on creationism as an attack on their religion (which it isn't necessarily) and makes it harder for people to objectively judge the arguments and evidence.

I seldom do this, but...

*with a tune* blah blah blah blah blah.......

i am just saying the other side isn't always bible thumping christians who can see anything outside of rose colored lenses. There is more to the debate then people assume

except that there really isn't. i have followed the creationists and their tricks for like 6 years now. when i was 16 i met my first outright creationist. she was my boss. she brought some books by what i later learned were the big names in "creation science" to show me. skimming through them i saw so many things factually incorrect that it was just ridiculous. later, after a new round of attempts to get evolution out of schools, i started paying attention to creationists on the internet. and i've seen every argument they have to offer and not a single one of them holds any water at all. seriously.

eventually i came to the conclusion that many others do - to be a creationist you must be either ignorant (sometimes willfully so) or a liar. mostly its just the leaders and prominent speakers that are the liars. everybody else has just been taken in by them based on a lack of information.

unfortunately they have also taken creationism to be an essential part of their religion and therefore hold onto it on a purely emotional level. that leads them to take an attack on creationism as an attack on their religion (which it isn't necessarily) and makes it harder for people to objectively judge the arguments and evidence.

I seldom do this, but...

*with a tune* blah blah blah blah blah.......

ok, i'm game. post an argument for creationism. hell, you can even just post a creationist argument against evolution.

and no, the two are not the same. the first barely even exists, at least in my six year experience. creationists specialize in the second, which is fallacy number one. even if any of the arguments did poke holes in the theory of evolution that would not make creationism into the theory to explain the diversity of life. that would still have to be independently argued for.

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything. -- Gk Chesterton

Here is a challenge. where did the extra chromosomes come from. I am not talking about the ape thing, go farther back. Cats have 8 chromosomes, rats even less. Human have the most. Where did the extra sets come from. And most animals don't have needless duplicates of chromosomes.

i do agree with that point, that just poking holes at evolution is dumb. Esp. considering there are theories of evolution, not a theory. But what so absird about intelligent design.?

Here is a challenge. where did the extra chromosomes come from. I am not talking about the ape thing, go farther back. Cats have 8 chromosomes, rats even less. Human have the most. Where did the extra sets come from. And most animals don't have needless duplicates of chromosomes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html

like i said earlier. copying errors and duplication and fusion and fission and deletion explain the variation in chromosome numbers quite well. there is no mystery here.

...

i do agree with that point, that just poking holes at evolution is dumb. Esp. considering there are theories of evolution, not a theory. But what so absird about intelligent design.?

intelligent design theory isn't a theory at all. it has no explanatory power that standard evolutionary theory doesn't, except that it states that certain features could not possibly have evolved and therefore must be the work of a designer. unfortunately for id theorists, the examples they choose of irreducible complexity have either been already explained evolutionarily or will probably be explained as soon as we know more about it. intelligent design by its very nature is an argument from ignorance and as such has a shrinking subject matter, even if you accept "must be the intelligent designer" as a legitimate explanation. not useful at all. is it so hard to accept that maybe, just maybe, god did things differently than some ancient sheep herders thought and that science might be an accurate way to determine how things actually happened?

i dont care about this everyone just join this great region. It's called the empire of the mighty flakes

A theory is not a fact. All because evolution can explain something equally well doesn't make intelligent design anyless a theory. They are two different explanations. As I have stated before, i blelieve in a form of theistic evolution but I don't just say any opposing theory is wrong because mine can explain the same thing. also what about the philosophical implication. Science is not the only form of truth, it can only work based on assumptions.

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into anything. -- Gk Chesterton

This sounds like a ridiculous restatement of the argument that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, with which no actual physicist would ever agree. It isn't "nothing" that turned itself into DNA, it's stuff like pre-existing HCNOPS and sunlight.

In any case, Chesterton was a Victorian essayist/critic/novelist who had less scientific training than I got in high school (which wasn't any more amazing than AP Bio). So who cares what sort of irrelevant tautologies he made up to amuse himself? :roll:


Here is a challenge. where did the extra chromosomes come from. I am not talking about the ape thing, go farther back. Cats have 8 chromosomes, rats even less. Human have the most. Where did the extra sets come from. And most animals don't have needless duplicates of chromosomes.

Quadrosomy made good, that's what. :D This is what was meant earlier in the thread by "coding error". Trisomy is when mitosis of gametes goes awry in such a way that one haploid gamete has both of a given chromosome and the other one has none. It's responsible for such things as Down Syndrome, among other things. Quadrosomy, like its name implies, entails a doubling of the phenomenon that causes the resulting kid to have four of (say) Chromosome 21. As one might guess, this sort of thing is an awfully rare occurrence, but taking the long view of history, what does "rare" really mean?

By the way, humans do NOT have the most. Chimps have more than we do by two. Dogs have something like 72, and -- if I remember correctly -- the record is held by goldfish. Their count is somewhere in the 90s. If anything were prima facie evidence of animals having useless duplicative chromosomes (contrary to your uninformed claim), it's goldfish. :D Them, and daylilies.

Interestingly enough, certain plants (like some daylilies) are tetraploids with four of each chromosome. They don't seem any the worse for wear, so they're good evidence of chromosome-pair duplication not being too bad for organisms (although trisomy is almost always really awful).


Intelligent Design is not a theory because any appeal to God is inherently unscientific. You probably know why, from the theological point of view if not from the scientific one (which is not, as it turns out, "Because we're all atheists, comrade, that's why").


By the way, it may interest you to know (if you're Catholic) that the Church sides with Darwin on the subject.

I have previously stated my belief that God works through natural processes such as evolution. But this is a belief, there is nothing remotely theoretical about it. I have not the slightest amount of proof in terms of hypothetico-deductive analysis or empirical evidence or anything else. It doesn't accord with the observed facts in the way that theories do; it just sits off to the side of the facts, neither being contradicted nor supported. Now, if a rock appeared in the Olduvai Gorge that said "God Was Here" that'd be one thing, but I don't think that's His style. Frankly, faith doesn't depend on reason in any sense, and faith would be the poorer if it did.

In a qualified sense I agree with "Intelligent Design" as a matter of religion, but I do not agree that evolution is, say, helped along in a radical way, or would not happen without God's constant attention, or something like that (which is what many "Intelligent Design" people do try to put out there). And I definitely do not accept it as something that should be taught in science class.

Here is a challenge. where did the extra chromosomes come from. I am not talking about the ape thing, go farther back. Cats have 8 chromosomes, rats even less. Human have the most. Where did the extra sets come from...

oh wow, i didn't even notice that you said humans have the most chromosomes before. that is absolutely wrong. we have one pair less than all of our close relatives in the ape group. and we don't even have all that many compared to some species.
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Wow. Evidently black mulberry totally pwns goldfish; wonder what they do with all of those. Oh well, maybe goldfish hold the record in the animal kingdom. And I'm glad to see that, so many years after last reading my Genetics textbook, my estimates on dogs' and goldfish's chromosomes weren't too far off the mark.

Greater Switzerland said
"By the way, it may interest you to know (if you're Catholic) that the Church sides with Darwin on the subject."

Uh, no It doesn't. The Church is not closed to all theories of theistic evolution, but is definitly opposed to atheistic evoltion. Furthermore, if you listen to JP II speak to the pontifical science institute he said that evolution was not to be ruled out. That being said the Church holds as dogma that polygenism is wrong. We believe in an Adam and Eve who were the first parents. Its their bodies that may have involved, but when human truly became human by being made in the image of God, it was not through any evolution of the soul. Darwin, btw, was a theistic evolutionist (he did nto come up with evolution) so his theory is not condemned by the church

i might have been wrong on humans holding the most, blame my eigth grade science teacher. However, show me an example of a species aquiring a new pair of chromotids w/o horrible consequences. I believe in theistic evolution for a reason, but just random interactions do not bode very well. And the "oh, it was a process of billions of years argument" is worthless. Gradualism was rejected by most evolutionists for punctuated equilibrium, where there would be a long period of no change followed by a lot in a short time period.

i might have been wrong on humans holding the most, blame my eigth grade science teacher. However, show me an example of a species aquiring a new pair of chromotids w/o horrible consequences. I believe in theistic evolution for a reason, but just random interactions do not bode very well. And the "oh, it was a process of billions of years argument" is worthless. Gradualism was rejected by most evolutionists for punctuated equilibrium, where there would be a long period of no change followed by a lot in a short time period.

go back to that website i linked to. every species with more than one number listed next to it has gotten more (or less) chomosomes without terrible consequences. some have huge ranges listed, like the whitefish or blackberries. seriously, you need to find a new line of attack, this one isn't working out.

and i don't believe that anyone thinks that punctuated equilibium, especially as you have described it, is the only evolutionary pathway. everyone who counts is still a firm believer in evolution being a gradual process. especially to go from proto-life to current life, because that did in fact take billions of years.

two things. I asked where has it been oberved that a species can easily acquire extra chromosome pairs. All there is, are theories on how they got more or less chromosomes. Where is a study to show that species has gained and/or lost chormosomes with no ill effect. Oh, and update your knowledge on science. It isn't all biology. Most evolutionist (that is scientists who subscribe to that theory) have agreed that punctuated equilibrium is the more likely explanation based on the fact that the fossil record show long spans of no change followed by sudden shifts. You can not discount that by just saying that those who count believe in gradualism, especially when that is not logical and when the fossil record casts doubt on gradualism. Now you science textbook in school, as well as most encyclopedic entries, will talk gradualism because that was the most prominent theory up until recently.

Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not... We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them.
John Henry Newman

and btw, i am refering to higher species not insects and defintely not plants.

two things. I asked where has it been oberved that a species can easily acquire extra chromosome pairs. All there is, are theories on how they got more or less chromosomes. Where is a study to show that species has gained and/or lost chormosomes with no ill effect.

there are species with multiple copies of chromosomes. we have seen them (not just plants, where it is common. iirc there was even a reported polyploid turkey). we know that chromosomes can and do make copies of themselves. what the hell is there left to explain? seriously, i'm baffled. we can see exactly which chromosomes fused together at some point in human evolution giving us one less pair than chimps. we line them up and you can see it. hang on, i'm sure somebody has a picture online...

here is a graphic and an explanation.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Oh, and update your knowledge on science. It isn't all biology. Most evolutionist (that is scientists who subscribe to that theory) have agreed that punctuated equilibrium is the more likely explanation based on the fact that the fossil record show long spans of no change followed by sudden shifts. You can not discount that by just saying that those who count believe in gradualism, especially when that is not logical and when the fossil record casts doubt on gradualism. Now you science textbook in school, as well as most encyclopedic entries, will talk gradualism because that was the most prominent theory up until recently.

Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not... We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them.
John Henry Newman

you are the one basing your ideas of evolution off of your 8th grade science teacher and i'm the one who needs to update his knowledge of science!?

punk eek seems like a useful explanation of many speciation events, but not all of them. in either case it is not contradictory to gradualism as posed by evolutionary theory. evolution is a gradual process over the course of many generations. gradualism exists as opposed to saltation, where evolution occurs through "hopeful monsters" in a single generation. with punctuated equilibrium we are talking about geologically abrupt speciation. not, in your words, "long periods of no change". evolution as a process has taken billions of years. evolution is constant, though not necessarily at a constant rate. remember, you brought up punk eek in the context of rejecting the idea that 'evolution was a process of billions of years'.

and btw, i am refering to higher species not insects and defintely not plants.

many "higher species" (can you please just say vertebrates? it sounds less great chain of being-ish) have more chromosomes than us. we know for an absolute fact that chromosome fusion can occur. we know for an absolute fact that chromosome fission can occur. so to arrive at the number of chromosomes we have currently all we need is a bunch of fusions and a bunch of fissions and a bunch of cross-overs and a bunch of inversions over the course of millions of years. all of these are known processes. mix it all together and whamo! evolutionary change in chromosomes.

I am refering to chromosomes as in sets, not as in chromotids. The way I was taught was that chromotids were the ssingle strands that came together with complimentary chromotids (thus a chromosome really being the pair/set). Maybe some of the confusion is just terminolohy. In cases of Down syndrome for example, there is an extra chromotid attaching itself to a set (i think its set 21 or 23) not the addition of a new one. And I don't want to hear about theoritical musings on why chimps have one more chromosome, i want to proof (as in an actual observation of a higher species (i.e. one not very flexible and simple, cats dogs man would do find here) of it actually happening. Not just assuming that a change somewhere occured and then an explanation of this change. Also, show me an example of one species becoming a new species. Anyone, even the most ardent evolutionist, recognizes micro-evolution. Show me a case of macro-evolution.

Everything had to have started with creation. Even if the world evolved from one cell, where did that cell come from? If it was a coming together of dead particles, how did they get there? A faith that they were just "there" is the same faith people hold in regard to God. So doesn't this all come down to faith?

I am refering to chromosomes as in sets, not as in chromotids. The way I was taught was that chromotids were the ssingle strands that came together with complimentary chromotids (thus a chromosome really being the pair/set). Maybe some of the confusion is just terminolohy. In cases of Down syndrome for example, there is an extra chromotid attaching itself to a set (i think its set 21 or 23) not the addition of a new one.

no confusion what so ever. chromosomes duplicate themselves. sometimes just individual chromosomes or pairs. more often the entire set of chromosomes. the second is known as polyploidy. it is rather common.

And I don't want to hear about theoritical musings on why chimps have one more chromosome,

it isn't theoretical "musings" to point out that you can physically see exactly which two ancestral ape chromosomes (2p and 2q) fused to become human chromosome 2. unless you can think of another explanation. sloppy design work on the part of the intelligent designer perhaps?

i want to proof (as in an actual observation of a higher species (i.e. one not very flexible and simple, cats dogs man would do find here) of it actually happening. Not just assuming that a change somewhere occured and then an explanation of this change. Also, show me an example of one species becoming a new species. Anyone, even the most ardent evolutionist, recognizes micro-evolution. Show me a case of macro-evolution.

are you after a case of speciation by polyploidy in vertebrates? or speciation in general?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3D070936.56754D10%40hlk.no.hj.spam.se
lists some references. as does
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

the first link specifically mentions a paper on the rapid speciation of mice on some island. these mice have a reduced diploid number vs their parent population and that has occured through the fusion of chromosomes.

anything else?

A faith that they were just "there" is the same faith people hold in regard to God. So doesn't this all come down to faith?

If they weren't, we would not be here today discussing them.

This debate boils down to a theory with logical evidence versus a theory trying to make up for the lack of logical evidence. Creationists end up doubting the very foundation of science and the theory of evolution: logic. Their view doesn't require it, so why should any other? The beauty of evolution is that it makes sense, it is logcial, because it is the product of rational thought and its progeny, trial and error. A creation by a higher power, on the other hand, does not make sense; it can only be accepted by faith. On what reason is this faith held? What evidence is there to support this hypothesis? What is the theory of God's creation a product of?

I have a few comments to make... and I'm not sure if they've been posted or not yet, seeing as I haven't read the entire thread yet. Basically, I was anxious to write some things down... and here it goes.

I believe in Creationism and I don't feel that it is not a testable thing. If you look at some of the amazing things about our planet, it just seems like it is too calculated to simply be by chance, as Evolutionism. Here are some facts about the Earth...

=========================================

* Located in just the right place relative to the sun

* Earth/Moon system formed by the impact of a Mars sized object strikign the newly forming Earth at just the right angle, speed and made up of just the right elements.

* Now shielded from most asteroid bombardment by two guardian planets- Jupiter and Saturn

* Abnormally huge moon stabilizes the tilt of the earth. The tilt of 23 degrees is the potimal amount to even out temperatures around the earth and generates the seasons.

* Abnormally large moon also creates a gravitational couplet that prevents Jupiter and Saturn from generating resonance and bouncing Earth, Venus, and Mercury out of the solar system.

* Just the right mix of elements (silicates) to yield 30% land mass that "floats" on the heavier oceanic crust.

* Just the right amount of water to act as a heat sink and temperature equalizer, as well as lubricant to enable plate tectonics (which are necessary to recycle critical elements required to sustain life).

* Just the right mass so its gravity would retain; carbon dioxide (mass weight 44), oxygen (mass weight 32), and water (mass weight 18 ), yet let go of toxic gases like ammonia (mass weight 17) and methane (mass weight 16).

* Just the right amount of uranium and thorium to fuel the internal engine and keep the core of iron (and some nickel) molten.

* Just the right amount of molten iron and nickel in the core that moves by convective currents and thereby generates a magnetic shield.

* Just the right mix of elements to support the needs of advanced life forms.

* Just the right amount of oxygen and atmospheric pressure to support advanced life and generate and ozone shield inside the magnetic shield.

* Has interacted with living organisms over a 4 billion period of time to keep the average surface temperature exactly in the range required by living organisms (CO2 has gone from 80% to 0.03% while the sun's intensity has increased by 35%)

==========================================

Basically, you have all of those things, that if slightly changed in the least, would cause life on the Earth to cease. I think that is just too many things to lay upon the idea of "chance".

Also, think about the precepts of Evolutionism as a means for creating all life on this planet. That would mean that all creatures would have come from the same source.. basically stating that trees, bees, dogs, and fish are all our brothers and sisters distantly enough.

Which brings me to another point... Evolutionism assumes that by need, creatures will develop a tolerance and some means to survive when their environment changes. This has been proven that such things do happen... the Galapagos is a perfect example. However, I would like to know... how would a single-celled organism know to develop eyes, feet, or hearing? How could a single-celled organism know that there was light to see? If it did know such a thing, that would assume it had some higher understanding... which is of course impossible since it is indeed a single-celled organism.

Which brings me to another point... Evolutionism assumes that by need, creatures will develop a tolerance and some means to survive when their environment changes. This has been proven that such things do happen... the Galapagos is a perfect example. However, I would like to know... how would a single-celled organism know to develop eyes, feet, or hearing? How could a single-celled organism know that there was light to see? If it did know such a thing, that would assume it had some higher understanding... which is of course impossible since it is indeed a single-celled organism.
No! No! Please stop! Evolution has nothing to do with intelligent thought. Its simplest form is just logic -- mutations happen. If a mutation happens to cause an individual to have more offspring, more individuals will have that mutation.

I have a few comments to make... and I'm not sure if they've been posted or not yet, seeing as I haven't read the entire thread yet. Basically, I was anxious to write some things down... and here it goes.

I believe in Creationism and I don't feel that it is not a testable thing. If you look at some of the amazing things about our planet, it just seems like it is too calculated to simply be by chance, as Evolutionism. Here are some facts about the Earth...

=========================================
[...long list..]
==========================================

Basically, you have all of those things, that if slightly changed in the least, would cause life on the Earth to cease. I think that is just too many things to lay upon the idea of "chance".

This is extremely muddy thinking. Life can only appear in places where the conditions are just right for it to appear, obvioulsy. Imagine there are 4 different types of reasoning aliens, each ideally adapted to their conditions, whether they live beneath an ice sheet, in an ocean planet, in an atmosphere of a gas giant or on a human like world. Wouldn't each of those species look around and marvel at the world that appeared "made just right" for them? A Creationist alien would say the world had indeed been made for them. An Evolutionist would say THEY have evolved to be "made just right" for the world. The evidence then supports both cases, depending on how you interpret it, not just the one - creationism.

Also, think about the precepts of Evolutionism as a means for creating all life on this planet. That would mean that all creatures would have come from the same source.. basically stating that trees, bees, dogs, and fish are all our brothers and sisters distantly enough.

Which brings me to another point... Evolutionism assumes that by need, creatures will develop a tolerance and some means to survive when their environment changes. This has been proven that such things do happen... the Galapagos is a perfect example. However, I would like to know... how would a single-celled organism know to develop eyes, feet, or hearing? How could a single-celled organism know that there was light to see? If it did know such a thing, that would assume it had some higher understanding... which is of course impossible since it is indeed a single-celled organism.

This is a strange point also. I don't think anyone has said single celled organisms (to use your example) consciously evolve certain characteristics. The point is, these complex characteristics evolve from a simple series of tiny steps over millions of years.

de-evolution

ok well
1 there is no eveidence to support creationism
2 there is evidence to support evolution
3 there is no real eveidence to support the existance of a god
4 the bible does not count as eviedence because it is open to so much interputation and is flawed (Nothing is perfect, thus it is flawed)
5 there are many other religions that have their own theories as to where we came from and if they're not right how come the judeo-christian theory is right?

i'm just going to respond to the (possibly cut-and-pasted) list without going in and out of quote blocks.

* Located in just the right place relative to the sun

just the right place for what? for average daytime surface temperature to be comfortable to certain species that live there? so what? things evolve to fit their environment, not the other way. check out extremophiles some time.

* Earth/Moon system formed by the impact of a Mars sized object strikign the newly forming Earth at just the right angle, speed and made up of just the right elements.

so?

* Now shielded from most asteroid bombardment by two guardian planets- Jupiter and Saturn

yeah and? are you suggesting that this is uncommon throughout the universe and that life couldn't have evolved under different conditions?

* Abnormally huge moon stabilizes the tilt of the earth. The tilt of 23 degrees is the potimal amount to even out temperatures around the earth and generates the seasons.

and again, sfw? life does not require seasons. at all.

* Abnormally large moon also creates a gravitational couplet that prevents Jupiter and Saturn from generating resonance and bouncing Earth, Venus, and Mercury out of the solar system.

huh? where did you get that? how does our moon have any real impact on mercury?

* Just the right mix of elements (silicates) to yield 30% land mass that "floats" on the heavier oceanic crust.

life certainly doesn't require land.

* Just the right amount of water to act as a heat sink and temperature equalizer, as well as lubricant to enable plate tectonics (which are necessary to recycle critical elements required to sustain life).

just the right amount eh? what would have happened if we had more?

* Just the right mass so its gravity would retain; carbon dioxide (mass weight 44), oxygen (mass weight 32), and water (mass weight 18 ), yet let go of toxic gases like ammonia (mass weight 17) and methane (mass weight 16).

i'm pretty sure some actually existing life can live in ammonia and methane. if not, i don't see any reason why it would be logically impossible.

* Just the right amount of uranium and thorium to fuel the internal engine and keep the core of iron (and some nickel) molten.

see question about water

* Just the right amount of molten iron and nickel in the core that moves by convective currents and thereby generates a magnetic shield.

yeah?

* Just the right mix of elements to support the needs of advanced life forms.

or maybe advanced life forms evolved to inhabit an environment with that mix of elements

* Just the right amount of oxygen and atmospheric pressure to support advanced life and generate and ozone shield inside the magnetic shield.

has advanced life that evolved to use the krebs cycle as opposed to photosynthesis or some other chemical reaction. sfw?

* Has interacted with living organisms over a 4 billion period of time to keep the average surface temperature exactly in the range required by living organisms (CO2 has gone from 80% to 0.03% while the sun's intensity has increased by 35%)

except the range that life can live in goes higher (and possibly lower) than the highest (and lowest) average surface temperatures



Basically, you have all of those things, that if slightly changed in the least, would cause life on the Earth to cease. I think that is just too many things to lay upon the idea of "chance".

not true. life is more adaptable than you are giving it credit for.


Also, think about the precepts of Evolutionism as a means for creating all life on this planet. That would mean that all creatures would have come from the same source.. basically stating that trees, bees, dogs, and fish are all our brothers and sisters distantly enough.

yes. and they quite obviously are all related... is this supposed to be a point against common descent?

Which brings me to another point... Evolutionism assumes that by need, creatures will develop a tolerance and some means to survive when their environment changes. This has been proven that such things do happen... the Galapagos is a perfect example. However, I would like to know... how would a single-celled organism know to develop eyes, feet, or hearing? How could a single-celled organism know that there was light to see? If it did know such a thing, that would assume it had some higher understanding... which is of course impossible since it is indeed a single-celled organism.

things don't know that they need to evolve some feature. evolution is not a teleological process. a species didn't evolve eyes so that it could see. it evolved light sensitive patches through random mutation. these light sensors were useful for those organisms' reproductive success. you see, 10% of an eye is exactly 5% better than 5% of an eye, which is 5% better than no eye at all. traits spread through populations over time because they are useful. that is all.

I personally beileve evolution. Religion ain't got nothin' on science, baby! PEACE

God was created by man and has since then evolved out of existance.

God was created by man and has since then evolved out of existance.

Amen, brother!!! Religions just a thing people use to make themselves feel good and other feel bad, and it's all BS but there are some valuable things to religion

I have a few comments to make...

Now, that is the anthropic principle (strong version I think, the weak one just says that we can deduce certain things about the way the universe works from the fact that we exist) and, as ever, it is a complete load of rubbish. How can you say that the conditions within which we exist are incredibly unlikely when you have no probability data on which to base that massive assumption?

I'm all for evolution, but for people that are into religion a few things can be said.

Science is only a construction of the human mind observing things about our surroundings and about the way our mind tends to think of things. Than it tries to boil down these observations into theories and constructions that make sense and are coherent together.

There is nothing bad in science a lot of good comes from science.

But religion on the other hand goes to a totally different type of matter, or that is what I believe. I believe that the essence of religion is in the deeper abstracter things, in the call it "spiritual" or whatever you want that lurks behind concrete things, out of our reach. Things like the total immensity of life and love and feeling and the experience of living.

It is fairly easy to say that science does not have the power to explain even a portion of this satisfactionally. Still science is a huge construction that tries to correct itself and get closer to a point that could be called the truth. Though how can you know is it getting closer to that point, because you can hardly know what the truth is. Science is limited, but in it's own are of logic and logical contruction and syllogisms it is really the best and most flexible explenation point, so there is really no sense in going against it.

And in the other turn science does not explain the creation of the world and all it's life, not atleast yet. And I can't even see it going for a reasonable theorie on giving things a reason. That is not what atleast natural sciences are about. Philosophy is of course in it's own place and really crosses inbetween.

So I don't really see the point in arguing is creationism or evolution true. Evolution is the better theory ín logic. Creationism is something else, it is symbolical and is not directed in logical reasoning.

I too have ran into these books that try to make creatinism into a scientific theory, they are quite horrible and have big errors.

As for the argument about earth not being able to have all the things happen by chance: Think about the amount of stars, solar systems planets in those. That is sure a whole lot of different types of things happening, maybe we just were the lucky ones of those.

i want to proof (as in an actual observation of a higher species (i.e. one not very flexible and simple, cats dogs man would do find here) of it actually happening. Not just assuming that a change somewhere occured and then an explanation of this change. Also, show me an example of one species becoming a new species. Anyone, even the most ardent evolutionist, recognizes micro-evolution. Show me a case of macro-evolution.
The primate species cercopithecus sclateri (recognized as a species since 1980) looks like a cross-breeding between Cercopithecus erythrogaster and C. erythrotis. Sclater's guenon lives between the other two and is still an unstable species (some variation in the colour of their noses for example). This is another way for a species to "start" not only by mutation.
edit: nature is not something that always stays the same

God was created by man and has since then evolved out of existance.

Amen, brother!!! Religions just a thing people use to make themselves feel good and other feel bad, and it's all BS but there are some valuable things to religion Indeed. Relegion is a highly profitable venture.

This is my last post on the subject. I wish to thank those who were with it from the beginning - this has been a stimulating and refreshingly civilised discussion, and I hope to see you should this question come up again.

This thread proves something I explained at considerable length early on, and that is the fact that Science and Religion exist in two different domains, with different rules, and for that reason, on some questions cannot be reconciled.

Science contains an extensive system for defining reality and verifying what it contains, and does not contain. An idea which due to its very nature cannot be "vetted", is dismissed as irrelevant. Something may be true or untrue, but if it can never be shown that it is one or the other, then it does not matter, the question is left in limbo.

Religion takes things on faith. Religious standards of proof are completely different to those of Science. If something can neither be proved nor disproved by Science, that is no barrier to it being accepted by Religion.

The question of whether there is a God who may or may not have created life by a moment of Creation or Intelligent Design (ie guiding evolution), does not concern Science. Scientists record what they see, make a theory which can be checked, and check it. If the theory fits the new data, it comes closer to being accepted as fact. It if does not, it comes closer to being rejected as false. You cannot do this with God(s) or Creation, so Science ignores the question. You can do this with many other things, such as evolution. Thus evolution is subject to this ongoing process. The theory has some holes, but they are being filled in, and it comes closer to the status of fact every year.

Religion does not like this. Tough.

It cannot come up with a convincing case for God(s) or Creation, other than Just Believe It.

Religion can accept the Big Bang, but not evolution, because it cuts too close to the bone.

Christians in particular react with revulsion to any suggestion that we are descended from "lower" life forms. This is an emotional reaction, and irrational superiority complex. It is mere human arrogance.

As I and some others said several times in the first three or four pages of this thread, Science and Religion are fighting a war over the same pile of evidence, each having their own idea of the location and geography of the battlefield. Science has never lost a battle, but there are some battles which cannot be won or lost by either side. There will always be some debates which will forever remain artillery duels, with Science being unable to overrun the religious position and vice versa. The religious would be deluding themselves however, to look upon the no-man's land forever out of reach, and consider Science's inability to conquer it either to be a victory.

But religion on the other hand goes to a totally different type of matter, or that is what I believe. I believe that the essence of religion is in the deeper abstracter things, in the call it "spiritual" or whatever you want that lurks behind concrete things, out of our reach. Things like the total immensity of life and love and feeling and the experience of living.

It is fairly easy to say that science does not have the power to explain even a portion of this satisfactionally.
Good point.

The main problem I have with religion is that it tries to explain... no, most of the time it doesn't try, it insists that it is "explaining" things too deep for human comprehension. I wish people would either ignore the deeper things, or honestly look at them for what they are. Just seems insane to have this need to explain them away.

Science, as you and Tactical Grace have explained pretty well, stays the hell out of stuff it has nothing to do with, and that takes nothing away from its purpose or usefulness.

From what I've heard of both theories I'd be far moe inclined to believe evolution. Throughout my life I've had religion imposed on me by church, school, parents ect. But there's one thing them religion has never provided me with - proof. There's far more proof in the theory of evolution than there is in creationism (None at all).

I thought Al Gore invented mankind? :P

Science is only a construction of the human mind
And what do you think religion is?

Things like the total immensity of life and love and feeling and the experience of living.
We don't need a God to do or experience any of those.



Thousands of years ago, man lived in a state of fear. It was the fear of the unknown. Before science began to understand the mysteries of the universe, men could understand litte about the world around them. But from a primitive viewpoint, one could reason that crops did not harvest themselves, that pottery did not form itself into pots; so nature must not operate itself, and someone must have made the universe. There must be someone who understands the cosmos. But who could have made such a thing? Who could control the seemingly uncontrollable weather? Whoever it is must have supremely awesome powers.

This is where the idea of gods came from. The Egyptians, Greeks, Babylonians and Romans all had their own system of gods, fashioned after humans - the most intelligent species, and put them in charge of the universe. But each religion had their own principal diety - Ra, Zeus, Marduk, Jupiter - all claiming the tite, but with different attributes. If gods really existed, then one can logically say that three of the potential rulers had to have been made up, by the priests, perhaps. But then, if three of them were made up, why not all four? If one system of gods was false, then what credibility did the remaining religions have?

Today, no one doubts that each of the previously mentioned religions were myth. They were all fabricated by men as comfort against the unpredictable forces of nature. We ourselves now understand the cosmos to a certain degree, so what purpose do gods really serve anymore?

So why has Christianity escaped, where these others have been disproved into extinction? God serves the same purpose as Zeus or Marduk, and we don't even need a higher power to explain our origins. The rational thinking that first freed man from the bonds of religion (in the early Ionians) has now led to a complete refutation of the need for God. It is possible, given enough time, for anything to happen. And we are proof of that.

Today, no one doubts that each of the previously mentioned religions were myth. They were all fabricated by men as comfort against the unpredictable forces of nature. We ourselves now understand the cosmos to a certain degree, so what purpose do gods really serve anymore?
Observe some more people. There is a purpose.

A lot of people have this weird concept of meaning. If an event has meaning for them, they can't leave it at that. They need to say that the meaning is something greater, farther away, and vague. Some call it "luck", "fate", "fortune", "conspiracy", "purpose", and others call it "God".

double post

73% of us say evolution, so it must be true, right?

73% of us say evolution, so it must be true, right?

Well, before 1492 about 99.9% of people believed the earth was flat...

OK, this thread is being bumped, so if you are reading this, please respect the intellectual integrity of this record and read through the preceeding pages before posting flames. This has happened in similar threads before, the original participants were very proud that they avoided open conflict in this one, and I would not want to see it happen after the event. Thank you.

OK, this thread is being bumped, so if you are reading this, please respect the intellectual integrity of this record and read through the preceeding pages before posting flames. This has happened in similar threads before, the original participants were very proud that they avoided open conflict in this one, and I would not want to see it happen after the event. Thank you.
Was this to anyone in particular, or just a general warning?

General warning. If you read it start to finish, you will see that we worked hard to keep it civil, and I wouldn't want certain individuals to come in and start doing the whole bible-bashing and satan worship freak show thing.

This is simple;

Creation= Theological theory
Evolution= Scientific theory