Creationism vs Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
302

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Name some of the copious amounts. You gonna stick with the moths thing?[/quote]

Fossil record. Human genome project. DNA similarities between many animals. All of evolutionary biology. Do you really think they just pulled this shit out of their collective asshole? If we’d found evidence evolution is false, trust me when I say the scientists who found it would be damn famous, lauded, and have many nobel prizes.

[quote]
Name the reasons(s) why macroevolution is.[/quote]

It is falsifiable. We can test it in that we can find evidence and test that evidence to see if it supports the theory.

The first part is most important though. Science completely dismisses unfalsifiable theories. Creationism is not falsifiable, and therefore it will never be science. Ever.

303

[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Err…I may have misunderstood but I didn’t think anyone was arguing that creationism was one of the sciences.[/quote]

So, if one is science, and the other is not… which one should we be bvelieving for the moment?

[quote]
I thought that the reason anyone is having this debate in the first place is because the two are antithetical.[/quote]

The reason we’re having this debate is because some people think that creationism is more than a myth, or the evolution is less than a scientific theory.

I’d agree with this. Religion banded people together. Anything that forms cohesive units was probably beneficial back in the hunter/gatherer days. Loners tended to die rather quickly. Religion often created communities. It wouldn’t surprise me at all of religion was a major factor in the neolithic revolution.

306

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Err…I may have misunderstood but I didn’t think anyone was arguing that creationism was one of the sciences.

So, if one is science, and the other is not… which one should we be bvelieving for the moment?

I thought that the reason anyone is having this debate in the first place is because the two are antithetical.

The reason we’re having this debate is because some people think that creationism is more than a myth, or the evolution is less than a scientific theory.

Another, perhaps simpler, explanation for the universality and antiquity of religion is that it has conferred evolutionary benefits on its practitioners that outweigh the costs.

I’d agree with this. Religion banded people together. Anything that forms cohesive units was probably beneficial back in the hunter/gatherer days. Loners tended to die rather quickly. Religion often created communities. It wouldn’t surprise me at all of religion was a major factor in the neolithic revolution.[/quote]

OOps sorry, I have now noticed reading back over the posts that there is indeed an intimation, if not an outright accusation, that sciences’ champions can be every bit as guilty of zealotry as religion proponents can sometimes be and that this is what you are reacting to.
Quite a valid claim however.

307

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beo, our book deal.

I’ve got Varq all signed up. You still in? If so, I think you too would enjoy “The Case for a Creator” a little more than the book I first recommended. I’m going to hold up my end of the bargain and if you bail on me I’m calling you out. But I’m sure you won’t.[/quote]

I won’t bail. I don’t get home till next Wednesday though, so I can’t start till then. I’ve got finals coming up, and posting on this forum is distraction enough :wink:

308

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Name some of the copious amounts. You gonna stick with the moths thing?

Fossil record. Human genome project. DNA similarities between many animals. All of evolutionary biology. Do you really think they just pulled this shit out of their collective asshole? If we’d found evidence evolution is false, trust me when I say the scientists who found it would be damn famous, lauded, and have many nobel prizes.

You need to study this subject a little more. The fossil record has NO established confirmations of transitional life forms at the higher taxonomic levels. Like I’ve said many times now, it is obvious that life at the species and in some cases, genus level do adapt and change. But it flat out can’t be proved in any shape, form or fashion that it went beyond that.

Ever.

It is sheer, unadulterated speculation. Extrapolation. Unsubstantiated extrapolation. Unprovable extrapolation.

The “evidence” is squeezed and massaged and warped to fit the theory (hypothesis). It has to be because no alternative is allowed or even remotely tolerated.

You have been sold a bill of goods if you believe otherwise. I’m not belittling you. Look hard and don’t fall for the propaganda. Have some objectivity if you truly want to be regarded as being of a “scientific” mind. Bury your head in the sand if you insist that your religion not be challenged or examined.

Now of course, there are numerous fossils of species that are now extinct. That is in no way whatsoever proof that those extinct species evolved into life forms outside of their species or genus.

DNA similarities and the genome project are certainly some of the arguments for macro-evolution. But they can also be reasonably explained within the context of creationism. Do some research if you’re truly interested. There are also problems with applying these “evidences” to macro-e. Again, check it out.

No, you can’t. And for crying out loud, don’t mention micro-evolution as “evidence” or “proof” for macro-e. Don’t do it. I’m tired of hearing it and I don’t dispute that micro-e does occur - all the time - everywhere.

Thanks for taking me on though! At least it is making you think. I hope.

[/quote]

There is a theory. There is a model. The entirety of biology seems to fit that model mighty well. We have no evidence against it, even though it is possible to find such evidence.

Also, on creationism, ALL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT. Because it isn’t falsifiable. You can just say “God did that.” That just isn’t what science is.

Ignoring evolution for a moment, I have a question: Do you believe creationism has any scientific credibility?

309

Anybody read Darwins Black box By Behe ? I just started reading it for English class(LOL). Pretty interesting to say the least

310

…for those who are interested:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

"Evolutionary biology is a strong and vigorous field of science. A theoretical framework that encompasses several basic mechanisms is consistent with the patterns seen in nature; and there is abundant evidence demonstrating the action of these mechanisms as well as their contributions to nature. Hence, evolution is both a theory and a set of established facts that the theory explains.

Like every other science, there is scientific debate about some aspects of evolution, but none of these debates appear likely to shake the foundations of this field. There exists no other scientific explanation that can account for all the patterns in nature, only non-scientific explanations that require a miraculous force, like a creator. Such super-natural explanations lie outside of science, which can neither prove nor disprove miracles. Science provides us with a compelling account and explanation of the changing life on Earth. It should also remind us of our good fortune to have come into being and our great responsibility to ensure the continuity of life."

311

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And even if we didn’t creationism still wouldn’t be science.

Name the reasons(s) why macroevolution is.[/quote]

I have a slight problem when folks concede microevolution, but not macroevolution. What is the barrier that keeps small changes from creating a larger characteristic change? There must be some barrier, otherwise it is not a big leap to assume the small changes can be cumulative and dramatically transformational. Is the barrier just a chosen one of “God has made it so”??

There is a similar analog to global warming, where one side says we’re seeing a drastic characteristic change, and others claim that it’s just a series of small changes that are in line with a larger scheme. Either way the end result is still a planet that is heading someplace totally different from what we have observed in our short window of history.

315

[quote]pushharder wrote:
optheta wrote:
Anybody read Darwins Black box By Behe ? I just started reading it for English class(LOL). Pretty interesting to say the least

I’m interested in hearing your take on it. I haven’t read it.[/quote]

Well he talks about irrducibility Complex here is a brief definition i had to write for english -

             Irreducibility complex
Irreducibility complex is the idea that a working machine has to have all the parts inside for it to work. Like in the book he gives an example of a mouse trap saying that if you take any part out of the mouse trap the spring, board etc. the mouse trap will cease to do its function and is no longer of any use. In the story the author uses this has his prime example for fault of evolution because it cannot explain how irreducibility complex structures came to be. Because these structures do not work without a part so how can a micro changes occur to create an irreducibility complex structure.  
	
     A structure such as the Bombardier beetles two separated chemical chambers each filled with hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. That when the beetle is in danger mix with each other in a loading chamber then squirt out of the beetles. The author makes the claim that beetles defensive mechanism is irreducibility complex because if the beetle was missing any part of the equation for its defensive mechanism it would have not been able to survive.

/end my little essay

Interesting thought anyway. However the fault i think within the author is that he assumes all the structures are irrducbility complex, just because the function of that part of the cell is astronomically complex doesn’t mean there is no way for micro changes to occur. Authors fault is that because they are so complicated they must be irreducibility complex doesn’t take into account that maybe we don’t fully understand how it works.

316

[quote]optheta wrote:
pushharder wrote:
optheta wrote:
Anybody read Darwins Black box By Behe ? I just started reading it for English class(LOL). Pretty interesting to say the least

I’m interested in hearing your take on it. I haven’t read it.

Well he talks about irrducibility Complex here is a brief definition i had to write for english -

             Irreducibility complex
Irreducibility complex is the idea that a working machine has to have all the parts inside for it to work. Like in the book he gives an example of a mouse trap saying that if you take any part out of the mouse trap the spring, board etc. the mouse trap will cease to do its function and is no longer of any use. In the story the author uses this has his prime example for fault of evolution because it cannot explain how irreducibility complex structures came to be. Because these structures do not work without a part so how can a micro changes occur to create an irreducibility complex structure.  
	
     A structure such as the Bombardier beetles two separated chemical chambers each filled with hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. That when the beetle is in danger mix with each other in a loading chamber then squirt out of the beetles. The author makes the claim that beetles defensive mechanism is irreducibility complex because if the beetle was missing any part of the equation for its defensive mechanism it would have not been able to survive.

/end my little essay

Interesting thought anyway. However the fault i think within the author is that he assumes all the structures are irrducbility complex, just because the function of that part of the cell is astronomically complex doesn’t mean there is no way for micro changes to occur. Authors fault is that because they are so complicated they must be irreducibility complex doesn’t take into account that maybe we don’t fully understand how it works.[/quote]

Or that there were structures in place that are no longer there because they atrophied.

A similar idea is “nobody needs half an eye, so how can it evolve”.

That is from people who completely ignore that compared to some creatures they only have half an eye with some serious construction flaws and yet it serves them quite well.

317

[quote]pushharder wrote:
borrek wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And even if we didn’t creationism still wouldn’t be science.

Name the reasons(s) why macroevolution is.

I have a slight problem when folks concede microevolution, but not macroevolution. What is the barrier that keeps small changes from creating a larger characteristic change? There must be some barrier, otherwise it is not a big leap to assume the small changes can be cumulative and dramatically transformational. Is the barrier just a chosen one of “God has made it so”??..

You bring up a good question but the established unerringly obvious conclusion is that there is one, a barrier. That evidence is crystal clear in nature. It is observable. It is testable.
[/quote]

No, it is not and the lines are blurred.

Otherwise you could explain mules or ligers.

There are species that are still close enough together so that they can procreate, but far apart enough so that their offsring cannot.

Then, unless you are a young earther, you run into a problem.

Obviously there are species that no longer exist. So if you indeed believe that species can die out, why are there any left?

There were no large mammal predators when the dinosaurs were around but now there are.

Why?

And, as an addendum, the whole insisting on the idea of species thing says more about the wiring of your brain than about any real clear lines in the real world, ironically because your brain has evolved that way.

You could try to find a definition of “species” that cannot be shot down immediately. That should make clear what an arbitrary concept “species” is.

318

[quote]orion wrote:
Then, unless you are a young earther, you run into a problem.

Obviously there are species that no longer exist. So if you indeed believe that species can die out, why are there any left?

There were no large mammal predators when the dinosaurs were around but now there are.

Why?
[/quote]

As one who believes that macro-evolution is the way God created man and all other animals, and playing a little bit of the devils advocate, I think that I can see a valid explanation…

If man is the intended recipient of the world that God made, then it could reason that any species which came and went before man made his entry onto the scene only served the purpose of setting the stage. Similar to a french consomme where you boil the fish and veggies, but before you make the actual intended soup, you remove all of the precursors and toss them out.

Astronomically something very similar happens. The heaviest element that can be created from the core of a Hydrogen/Helium star of the Sun’s mass is iron, yet we have much heavier elements in on our planet. Our star took the iron and other heavies that were left over from previous solar systems (which were exactly where we are now, but died looong before our star formed) and then continued the process to make elements that it otherwise could not naturally produce, like plutonium etc.

The human body requires elements that would be impossible for our star to make on it’s own, like Zinc, so really if you think about it, the path to man started long before there was even an earth, and relied on a cosmos which is now “extinct”.

320

[quote]borrek wrote:
orion wrote:
Then, unless you are a young earther, you run into a problem.

Obviously there are species that no longer exist. So if you indeed believe that species can die out, why are there any left?

There were no large mammal predators when the dinosaurs were around but now there are.

Why?

As one who believes that macro-evolution is the way God created man and all other animals, and playing a little bit of the devils advocate, I think that I can see a valid explanation…

If man is the intended recipient of the world that God made, then it could reason that any species which came and went before man made his entry onto the scene only served the purpose of setting the stage. Similar to a french consomme where you boil the fish and veggies, but before you make the actual intended soup, you remove all of the precursors and toss them out.

Astronomically something very similar happens. The heaviest element that can be created from the core of a Hydrogen/Helium star of the Sun’s mass is iron, yet we have much heavier elements in on our planet. Our star took the iron and other heavies that were left over from previous solar systems (which were exactly where we are now, but died looong before our star formed) and then continued the process to make elements that it otherwise could not naturally produce, like plutonium etc.

The human body requires elements that would be impossible for our star to make on it’s own, like Zinc, so really if you think about it, the path to man started long before there was even an earth, and relied on a cosmos which is now “extinct”.

[/quote]

The strong anthropic principle…

Again?

Oh see, the whole universe conspires to make human life possible so how could we not be its ultimate goal?

Praise the Lord!

The sheer vanity and narcissism…

No, we are, and therefore the universe must be a certain way or otherwise we would not be.

We do not know how many possible universes there are, but we do know that a universe with us in it must follow certain rules and must have had a certain history.