Creation vs. Evolution

[ledhed]

Evolution doesn't only have to do with physics and astronomy. It also has to do with biology.

Nobody will be able to convince evolutionists of creation for many reasons (the same goes the other way), but there's only one I'd like to point.

If ever creation is admitted as a truth, this means there's actually a God. If there's a God, then this means everybody has to submit to him because he would be known as the Creator. No evolutionist wants that because no evolutionist (or very few of them do) believes in God.

Creation vs. evolution is a question that will never be answer with human knowledge, just like if God exists or not.
Debating over this is useless, but I thought I'd say what I think about the subject. Most disagree, but that's life. We could go on until 500pages on this thread with no answer. Having said that, I don't like to debate very much about people's beliefs and such fundamental questions.

You'll catch me on another thread probably some day.

I am curiouse why everyone has to submit to a God ?

What if he just wants to chill and doesn't like submissive types ?

For someone who claims to be into science and is throwing alot of words around you make some HUGE assumptions.

What do you base your knowlage of God on ??? BTW what flavor God are we talking here ? Bible type ??? Jehova witness type ??? Norse ..or Roman ? Buddist ? Islamic ? Jewish ? Pasta ?

 

[Delirious]

And as far as feeling God...it really is experience-based only. You can't just say I want to feel God and expect to feel Him. God looks upon the heart of the individual and then they are able to "feel" God. It's just a Spirit Thing I guess (Newsboys song, explains it quite well)

 

[Pako]

*snip* Pasta ?

Still talking about the spaghetti monster? I think I just spit up a bit of cereal on my monitor. Thanks.

 

[Touring Mars]

Oh ok, thanks for letting me know. I knew you were directly involved with microbiology I believe. But I didn't know about Danoff and TM. Thanks again.

I am technically not a biologist, but I'm a physical chemist who works in a biology department, since I study the structure and function of proteins. However, my colleagues (including my mate SG) are evolutionary biologists - to give you an example of what stuff goes on here, SG is currently finishing his Ph.D thesis on the morphology of mammalian skulls, and how comparisons between the shapes of certain features of skulls shows evolutionary relationships between different groups of mammals (specifically moles!)...

On helping to proof-read his thesis last night and this morning, it raised a key question that, for me anyway, sums up this whole debate.... and that is "Why bother studying this?" It's a good question indeed, because it can be applied to any other branch of science... why indeed do we bother to look for answers to questions such as 'what factors influence the shape of mammal skulls'... why do we not just simply say "God designed it that way" and leave it at that?

That is the fundamental thing that scientists (not just evolutionary biologists either) disagree with about Intelligent Design (Creation) theory - the 'answers' it provides are empty, meaningless and (on the whole) wrong; saying that everything is the way it is because 'it was designed that way' is wholly unsatisfactory. What really does that add to human knowledge? (whether or not it even was designed by 'a creator'??)...

...Notice that Intelligent Design theory proponents no longer even make any mention of God... they simply say "this is too complicated to have happened in any other way that to have been deliberately designed by 'an intelligent creator'" - but I feel this does a tremendous disservice to the people who are actually doing the work and proving them wrong... Yes, many questions about evolutionary biology are very complex and very difficult to comprehend (let alone successfully study), but we have a choice... we either choose to know more and to keep studying, or we give up. Proponents of intelligent design are worse still - for they have 'given up' before they've even started (by 'assuming' that they are right about their design hypothesis) Their fundamental argument is that we need not study these things at all, since we already know the answer - i.e. everything was created by 'a Creator'... you can hopefully understand why people who teach biology, esp. evolutionary biology, are so dismayed by this stance.

 

[kennythebomb]

I am technically not a biologist, but I'm a physical chemist who works in a biology department, since I study the structure and function of proteins. However, my colleagues (including my mate SG) are evolutionary biologists - to give you an example of what stuff goes on here, SG is currently finishing his Ph.D thesis on the morphology of mammalian skulls, and how comparisons between the shapes of certain features of skulls shows evolutionary relationships between different groups of mammals (specifically moles!)...

On helping to proof-read his thesis last night and this morning, it raised a key question that, for me anyway, sums up this whole debate.... and that is "Why bother studying this?" It's a good question indeed, because it can be applied to any other branch of science... why indeed do we bother to look for answers to questions such as 'what factors influence the shape of mammal skulls'... why do we not just simply say "God designed it that way" and leave it at that?

That is the fundamental thing that scientists (not just evolutionary biologists either) disagree with about Intelligent Design (Creation) theory - the 'answers' it provides are empty, meaningless and (on the whole) wrong; saying that everything is the way it is because 'it was designed that way' is wholly unsatisfactory. What really does that add to human knowledge? (whether or not it even was designed by 'a creator'??)...

...Notice that Intelligent Design theory proponents no longer even make any mention of God... they simply say "this is too complicated to have happened in any other way that to have been deliberately designed by 'an intelligent creator'" - but I feel this does a tremendous disservice to the people who are actually doing the work and proving them wrong... Yes, many questions about evolutionary biology are very complex and very difficult to comprehend (let alone successfully study), but we have a choice... we either choose to know more and to keep studying, or we give up. Proponents of intelligent design are worse still - for they have 'given up' before they've even started (by 'assuming' that they are right about their design hypothesis) Their fundamental argument is that we need not study these things at all, since we already know the answer - i.e. everything was created by 'a Creator'... you can hopefully understand why people who teach biology, esp. evolutionary biology, are so dismayed by this stance.

I believe in creation and micro evolution, and that God designed things to happen in certain ways for certain reasons... but I applaud the work of scientists to figure out how or why he did it.

Just saying "God did it" and leaving it at that is silly. I prefer to be a curious creature who learns about my environment. If science can determine the answer or form a pattern, I'm all for it.

 

[Touring Mars]

I believe in creation and micro evolution, and that God designed things to happen in certain ways for certain reasons... but I applaud the work of scientists to figure out how or why he did it.

Just saying "God did it" and leaving it at that is silly. I prefer to be a curious creature who learns about my environment. If science can determine the answer or form a pattern, I'm all for it.

👍 It's a far more reasonable stance than Answers In Genesis, who do not subscribe to micro-evolution at all...

Although I very much respect your stance (it is much more sensible stance and a very popular one in general), I'd like to reiterate something Famine has said before... which is micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution = macro-evolution 💡

 

[kennythebomb]

👍 It's a far more reasonable stance than Answers In Genesis, who do not subscribe to micro-evolution at all...

Although I very much respect your stance (it is much more sensible stance and a very popular one in general), I'd like to reiterate something Famine has said before... which is micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution + micro-evolution = macro-evolution 💡

I agree... however the mathematical odds for all of those genetic mutations to positively fit the environment, in other words a better adaptation, is so astronnomical I don't even think it could be reasonably calculated. Especially when the environment really hasn't changed all that much in recent times. True, the earth is constantly changing... but some areas of the earth feature the same characteristics as they have for many thousands of years, right?

I believe that the Lord made a man from 'dust' and that man didn't come from a lineage extending back to single-celled organisms... but for the sake of argument...

I am all for the idea that a single-celled organism can become a multi-celled organism. And so on, it can keep splitting and become larger. The problem I have, is that how do these random cellular masses that become 'limbs' gain functions that perfectly suit the animal to it's environment? Science is going to tell me that a monkey's tail just happened to evolve on this one 'type' of species (or genus, whatever is the appropriate term) to perfectly enable the monkey to swing from trees?? In that case, with random genetic mutations driving evolutionary processes, shouldn't most animals have limbs and organs that serve absolutely no purpose? I can only name one or two useless features of the human body... surely if we follow the laws of mathematical chance, for one mutation to enable an organism to better suit it's environment, other adaptations would still exist that don't necessarily benefit or harm the creature, right?

A possible counter to my point is "perhaps by now all of the useless mutations that didn't benefit or harm the creature are weeded out."

Okay, well look at the fossil record. It seems to me most ancient organisms do not feature a random assortment of parts, either.

It is simply incredulous to me to believe in a system that has no thinking or logical order, to where only natural causes of the environment can create adaptations to change species into new ones... without many more 'other' adaptations that serve no purpose.

 

[Max_DC]

Ok, you need to do one of two things. THINK before you post or just totally shutup.

I'm a Christian and I DO feel God on a regular basis. Also, God speaks to my soul regularly as well.

Pako is much better at the compassionate side of Christianity. But you really, really need to go through all your thoughts AND read the thread. At least the last 50 pages. We have gone through the senses thing, physical laws, calculations and the rest. If you have something new to add, feel free. But if you don't have anything of remote substance then please refrain until you do. Thanks.

This thread will never die...anyway

One could say that you THINK that you feel God or that he speaks to you. I could say it is an illusion, something you believe because others made you believe and/or because you want to. So feelings and visions are not really what I would call a good proof for anything, it is so easy to get fooled by your own brain...
Just like people with Schizophrenia, who think that creatures talk to them - well just without the illness factor

I didn't want to return to this thread and I don't follow it on a regular basis... I think that everything including what I just posted has been said many times before, but still, you know, I read the last 10 posts and yours stood out,I felt like replying and I did....
Of course I still think that it is pointless to discuss this subject, since science and belief will never match and therefor a scientist will never be able to change the mind of a true beliefer...

You know Swift, saying somebody else should shut up because you think an non existing creature speaks to you made me laugh hard ( Well I "believe" it doesn't exist, I can't proove it of course... )
But this is your business and who am I to tell you what you may believe or not....

 

[kennythebomb]

Of course I still think that it is pointless to discuss this subject, since science and belief will never match and therefor a scientist will never be able to change the mind of a true beliefer...

It is entirely *not* pointless to discuss this unless you refuse to be persuaded of truth.

I believe science can validate my beliefs.

 

[Swift]

You know Swift, saying somebody else should shut up because you think an non existing creature speaks to you made me laugh hard ( Well I "believe" it doesn't exist, I can't proove it of course... )
But this is your business and who am I to tell you what you may believe or not....

You totally missed to point of the post. Aerospace was posting in a very ignorant manner towards the veteran members of the discussion that he knew nothing about making our "side" of the argument look extremely rimmature and misinformed. I have since talked to him about it and we've come to an agreement.

But again, it wasn't his stance, it was his delivery. Asking Famine if he's ever studied science is just plain ignorance.

 

[Danoff]

I agree... however the mathematical odds for all of those genetic mutations to positively fit the environment, in other words a better adaptation, is so astronnomical I don't even think it could be reasonably calculated.

Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest etcetera. You wouldn't deny that the best suited to their environment will have the most offspring would you?

Especially when the environment really hasn't changed all that much in recent times.

Who said anything about the environment changing? (though it does)

I believe that the Lord made a man from 'dust' and that man didn't come from a lineage extending back to single-celled organisms...

Why?

I am all for the idea that a single-celled organism can become a multi-celled organism.

So you believe in evolution.

And so on, it can keep splitting and become larger. The problem I have, is that how do these random cellular masses that become 'limbs' gain functions that perfectly suit the animal to it's environment?

Ever seen flagella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum), they're multi-celled organisms that develop a tail to help with motion. How hard is it to see that motion is an important thing for a multi-celled organism and that a few cells (cilia for example) will specialize in motion. Eventually one gets born with extra cells in that department. It proliferates more than the others. Eventually you have flagella. Seriously, how hard is it to see the bridge between flagella and fish? Is it really that hard? What about between fish and penguins or alegators? How about the bridge between alegators and lizards, birds, monkeys, people? It actually doesn't take much imagination.

Science is going to tell me that a monkey's tail just happened to evolve on this one 'type' of species (or genus, whatever is the appropriate term) to perfectly enable the monkey to swing from trees??

Why not? People are born with tails ocassionally. Is it really so hard to believe that over billions of years natural selection won't eventually tailor monkeys to their environment? Think about the flagella for a moment. Think about all of the animals in kingdom animalia for a moment. Which ones DON'T have tails? That people have tail bones and are occasionally born with tails should tell you something about our ancestry.

In that case, with random genetic mutations driving evolutionary processes, shouldn't most animals have limbs and organs that serve absolutely no purpose?

Extra limbs/organs take up additional energy, get sick, get infected, make it easier for predators to latch hold, etc. That being said, we do have the spleen (as Chris Simms discovered recently). The appendix (by definition extra). Tonsils. Superfulous didgits on our hands. An extra eye, an extra ear, extra teeth, hell, we have an extra arm.

It is simply incredulous to me to believe in a system that has no thinking or logical order, to where only natural causes of the environment can create adaptations to change species into new ones... without many more 'other' adaptations that serve no purpose.

Natural selection is very logical (and required, especially if you believe in evolution... which you said earlier). It is entirely necessary for you to subscribe to natural selection if you believe in genetics, DNA, and logic. It is an order, constantly selecting the fittest of the species. Any selection from the genetic pool will cause variation over time (you agree with this as you believe in evolution). So why is it so difficult to fathom that these changes build up over a long time.

Why is that so much more difficult to believe than a being that has existed forever and will always exist created Earth and man and animals all independently (but very similarly ie: to eyes, ears, a mouth, a nose, two arms, two legs, all in the same general locations)... that he created man from dust and woman from a spare rib for the purpose of playing mind games on in a garden somewhere.

What makes that easier to believe than evolution (which you subscribe to for the most part)?

 

[Max_DC]

It is entirely *not* pointless to discuss this unless you refuse to be persuaded of truth.

I believe science can validate my beliefs.

Oh that is a difficult subject...truth... often used and so often misunderstood . There is no ultimate truth, just many aspects in even more different cirumstances...
However, I understand what you say. But, a 110% Christian for example will never stop believing in God, you can proove whatever you want. That is what I found out by discussing with so many beliefers both on the internet and in real life.

You totally missed to point of the post. Aerospace was posting in a very ignorant manner towards the veteran members of the discussion that he knew nothing about making our "side" of the argument look extremely rimmature and misinformed. I have since talked to him about it and we've come to an agreement.

But again, it wasn't his stance, it was his delivery. Asking Famine if he's ever studied science is just plain ignorance.

Well I guess you are right, since I didn't even read his post, just yours.
Nevertheless you wrote what I quoted, right ? So even without the context it reflects a part of your opinion, and I just wanted to ... oh well, whatever ... you believe it and that's it. No need to discuss here, I have no problem with you believing and hopefully the same goes vice versa and that's it....

 

[Danoff]

There is no ultimate truth, just many aspects in even more different cirumstances...

...such an easy thing to say, but so completely wrong. Logically, what you wrote is totally impossible.

 

[ledhed]

...such an easy thing to say, but so completely wrong. Logically, what you wrote is totally impossible.

When your toasted things like that pop into your head...the trick is to keeep them there .

 

[Danoff]

When your toasted things like that pop into your head...the trick is to keeep them there .

Just stay toasted right?

 

[ledhed]

Just stay toasted right?

Or pass the hell out...then at least you cant talk..although some say I may speak in tongues when I am toasted and look passed out...I try to explain thats from the failed excorsism but hey...what can you do ?


Its hard to stay toasted anyway ..beacause you can never get the right balance between toasted and wasted ..but its fun trying.


Good topic for a Friday when i am am home early from work...I hear the bar stool calling me ...


BYE BYE....

 

[Max_DC]

...such an easy thing to say, but so completely wrong. Logically, what you wrote is totally impossible.

Well it is perhaps a too complex question for such a short - translated - sentence.

So let me explain what I wanted to say :
Is a tree green ? Some would say yes, other wouldn't. Depends on the light specturm and a million other factors... There is no ultimate truth. Every being has its own view on things around him and while they might seem true to him, this is not universal.
There are books about this, so back to this specific question. Take 2000 beliefers of several religions and tell them to describe "God" or the equivalent of it. Everybody will describe it in a different way, so we are not even talking about the same problem when we discuss : Does God exist? ...
Then how can you find a true answer ?

The truth for a true beliefer is not what science prooves. For them God is above everything and way over science. They have a different interpretation of the truth. So you can't proove them wrong, they would say : The devil tries to lead us onto a wrong way or God prooves us or whatever...

I gave it up

 

[Danoff]

Well it is perhaps a too complex question for such a short - translated - sentence.

So let me explain what I wanted to say :
Is a tree green ? Some would say yes, other wouldn't. Depends on the light specturm and a million other factors... There is no ultimate truth. Every being has its own view on things around him and while they might seem true to him, this is not universal.
There are books about this, so back to this specific question. Take 2000 beliefers of several religions and tell them to describe "God" or the equivalent of it. Everybody will describe it in a different way, so we are not even talking about the same problem when we discuss : Does God exist? ...
Then how can you find a true answer ?

The truth for a true beliefer is not what science prooves. For them God is above everything and way over science. They have a different interpretation of the truth. So you can't proove them wrong, they would say : The devil tries to lead us onto a wrong way or God prooves us or whatever...

I gave it up

Logically, what you wrote is totally impossible.

See above. It is not possible for reality to be subjective.

 

[Max_DC]

See above. It is not possible for reality to be subjective.

We are all within the system. Nobody of us is outside, so how should we know that we found reality ?

Your reality is not my reality. It's really again a matter of definition. How do you define reality ? It is always a matter of the point of view.

If I see a tree and have alook at the leaves, then I say : they are green. Some insects see a differentc color and their reality is just as real as mine.
You can bring it all down to an atomic level, then we meet again. But this is a rather simple example, it gets a lot more complex when talking about God obviously...

So you define what is logical, then why not go into detail ? What is "totally impossible" ?

 

[Danoff]

We are all within the system. Nobody of us is outside, so how should we know that we found reality ?

That's a different question.

Your reality is not my reality. It's really again a matter of definition. How do you define reality ? It is always a matter of the point of view.

It is not possible for reality to be subjective. Truth is not subjective. Whether you have obtained truth is another issue.

If I see a tree and have alook at the leaves, then I say : they are green. Some insects see a differentc color and their reality is just as real as mine.

The question is which is true (if either), not whether both are.

So you define what is logical, then why not go into detail ? What is "totally impossible" ?

For reality to be subjective. Reality does not (despite how much people want it to) depend on your thoughts or impressions. Reality is independent of you. If reality depended on your thoughts, science, knowledge, and truth would completely cease to exist.

 

[Max_DC]

That's a different question.



It is not possible for reality to be subjective. Truth is not subjective. Whether you have obtained truth is another issue.

Well imo a matter of the definition of "reality". I agree that technically the word "reality" should not be used that often and simple.

The question is which is true (if either), not whether both are.

Both is true, you can't deny that. True doesn't mean real though. Ehm, I mean we all know how it works : Light meats the leaf and a certain part of the spectrum gets absorbed, the rest reflected and depending on your specific possibilities to detect these refelctions you get a different real impression of acertain color. This is real, you can proove it. It doesn't end here though, since the information gets another few interpretations in your brain. So your green is not my green.

So your definition of ultimate reality - if that exists ( not every scientist will agree here, believe me ) - probably would go to the atomic base of teh leaf ? A combination of C's, H's, O's etc ... well maybe that is reality...

For reality to be subjective. Reality does not (despite how much people want it to) depend on your thoughts or impressions. Reality is independent of you. If reality depended on your thoughts, science, knowledge, and truth would completely cease to exist.

I don't know. If you define reality in a very strict way perhaps... You won't hear scientists talk about "reality" too often, ... as you migth agree, it is very difficult to find this reality for a human being, whereas simple experiments can somehow be prooved... but again in maths and physics a lot is based on assumptions...

The world is not black and white and so isn't science. You are making your life too easy with this black&white, right&wrong, real& not real interpretations.

I go to university, I talk a lot about this stuff also with the profs every now and then... Most of them avoid using "reality" "100%" etc...
Is science searching for the ultimate reality ? I'd say yes, but so far we coul only find out a lot of interactions between certain objects ...

We won't find an answer in this thread - a few hunderet universities couldn't find it within the last 2000 years...

 

[Touring Mars]

Have you heard of the term solipsism? You have to be very careful about approaching any debate from this angle, because in attempting to undermine the position of your opponent, you are also undermining your own position fatally as well...

The so-called hypothesis of solipsism holds that all of reality is the product of your mind. What experiments could be performed, what observations could be made, that could demonstrate that solipsism is wrong? Even though it is logically consistent with the data, solipsism cannot be tested by independent researchers. Any and all evidence is consistent with solipsism. Solipsism is unscientific precisely because no possible evidence could stand in contradiction to its predictions.

from here...

Questioning evolution and the biochemical basis of the processes involved in it is one thing.... questioning the nature of reality is quite another....

Ask yourself this... why is it that a debate about 'evolution' should be brought down to a discussion about the nature of reality itself?? If you wanted, you could apply the same argument to absolutely anything and everything... that point alone should serve as a caution about using the notion of solipsism as a basis for your argument. It's a pointless avenue of debate - and it has about as much to do with understanding evolution as it has to do with the price of cheese in Denmark. Sure, discuss it as much as you want in Philosophy class, but (much like Creation Theory) it has no place in Biology class.

 

[Max_DC]

Have you heard of the term solipsism? You have to be very careful about approaching any debate from this angle, because in attempting to undermine the position of your opponent, you are also undermining your own position fatally as well...

from here...

Questioning evolution and the biochemical basis of the processes involved in it is one thing.... questioning the nature of reality is quite another....

Ask yourself this... why is it that a debate about 'evolution' should be brought down to a discussion about the nature of reality itself?? If you wanted, you could apply the same argument to absolutely anything and everything... that point alone should serve as a caution about using the notion of solipsism as a basis for your argument. It's a pointless avenue of debate - and it has about as much to do with understanding evolution as it has to do with the price of cheese in Denmark. Sure, discuss it as much as you want in Philosophy class, but (much like Creation Theory) it has no place in Biology class.

Well, don't get me wrong. I am on the science side of this discussion.
I wouldn't go as far and say that reality is just a product of our mind, but oh well...

I came into this thread and reacted to a post of Swift in which he described that he feels God and that he is a kind of dialogue with him.
He describes it as if it was reality. It is obviously real to him. Then I said that discussing with beliefers ( in God/religion ) is pointless, because scientific knowledge means nothing to them. Proove it and they will still deny, because they believe.
Then I came into a kind of offtopic discussion about "reality" and all I say that
you really have to be careful when talking about this term.

I belief in science in general, physics chemistry, medicine, biology etc...

So my point was, that a careful use of words and terms is an intelligent way to discuss things.
kennythebomb said "unless you refuse to be persuaded of truth"... So what is truth ? Got my point ?

To dicuss "Creation vs Evolution" is like discussing anything in a thread with Chinese native speakers without foreign language knowledge VS Spanish native speakers without foreign language knowledge...
because you don't use the same "language"
From a scientific standpoint it is simple absurd to deny Evolution and accepting this insane 7 day story... So why even bother ? It's useless, they won't listen, they don't care, they believe and that's where it ends for them.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, I agree with what you're saying... my point about solipsism was really intended to attempt to limit the discussion generally to more specific points, rather than going down a blind alley...

 

[Max_DC]

Yes, I agree with what you're saying... my point about solipsism was really intended to attempt to limit the discussion generally to more specific points, rather than going down a blind alley...

Yeah absolutly, you have to draw the line somewhere or you have to stop discussing at all.

So I'm just curious, did science have any sucess yet ? Did a diehard beliefer stop believing ? ( Not trying to be sarcastic here, as I said, I don't follow this thread )

I assume no however... I really find it funny that they want us to proove every little detail of the universe before even considering to believe us, yet all they do is quoting from a 2000 year old book written by some random dudes, who today would probably sell stuff in teleshopping or engage in local politics...

Amusing ? Yeah, but not very satisfying to discuss...

 

[Condraz23]

I believe in science, therefore I also believe that evolution is the correct answer. There are too many religions in the world to chose from and none of them have more scientific credibility than one another. Their adherents are also chosen on the basis of geographic location, not divine revalation. I find it strange how their adherents are all 100% sure that their religion is correct, while evidence says otherwise.

 

[ledhed]

Faith can overcome fact , logic and reason all the time . They may all be right and talking about the same God or a million different other things but faith will overcome any objections or contradictions.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I have no doubt that if Swift and Pako were born in the middle east they would be hindu and belive that 100%.

 

[Condraz23]

Not all Middle Easterners are Hindus, there are some are Muslims too.

 

[Swift]

I have no doubt that if Swift and Pako were born in the middle east they would be hindu and belive that 100%.

LOL, I wasn't born a christian. If you've read a decent number of my posts, you'd know that. I'm not sure about Pako though.

But I had plenty of chance to try all kinds of different faiths, I CHOSE Christ.

Also, what are you trying to imply by that statement?