Creation vs. Evolution

[UnoMOTO]

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.

Right...I'll just keep it to that. No need to define life in anyother way in this paticular thread.

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.

Thanks for the in depth response. That just proves how rare and the nearly impossible odds that planet earth has landed itself in. It helps me in my own little world justify the design of us and our planet as a creation with all the right parts in place.

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.

I didn't mean you personally are a flip flopper. In your life time the general rules may not change. Over the past few hundred years for the next few hundred years is my gage for the changing argument.

We have gone over the common descent before. It was in the context of god wouldn't reinvent the wheel to make a different species. Even if the doesn't stick with anyone, I DID at least try to comment on 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.

Until you CAN prove the origin of the universe, many of the FACTS that you state are subject argument. It is this point that gives me every right to look at scientific theory with a skeptical eye.

 

[Danoff]

Thanks for the in depth response. That just proves how rare and the nearly impossible odds that planet earth has landed itself in. It helps me in my own little world justify the design of us and our planet as a creation with all the right parts in place.

To properly understand the odds you'd need more information than you have... so you can't use it to justify design.

Until you CAN prove the origin of the universe, many of the FACTS that you state are subject argument. It is this point that gives me every right to look at scientific theory with a skeptical eye.

Negative. Different scientific theories have to be taken separately, because they're based on independent science. Global warming is unrelated to evolution which is not particularly closely related with the origins of life or the origins of the universe.

So if global warming turns out to be wrong, I won't be any more skeptical of evolution. They're based on different facts, observations, and logic. You have to be able to evaluate that.

 

[Famine]

Thanks for the in depth response. That just proves how rare and the nearly impossible odds that planet earth has landed itself in. It helps me in my own little world justify the design of us and our planet as a creation with all the right parts in place.

Maybe. On the other hand...

The Milky Way is a reasonably large galaxy and contains about 100 billion stars. The Galactic Habitable Zone of the Milky Way contains about a third of the stars in the galaxy. So, let's take that as representative - the GHZ contains 1/3rd of the stars of a typical galaxy (it's not true of course - the GHZ expands over time, and some galaxies don't have one at all). Average galaxies contain about 10 billion stars, so about 3.3 billion stars sit in the habitable zone.

Roughly 9 in 10 (slightly more) of all stars are main sequence and roughly 9 in 10 star systems contain just a single star - I'm not excluding the possibility of life (as we know it) in binary/ternary and more complex systems, but it does make it that bit more complex. So we're left with about 2.7 billion stars per galaxy that are main sequence, single star systems in the GHZ.

Conservative calculations for the number of galaxies in the universe put the number at 80 billion. "Quick" maths says that's 216,000,000,000,000,000,000 (216 centillion) main sequence stars in GHZs in the known universe. Conservatively.


Accretion disk (star-forming) physics would indicate that all stars have planets. Let's ignore that and say planets only form in every hundredth case (2,160,000,000,000,000,000 eligible solar systems). Let's also fiddle around with potentials for life - say that of every hundred eligible systems, one has been rendered sterile by a catastrophe (gamma ray burst, star-star interactions, asteroid impacts) of some sort (2,138,400,000,000,000,000 eligible solar systems).

Let's take into account the numbers of planets in a solar system - the Sol system contains 8, but only 1 is in the habitable zone. Sol may or may not be typical - we've only detected 218 extrasolar planets, so we can't really say for sure if the average system contains way more or less than this. Still, it's a good ballpark to say that a given planet stands a 1 in 8 chance of sitting in the HZ (267,300,000,000,000,000 eligible planets). 3 out of our 8 planets are rocky, so let's take that into account too (100,237,500,000,000,000 eligible planets). Let's go the whole hog - 1 of our 3 rocky planets has liquid water on it (33,412,500,000,000,000 eligible planets).


So we're looking at 33,412,500,000,000,000 (33 quadrillion) planets which are rocky, contain liquid water, orbiting a main sequence star in its habitable zone which sits in a Galactic Habitable Zone out in our known universe. So far, we've detected one - and the reason is that we just cannot see rocky planets in HZ orbits from so damned far away. They're just too small and too close to their suns and in any case we can't detect liquid water. Yet.

 

[UnoMOTO]

To properly understand the odds you'd need more information than you have... so you can't use it to justify design.

Agreed...I have no problem with you providing that information for me then. OOOOR...Famine has done so in the post following yours.

Negative. Different scientific theories have to be taken separately, because they're based on independent science. Global warming is unrelated to evolution which is not particularly closely related with the origins of life or the origins of the universe.

So if global warming turns out to be wrong, I won't be any more skeptical of evolution. They're based on different facts, observations, and logic. You have to be able to evaluate that.

I'm not sure why you mentioned Global warming. I didn't and I wasn't throwing in any other areas of science. I was only stating creation of the universe science. It appears that this part of your post is completely irrelevant.

Maybe. On the other hand...

Great numbers! That’s good fun reading. Unfortunately, what portion of the numbers is actually provable? The numbers are largely based on assumption. Even for the factual types may prove to be out of the universe in the end.

 

[Danoff]

Agreed...I have no problem with you providing that information for me then. OOOOR...Famine has done so in the post following yours.

Actually I think you made my point nicely with this:

Great numbers! That’s good fun reading. Unfortunately, what portion of the numbers is actually provable? The numbers are largely based on assumption. Even for the factual types may prove to be out of the universe in the end.

You need more information before you can determine how unusual our planet is.

I'm not sure why you mentioned Global warming. I didn't and I wasn't throwing in any other areas of science. I was only stating creation of the universe science. It appears that this part of your post is completely irrelevant.

Because you said:

Until you CAN prove the origin of the universe, many of the FACTS that you state are subject argument. It is this point that gives me every right to look at scientific theory with a skeptical eye.

You can't take the fact that the origin of the universe is unproven as evidence that all scientific theory should be approached with with great skepticism. The fact that we cannot fully explain the origin of the universe has no bearing on whether we're correct about evolution. Similarly, the validity of the global warming claims have no bearing on whether or not F=ma.

 

[Stevisiov]

Great numbers! That’s good fun reading. Unfortunately, what portion of the numbers is actually provable? The numbers are largely based on assumption. Even for the factual types may prove to be out of the universe in the end.

While you may argue that the numbers are assumptions, read through it again and then maybe again. They seem a fairly good assumption to me, even if they are exaggerated (which they don't appear to be) checkout the final result 33.4 quadrillion. His estimates would have to be out by an absolutely massive margine for there to be any low outcome for the number of planets capable of supporting life. I don't think you realise quite how big the universe is. Now you may still say that the argument is based on un-proven science, let me ask you how do you PROVE your argument?

 

[UnoMOTO]

You can't take the fact that the origin of the universe is unproven as evidence that all scientific theory should be approached with with great skepticism. The fact that we cannot fully explain the origin of the universe has no bearing on whether we're correct about evolution. Similarly, the validity of the global warming claims have no bearing on whether or not F=ma.

I know your trying to bring our previous discussions about science into this one but I am not trying to argure your point. I will repeat it again for you. I am just talking about the creation of the universe and how it relates to the creation of our planet. I am not taking on all science. I ask you again to please leave things like global warming or other non-related issues out of this one. It would only take us off topic like it normally does. Thanks 👍

While you may argue that the numbers are assumptions, read through it again and then maybe again. They seem a fairly good assumption to me, even if they are exaggerated (which they don't appear to be) checkout the final result 33.4 quadrillion. His estimates would have to be out by an absolutely massive margine for there to be any low outcome for the number of planets capable of supporting life. I don't think you realise quite how big the universe is. Now you may still say that the argument is based on un-proven science, let me ask you how do you PROVE your argument?

No matter how good or bad the assumption you think it is, it still at the present time can't be proven. What more do you want me to say? I understand the massive numbers that we are talking here. That will prove itself out someday maybe. If we figure out that there are 33.4 quadrillion other earths out there then guess what? Nothing happens to me because when i'm dead...well...I'll just be DEAD. When the day comes that you find out that I am right...OUCH! And no I can't prove my argument and I don't have too. Each and every single one of us will have it proven to us when our time has come. I know, I know It seems unfair that you guys live by rules of proving this and proving that. I just have faith in a book that it is just as it says it is. I like to you challange at your own game. Something must have proof for you to pass it on as a fact of some sort. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow and that is good enough for me. I like to understand how it will come up but it isn't a requirement for me.

 

[FoolKiller]

Great numbers! That’s good fun reading. Unfortunately, what portion of the numbers is actually provable? The numbers are largely based on assumption. Even for the factual types may prove to be out of the universe in the end.

Actually, his assumptions were made in such a way to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I mean, he could have gone with the theory that the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite, or even expanding so fast that you cannot reach the end without altering space and time, then you must consider that there are an infinite number of possibilities for life to form on another planet. That would make the odds of at least one other planet sustaining life as we know it infinite.

Now, I am a Christian, so consider where I take this next statement seriously. If we truly are created by God and whether it happened like in Genesis or he just <POOF> made it ten seconds ago would not change the fact that the laws of physics that he set up for us to be able to exist in the universe that he created around us still give very good odds for life of some form to begin forming somewhere else. Sure, it may not have a soul or any form of spiritual core, but that doesn't mean it couldn't exist.

So, unless you think the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and everything we see in our telescopes is faked to test our faith it is folly, even as a creationist, to assume that extraterrestrial life absolutely cannot exist. Call it a side-effect of creation, if you will. The only way that none would exist is if God spent more time watching the rest of the universe than Earth.

 

[Danoff]

I know your trying to bring our previous discussions about science into this one but I am not trying to argure your point. I will repeat it again for you. I am just talking about the creation of the universe and how it relates to the creation of our planet. I am not taking on all science. I ask you again to please leave things like global warming or other non-related issues out of this one. It would only take us off topic like it normally does. Thanks 👍

My post was entirely on-topic. It is you who are trying to take us off topic by talking about the origins of the universe when the discussion is about evolution. Here's how the conversation went.

You: Because this science can't explain this unrelated thing, I won't believe science in regards to the topic.
Me: You can't use science's inability to explain an unrelated topic to prove that it can't answer the question at hand.
You: What does that unrelated topic have to do with the question at hand?
Me: You said that because science can't answer an unrelated question, it can't answer the one at hand. That is incorrect.
You: Please don't bring up unrelated topics again.

In the future, if you're not willing to discuss things outside of the immediate thread topic, please don't bring them up in the first place. Thanks. 👍

 

[UnoMOTO]

In the future, if you're not willing to discuss things outside of the immediate thread topic, please don't bring them up in the first place. Thanks. 👍

Look...All I asked was for Famine to give me the odds of another planet like ours with our type of life existing on it. I was curious about step one in the process. That my friend is how it is on topic. Famine gave us the numbers to the best of his knowledge and I am content with his side of the argument. Not factual results but theoretical results at any rate. I will not try to debate you about how other types of science relate to the odds that I asked Famine for. Done!

 

[Danoff]

I will not try to debate you about how other types of science relate to the odds that I asked Famine for. Done!

I'm fine with that. Next time don't start a discussion you don't want to have.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I'm fine with that. Next time don't start a discussion you don't want to have.

I'd like to call an objection! Your honor....Danoff is leading the witness

 

[Stevisiov]

'Uno Moto' Let me get this straight, are you trying to state that our argument is incorrect because we can't prove it yet, but your argument is correct because you have faith in it but you can't prove it!?, well I have faith in science does that still make me wrong? is science not good enough?

I just can't quite understand your logic on this. Why, when we can't prove our argument but can make accurate estimates: WRONG. But when you can't prove yours or even give any evidence, you are RIGHT.

Please keep you answer as concise as possible. No beating about the bush!

 

[UnoMOTO]

'Uno Moto' Let me get this straight, are you trying to state that our argument is incorrect because we can't prove it yet, but your argument is correct because you have faith in it but you can't prove it!?, well I have faith in science does that still make me wrong? is science not good enough?

That has been covered at length many times by many users other then myself many pages back in this very thread. I don't mean to leave you hanging but I don't think I want to get into the details again on that subject.

I just can't quite understand your logic on this. Why, when we can't prove our argument but can make accurate estimates: WRONG. But when you can't prove yours or even give any evidence, you are RIGHT.

As Danoff being our resident expert on logic can verify that my faith has nothing to do with your logic. The two will never add up.

Please keep you answer as concise as possible. No beating about the bush!

As your reading back a few pages, Pako and swift have made very concise arguments about our type of thinking. If that doesn't make sense then maybe a PM conversation could be more appropriate then hashing it out in here again.

 

[Earth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

"...it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man"

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

"chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,"

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

 

[Danoff]

Nice find Earth. That article is a strong boost to evolutionary theory and further solidifies the notion that we didn't just pop into existence as-is.

 

[Earth]

Nice find Earth. That article is a strong boost to evolutionary theory and further solidifies the notion that we didn't just pop into existence as-is.

Things don't pop into existence, just like how things don't create themselves

 

[Danoff]

Now the question is how you can say that and still believe in creation.

 

[Earth]

My beliefs do not include things popping into existance, nor do they involve cells or any other living thing creating itself

 

[Danoff]

I guess we have that in common. But I was pretty sure the Bible went on about things popping into existence.

 

[Earth]

Some interpret the Bible to say such things, but upon further investigation it is obvious it doesn't.

 

[Famine]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

"...it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man"

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

"chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,"

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Hmm...

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years.

[...]

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

No it isn't...

When a daughter is born, the mother doesn't instantly die (most of the time, anyway). They live alongside each other for a while and then one of them - usually the mother - dies.

Just as when a daughter species arises, the mother species doesn't instantly die. They live alongside each other for a while and then one of them - usually the mother species - dies.


Assuming that two species which live at the same time are not mother/daughter species shows a lack of understanding of what evolution really is - and what actually happens. At some point, the two species must interract, not least because speciation happens over a very long period of time.

 

[Swift]

Wow, back for another round huh?

Anyway, as far as things "popping" into existence. What about the big bang? That was literally the universe popping into existence. But then we just go right back down the same path as where did the matter for the big bang come from...nature. Where did nature come from?...we don't know yet. So it's a bit of a wasted argument at this point.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, back for another round huh?

Anyway, as far as things "popping" into existence. What about the big bang? That was literally the universe popping into existence. But then we just go right back down the same path as where did the matter for the big bang come from...nature. Where did nature come from?...we don't know yet. So it's a bit of a wasted argument at this point.

Hehe, interesting take.

The big bang isn't really anything popping into existance. It's an evolution of matter from a very violent event - but it can be traced back to it's origins.

The trick is figuring out where that initial ball of matter came from. We already know that big balls of matter can explode.

 

[UnoMOTO]

Wow, back for another round huh?

 

[Danoff]

Some interpret the Bible to say such things, but upon further investigation it is obvious it doesn't.

Regardless, you have to admit that the more complicated the fossil history of humanity becomes, the more clear it is that we were not created directly by God.

 

[Swift]

Hehe, interesting take.

The big bang isn't really anything popping into existance. It's an evolution of matter from a very violent event - but it can be traced back to it's origins.

The trick is figuring out where that initial ball of matter came from. We already know that big balls of matter can explode.

Is that not what I initially said?

 

[Danoff]

Is that not what I initially said?

Nope.

"literally the universe popping into existence" != "evolution of matter from a very violent event"

I should probably have used the word "propagation" rather than "evolution", but the basic idea is the same.

 

[Swift]

Nope.

"literally the universe popping into existence" != "evolution of matter from a very violent event"

I should probably have used the word "propagation" rather than "evolution", but the basic idea is the same.

So where did the matter come from for this very violent event? Did it just magically appear? My point was this argument is useless until scientists can prove where the matter that makes up the universe came from. IF/When they can do that is when you can make direct arguments against the story of genesis(excluding mankind) and the big bang.

 

[Danoff]

So where did the matter come from for this very violent event? Did it just magically appear?

I don't know. But I don't feel the need to come up with a story in the meantime.

My point was this argument is useless until scientists can prove where the matter that makes up the universe came from.

Not following. You're saying that the new evidence that has been found regarding man's ancestors doesn't help prove that man didn't suddenly spring into existence as-is? The more variations of man that we find from our early days - the more obvious it becomes that we've evolved.