Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,024 views
dylansan
Premium
- 4,999
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
And if that wall of blather came from an ordinary, non blathery wall, it's come from it's own kind, right? So no evolution of logic has taken place?
Hmm, depends... SCJ, how much fallacy would have to be imparted on to an otherwise logical argument for it to be considered a different "kind" of logic?
- 14,060
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
I'd actually like to see some proof of this bullcrap that is creationism or whatever it's calling itself these days. Creationists continuously attack evolution, mentioning things like "missing links" and "the Bible is an undeniable and truthful account of Earth's history". It's not. The Earth is not c.5,700 years old. Here's what kicks that theory in the crotch: light. Light can only travel so far in a year: 9,460,730,472,580.8km. Or, 9.46 trillion km if you want to round it up to three significant figures. The Andromeda galaxy is 2 million light years away. And yet we can see it, and we're seeing it as it was 2 million years ago. We've seen objects billions of light years away. So Earth is not c.5,700 years old. I'm interested in where this figure came from. Then there's the missing links. As someone probably pointed out somewhere in this thread, only 0.01-0.1% of all organisms are fossilised. So, chances are that some organisms never became fossilised. Not one record of their existence remains. So there's bound to be some missing links. And some fossils may lie in areas that are impossible to find fossils in, such as high up in the mountains, or in the Russian tundra, under metres of permafrost, or in the Sahara under tens or even hundreds of metres of sand. So we're bound to miss a few fossils here and there.
SuperCobraJet, before you blindly attack evolution, try and find some evidence for creationism that isn't in a book full of stories that have just been borrowed from other civilizations. Evolutionist organisation? That's a load of bollocks, if you ask me. There's no "secret police" of Darwinists ready to spray crap all over your name and reputation. There's no "Darwinist conspiracy" for world domination. And believe me I'm fed up of all these creationists slandering Charles Darwin for standing up and challenging their beliefs that frankly are dumber than a brick.SuperCobraJet
Joey D
Premium
- 47,510
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
The reason for the 6,000 year old Earth, I believe, is that if you go back through generations in the Bible you get to Adam & Eve about 6,000-10,000 years ago. Basically it takes a literal interpretation of the Bible and works it into some odd theory.
If you really want to read about it, the official term is Young Earth Creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
And if you ask most creationist they are just going to cite the Bible as their source.
If you really want to read about it, the official term is Young Earth Creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
And if you ask most creationist they are just going to cite the Bible as their source.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
This figure came from James Ussher, a 17th Century Anglican Archbishop in Ireland. Using his personal theories, he calculated that Earth was created in 4004 BC, making the Earth approximately 6014 years old.
Gorac does indeed have many powers,
Dotini
- 919
So SCJ, from your response, as near as I can tell, your entire definition of "the facts in evidence" against evolution consist of the singular assertion that animals reproduce "after their own kind". I won't address how vague that is because several others already have.
Here's what I will address. Pay attention, this is important.
Evolution is concerned with diversification, not reproduction. The two terms are not interchangeable. This is what we mean when we accuse you of redefining terms. The bible doesn't say that "new species spawn of their own kind" - that claim is absurd on its face. In fact, the bible doesn't address diversification at all. Despite this, we see evidence of diversification everywhere in nature. In the case of the molestus, we actually directly observe such diversification. Hence, we look for a theory, outside of the bible, that explains all the facts. We find evolution. Its neccessary predictions are testable, and it's passed every test that it's undergone. If that one day is no longer the case, we'll look for an explanation that better fits the facts.
The lesson here? Critique evolution for what it addresses, not for what you wish it addressed. Ben Stein fell into the same pit in your favorite movie. His arguments against evolution presuppose that evolution has something to say about abiogenesis, cosmology, and astrophysics, among others. It doesn't. It ONLY describes the mechanism of special diversification at work where organic life already exists.
This is where I get seriously incredulous with the creationist viewpoint. Since evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis, why spend so much time arguing against it when, assuming a belief in God, it could simply be an elegant process that he set in motion? I'd still disagree, but at least you'd be acknowledging reality and simply attributing it to an imaginary source. That's at least somewhat more reasonable. I can only assume that refusing to make such a conciliation is borne of the belief that the bible is strictly, literally true.
If that's the case, there's no need for me to speak to your assertion that the Bible holds any scientific credibility whatsoever. We'll let the voice coming from the burning bush handle that one.
Here's what I will address. Pay attention, this is important.
Evolution is concerned with diversification, not reproduction. The two terms are not interchangeable. This is what we mean when we accuse you of redefining terms. The bible doesn't say that "new species spawn of their own kind" - that claim is absurd on its face. In fact, the bible doesn't address diversification at all. Despite this, we see evidence of diversification everywhere in nature. In the case of the molestus, we actually directly observe such diversification. Hence, we look for a theory, outside of the bible, that explains all the facts. We find evolution. Its neccessary predictions are testable, and it's passed every test that it's undergone. If that one day is no longer the case, we'll look for an explanation that better fits the facts.
The lesson here? Critique evolution for what it addresses, not for what you wish it addressed. Ben Stein fell into the same pit in your favorite movie. His arguments against evolution presuppose that evolution has something to say about abiogenesis, cosmology, and astrophysics, among others. It doesn't. It ONLY describes the mechanism of special diversification at work where organic life already exists.
This is where I get seriously incredulous with the creationist viewpoint. Since evolution makes no claims about abiogenesis, why spend so much time arguing against it when, assuming a belief in God, it could simply be an elegant process that he set in motion? I'd still disagree, but at least you'd be acknowledging reality and simply attributing it to an imaginary source. That's at least somewhat more reasonable. I can only assume that refusing to make such a conciliation is borne of the belief that the bible is strictly, literally true.
If that's the case, there's no need for me to speak to your assertion that the Bible holds any scientific credibility whatsoever. We'll let the voice coming from the burning bush handle that one.
Last edited:
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
Sorry if this has been discussed many times over 322 pages, but I was wondering:
Has anyone ventured the thought that evolution and creationism are not incompatible ideas? That with a little bit of work they could both work harmoniously?
Again sorry if this has come up, I don't think a years worth of reading could get through 322 pages of this thread
Has anyone ventured the thought that evolution and creationism are not incompatible ideas? That with a little bit of work they could both work harmoniously?
Again sorry if this has come up, I don't think a years worth of reading could get through 322 pages of this thread
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Hi Crafty! Those were some well "crafted" points made for SCJ to ponder.
I would add that in some mainline American religious denominations, such as the Lutherans for example, I think there is such a doctrine described as "sola scriptura". This means literally,"only per the Bible". It means the adherents of this faith are bound to go by accepted scripture. It's a test of faith. If a person has subordinated parts of his decision making process to another source or authority, say SCJ to his church or you to Darwin, then you do lose a degree of autonomy or free will. Wouldn't you say?
Also, I'd like to mention one particular book of the Bible, the one known as Leviticus. This portion of the Bible has clear scientific credibility, as it covers basic issues of hygiene.
Respectfully yours (SCJ too),
Dotini
- 919
There's an important distinction. Organized religion indeed does base itself primarily on arguments of authority - the authority of one's pastor or cleric, of one's church, of one's denomination, and ultimately of one's God. It's a self-devouring system in which one can only believe it to be true because it, itself, says so. In other words, "Why A?" ; "Because A". I don't believe Darwin to be true; I accept Darwin's conclusions as facts because they are based on observation and they are testable - arguments of fact, not arguments of authority. In other words, "Why A?" ; "Because B,C,D,E,F...". I don't have to physically mimic everything Darwin did to reasonably accept his conclusions as fact.
That same portion of the bible (the Holiness Code) advocates slavery and condemns homosexuality, among many other 'questionable' stances. The presence of some hygienic wisdom doesn't have any bearing on the incorrectness of its other stances, or on the stances held throughout the bible as a whole. Scientific credibility must be consistently upheld or it is not present. To put it another way: yes, there is a place named Jerusalem, but that doesn't mean we use the bible to teach Geography.
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Sorry if this has been discussed many times over 322 pages, but I was wondering:
Has anyone ventured the thought that evolution and creationism are not incompatible ideas? That with a little bit of work they could both work harmoniously?
Again sorry if this has come up, I don't think a years worth of reading could get through 322 pages of this thread
It has. It's called "Intelligent Design" and is fundamentally incompatible with either evolution or creationism - the notion is generally put forwards that evolutionary mechanisms made all life we see today from earlier forms made by God, only creationism says that God made everything as it is and evolutionary theory says that the earlier forms themselves evolved from even earlier forms, right back to primordial soup.
Let's not overstate the matter here. Leviticus has two chapters which deal with leprosy and one that says spaff is dirty, blood is dirty and menstruation is dirty and sinful. But it can all be solved with a bath in the evening.
The rest of Leviticus deals with sacrifice, worship, priesthood, sex (with animals too), what to eat (and what not to eat) and that gays and disableds are bad.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Oh seriously, Famine! I don't thing evolutionists want to make a stand at the Little Big Horn on the foundation of primordial soup. Evolution has plenty of credibility as an explanatory mechanism of descent of species without also attempting to explain the origin of life on Earth.
In re Leviticus: Nobody is overstating anything. An early attempt to understand and spread the beginnings of health and hygiene can only be counted as a good beginning to a young science. That we have evolved in our understanding of health issues is good, too. Galen, Newton and Lyell were were wrong about a few things, too. Poisoning the well is a nasty little logical fallacy!
Yours,
D
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Evolution itself isn't relevant to the origin of life on Earth - it only describes what happens to that life once it's life.
To be honest, much of the "teachings" of Leviticus are right up with the Napoleonic-era French belief that the smell from toilets kept sickness away - which is why army food tents were next to the latrines.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
You're the one who's hitched his wagon to the soup, not me!
Not much more than 100 years ago, the finest doctors in Britain and America scoffed at the notion of washing their hands before surgery. You dishonor yourself by pissing on the Hebrews and the French. I like to think of you as the finest sort of specimen this website has to offer, and to count myself as an admirer of your intelligence, wit and fairness. I really want you to do better than than you have been doing lately.
Your friend,
Dotini
- 87,575
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Errr... whut?
The Soup is the precursor to life. Life is subject to the mechanisms of evolution. Evolution itself isn't relevant to the soup. Again, I'm not seeing the issue here.
Who was pissing on the French? As I'm sure you're aware, Napoleon's Grand Armee had a minority of Frenchmen in its ranks, with significant numbers of German, Italian, Spanish, Polish and Irish troops.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that 2,000 years ago the "hygiene" advice given in Leviticus was acceptable - women are unclean when on their period, eating pork or oysters is bad and tattooing or "hide the helmet" with another dude made the baby Moses cry. 200 years ago the "hygiene" advice given by the French army was acceptable - if you crap next to your kitchen, the smell keeps illnesses away.
To say either has "scientific credibility" considerably overstates the advice given. In both cases there is recognition of a problem but an unscientific approach to the solution.
Luckily my personality, or lack thereof, isn't relevant to the topic.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
While this is true, and evolution is a major topic of great validity in its own right, it remains just part of the overall story of how we got to where we are today. While evolution and the absolute origins of life on Earth may be separate disciplines involving many different processes, they will always be inextricably linked by virtue of being two chapters of the same story, with no small part of overlap in between. Concepts such as cumulative selection, self-organisation (based on the same laws of physics and chemistry), and the building of testable theories based on observable evidence (as opposed to mere conjecture and wild imagination) are common threads in both vast areas of research...
The stuff you posted the other day relating to Carl Woese's work is an excellent case in point. Woese is studying the gap between these two "eras", i.e. the origin of the universal genetic code before vertical gene transfer and Darwinian evolution was able to manifest itself so well. His work has shown that the incredible optimisation of the universal genetic code (long a major problem for Darwinian evolution to explain) is much more readily explained by another process that is not recognisably Darwinian, but is nonetheless an evolutionary process i.e. cumulative selection acting upon communal lifeforms that utilise horizontal gene transfer as opposed to vertical gene transfer.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
This whole series of posts only came about because I wanted to carve out some common ground on which creationist and evolutionist might agree to meet and talk. I'm an infracaninophile and will quest for lost causes. So that's the relevance of my personality to the topic.
Ever yours,
Dotini
- 103
"Molecule of life emerges from laboratory"
John Sutherland
Well, what do you know? I guess under the right conditions we can duplicate the initial stages of life on Earth.
Does that make us Gods too? Life-
(the patent and trademark office wasn't around during creation, sorry God we beat you to it) Joke aside...
All religions share a common weakness. And it has to do with the time of their emergence.
John Sutherland
Well, what do you know? I guess under the right conditions we can duplicate the initial stages of life on Earth.
Does that make us Gods too? Life-
(the patent and trademark office wasn't around during creation, sorry God we beat you to it) Joke aside...All religions share a common weakness. And it has to do with the time of their emergence.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Fascinating observation! When did religion emerge?!
Neanderthal burials of 70,000 years ago reveal signs of grave goods such as flowers, jewelery, tools, offerings of food and ochre. This is taken by anthropologists as a belief in an afterlife and the trappings of religion.
What do you think?
Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
- 103
Precisely…
The Inescapable Simple Logic. Most religions appeared in times when people had no clue of anything, ...pretty much. So it was very easy to sell the notion of higher beings that are responsible for everything there is around us.
Awfully simple example: If I take a lighter with me 2000 years into the past and I show it to the folks of that time period I might pass as the fire god. The lack of knowledge and understanding prompted people to come up with different explanations for the reality as they saw it back them.
Only in the last few hundred years, humanity began to have more complex understanding of its surroundings. And most religions are thousands of years old. Christianity around a couple of thousand years, Islam around the same. And all the rest, many of which pre-date both are even older.
You can not escape or ignore the simple logic of that fact. Now why have some endured is entirely another topic.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Mormonism is a religion founded less than 200 years ago. It is much newer and should be more up to date. Anyone for Scientology?
70,000 years ago the Neanderthals had already been around for 130,000 years.
Prior to the Neanderthals there was a taller, even bigger-brained race of beings referred to as Heidelbergensis. They ruled Earth supreme from about 900,000 BC to 200,000 BC. A burial site at Atapuerca, Spain, dating to maybe 600,000 also shows signs of offerings in their burials, yet again indicating signs of belief in an afterlife and religion of some sort. Now, 700,000 years is a fair enough time for a big brained (1600-2000cc) humanoid to persist and evolve. That they did not develop steam engines, machine guns and atomic bombs may indicate that they chose not to. Clearly a sign of high intelligence and a durable civilization. No possible way will our own civilization last 700,000 years.
70,000 years ago the Neanderthals had already been around for 130,000 years.
Prior to the Neanderthals there was a taller, even bigger-brained race of beings referred to as Heidelbergensis. They ruled Earth supreme from about 900,000 BC to 200,000 BC. A burial site at Atapuerca, Spain, dating to maybe 600,000 also shows signs of offerings in their burials, yet again indicating signs of belief in an afterlife and religion of some sort. Now, 700,000 years is a fair enough time for a big brained (1600-2000cc) humanoid to persist and evolve. That they did not develop steam engines, machine guns and atomic bombs may indicate that they chose not to. Clearly a sign of high intelligence and a durable civilization. No possible way will our own civilization last 700,000 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
My best friend lives with a family of Scientologists. A nightmarish experience every time, I'm sad to say.
The correlation between having a large brain and high intelligence is general—but spotty at best.
On a secondary note:
Apparently, they did:
Wiki
Also, I'm waiting for evidence to support the suggestion they had indeed formed a "civilization".
Last edited:
- 103
Ever heard of "Encephalization Quotient". They did not develop simply because they did not have the intelligence to do so. They were close to us but not quite there. Intelligence is not attributed to just how long have you been around or how big you are Compared to them we "Homo sapiens" are the more advanced. Look around... any Heidelbergensis left.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
any Heidelbergensis left.
The Wookie in Stars Wars, or the Bigfoot in popular lore would be about the closest, I reckon...
Here, a British scientist claims overwhelming evidence life on Earth came from space.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...aliens-from-outer-space-scientist-claims.html
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I posted this same story over on the Aliens thread, and was honored to recieve this reply from the esteemed Scaff.
"A quick look at Cambridge Universities journal site provided a link to a .pdf copy of the piece published by them from which this claim comes.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...tyETOCSession=
I have not had a chance to read it yet, but wanted to provide the link none the less.
Regards
Scaff "
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I've had a quick look at the paper and it's pretty interesting. There are a few things that immediately spring to mind, though - the most obvious and perhaps the most important is the idea that panspermia vs. geocentric origin might turn out to be a false dichotomy - i.e. it is possible (if not very likely) that it is not a question of one or the other, but "a bit of both". In this paper, Wickramasinghe shows strong evidence that bacterial grains and organic molecules that are most likely of biological origin are everywhere in the Cosmos. But he also says that these vast clouds of biotic material are "graveyards, not cradles" of life - indeed, the presence of dead bacterial/cellular remnants is not evidence that life exists, only that life existed somewhere previously.
That this material exists in space doesn't refute the idea that life can arise on Earth-like planets. It does support the idea that life is abundant in the Cosmos, and that planets like Earth gain many of the raw materials required to generate life from non-biotic precursors from what was once biotic material elsewhere - but crucially, there seems to be little evidence to suggest that intact, 'live' bacteria were among those precursors that seeded the pre-biotic Earth...
While the evidence for the abundance of life in the Cosmos is quite compelling, I'm not convinced that it amounts to proof of panspermia. Critically, it leaves the most interesting question - how did life begin - completely unanswered, nor does it explain the growing evidence that supports the idea that life could have arisen on Earth independently, whether or not the Cosmos is also full of similar life. Hence, while I don't reject the idea that panspermia is possible - plausible, even - I don't reject the idea that life can't arise independently on a fertile prebiotic planet either, and I don't think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. One thing is for certain - bacteria must form and arise somewhere, and panspermia theory doesn't even attempt to explain how this might happen. It seems incredibly plausible to me that bacteria require stable and complex environments (such as the early Earth?) to form, and it doesn't seem outrageous to believe that similar planets throughout the Cosmos have managed similar feats, which could account for the observations discussed in this paper...
That this material exists in space doesn't refute the idea that life can arise on Earth-like planets. It does support the idea that life is abundant in the Cosmos, and that planets like Earth gain many of the raw materials required to generate life from non-biotic precursors from what was once biotic material elsewhere - but crucially, there seems to be little evidence to suggest that intact, 'live' bacteria were among those precursors that seeded the pre-biotic Earth...
While the evidence for the abundance of life in the Cosmos is quite compelling, I'm not convinced that it amounts to proof of panspermia. Critically, it leaves the most interesting question - how did life begin - completely unanswered, nor does it explain the growing evidence that supports the idea that life could have arisen on Earth independently, whether or not the Cosmos is also full of similar life. Hence, while I don't reject the idea that panspermia is possible - plausible, even - I don't reject the idea that life can't arise independently on a fertile prebiotic planet either, and I don't think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. One thing is for certain - bacteria must form and arise somewhere, and panspermia theory doesn't even attempt to explain how this might happen. It seems incredibly plausible to me that bacteria require stable and complex environments (such as the early Earth?) to form, and it doesn't seem outrageous to believe that similar planets throughout the Cosmos have managed similar feats, which could account for the observations discussed in this paper...
