Creation vs. Evolution

[Delirious]

We live by the faith in a supernatural being and not by sight...and the sin that entered the world has put this world on a curse...

 

[Pako]

After watching that it made me think of a question to ask. Why do non-believers work so hard to try to convert us into not believing? What would this guy personally have to gain in breaking someone of their faith? Would it make the earth a better place to live if you didn't think god created the earth?

As a Christian, I would hope to convert people for reasons of eternal salvation. I want everyone to move to the next level. I hope that people would see a good motivation in that.

*snip*

That is a good question.....one can speculate, but it would take someone who's open minded and honest enough to delve into that question. I think part of human nature is to bring people into your group, to make them part of your tribe if you will. This helps to reassure you of your beliefs and customs as well as it aids in giving strength in numbers.

 

[UnoMOTO]

That is a good question.....one can speculate, but it would take someone who's open minded and honest enough to delve into that question. I think part of human nature is to bring people into your group, to make them part of your tribe if you will. This helps to reassure you of your beliefs and customs as well as it aids in giving strength in numbers.

Ah...that makes perfect sense. If I was afraid that Hell might be my next stop, it would ease my tension if my "friends" were telling me that I wouldn't be retireing there.

 

[Touring Mars]

It is a good question. I think that it is unwise for an atheist to attempt to 'convert' someone (i.e. convince someone to abandon their faith) just as it would be unwise for a Creationist Jehovah's Witness to knock on my door at 10am on a Saturday morning (which they did a few weeks ago!). I think attempting to convince someone to abandon their faith altogether is counterproductive and shows a lack of appreciation for the powerful role faith can play in someone's life.

However, I don't think that many people do try to do that. If anything, most atheist people I know would encourage people of a religious persuasion to cast a more critical eye of certain aspects of their faith, particularly those aspects which bring any particular religious belief into stark disagreement with current scientific knowledge, which is my sole reason for contributing to this thread, for example. As much as I feel it is unwise and unnecessary to question an individual's faith, I also find it essential to defend aspects of science which are being unnecessarily challenged by a vocal minority of people (the ID movement, in this case) for the sole reason that it contradicts their personal beliefs.

For me, a key question is where do you draw the line between what you believe must be true (or atleast for it to be consistent with the word of the Bible, for example) and what you know to be true because you have seen and studied the evidence. In order to successfully refute the theory of evolution, you need to abandon not only your belief in the credibility of the direct evidence, but also the laws of physics too. Whether you believe in God or not, evolution refutation is a very, very difficult pastime.

As an aside, if you enjoyed the series Blue Planet, you will absolutely love the BBC series Planet Earth. It is simply the best television series ever made, in my opinion.

 

[Famine]

After watching that it made me think of a question to ask. Why do non-believers work so hard to try to convert us into not believing? What would this guy personally have to gain in breaking someone of their faith? Would it make the earth a better place to live if you didn't think god created the earth?

It's funny, but I tend to see the opposite - people of faith trying to convert not only people not of faith but people of any different faith (Jehovah's Witnesses being a perfect example).

Most non-religious people I know express the opinion that "It doesn't really matter to me what people believe - as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat." and wouldn't dream of trying to dissuade someone from their religion.


So, to counter-question, why do believers work so hard to try to convert us into believing? What would they personally have to gain in bringing someone to their faith? Would it make the Earth a better place to live if you thought God created it?

 

[Joey D]

I'm no atheist, but I'm certainly no Christian. I don't try to convert anyone, your religious choices are whatever you want them to be and as long as your practices are with in the law go ahead and practice it. But I don't want to told I'm going to burn in hell because I don't think Jesus was the son of God or really if there is a God at all.

But on topic with this thread, people who think some magical being snapped their fingers and out popped life makes my head hurt. Also people that claim there is no evidence of evolution. And most of all people who think creationism (and only Christian creationism I might add) should be taught in school, mostly in a science class.

Evolution happened, I believe Pope John Paul II even acknowledged that fact. Just accept it, but if you are Christian just view evolution is happening by the hand of God or something.

 

[UnoMOTO]

...just as it would be unwise for a Creationist Jehovah's Witness to knock on my door at 10am on a Saturday morning (which they did a few weeks ago!).

I wonder how effective that really is for them. I never heard anyone say that they found God when this stranger knocked on my door.

For me, a key question is where do you draw the line between what you believe must be true (or atleast for it to be consistent with the word of the Bible, for example) and what you know to be true because you have seen and studied the evidence. In order to successfully refute the theory of evolution, you need to abandon not only your belief in the credibility of the direct evidence, but also the laws of physics too. Whether you believe in God or not, evolution refutation is a very, very difficult pastime.

The laughable part of your argument is how frequent it changes. The more you learn more you change the way you think about evolution as it should be. You and I both know that what you believe now is not what you might believe next year. Over time your defense has changed and mine will always be the same...right or wrong.

As an aside, if you enjoyed the series Blue Planet, you will absolutely love the BBC series Planet Earth. It is simply the best television series ever made, in my opinion.

Forgive me but I was thinking of Planet Earth when I said Blue Planet. Planet Earth is the one currently running...right?!

So, to counter-question, why do believers work so hard to try to convert us into believing? What would they personally have to gain in bringing someone to their faith? Would it make the Earth a better place to live if you thought God created it?

As a Christian, I would hope to convert people for reasons of eternal salvation. I want everyone to move to the next level. I hope that people would see a good motivation in that.

My personal gain is for me to continue our fellowship after day we die.

 

[Famine]

The laughable part of your argument is how frequent it changes. The more you learn more you change the way you think about evolution as it should be. You and I both know that what you believe now is not what you might believe next year. Over time your defense has changed and mine will always be the same...right or wrong.

You say it like change is a bad thing, or that change is binary.

As new information arises, change is logical. Immovability is not. And often the change is microscopic - the original position is preserved with a mild alteration to make it more accurate. It's not a wholesale shift which denies the original position completely.

 

[Swift]

So, to counter-question, why do believers work so hard to try to convert us into believing? What would they personally have to gain in bringing someone to their faith? Would it make the Earth a better place to live if you thought God created it?

Yes. As Unmoto has said, the goal is salvation, eternal life. I personally have nothing to gain, it's an outreach to help others.

 

[Joey D]

I don't want help and I get really sick of Christians pestering me about it, I don't tell Christians they should believe the way I do. A majority of Christians I met are self righteous people who think they are on a higher level then I because they are Christian...I know Christian values, I attended a Catholic school for 8 years, and acting like that isn't what Jesus taught.

If I want to be saved I'll come to you.

And as archaeologist uncover more fossils the more we know, so of course theories are going to change with an increased amount of evidence to go on.

 

[Danoff]

Yes. As Unmoto has said, the goal is salvation, eternal life. I personally have nothing to gain, it's an outreach to help others.

...and I think it's an entirely logical response. I know that if I believed that people I cared about were going to hell for enternity, I'd work hard and trying to save them from that damnation. If you don't, then you don't care much for your friends.

 

[Famine]

And our goal is to understand this one - the only one we have any direct evidence for.

I don't want help and I get really sick of Christians pestering me about it, I don't tell Christians they should believe the way I do. A majority of Christians I met are self righteous people who think they are on a higher level then I because they are Christian...I know Christian values, I attended a Catholic school for 8 years, and acting like that isn't what Jesus taught.

To be fair to our Christian friends here, it's not exactly confined to that sector of religion...

 

[UnoMOTO]

You say it like change is a bad thing, or that change is binary.

As new information arises, change is logical. Immovability is not. And often the change is microscopic - the original position is preserved with a mild alteration to make it more accurate. It's not a wholesale shift which denies the original position completely.

Nah...change isn't bad at all. It’s just hard to give the you the credit that you work hard to earn when what you believe is only temporary. You can't say that someday you might discover something that literally changes EVERYTHING you thought about a paticular subject. I understand that at the moment you are just adding to an idea which gives credit to your original position.

 

[Danoff]

You can't say that someday you might discover something that literally changes EVERYTHING you thought about a paticular subject.

Thinking anything else is arrogant and subject to humiliation when you inevitably find out you were wrong.

 

[Famine]

Nah...change isn't bad at all. It’s just hard to give the you the credit that you work hard to earn when what you believe is only temporary. You can't say that someday you might discover something that literally changes EVERYTHING you thought about a paticular subject. I understand that at the moment you are just adding to an idea which gives credit to your original position.

This is quite true - though it doesn't happen often, and a lot less these days.

That said, there's occasionally moments in science where there's two directly opposing ideas - Global Warming being a lovely example.

 

[Swift]

...and I think it's an entirely logical response. I know that if I believed that people I cared about were going to hell for enternity, I'd work hard and trying to save them from that damnation. If you don't, then you don't care much for your friends.

Thank you. That's exactly correct! I appreciate your understanding. Even though you don't share the same belief system.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Here is what I would be looking for to make me think...whoa...am I sure about my beliefs? Until you find life as it is here on earth elsewhere I will continue to believe that we and our planet have been created. Out of all the "really big number" of objects in space, we are the only one with evidence of our existing. Our planet looks more purpose driven than just a one in a "really big number" chance. It makes the Powerball Lottery look like a sure winner verses current odds of all the ingredients coming together like it has. Show me the Humans! Is that so tough to answer? Famine is good with numbers...how many zeros show how rare this planet is in the universe?

 

[Famine]

Here is what I would be looking for to make me think...whoa...am I sure about my beliefs? Until you find life as it is here on earth elsewhere I will continue to believe that we and our planet have been created. Out of all the "really big number" of objects in space, we are the only one with evidence of our existing. Our planet looks more purpose driven than just a one in a "really big number" chance. It makes the Powerball Lottery look like a sure winner verses current odds of all the ingredients coming together like it has. Show me the Humans! Is that so tough to answer? Famine is good with numbers...how many zeros show how rare this planet is in the universe?

It's tough to say.

Suffice to say that the rocky planets in all stars' habitable zones with liquid water present that we know of, all of them have life. So in this respect, the Earth is a 1 in 1 chance.

 

[UnoMOTO]

It's tough to say.

Suffice to say that the rocky planets in all stars' habitable zones with liquid water present that we know of, all of them have life. So in this respect, the Earth is a 1 in 1 chance.

Well then...case closed!

 

[Famine]

Not really. Problem is we haven't detected any other rocky planets in a star's habitable zone which contains liquid water. Not because we won't detect them, but because we just can't see all that well. We only discovered extrasolar planets - which were almost a statistical guarantee - in 1995, and our ability to detect them is directly proportional to their size and distance from us. The bigger and nearer they are, the more likely we are to detect them - and the bigger and nearer they are, the less likely they are to be rocky. It also depends on how far they are from their Sun - the nearer, the harder, and the further, the less likely they are to be rocky.

THEN we have the problem of detecting their composition. We are just able to detect water vapour in a planet's atmosphere. Liquid water? Currently impossible for extrasolar planets.


It's a virtual certainty that there are other rocky planets containing liquid water orbiting in other stars' habitable zones. We just can't see them yet.

 

[UnoMOTO]

It's a virtual certainty that there are other rocky planets containing liquid water orbiting in other stars' habitable zones. We just can't see them yet.

But isn't part of your theory that not only the location of our planet is important, but that over time we were hit by random space objects that introduced elements that began the chain reaction which started life? That being said, other planets would have had to be involved in those same random collisions’.

 

[Famine]

But isn't part of your theory that not only the location of our planet is important, but that over time we were hit by random space objects that introduced elements that began the chain reaction which started life?

Broadly... no. The "elements" are there in the Accretion Disk to start with.

 

[UnoMOTO]

ouch

 

[UnoMOTO]

Broadly... no. The "elements" are there in the Accretion Disk to start with.

Humm...In our own solar system the evidence doesn't broadly support that. Haven't we seen that our other planets are "missing" many elements that are needed to sustain our type of life? If Jupiter were in our location your saying that it's ready to go...so to speak?

 

[Famine]

Humm...In our own solar system the evidence doesn't broadly support that.

Well... it does. The problem - and I don't mean to sound mean here - is understanding that evidence.

Haven't we seen that our other planets are "missing" many elements that are needed to sustain our type of life?

Yes, there are.

Here's how it works with Accretion Disks.
Accretion Disks are full of "stuff".
"Stuff" has gravity.
Heavy "stuff" has more gravity than light "stuff".
Two "stuffs" together have more gravity than one "stuff".
99.999% of the stuff is hydrogen and helium.
99.98% of the stuff is in the middle.
The majority of the heavy "stuff" is gravitationally attracted towards the middle, where there's more other "stuff".
Some heavy "stuff" is gravitationally attracted towards other aggregations of "stuff".

End result:
Star in the middle: 99.98% of the "stuff" in the Solar System. Mainly hydrogen and helium, like 99.999% of the composition of the Solar System.
Heavy rocky planets near the star, made of heavy "stuff".
Gas giants - mainly hydrogen and helium like 99.999% of the composition of the Solar System - further out, with many moons (sometimes rocky).

(I hope this doesn't come across as condescending)

Obviously this perfectly models our Solar System because... well, it's a model of our Solar System. It's the only one we've been able to directly observe for the last 300 years and, as far as we know, this is how all Solar Systems form. Until we can detect Earth-sized planets (quick note - the Earth is the densest known planet and the largest rocky body in the known universe), all we can detect is gas planets and gas planets can't support life. Probably.

If Jupiter were in our location your saying that it's ready to go...so to speak?

Nope - Jupiter has no surface, no oxygen, no carbon, no liquid water, intense radiation, gravity and magnetism. It cannot support life (probably).

Being the habitable zone is only one prerequisite for life. The others are liquid water and a rocky planet. We haven't discovered anything like this yet, but our limits of observations don't currently permit us to.

 

[Duke]

And, let us add here life as we know it... which is of course limited to what you find on rocky planets with liquid water.

 

[Joey D]

Yes, I've always said water may not be the staple of life, for all we know there could be creatures that thrive in methane or hydrogen.

All I know is I would love to do an archaeological dig on Mars to see if there are remains of ancient life. Not necessarily little green men, but something.

 

[Sureboss]

Broadly... no. The "elements" are there in the Accretion Disk to start with.

I doubt Microsoft would sell those....

 

[Famine]

And, let us add here life as we know it... which is of course limited to what you find on rocky planets with liquid water.

Well quite - as far as we know, the only form of life that is possible is carbon-based and that probably requires liquid water. But until we discover a self-replicating, inheritable, information-containing non-carbon-based molecule we just won't know for sure.

For sheer amusement's sakes, you could argue that FIRE is alive - and not carbon based. To be classed as "Life", something requires 7 characteristics:

Movement. Fire moves.
Respiration. Fire consumes oxygen and produces carbon dioxide.
Sensitivity. Fire moves towards food, away from waste products, reacts to external stimuli (wind, oxygen deprivation).
Growth. Fire grows. Just look at Johnny Cash's house.
Reproduction. Fire can reproduce *puts lit match on candle wick* one flame becomes two.
Excretion. Fire excretes carbon dioxide and gaseous forms of the solid materials it consumes.
Nutrition. Fire consumes oxygen and solid materials on which it "lives".


It'd certainly be foolish to rule out non-carbon-based or non-liquid-water-requiring life - but as that's the only type we know of, it's the only type we can hope to detect on planets quadrillions of miles away. And since we can't yet detect liquid water (only atmospheric water vapour), we don't yet know of any other planet capable of supporting life outside this Solar System - meaning that of ALL of the rocky planets in ALL stars' habitable zones that ALL contain liquid water that we know of, ALL of which orbit main sequence stars, ALL of them support life.



However...

The term "Habitable Zone" is a bit of a pickle too. For a main sequence star, the habitable zone - where life is most likely to develop - is proportional to the luminosity compared to the Sun. It provides the body with not so much radiation that it frazzles (Mercury) or so little that it's a frozen, desolate wasteland (Mars). That doesn't mean that life cannot develop elsewhere in the system, or that life is guaranteed to develop there. As UnoMoto pointed out, if you put Jupiter at Earth's distance from the Sun (1AU), (out kind of) life wouldn't develop because, as far as we know, Jupiter doesn't have anything like the right resources for it. Put the Earth at the Earth's distance from the Sun but remove our magnetodynamic core and, thus, magnetosphere and we'd be scorched bare like Mars, only slightly warmer. Then again, Europa - 5.5 times further away from the Sun than the Earth is - (probably) contains abundant liquid water and conditions very similar to the Earth's deep oceans, where there is lots and lots of life, and very varied with it.

Furthermore, not all stars have a habitable zone. They must be main sequence stars - ones that start off small, get bigger and hotter over tens of billions of years and then bite the big one. The more exotic objects - pulsars, neutron stars, magnatars, black dwarfs - either produce too little radiation to heat anything, or too much radiation (or other forces - magnetism and gravity) for anything to survive in their systems. Even further still, the main sequence star in question must be located in the Galactic Habitable Zone - a region of a galaxy close enough to the centre of the galaxy to have a sufficiently high level of heavier elements required for the formation of rocky planets, but not so close that it's at risk from the stars around it - stellar collisions or nearby super/hypernovae - or the supermassive black hole which forms the core of a galaxy. Though the Galactic Habitable Zone is often quite large and contains many hundreds of millions of stars.


So currently, in order to support life, a planet must:
Be in a system in the Galactic Habitable Zone.
Be in a single-star system containing a main sequence star.
Orbit the main sequence star in the star's Habitable Zone (or receive sufficient radiation from nearby bodies to maintain HZ-like conditions).
Be rocky.
Contain liquid water.


Right now we know of only two bodies that fit the conditions. One contains life (the Earth) and, when we can get out there, we'll have a look at the other one (Europa).

 

[Touring Mars]

The laughable part of your argument is how frequent it changes. The more you learn more you change the way you think about evolution as it should be. You and I both know that what you believe now is not what you might believe next year. Over time your defense has changed and mine will always be the same...right or wrong.

My personal argument hasn't changed one bit. I still challenge any creationist to show me a single piece of evidence to refute the theory of common descent.... anyone? Not once in this thread has anybody even tried to do that.

You seem to be slightly misrepresenting what science is about. As new evidence comes to light, theories change, textbooks are updated etc., but you have to make a distinction between established facts and points of contention. The fact of the matter is that no evidence that has been put forth to refute the theory of common descent has survived scrutiny. In my book, that makes it established fact, not a so-called 'controversial theory'. It is extremely unlikely that it will be proved to be incorrect, and as such it is extremely unlikely that you will find scientists changing their minds or their arguments about it.

Ironically, even the Bible teaches it's own version of the theory of common descent - infact, this observation made by the first authors of biblical texts predates Darwin and his contemporaries by 1800 years, and no doubt played some part in leading to the discovery of the fact that all people share a common ancestry. Obviously, they were not to know what we know (as established fact) now, which is that all living things share a common ancestry, and this is provable beyond all reasonable doubt.