Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 441,544 views
.- 1,214
What science? Future science? The science which this man knows is telling him the exact opposite of what he wants to believe. Of course he can't rule out any knowledge that man may learn in the future. So "It seems improbable" is the best scientists can do since there will be always the unknown.
- 23,800
- Philippines
If scientific testing tells me fire is hot and will cook meat and I don't want to believe it, whose fault is that?
The current data we have supports theories that he feels uncomfortable with. In the future, a finer understanding of the mechanics of life will probably produce a more accurate picture that's radically different, or it will show that the theories are correct and that the current issues with the theory are really non-issues.
See how advances in the study of micro-vortices have shown us that the bumblebee really doesn't defy the laws of physics, as an example. Of course... the old chestnut about bees not being able to fly is actually a misunderstanding of the aerodynamic principles that show bees can't glide very well (and, throw around a few dead bees or flies, and you will see they don't), but still... as we better understand the physical world, the gaps in our knowledge show us how what we think is improbable actually isn't.
Einstein also went through this dilemma with quantum physics, expressing that he did not believe the Universe was so random, and yet, in the end, many of the predictions of quantum physics have been proven experimentally.
What a man believes or does not believe matters little to science. It's what he can prove that matters.
Same as with your previous link on raptors. Just because new data tells us that one branch of the dinosaurid family split off from the rest earlier than we believed does not invalidate the rest of the data. It just reaffirms that science is not dogmatically set in stone, but takes into account empirical evidence. And in the end, that one is not a problem of Evolutionary Theory itself, but mere taxonomical classification. The data has always said the families and creatures involved were related. The onlhy problem is how they were related.
- 1,214
The bumblebee flying wasn't improbable since we saw them fly. This is not the same thing with abiogenesis which no one has witness. (No one has witness a dinosaur either so there is a guess work involved)
(p.s It's amazing the bumblebee knew the laws of physics better than we did.)
(p.s It's amazing the bumblebee knew the laws of physics better than we did.)
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
And yet we have dinosaur fossils, as evidence that the biosphere isn't unchanging, and we have fossil evidence of ancient creatures.
We also have evidence of single celled organisms. We also have evidence of the preponderance of organics in the solar system.
So, we can see the effects of Evolution. We can see that the precursors of life exist where there is no life. There is only that small gap between pre-biotic compounds and complex molecules and cells.
Our knowledge of what is goes like this:
A -> B -> C -> _ -> _ -> F -> G...
Granted there is a gap in the knowledge that is filled with theoretical conjecture, but just because there is a gap in the text, doesn't render the whole book rubbish.
We also have evidence of single celled organisms. We also have evidence of the preponderance of organics in the solar system.
So, we can see the effects of Evolution. We can see that the precursors of life exist where there is no life. There is only that small gap between pre-biotic compounds and complex molecules and cells.
Our knowledge of what is goes like this:
A -> B -> C -> _ -> _ -> F -> G...
Granted there is a gap in the knowledge that is filled with theoretical conjecture, but just because there is a gap in the text, doesn't render the whole book rubbish.
- 1,214
the fossil are one thing but the interpreting is something different. It's near impossible (unless it marked) to dig up a bone or fossil and claim it's your ancestor.
Science is at it's best when studing something now in isolation but it not superior when it comes to unwritten history. When it comes to the past there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
Let's used your bumblebee example. If scientist saw bumblebee only in fossils and not a live one they would dogmatically claim bumblebees could not fly. There would be no one to debate that since the fossil would reveal the bumblebee wings were too small for it's body. The bumblebee fossil would totally mislead the scientist even though he would be using sound reason in his conclusions.
The fossil record does not point to evolution without evolution already assumed to be true.
We can find all the part needed for life in a dead cell yet this doesn't mean it's simple to bring a cell back to life. Finding precursor to life= life is like finding iron= automobile.
Science is at it's best when studing something now in isolation but it not superior when it comes to unwritten history. When it comes to the past there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
Let's used your bumblebee example. If scientist saw bumblebee only in fossils and not a live one they would dogmatically claim bumblebees could not fly. There would be no one to debate that since the fossil would reveal the bumblebee wings were too small for it's body. The bumblebee fossil would totally mislead the scientist even though he would be using sound reason in his conclusions.
The fossil record does not point to evolution without evolution already assumed to be true.
We can find all the part needed for life in a dead cell yet this doesn't mean it's simple to bring a cell back to life. Finding precursor to life= life is like finding iron= automobile.
Last edited:
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Disagree. Your argument is not convincing.
What if scientists found the bees fossilized in locations or positions that suggested that they could fly? What if someone found a similar living creature that could fly and compared it to the fossilized bee?
They probably would not just look at the fossil, and only the fossil, and close the case.
Also, the statement that they would dogmatically claim that the bees lacked flight is speculation. Why couldn't it end up an unsettled topic of debate without conclusive evidence?
- 5,069
- Panama City, FL
Science is not pseudo-logic ("This might be true, and since it is, this has to be true.") (Wait . . . what?")
That kind of thinking is what people use to object to evolution on religious grounds. They postulate a random thoguht that must be true, because someone told them it was, then build on it. Yet there's nothing there to build on, therefore nothing to be developed from it.
The fossil record is not that kind of process, and the fact that you can't look at a fossil (more properly, a large set of fossils) and determine how and where it got to where it is, and what it represents, does not negate the whole study of fossils for those that are actually trained to do so.
- 23,800
- Philippines
So all your ancestors were cremated, then?
It's a good thing paleontology doesn't exist in isolation. The tools shared between paleontology, biology, anthropology and forensics help a lot in the study of fossils. You can tell, for example, from bones, what basic ethnic group a man dead several thousand years is most closely related to. You couldn't say the man was definitely your ancestor, but you could say, with a big degree of certainty, that he was related more closely to you than me, or vice versa.
There's no subjective judgment needed to see that a baby Tyrannosaurus is related to a mother Tyrannosaurus.
Similarities in morphology and structure of fossils shows us that certain dead creatures are more related to each other. Just as differences in key areas (say, hip bones or whether your wing is an extension of your forefinger or pinky) show us which creatures are less related to each other.
Your subjectivity only comes into play when you try to decipher what caused the changes from one species to another, or through a group of closely related species over time.
You are misunderstanding the sheer weight and variety of fossil evidence that is available.
Good thing science knows about beating wings, eh? Nowadays, we know how to do wind tunnel testing and computer testing of flight and locomotion models. Using what is known about bone structure, the mass of muscle needed to perform certain movements, how muscles attach to bones, the shape of joints and how that affects articulation, we can already model possible modes of movement and eliminate those that aren't. Which is how we are starting to puzzle out the most possible ways in which birds developed flight.
So in effect, you're saying finding a human corpse doesn't mean that we can say that humans have ever lived? Rubbish.
Again, you're going back to the contention that the study of canyons has nothing to do with the process of erosion, an argument that doesn't carry weight unless you can show good reason why the entire fossil record doesn't support the theory of evolution. Which you can't. All you can point at is small gaps in our knowledge and claim that the lack of arms on the Venus de Milo suggests that it wasn't modelled on a woman who had arms...
- 919
Do you not see how incredibly hubristic that claim is?
This, I've said before, is one of the huge failings of religion. I can't imagine how one could look up into the night sky, KNOWING how vast and amazing it is, also KNOWING what wonders it contains, and be content with a view so simplistic as this:
"All of this exists for me."
The cosmos is vast. You know this, I'm sure. It's so vast, in fact, that most informed observers consider discovering other habitable worlds, even other intelligent forms of life, to be inevitable. God really built this so that our humble species could learn to find its way at night?
Isn't that a bit like building a Maserati so that when the customer buys it, he has a place to listen to the radio?
- 1,214
Yes it does since the whole point of something being designed is there are a lot more way of destroying it than creating it. The more things can go wrong the more complex a device is.
The reason a lot of people get choke on food is they fail to use their teeth to chew properly. You are suppose to chew your food around 20 times which helps to digest the food better. This is like trying to claim gasoline automoblie are stupid design because some moron decided to put diesel in the tank.
Last edited:
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 1,085
- Barcelona
- Missing
- Halo v8
See, that's the thing about the hypothesis of evolution: it's thought out, constantly changing to fit with new evidence. Once you understand how it really works (I'll admit that it may seem too complicated at first) you see why some people get upset when it's attacked or rejected.
I find this interesting. Evolution exists, there is no doubt. Whether it is the actual origin of all life on Earth remains in question.
Some videos on the 'coincidences' of the universe.
And some videos on irreducible complexity.
Sorry for triple-post, but here is a good place to start since the series covers a lot of stuff.
Some videos on the 'coincidences' of the universe.
And some videos on irreducible complexity.
Sorry for triple-post, but here is a good place to start since the series covers a lot of stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
Here is the whole lecture, for context.
Last edited:
Interested to hear responses to the videos I've posted, specifically on the origin of information and on irreducible complexity - and you know, for everything the guy points out, he'd still have a hard time arguing against the fact that human beings are nonetheless BY FAR the dominant species on the planet, and we reproduce (aka survive) well enough that it's to the point that we have to control it. Sounds like a pretty successful design.
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
And from that sprouted our arrogance with which we proclaim that therefore everything was made for us.
As for the videos, they essentially say that because it is too complex for us to understand (at this point in time, because we may very well one day understand it), God did it.
Last edited:
- 29,188
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Quite. The theory of evolution does not explain how life originated in the first instance, but it does demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that all extant life (present day species) are biologically related, thus it unequivocally supports the hypothesis that all life has a common origin.
Similar to above, while evolution theory is not specifically tasked with addressing that question either, it does go a long way to answering it by demonstrating that all present day species, including ourselves, share a common origin (and by the way, this hypothesis/claim is, unlike creationist claims, supported by a vast quantity of actual physical data). This tells us that the entire spectrum of phenomena observed in the natural world (from our 'supreme' intelligence, to the ability of a blade of grass to photosynthesize carbon dioxide by using sunlight, or the ability of a bald eagle to fly, or a snake to be able to see infrared light) all originated from a single source (which presumably was incapable of the vast majority of these tasks itself). We may not yet know the exact processes that brought about the origin of the universal common ancestor (or its ancestors) and its abilities, but what we do know is that all species (and therefore all the abilities they possess) arose from ancestors that did not possess these abilities. By demonstrating that new species with new abilities can and have arisen from older species that did not possess these abilities, the evidence strongly supports the view that the 'origin of information' lies in the process of evolution itself.
In addition, study of the physical nature of biomolecules is also important. The most important biological agents (and thus carriers of 'information') are polymers - peptides and proteins, RNA and DNA etc. - which means that they are long chains of subunits that can be of any length. In the case of proteins/enzymes, a single change (point mutation) in the chain of subunits (amino acids) can result in significant changes in the three dimensional structure and hence also the function of the protein, which in turn may drastically affect the performance/survival of the whole organism. Cystic Fibrosis is a disease caused by a single amino acid deletion from the native protein which not only shortens life span, but drastically reduces fertility. Across an entire population of a single species, mutations occur all the time and throughout the genome, sometimes with negative consequences and sometimes with positive consequences (such as the ability to digest lactose, for example). Some decrease the chances of individuals being able to reproduce (e.g. the CF mutation, delF508) and some increase those chances (lactose tolerance is just one example of such a useful mutation). My point is, however, that the molecular structure of biomolecules and the way that biomolecules are translated and transcribed (read and re-written) specifically allows for the processes of evolution to occur.
This leads me back to the same devastating point (made by Richard Dawkins) that I've asked many times before and have not yet seen a decent answer to, and this is: Why is it that, of all the possible ways that a designer might have designed life on Earth, did they choose to design it in such a way that makes it look exactly as if life has evolved?? A key point is that evolution theory stands as valid independently of all other claims, because it is built on solid foundations (evidence and the scientific method).
Speaking of Dawkins and Tyson, I absolutely love this (language warning)...
There's a lesson in there for everyone
Last edited:
Typical, being that the videos 7-12 in the Mystery of Life series are completely science-based discussions, discussed by scientists themselves, presenting only observable data, and which provide several examples of evidence which you all have said for quite a while that I cannot produce... well, here it is, and now you're acting like this...
Don't want to watch it? Fine, it only detracts from your farcically suggested position of objectivity even more.
"I don't believe because there is no evidence of anything else..." What a fabricated statement. You aren't even going to address the evidence, for purely childish reasons. Your approach is so shallow as to not even get past the credits to see the evidence. Please, never become a scientist.
I'm off for the day, will get back to your post, TM.
Last edited:
- 1,214
This depends on what you mean by evolution. If by evolution you mean Neo-Darwinism then I disagree as there is a lot of doubt. There is even doubt just how much of a role natural selection has. So far natural selection seem to have the same limitations ( even more limited) than artificial selection.
If all you mean by evolution is change then no one doubts that.
- 1,678
- Canada
- TheDrummingKING
Skipped over my post where I addressed parts 7-(whichever they said there had to be intelligent design) I see..
Like I said, the video essentially says that because we can't understand it, God must have done it. More specifically, it is one man saying that he has reached the limit of his understanding, therefore God and intelligent design. This doesn't provide evidence for intelligent design at all. In the video Dapper posted, examples of exactly this are talked about. We have Newton, one of, if not the most brilliant mind, reaching his limits of understandings (unable to figure out how the planets, moons, stars, etc. are able to stay stable, because all he has is the two body equation), so what does he say? God must be involved. But then we have Laplace, who is able to equate for it all without ever invoking God.
Intelligent design is just part of the God of the Gaps argument now. We can't presently understand something, therefore God.
I have a feeling you will say something like this though: Because we have further expanded our knowledge, it doesn't disprove God being present in what we understand (as in: he is present in what we understand, single cell organisms as an example, we understand them, but that doesn't mean God has nothing to do with it).
Technically that's right, God (and intelligent design) could be present in what we understand, but again, saying something like that is more of a "you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right" than anything else, and honestly, it's like grasping at straws.. Using your video as an example again, we have currently reached out limit on understanding how DNA was able to form, so we say God must have done it. So then what happens when we discover how they form and can explain it with nature? You'll say "oh it's still God, it is God's design how those things work." And that goes right back to my first sentence of this paragraph, except worse. The more we understand, the less there is a need for ANY god. It doesn't necessarily disprove a God (but it doesn't prove one either), it does, however, eliminate the need for one, and seeing as the idea of gods arose from our need of them (because we couldn't understand how things work), I'd say it discredits the idea of any God completely.
God is an unfalsifiable claim, it can't be proved wrong, but that doesn't make it right (because it can't be proved right either, hence "by faith alone" ).
I'm sorry from going from intelligent design to God specifically, but they're connected so it's bound to happen a bit.
TL;DR: intelligent design is like the God of the gaps argument. We can't understand it, therefore God (and intelligent design).
