Creation vs. Evolution

[Dotini]

All that would seem to be definitive, and I don't doubt it much. On the other hand, it seems Wikipedia itself has been in the news lately, as in some type of internal controversy or rioting. It seems largish numbers of editors are leaving en masse, or some such. I don't know that this relates to the present discussion, but might someone else?

 

[Exorcet]

All that would seem to be definitive, and I don't doubt it much. On the other hand, it seems Wikipedia itself has been in the news lately, as in some type of internal controversy or rioting. It seems largish numbers of editors are leaving en masse, or some such. I don't know that this relates to the present discussion, but might someone else?

That's fine as Wikipedia isn't a source, but a collection of sources. I sometimes think to myself that they should move the references to the top of the page. If you really care about getting the best info off Wiki, use the references. I was just posting some quick examples.

 

[Dotini]

Wouldn't it be funny if man starting to genetically engineer himself?
Suppose that at first it was just to make muscles and sexual organs larger. Then it was to make brains reconfigured larger and capable of computer-like memory and speed. Unfortunately, it might result in unintended consequences as men evolved into powerful, cruel monsters! By chance, a huge flood might come and wipe out all humanity except a small band of unmodified aboriginals. A few thousand years afterward their scientists might still be debating creation vs evolution.

 

[niky]

We've already covered all this. The earth being round was proven centuries ago and is conclusively provable at anytime in realtime demonstrably and observably. Evolution cannot be. It is only speculated as being factual in the abstract. All evidence of the same category, regaurding reproduction is contrary to evolution.

Nope. It isn't. And it wasn't.

You can't prove the Earth is round in realtime, nor can you record its size without the use of technology. You need two observers connected by instantaneous radio at set locations a known number of kilometers apart at the same latitude.

You don't know the number of kilometers unless you use GPS. In which case, you're assuming that the GPS is correct, now...aren't you? But you accept on faith that the GPS is correct, because you have no idea how those science types make GPS work.

And you assume that your radio is instant. Or not. You don't really know. You can only accept that it's as close to it as you need it to be.

And you'll have to rely on mathematics that assume the Earth is perfectly spherical (which it isn't) and that is based on abstract mathematics.

-

Now, evidence for Evolution is observable in the real-time, in the here and now, and doesn't require math to understand. Just the patience to wait several months for gestation to finish.

Incomplete interbreedability between canine species. Which sometimes produces infertile crossbreeds. Evidence of incomplete speciation.

Incomplete interbreedability between large feline species. Which sometimes produces infertile crossbreeds. Evidence of incomplete speciation.

Incomplete interbreedability between equine species. Which sometimes produces infertile crossbreeds. Evidence of incomplete speciation.

You still haven't answered how or why that's possible... or how it happens when you yourself asserted that all species reproduce only after their own kind.

It's quite easy to ignore the answers we've been throwing at you, again and again, simply because you can't explain them... but we're going to bring them up, again and again, until you acknowledge that such evidence exists and actually debunk that evidence instead of dredging up that tired old "inconclusive" argument (with no specificity) you've been peddling for the past ten pages.

You need to add "speculative emissions" to your repertoire. Thats precisely what they are.

No they're not.

You burn magnesium, you get a set of spectral emissions lines. You burn aluminum, you get another. There is no way you can burn aluminum and get the set for magnesium, no matter how hard you try.

And that's something you can observe in realtime... with a burner and a spectrometer.

If the evidence is still as yet inconclusive, tell me how your acceptance of it to be factual, could be considered anything but faith and assumption?

Nobody is saying the evidence is still as yet inconclusive except you. But you're not bothering to even talk about the evidence we've given at all except to dismiss it as inconclusive without giving proofs as to why.

 

[wfooshee]

The earth being round was proven centuries ago and is conclusively provable at anytime in realtime demonstrably and observably.

Proceed, please. My observation is that the earth is flat, other than the hilly parts.

 

[Dotini]

Nobody is saying the evidence is still as yet inconclusive except you. But you're not bothering to even talk about the evidence we've given at all except to dismiss it as inconclusive without giving proofs as to why.

Well, we've had another rollicking good day at the creation/evolution debate, swinging from the sublime to the ridiculous. It's morning now, and important to emphasize that no conclusive proofs are wonted, as it would spoil all the fun. Evolutionists have been served up a meal, but the creationist has had his sandwich. As Famine has said in another context, the closer reality is examined the more conditional, weird and untestable it becomes.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

OK guys, after a fairly long break to lead my real life, I'm back! I'm not even sure how many people remember me, but nonetheless, this is one of the most interesting threads I was a part of. So what did I miss? It appears as though the most recent 'substantive' points are aimed at tearing down the credibility of evolution, which, I must point out, is NOT a positive argument for the correctness of divine creation, even if such arguments had a factual basis.

Have I got the gist of it, or should I read the last few pages more thoroughly?

 

[DK]

I seriously think we should have a poll. But seeing as ledhed has been gone for three months, I'm not hopeful. But can a moderator add a poll to a thread, even if it's not his?

 

[Sureboss]

Of course.

 

[Touring Mars]

Welcome back, CLS 👍 As you can see, we've made alot of progress in your absence.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Welcome back, CLS 👍 As you can see, we've made alot of progress in your absence.

Good to see you still holding the line, TM! 👍

Given that the Evolution vs. Creationism debate has always been a microcosm of the overarching conflict between religious faith and reason, I guess that the classic dialectic stalemate shouldn't be surprising. The intractability of faith-based belief is frightening, but sadly, nothing new. Nor should we be surprised by how "offensive" people seem to find it when such beliefs are called into question.

It'd be interesting to see if we could inject something fresh into the discussion though, so I guess my most pertinent question would be this:

Are there any proponents of divine creation (or ID or whatever guise it runs under these days) who can offer some positive arguments FOR its credibility? Maybe someone has a fresh take on irreducable complexity that we haven't heard before? Maybe a new look at the blind watchmaker stance? Something totally new?

I'm sure all of us on the side of Evolution would like to respond to a positive claim from the other side, rather than continue bickering over the correct definitions of the terms of the debate.

 

[wfooshee]

Isn't gonna happen. Faith and belief do not require credibility, just repetition.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Isn't gonna happen. Faith and belief do not require credibility, just repetition.

When talking about a "true believer", I'd agree.

I HAVE, though, talked to a fair number of "moderate" religious people who indeed DO have some measure of respect for reason, doubt, and the processes of science, and WANT to think of themselves as generally rational people. I'd argue that it's with people like this that this debate would be most productive. It's certainly where "our side" would have the greatest likelihood of changing minds.

It's easy to argue that religious faith is indeed FULLY intractable but I suspect that it's far more likely sustaining itself on an ever-more apparent foundation of internal conflict. I'd very much like to believe, and in fact DO think, that the growing visibility of debates like this, and more outspoken secular figures among society in general, will begin to give license to those who have internal doubt but are afraid to give it voice, to give it just that voice. This unspoken social contract that claims it's somehow unacceptable and offensive to criticize religious faith is a wall that insulates and amplifies this cognitive dissonance. If one were to take one brick of this wall out though, and allow the light of reason to shine in and illuminate the absurdity of what 'moderates' seems to want so desperately to cling to, I've no doubt that you'd see a sudden surge in secularism.

That's what unashamedly engaging the moderate sectors of faith is - taking a pickaxe to the wall. It's easy to target the Pat Robertsons of the world because they're such juicy targets, but that's not where social change will occur. They built, reinforced, and repaired the wall; they aren't themselves the wall.

To make this more concrete, take a look at a figure like Mother Teresa. Her true moral motivations and the recent controversy surrounding her aside, she's generally held up by the church as a paragon of faith to a 'faithless' world. Yet her personal correspondance with the Vatican paints a very different picture. As her ministry went on, she wrote to her superiors that she no longer felt the presence of ANYTHING, even while performing the sacraments or attending mass - not even a whisper of the presence of God. Her superiors told her that this was good - that she was suffering, just as her flock was suffering - but if someone as outwardly faithful as her can harbor such doubt, it's virtually imperative that the strong seeds of such doubt exist everywhere in society.

 

[Joel]

We won't make any progress, as long as SCJ keeps thinking Science is faith based.

 

[Duke]

This whole discussion, and world events in general, have had me wondering: are we living through the last hysterical death throes of religion?

I've been thinking this over for a few years now, and my guardedly optimistic answer is YES. Unfortunately, my pessimistic prediction is that there is still a hundred years left in that old dog God, so he's likely to bite many more people before he's through.

[edit] CLICK HERE to follow this thought in a more on-topic location.

 

[Dotini]

It'd be interesting to see if we could inject something fresh into the discussion though, so I guess my most pertinent question would be this:

Are there any proponents of divine creation (or ID or whatever guise it runs under these days) who can offer some positive arguments FOR its credibility? Maybe someone has a fresh take on irreducable complexity that we haven't heard before? Maybe a new look at the blind watchmaker stance? Something totally new?

I'm sure all of us on the side of Evolution would like to respond to a positive claim from the other side, rather than continue bickering over the correct definitions of the terms of the debate.

Hi, CraftyLandShark. I'm on record here as accepting evolution as the best current explanation for the descent of species, and also as rejecting all forms of organized religion. So I couldn't credibly argue for the divine creation side for which you are soliciting pugilists.

However, in lieu of genuine creationists to debate, I can toss the following scrap into the ring:

We humans ought to be humble about our place in the universe. There is enough weirdness in our explanations of sub-atomic particle physics to make a magician's socks roll up and down. Problems, puzzles and paradoxes bedevil and plague our understanding of the macro-universe. There are anomalies aplenty in everyday life. Large (25kg) blocks of ice, schools of fish, and chunks of rotten meat occasionally fall from a clear blue sky. UFO's pop in and out of the sky, the sea, and even solid rock. The Moon shows signs of artificiality and being maneuvered into its present position. It is perfectly placed to perform a total solar eclipse. In sum, a reasonable, empirically minded person might rightfully suspect that there is more, maybe a lot more, to our reality than is currently understood.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[CraftyLandShark]

We humans ought to be humble about our place in the universe. There is enough weirdness in our explanations of sub-atomic particle physics to make a magician's socks roll up and down. Problems, puzzles and paradoxes bedevil and plague our understanding of the macro-universe. There are anomalies aplenty in everyday life. Large (25kg) blocks of ice, schools of fish, and chunks of rotten meat occasionally fall from a clear blue sky. UFO's pop in and out of the sky, the sea, and even solid rock. The Moon shows signs of artificiality and being maneuvered into its present position. It is perfectly placed to perform a total solar eclipse. In sum, a reasonable, empirically minded person might rightfully suspect that there is more, maybe a lot more, to our reality than is currently understood.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

There most certainly is! Although the specific examples you cite are in some cases ... ahem ... questionable, at best, there'd be no point to science if there WASN'T a lot more to reality than we currently know.

On the humility angle, I think it was Dawkins who pointed out that there are few groups of people more strictly, rigorously, and institutionally humble than scientists. Most are eager to see their work and observations improved upon, expanded upon, or refuted altogether, because the goal of science is a greater understanding of reality, not personal glory.

I'd, in fact, argue that faith, particularly belief in Creationism, is quite the opposite of a humble position. It seems, in the face of such a vast existence, to be the height of hubris to believe that we were specially created by a loving father-god who favors us above all.

Always good to have a devil's advocate

 

[hellnback]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back the bus up...

The Moon shows signs of artificiality and being maneuvered into its present position

IF you bothered to invest a little time, you would have read that over the 4.4 billion years since the moons formation it has slowly moved out to it's current location. It continues to move away from the earth at about 15cm/6 inches per year by memory. (Seemingly insignificant when considering distances and time-scales involved with the solar system/universe, but critical when put together)

The curious thing, if anything, that in the short time since humans have become aware of and have had an understanding of it's surroundings coincides with the period whereby it is just at the right distance for total eclipses.

At the beginning the moon was too close to effectively control earths rotation and osciliation of the equator. As it has slowly moved further away over an extremely long period the earths stability has settled to a period where had it not happened, we wouldn't be arguing "Creation vs Evolution".

Take that last statement in whatever way of the argument suits you.

The fact is the moon will continue to move away from earth when in a billion years from now, there will be no such thing as a total eclipse.

The moon will eventually move so far away where it will again lose it's stabling effect on the earth, and earth will revert back to it's chaotic beginnings... whether on or this happens before the sun expands to a diameter which makes life impossible... nobody knows

 

[Dotini]

...over the 4.4 billion years since the moons formation it has slowly moved out to it's current location. It continues to move away from the earth at about 15cm/6 inches per year by memory. (Seemingly insignificant when considering distances and time-scales involved with the solar system/universe, but critical when put together)

The curious thing, if anything, that in the short time since humans have become aware of and have had an understanding of it's surroundings coincides with the period whereby it is just at the right distance for total eclipses.

At the beginning the moon was too close to effectively control earths rotation and osciliation of the equator. As it has slowly moved further away over an extremely long period the earths stability has settled to a period where had it not happened, we wouldn't be arguing "Creation vs Evolution".

Take that last statement in whatever way of the argument suits you.

The fact is the moon will continue to move away from earth when in a billion years from now, there will be no such thing as a total eclipse.

The moon will eventually move so far away where it will again lose it's stabling effect on the earth, and earth will revert back to it's chaotic beginnings... whether on or this happens before the sun expands to a diameter which makes life impossible... nobody knows

hellnback, right you are about the gradual opening of the Moon's orbit. Fossil tidal varves provide good evidence of this. I disagree that the Moon was formed 4.4b years ago, but heck, my teaser argument was cursory at best and could only begin to hint at various evidences and their consideration. In my little library I have seven volumes wholly or partly devoted to the Moon. I have even read them! We could discuss the Moon and its mysteries, but I doubt there is much current interest.

Best wishes,
Dotini

 

[AvanGard]

http://www.youtube.com/v/NaEj3g5GOYA

NSFW - Language

 

[Touring Mars]

Are there any proponents of divine creation (or ID or whatever guise it runs under these days) who can offer some positive arguments FOR its credibility?

​

 

[CraftyLandShark]

​

Bwahahahaha!

The sad thing is, at first glimpse, I saw an image of a cricket, and without paying attention to the file length or who posted it, I got all excited for a moment. I thought someone had come up with something.

BOO to uncreative Creationists!

 

[Mark T]

This whole discussion, and world events in general, have had me wondering: are we living through the last hysterical death throes of religion?

I've been thinking this over for a few years now, and my guardedly optimistic answer is YES. Unfortunately, my pessimistic prediction is that there is still a hundred years left in that old dog God, so he's likely to bite many more people before he's through.

[edit] CLICK HERE to follow this thought in a more on-topic location.

I think that in western civilisation religion will eventually fade but of course there will always be those who refuse to believe anything else. I also think that as religion does begin to fade the extremism of it's followers will increase. There's nothing I would like more than to look a couple of hundred years in the future to see how religion has changed.

 

[DK]

The thing which bewilders me the most is: if God is so great, why the 🤬 would he create the most useless and annoying animals, e.g. flies? Here's a little poem that's in my English textbook for school:

God in his wisdom invented the fly
And then forgot to tell us why.

Of course, there is a purpose to the fly: to eat the flesh off of carcasses of dead animals.

 

[homeforsummer]

I would disagree that there's a purpose to the fly, as such, no more so than there is a "purpose" to humans being here too, but to some extent I understand what you're saying - a fly is essentially symbiotic with various other organisms be they creatures or plants, and those creatures and plants, not to mention the flies themselves, would have evolved differently or might not have even existed without the presence of the other.

For example, in the absence of a particular fly, a bird that feeds on that fly wouldn't exist in areas without the fly. If the particular fly didn't exist at all, then the bird may well have evolved over time to eat something else.

A fly doesn't solely exist in order to "eat the flesh off of carcasses of dead animals" (or to be strictly accurate, lay their eggs in rotting matter so the larvae can feed off it), but the existance of dead animals no doubt influences the fly's evolution.

The existance of plants and animals has direct influence on the environment in which they live. So far from being useless, flies are likely vital in some environments, no matter how annoying they can be...

 

[niky]

Ah... but they're only vital because that ecosystem grew up around them.

Much like suburbia and the automobile. Yes, automobiles are a freedom-enhancing tool, but the modern automobile, built like a tank to withstand impacts at 80 mph, given an engine that'll do such speeds and carrying the fuel needed to move all that mass along, was shaped partially by the needs of suburbia.

Suburbia, which was made possible by the invention of the automobile.

But the automobile, in the eyes of Gaiologists, is a pest. It causes pollution, uses up resources that could feed other artificial life forms, like trains, buses and power plants. They would like to kill it off.

But take away the automobile, and the suburban ecosystem collapses. It may take a while. You can introduce other species (like trains and buses) to take up the slack, but in the end, a busing service to suburban areas with too few customers isn't viable, and you have a full eco-collapse of that habitat. Which devolves into a ghost town... a fossil remnant of a failed community.

It's amazing what diverse factors conservationists have to consider when balancing out a wildlife preserve.

 

[homeforsummer]

That's what I mean. Like cities and cars, plants and creatures are invariably symbiotic.

 

[DK]

BOO to uncreative Creationists!

The myth of creationism that we know in the Bible is between 2,000 and 3,000 years old, and we knew relatively nothing about the universe back then as compared to then.

 

[Dotini]

The myth of creationism that we know in the Bible is between 2,000 and 3,000 years old, and we knew relatively nothing about the universe back then as compared to then.

Sorry driftking18594, but you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. If that's the best you can do then you should to get back to your controller or nipple or whatever. The creation stories told in the Bible are largely based on earlier texts from the Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians and others from hundreds to thousands of years earlier. These ancients that you have so poorly attempted to put down were far smarter than you know.

By the way, your grammar is pitiable.

Don't get me wrong, your participation is welcome, and you bring a certain levity to the scene. But it would be appreciated if you put a little more thought into your remarks.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

♫ It's all the same, only the names will change ♫

That Bon Jovi lyrics pretty much sums up all creation myths, they are essentially the same thing with different names.