Creation vs. Evolution

[LeadSlead#2]

Saying that is like saying that Pythagoras' Theorem is only a theory. Evolution is a fact, as solid a fact as any scientific law, from the laws of thermodynamics to gravity. 'Evolution Theory' is the continuing development of a myraid of concepts that explain the facts of evolution. And for the record, evolution has been proven, many many times over. The fact that the proof has been contested (albeit totally unsuccessfully) by a fervent religious minority doesn't amke the proof any less solid. The proof lies in the fossil record, and more recently, in the genome of every living thing...

The reason you have and will continue to get arguments about wether or not evolution has been proven, is the definition of proof itself.
you take the flu, changing from year to year, as proof. others do not. you take bones of different,(but similar) species, as proof that this is what it once was. others do not. you take species ability to adapt to different enviroments, as proof that they change. others do not. it's not that Evolution has/hasnt been proven. Evolution has been proven to those who accept these different happenings as solid evidence. And not to those who don't.
Now, this is a small scale, and obviously doesnt include everything for either side. The point is simply, what you consider proof, and what another sees as proof of something, is different. this is why even scientists who agree on evolution, disagree about different parts of it.
I believe in evolution. I used to believe in God. one night I asked myself, ( did this when I was 6 too) where did he go? for the first, 5000 years of the earth, he was here, he spoke to people, and even performed miracles. then he left. how is that fair? if I saw Jesus, performing miracles today, I'd believe in God. so how come those people got to SEE him, and speak with him, and I don't? that's like a free pass to heaven. I want it too.
Plus there isnt a single rational argument to his existence that doesnt end the same as science. where did he come from? just as one can ask where matter came from, (or us, in a simpler scale) what about him? does he have a God? who created him? it's a long cycle. very infinite, and redundant.

 

[Niels]

The reason you have and will continue to get arguments about wether or not evolution has been proven, is the definition of proof itself.
you take the flu, changing from year to year, as proof. others do not. you take bones of different,(but similar) species, as proof that this is what it once was. others do not. you take species ability to adapt to different enviroments, as proof that they change. others do not. it's not that Evolution has/hasnt been proven. Evolution has been proven to those who accept these different happenings as solid evidence. And not to those who don't.
Now, this is a small scale, and obviously doesnt include everything for either side. The point is simply, what you consider proof, and what another sees as proof of something, is different. this is why even scientists who agree on evolution, disagree about different parts of it.
I believe in evolution. I used to believe in God. one night I asked myself, ( did this when I was 6 too) where did he go? for the first, 5000 years of the earth, he was here, he spoke to people, and even performed miracles. then he left. how is that fair? if I saw Jesus, performing miracles today, I'd believe in God. so how come those people got to SEE him, and speak with him, and I don't? that's like a free pass to heaven. I want it too.
Plus there isnt a single rational argument to his existence that doesnt end the same as science. where did he come from? just as one can ask where matter came from, (or us, in a simpler scale) what about him? does he have a God? who created him? it's a long cycle. very infinite, and redundant.

You can think alot of God, yesterday I wondered something new again. If he wrote the bible with rules, he must have a sense of what can be allowed and what not. He must have some kind of character, but normally your character depends on your environment. If you take a baby, it could get any character you can imagine, but his surroundings and experiences and all decide for him.
God must have gotten experience right? God must've made mistakes? That's how you learn to be perfect in my eyes.

But that was something I was just wondering yesterday and it's an example for the fact that you can think and think and think for a loooooong time about God.

 

[Touring Mars]

The point is simply, what you consider proof, and what another sees as proof of something, is different. this is why even scientists who agree on evolution, disagree about different parts of it.

Interesting post, and you do make quite a good point - this is indeed the reality of the situation, that people consider the 'proof' in very different ways. However, that said, scientists who agree on evolution almost entirely agree on the fundamental principles, and the underlying proofs/evidence are not disagreed upon at all. There is much debate and disagreement about some of the more detailed implications of more recent data, but these disagreements are extremely minor. Generally speaking, there is no disagreement about the basic principles of evolution and it's evidential basis within the scientific community.

I believe in evolution. I used to believe in God.

As mentioned several times in the murky depths of this behemoth of a thread, the two are not mutually exclusive. Belief in biblical Creation as per Genesis does not equate to belief in God (or vice versa). The evidences of Evolution (as well as ample geological and fossil evidences) may contradict Genesis, but they do not contradict the notion that there is a God. However, it is the notion that the Bible is the literal word of God that stops people from making this distinction.

 

[Amblin]

Still, I was leading you down the path that we've now jumped to in the first part - since space expands and gravity affects space, Laws of Motion are applicable to the expansion of the universe and, in accordance with that, without a force to slow it down, the expansion of space cannot slow down.

If space has no friction (because it's just space and not air or anything) and it's moving in something without an external force to stop it...could that mean it's expanding within another form of-for lack of a better word- space? I think of it as blowing up a balloon inside of another balloon, with the smaller one that just keeps growing and growing...would that be at least somewhat accurate, or is there absolutely nothing else beyond the 'border'?

 

[Famine]

The question only makes sense if you take time to consider the meaning of "beyond" in that sentence. In terms of space - or rather space-time - there isn't a "beyond", just as in terms of space-time there isn't a "before" the Big Bang. Space-time is all of space and all of time - which directly denies the notion of being further out than space, or further back than time.

 

[Amblin]

The question only makes sense if you take time to consider the meaning of "beyond" in that sentence. In terms of space - or rather space-time - there isn't a "beyond", just as in terms of space-time there isn't a "before" the Big Bang. Space-time is all of space and all of time - which directly denies the notion of being further out than space, or further back than time.

Would that imply that, were there no space, there is also no time? I was relating to the physical space (I seem to recall it being the "thing" in between all atoms, and between the protons and neutrons within the atom, and space being the thing that is between electrons- ie nothingness?), but that's probably also misunderstood for school purposes of keeping things simple...

...but i digress.

What I've gathered that, as a variable, space will continually grow with time passed...which leads me to the conclusion that as time speeds, so too, does the universe's rate of expantion? (Hypothetically speaking?)

And if "time travel" is rendered possible (as I had heard was true, according to someone at NASA saying that the shuttle has travelled a "few milliseconds into the future"), does that alter the size of the universe?

I don't want to start you on a tangent or long winded explanation, but I suppose if you must, then you must.

Also, I guess if you don't know this and you're just looking it all up as you come across some things, then I applaud your effort.

 

[Keef]

About the whole space shuttle thing: the faster you go, the faster time goes. That's the conclusion scientists have come up with after observing that space crafts' clocks move ahead slightly while travelling those tremendous speeds in space. I have no clue how or why--I don't think anyone does, really--but it happens. But the space shuttle still gets back to earth just fine, so it is still in our time. I wouldn't say that time somehow goes by faster, I'd just say that the clock moves faster. Like an analog clock on earth. Maybe the gravity affects the needles as they go up, between 6 and 12, and when in space, since this gravity is absent, they move at the true speed of the little elctric motor or whatever it is that makes them go. It could be that the earth's gravity slows down the needle ever so slightly. But then what makes the digital and atomic clocks that space equipment carry go faster? Not a clue. Maybe time really does go faster. But then why do we see the shuttle just as normal? Why does it return at the same time on earth that we predicted, but it's clocks be ahead? It's crazy!
And Amblin, Famine likes teaching people new stuff, or I'd guess, since he works at a school and is constantly enlightening everyone in this here community. Maybe he or an equivalent soul could elaborate on the whole time thing.

 

[Kylehnat]

About the whole space shuttle thing: the faster you go, the faster time goes. That's the conclusion scientists have come up with after observing that space crafts' clocks move ahead slightly while travelling those tremendous speeds in space.

I thought it was the other way around. That is, time slows down the faster you go. Also, I wouldn't think that the space shuttle would show this effect. It "only" goes about 18,000 mph, whereas the speed of light is 670,000,000 mph. As far as I know, the effects of relativity don't really kick in at 0.00003*c.

Besides, the clock on my microwave drifts by a minute every month, so maybe the space shuttle has the same problem

 

[niky]

Gravity has no effect on the atomic clocks they used in these experiments. These clocks depend on radioactive decay in cesium, and aren't based on mechanical timing or electrical motors.

Time does go slower in a space craft. It's probably been mentioned before, but the speed of light is a constant. If you're travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light (in relation to another object... all frames are purely referential) and you try to measure the speed of light inside your spacecraft, by classical thinking, you should see light as moving slower. But it doesn't. That means your local time is slowing down as compared to people outside your spacecraft, and so light seems to move at the same speed, even though it should be moving slower in relation to your speeding spacecraft.

That's because the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant... another favorite target of "creationists", who have tried to say in the past that the speed of light used to be faster (thus objects billions of light years away transmitted their light only thousands of years ago) and only recently slowed down... which is preposterous, because if light speed had suddenly changed from ten or a hundred times its current rate down to today's light speed, we'd have probably died from the radiation overdose, as all that speed was converted into energy.

EDIT: Time does go slowly enough for the effect to show up on atomic clocks, but you'd have to be up there for a very long time for it to show up on your wristwatch.

 

[LeadSlead#2]

I say Time is a figment of the imagination. something humans created in order to comprehend the ongoing changes of hrs/days/wks/yrs/ etc.

that would be why you still see the shuttle that's "in the future" because the futures here, "time" wise.
But it's late, and I'm tired too.

TM - I know God and evolution don't disprove each other.
It's the nagging other questions that make me think he may not be there.
It mkes no more sense for a supreme being to "always have been" then for the universe to always have been.

 

[a6m5]

I still think it's ridiculous for religious people to argue over the how instead of the who, because in the end, no matter how life occured, the matter of who was responsible is the important part to them, right?

Exactly. Thank you for that, niky. 👍

As mentioned several times in the murky depths of this behemoth of a thread, the two are not mutually exclusive. Belief in biblical Creation as per Genesis does not equate to belief in God (or vice versa). The evidences of Evolution (as well as ample geological and fossil evidences) may contradict Genesis, but they do not contradict the notion that there is a God. However, it is the notion that the Bible is the literal word of God that stops people from making this distinction.

And thank you for this, Chris(and the million other great posts in this thread, plus little extra help on the side).

While my belief in the existance of creator hasn't changed, certainly my belief in the "Creationism" has. If you asked me about the percentage of either Creationism or Evolution theory being real before I started participating in this thread, I'd have said probably 90% Creasionism, 10% Evolution. After Famine and Touring Mars, now I'm closer to 80, 90% Evolution, and maybe Creation being possible. Since I didn't believe in creationism until 90's or so, it's another turn around and I guess that makes me a flip-flopper. I just wanted to take time to thank famine and TM for their always scientifically insightful posts. And everybody else in the Opinions forum, I love you all. I'm always learning stuff from you guys!

 

[Kylehnat]

And everybody else in the Opinions forum, I love you all. I'm always learning stuff from you guys!

Or maybe we're just making stuff up. Scientists have HUGE egos, you know

 

[James2097]

I've decided to follow the lord and pray daily. I've switched to having a religion now.

Seriously.


Only kidding.


It'll take a lot more beers before I'm seeing the lord (and a lot of brain cells need to be killed off first)!

 

[a6m5]

 

[niky]

I say Time is a figment of the imagination. something humans created in order to comprehend the ongoing changes of hrs/days/wks/yrs/ etc.

While the shuttle question has nothing to do with this... there is something in this... A lot of people have been trying to figure out why our perception of time runs in the direction it does. There are interesting theories about how it goes, but then, even just the simple explanations make my head spin.

Or maybe we're just making stuff up. Scientists have HUGE egos, you know

Don't give it away! You'll ruin it!

 

[Niels]

About the whole space shuttle thing: the faster you go, the faster time goes. That's the conclusion scientists have come up with after observing that space crafts' clocks move ahead slightly while travelling those tremendous speeds in space. I have no clue how or why--I don't think anyone does, really--but it happens. But the space shuttle still gets back to earth just fine, so it is still in our time. I wouldn't say that time somehow goes by faster, I'd just say that the clock moves faster. Like an analog clock on earth. Maybe the gravity affects the needles as they go up, between 6 and 12, and when in space, since this gravity is absent, they move at the true speed of the little elctric motor or whatever it is that makes them go. It could be that the earth's gravity slows down the needle ever so slightly. But then what makes the digital and atomic clocks that space equipment carry go faster? Not a clue. Maybe time really does go faster. But then why do we see the shuttle just as normal? Why does it return at the same time on earth that we predicted, but it's clocks be ahead? It's crazy!
And Amblin, Famine likes teaching people new stuff, or I'd guess, since he works at a school and is constantly enlightening everyone in this here community. Maybe he or an equivalent soul could elaborate on the whole time thing.

Well it is the same as the stars, you can look up the stars this evening and catch the light from some stars on your eyes, while in reality they're already dead. That's because the star first release light out to all directions including earth's. Then while that light is still traveling to our earth, the star could "die" and when the light that was still traveling arrives to your eye, you will see a star that's already dead, meaning you can see back in time.
Compare it to ingame lag

And another thing, if clocks would be affected by high speed space travel, the only thing we know that could cause that is light, because there's nothing else in space. However there is a very likely theory that some kind of "black mass" exists in space too. If it's true, then that could effect the clocks and time as well.

 

[Touring Mars]

While my belief in the existance of creator hasn't changed, certainly my belief in the "Creationism" has.

👍 That is extremely encouraging to hear, and is basically the only reason I participate in this thread at all... Thanks for the feedback, it's much appreciated.

I've always felt that Creationism cheapens both science and religion in equal measure...

 

[ledhed]

DNA reveals human-chimp crossbreeding
Romeo and Ju-oo-oo-oo-liet
By Chris WilliamsPublished Thursday 18th May 2006 ..... A new study of chimpanzee and human genomes has revealed that the two lineages leading to the modern species interbred after they split. According to the report to be published in Nature today, the story of how we left our hirsute cousins behind is more complicated...etc.

I always wondered why I liked banna's so much . Gives new meaning to "your a monkeys uncle "


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/chimps_love_humans/

 

[Danoff]

^^ Yea I can totally see that. I mean those female chimps can be really hot when they take care of themselves. Man I'd like to tap that. Am I right? Guys? Anyone? Hey were are you guys going?

 

[ledhed]

Headlines

Link To Article Print Article Email Article
Chimps, humans had complicated breakup
By Matt Crenson, Associated Press



Thursday, May 18
NEW YORK — One of the most detailed comparisons yet of human and chimp DNA shows that the split between the two species was a long, messy affair that may even have featured an unusual evolutionary version of breakup sex.
Previous genetic research has shown that chimpanzees and humans are sister species, having split off from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The new study goes farther by looking at approximately 800 times more DNA than earlier efforts.

That additional data make it


possible to determine not just when, but how the split happened.

"For the first time we're able to see the details written out in the DNA," said Eric Lander, one of the collaborators on the study. "What they tell us at the least is that the human-chimp speciation was very unusual."

Unusual, indeed. The researchers, from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, propose that humans and chimpanzees first split up about 10 million years ago. Then, after evolving in different directions for about 4 million years, they got back together for a brief fling that produced a third, hybrid population with characteristics of both lines

It gets worse.........................

"It's a totally cool and extremely clever analysis," said Daniel Lieberman, a professor of biological anthropology at Harvard. "My problem is imagining what it would be like to have a bipedal hominid and a chimpanzee viewing each other as appropriate mates, not to put it too crudely."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...518/people_chimps_060518/20060518?hub=SciTech


I keep thinking of waking up after a long friday night out partying....and..


.ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

followed by a jump through a window.....

 

[Touring Mars]

It's interesting, but it's hardly surprising... Here's the article from this week's 'Nature'... this is a good example of how data or new findings from more recently developed techniques (in this case, genomics) augments older data (physical comparisons from the fossil record)... the new data (from the analysis of the chimp and human genomes) means that the previously held ideas about human evolution (based on the fossil record alone) can now be re-evaluted... i.e. our understanding of how the fossil record pertains to the true story of human evolution can potentially be improved dramatically...

The power of genomics is immense, not least because the source of the data is not some rare (even unique) skeletal remains, perhaps of contentious age or species, but can be easily sourced from living, breathing animals such as ourselves, and analysed forever and a day without fear of losing 'the sample'. There is no other explanation for the massive similarity between the genomes of the chimp and the human other than common ancestry... the burgeoning field of genomics can only go on reinforcing this point ad infinitum...

 

[Danoff]

Oh yea dude!

Ok, seriously. I'm done now.

 

[Swift]

So, they are saying we really ARE monkey's uncle's now?

Where's Code Kev at? He needs to read this.

 

[ledhed]

So, they are saying we really ARE monkey's uncle's now?

Where's Code Kev at? He needs to read this.

actully MONKEYS are OUR Uncles.......oooooo.. 0000... oooooo...gimme a bannana !

 

[Keef]

It seems you'll never be able to spell "banana" correctly, ledhead. It started with "banna" (post 3828, a couple posts ago) and now it has progressed to "bannana", as in the previous post.
Now, I know it's complicated, sort of like "Canada", but at least you could spell it incorrectly the same way!

 

[ledhed]

Well what other monkeys uncle do you know who can spell ? bannnanananana ?

 

[James2097]

I am totally a monkey, always knew I was. Similar to the well known phrase "Give enough monkeys typewriters, eventually you'll get some Shakespeare", I sit at this little Mac and type random stuff until every now and then (very rarely) I make a post worth reading!

And its BANANA.
As in "Dallas gave a banana to Debbie".

The ol' spacebar is a bit of a waste of the fancy opposable thumbs though, IMO.

 

[niky]

We're less of monkey's uncles than kissing cousins... wait... that imagery is just too ripe...

 

[Touring Mars]

I am totally a monkey, always knew I was. Similar to the well known phrase "Give enough monkeys typewriters, eventually you'll get some Shakespeare", I sit at this little Mac and type random stuff until every now and then (very rarely) I make a post worth reading!.

Try following the links on this site (The Tree Of Life) to see the evolutionary path leading all the way up to us homo sapiens... It's easy to navigate through, but for those who don't fancy it, here are the links in order, starting from the root...

Eukaryotes
-Animals
--Bilateria
---Deuterostomia
----Chordata
-----Craniata
------Vertebrata
-------Gnathostomata (->Teleostonii ->Osteichthyes)
--------Sarcopterygii
---------Terrestrial Vertebrates (->Tetrapoda ->Reptilomorpha)
----------Amniota
-----------Synapsida
------------Therapsida
-------------Mammalia
--------------Euthoria
---------------Primates
----------------Catarrhini
-----------------Hominidae
------------------Homo

This new research suggests that chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) split from a common ancestor more recently than had been previously thought (I nearly said 'believed', but I'd prefer to say 'inferred from the evidence), but that split is still in the region of 5 million years ago. Given the relative recentness of this in the context of the rest of the above (phylogenetic) tree, it's easy to see why it is necessary to allow for a hell of alot of time for the tremendous diversity of life of Earth to appear...

 

[ledhed]

I dont want to be a homo without a sapiens .