Creation vs. Evolution

[Flaco13]

That link is cute. If Darwin had any doubts it was because he lacked the equipment and knowledge we do today. The simple fact is, every single shred of evidence found to this day has supported the theory of evolution, perhaps the most important of those being DNA.

Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

Are you suggesting you have brought something constructive to the debate?

Between you and Jmoney, I mostly just see "it is made up non-sense and not different than some man in the sky making people from clay"

As for it being easier to believe, I don't see how taking the time to learn about the process involved and the reasoning behind it is easier than believing what your pastor/bishop/cleric/priest told you is true.

I don't see how taking the time to learn about the process to 'how' to read the bible and really study it and its prophecies and meanings is easier than believing what your teachers told you is true.

I don't need a pastor to understand the bible. I learned how to read it correctly, and I'm not afraid of studying other religions and theories aswell.. Do you read the bible? Or better yet, do you know how to read it?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

Why would he do that when everything we have found supports his theory?

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[CodeRedR51]

I just watched a good show on Netflix, where a SETI scientist said the following:

"We, all of us, are what happens when a primordial mixture of hydrogen and helium evolves for so long, it begins to ask where it came from."

Thought it might be relevant for this thread.

 

[Exorcet]

Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

You're mixing Evolution and Abiogensis. Also, single cells can't have sex.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

That's good, that means Evolution is falsifiable. All that's needed to prove it wrong is the above.

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day.

Name one.

If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

Highly unlikely

I don't see how taking the time to learn about the process to 'how' to read the bible and really study it and its prophecies and meanings is easier than believing what your teachers told you is true.

This isn't about believing what one was told. Evolution is basically obvious unless you want to start denying a long list of things ranging from why you look like your parents unless you're adopted, to why bacteria become resilient to medicine, to why dogs are dogs, to why moths in England changed color during the industrial revolution...

I don't need a pastor to understand the bible. I learned how to read it correctly, and I'm not afraid of studying other religions and theories aswell.. Do you read the bible? Or better yet, do you know how to read it?

Many atheists in this very thread were Christians in the past.

I just watched a good show on Netflix, where a SETI scientist said the following:

"We, all of us, are what happens when a primordial mixture of hydrogen and helium evolves for so long, it begins to ask where it came from."

Thought it might be relevant for this thread.

http://xkcd.com/1123/

 

[CodeRedR51]

Not sure what you're showing me.

 

[Flaco13]

Why would he do that when everything we have found supports his theory?

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I have little to no trust in Wikipedia so this article isn't telling me anything.

From the wikipedia artl. "Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."

Who tells me this isn't sponsored by somebody/thing that has an interest in misleading and fooling us?

Take the Australo-Pythecus: Those reconstructions of the skull out of pretty small 'real' pieces that where found.

What has been made in the reconstruction was artificially produced = speculation! only the pieces found of the real fossil is fact! This fact however doesn't prove nor disprove we are descendants of that ape.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I think the fact we share 99% of our DNA with them says we do.

Just my opinion of course, based on factual evidence.

 

[Flaco13]

Many atheists in this very thread were Christians in the past.

That doesn't mean they know how to read the bible.

 

[CodeRedR51]

My family is Catholic, and I've never read the bible. Just thought I would throw that out there.

I don't intend on reading it either.

 

[Exorcet]

Not sure what you're showing me.

The comic basically said what you did. Hydrogen + time = universe today.

I have little to no trust in Wikipedia so this article isn't telling me anything.

You can verify what's in it against various sources. Wiki is generally accurate though, at least for basic ideas.

From the wikipedia artl. "Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."

Who tells me this isn't sponsored by somebody/thing that has an interest in misleading and fooling us?

If someone was trying to fool you, they wouldn't be testing evolution.

Take the Australo-Pythecus: Those reconstructions of the skull out of pretty small 'real' pieces that where found.

What has been made in the reconstruction was artificially produced = speculation! only the pieces found of the real fossil is fact! This fact however doesn't prove nor disprove we are descendants of that ape.

Artificially produced is not speculation. From the pieces found, there are already limits to what the complete fossil can look like. A full skeleton isn't needed to start drawing conclusions.

That doesn't mean they know how to read the bible.

That's OK, it's the priest's job to know how. He's goes through the trouble of explaining it multiple times each Sunday. Then there is catholic school, where all of that is reinforced daily.

 

[wfooshee]

That "just a theory" nonsense is my pet peeve in this thread. A Theory is THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE IN SCIENCE.

In science, a theory is not synonymous with a detective saying he has a theory about the murder case. It is a statement of our understanding of some concept that has reached a universal level of acceptance as fact.

When I trip, I fall. Observation.
I throw something up into the air, it comes back down. Observation.
There must be a reason everything comes back down, some attractive force. Hypothesis.
When you jump into the air, you come back down. Observation.
How far can you jump, how fast do you rise, how fast do you come back down. Measurement.
Report your findings. Peer review.
Other people make similar or identical observations. Repeatability.
Everyone concludes that gravity exists. Fact.
The measurements are gathered together and collated and defined, allowing predicted results from known conditions. Theory.
Theory is tested and refined by searching for unpredicted results. Test for falseness.

We have a Theory of Gravitation. It's "just a theory." Is anybody here going to say that gravity is a stupid thing to "believe in?" Is anybody here going to say that gravity violates their faith? I'm pretty sure the word never appears in the Bible.....

By pointing out that something is "just a theory" you are invalidating everything you've ever said in any scientific discussion by announcing your ignorance of the process.

 

[Flaco13]

I think the fact we share 99% of our DNA with them says we do.

Just my opinion of course, based on factual evidence.

If an ape does the job how about a mouse? might aswell : http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/...man-genes-genes-that-cause-disease?_s=PM:TECH

 

[CodeRedR51]

@ Exorcet: Ah, thanks. Didn't read the comic and the website was kind of confusing.

 

[Flaco13]

Artificially produced is not speculation. From the pieces found, there are already limits to what the complete fossil can look like. A full skeleton isn't needed to start drawing conclusions.

LOL, from these pieces, the balance between limits and speculations is... just a guess...
10 to 90 that has speculation written all over.

That's OK, it's the priest's job to know how. He's goes through the trouble of explaining it multiple times each Sunday. Then there is catholic school, where all of that is reinforced daily.

No, they don't know how, they are just as misleading as your teachers... If a priest would read the revelation he would tell me: " The creature from the oceans is satan" I'd ask then whats the other creature from the land? " Ummm satan aswell" That's BS

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I have little to no trust in Wikipedia so this article isn't telling me anything.

Then check it against other sources.

From the wikipedia artl. "Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."

Your point? That quote describes exactly what makes science so great. Theories constantly undergo scrutiny to ensure their validity.

Who tells me this isn't sponsored by somebody/thing that has an interest in misleading and fooling us?

I honestly doubt you would have said that if the link were to adhere with your views.

Take the Australo-Pythecus: Those reconstructions of the skull out of pretty small 'real' pieces that where found.

What has been made in the reconstruction was artificially produced = speculation! only the pieces found of the real fossil is fact! This fact however doesn't prove nor disprove we are descendants of that ape.

Citation needed

Now, I have a question for you. Have you actually bothered to really look in to the theory of evolution and the evidence backing it up? If you have then I really can't see how you manage to think the way you do about it. The fact that the theory has undergone 150 years of scrutiny and testing, and that there hasn't been a singly bit of evidence to go against it (if you think I am wrong then go ahead and prove it), tells me that it's a pretty damn good theory.

 

[CodeRedR51]

There's some pretty good shows on evolution on Netflix he should watch.

 

[Flaco13]

Then check it against other sources.



Your point? That quote describes exactly what makes science so great. Theories constantly undergo scrutiny to ensure their validity.



I honestly doubt you would have said that if the link were to adhere with your views.

My views? I doubt you know about them... look up my last post... my views are not the way you might think they are.

Now, I have a question for you. Have you actually bothered to really look in to the theory of evolution and the evidence backing it up? If you have then I really can't see how you manage to think the way you do about it. The fact that the theory has undergone 150 years of scrutiny and testing, and that there hasn't been a singly bit of evidence to go against it (if you think I am wrong then go ahead and prove it), tells me that it's a pretty damn good theory.

I did but I am not soley looking for what claims to back it up but also at what claims to refute it, that might be the difference between us.
There are over 1000 fullfilled prophecies written in the bible, wich you can't prove wrong either. That is what makes me believe what I believe. I understand, however, that if we have always showered in warm water we will be unable to stand cold water no matter how we try, our accustomed ways are too strong to just brake down.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

My views? I doubt you know about them... look up my last post... my views are not the way you might think they are.

My apologies, what are they then?

I did but I am not soley looking for what claims to back it up but also at what claims to refute it, that might be the difference between us.

All the claims I have heard of and found that "refute" evolution have been debunked. It's not that I don't look for claims that refute evolution, it's just that none successfully have.

There are over 1000 fullfilled prophecies written in the bible, wich you can't prove wrong either. That is what makes me believe what I believe.

You mean vaguely written passages like you posted in the god thread? Are there any specific prophecies that have been fufilled? You know, something along the lines of "And on October 21st 2012 I shall blah blah" or "On October 21st 2012 blah blah will happen".

I understand, however, that if we have always showered in warm water we will be unable to stand cold water no matter how we try, our accustomed ways are too strong to just brake down.

What?

 

[Scaff]

If it was fact there would be no doubts about it, right?

http://www.windowview.org/sci/pgs/09doubts.html

I've read it and I've also read Darwin's works and that is an incomplete quote from him. How about you actually find out what the full quote is and then come back and explain why you think your source choose to cut it sort.

Tell you what I will do it for you:

Here is the quote as your source cites it (and uses it to claim that Darwin had issues with the eye):

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Now here is the full extract from Darwin's Origin:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

The important missing part I have highlighted.

Darwin had no concerns regarding the eye at all.

You bash Wiki as a source and imply that science can be misleading, yet you have used one of the simple most common piece of missleading nonsense that the Creationist lobby has to further your view.

I would like to know why you believe the site you quoted this from chose to cut short Darwins word?

The only reason I can think of is to deliberately mislead (after all its not as if the issue with this has not been pointed out to creationists repeatedly).

 

[Exorcet]

LOL, from these pieces, the balance between limits and speculations is... just a guess...
10 to 90 that has speculation written all over.

No, just like most sub atomic particles were discovered through math before being observed, the characteristics of an organism can be inferred from only seeing parts of it. Obviously, that might not be enough to answer any question, but to suggest that anything beyond the fossil fragments found is pure speculation is ignorant.

No, they don't know how, they are just as misleading as your teachers... If a priest would read the revelation he would tell me: " The creature from the oceans is satan" I'd ask then whats the other creature from the land? " Ummm satan aswell" That's BS

Well, the church disagrees, and it's headed by an infallible pope, so you're clearly wrong and lacking faith.

There are over 1000 fullfilled prophecies written in the bible, wich you can't prove wrong either.

Then those prophecies are as good as fairy tales. Without the ability to be proven wrong, they hold no value.

I understand, however, that if we have always showered in warm water we will be unable to stand cold water no matter how we try, our accustomed ways are too strong to just brake down.

A good description of how religion works. Unlike science, religion tries to set itself in stone no matter how many times it has failed at being correct.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

That "just a theory" nonsense is my pet peeve in this thread. A Theory is THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE IT IS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE IN SCIENCE.

In science, a theory is not synonymous with a detective saying he has a theory about the murder case. It is a statement of our understanding of some concept that has reached a universal level of acceptance as fact.

When I trip, I fall. Observation.
I throw something up into the air, it comes back down. Observation.
There must be a reason everything comes back down, some attractive force. Hypothesis.
When you jump into the air, you come back down. Observation.
How far can you jump, how fast do you rise, how fast do you come back down. Measurement.
Report your findings. Peer review.
Other people make similar or identical observations. Repeatability.
Everyone concludes that gravity exists. Fact.
The measurements are gathered together and collated and defined, allowing predicted results from known conditions. Theory.
Theory is tested and refined by searching for unpredicted results. Test for falseness.

We have a Theory of Gravitation. It's "just a theory." Is anybody here going to say that gravity is a stupid thing to "believe in?" Is anybody here going to say that gravity violates their faith? I'm pretty sure the word never appears in the Bible.....

By pointing out that something is "just a theory" you are invalidating everything you've ever said in any scientific discussion by announcing your ignorance of the process.

The Theory of Gravity is not the same as gravity. Gravity as you pointed out can be tested over and over again by every person on the planet. Now there are many things that can't be repeated. No one doubts something that can be repeated over and over again.
No one doubts animal changes (evolve) since we can direct these changes ourselves. Now the idea than a creature can totally re-engineer it's DNA in millions of years while others continue to stay the same can not be repeated. Putting spider DNA into a human embryo will not give humans the ability to shoot web out of their butt nor there hands either. A lot of what evolutionist claims is as sci-fi as Spiderman.

 

[Exorcet]

Gravity as you pointed out can be tested over and over again by every person on the planet.

Yes, the theory of gravity can be and is repeatedly tested. That's why it's a theory, it works.

 

[Scaff]

The Theory of Gravity is not the same as gravity. Gravity as you pointed out can be tested over and over again by every person on the planet. Now there are many things that can't be repeated. No one doubts something that can be repeated over and over again.

The theory of Gravity is simply the collected results of those repeated experiments and the math behind them formed into an overall framework. You can't divide the two in the manner yoiu are suggesting, to do so is to misunderstand scientific theory.

No one doubts animal changes (evolve) since we can direct these changes ourselves.

Which as you say allows us to repeat the facts invoved within the theory of evolution.

Now the idea than a creature can totally re-engineer it's DNA in millions of years while others continue to stay the same can not be repeated.

Good job that the theory of evolution doesn't come close to saying a creature can do that. Evolution in nature is not a guided process, no creature suddenly picks to have legs and then the next generation has them.

The only people who make such claims are Creationists.

Putting spider DNA into a human embryo will not give humans the ability to shoot web out of their butt nor there hands either. A lot of what evolutionist claims is as sci-fi as Spiderman.

Quote a single evolutionist or scientist who has said as much.

This is often quoted by Creationist as an argument against evolution, however its an argument they have created as no part of the theory of evolution or the scientist behind it has even even come close to stating this.

 

[wfooshee]

Now the idea than a creature can totally re-engineer it's DNA in millions of years while others continue to stay the same can not be repeated.

This is not even remotely close to how evolution works. It is not a conscious process. No rat ever said, "Damn, I wish I could fly over that crevasse and get to those berry bushes over there!" and had bats for children.

Why participate in a discussion of something you have no understanding of? If to be enlightened, then fine; look and listen and learn. If to debunk, then find a piece of testable repeatable eveidence that goes against anything in the Theory. Just stop saying, "But it says here that you're wrong."

Science is not heresy. Whay is learning something to be so afraid of???

 

[ScouserInExile]

[

I have little to no trust in Wikipedia so this article isn't telling me anything.

I'm assuming this is because anyone can edit the article without having to provide any proof that their edits a factually correct? Yet you believe the bible is correct? Oh. The irony.

There are over 1000 fullfilled prophecies written in the bible, wich you can't prove wrong either.

The problem with these prophecies is that not only of them self-fulfilling, but also they are very much open to interpretation. That interpretation is also skewed by people having a vested interest in the prophecies coming true. There is also the issue of timescales, I can say "hear me now, brethren! Liverpool shall finish first in the top English league, for this is the word of the bored" and it's bound to happen eventually, it might even happen in my lifetime, this doesn't mean that I have divine guidance or that anything else I say is true. It just means that I'm hopelessly optimistic and know how to use vagueness for fun and prophet.

 

[Scaff]

[

I'm assuming this is because anyone can edit the article without having to provide any proof that their edits a factually correct? Yet you believe the bible is correct? Oh. The irony.

Wiki also has learned from the issues of the past and now requires a lot more in terms of checking and peer review, highlighting articles that have issues and as a result is a much more reliable source of information that it ever was (and its getting better with each passing month).

 

[ScouserInExile]

Wiki also has learned from the issues of the past and now requires a lot more in terms of checking and peer review, highlighting articles that have issues and as a result is a much more reliable source of information that it ever was (and its getting better with each passing month).

As opposed to the bible, that has had unknown edits an unknown number of times, by persons unknown. Yet many people take it as erm.... well... gospel.

 

[orimarc]

And don't forget about the translations, because a bad translation can completely change everything.

Or in English-to-Hebrew-and-back-to-English:

And not to forget the translations that bad translation can change everything completely.

 

[ScouserInExile]

And don't forget about the translations, because a bad translation can completely change everything.

Or in English-to-Hebrew-and-back-to-English:

And not to forget the translations that bad translation can change everything completely.

The thing that's quite funny is that the translation issues are often used in defense of the bible. When illogical parts are pointed out, you will sometimes get "that's not what that means, that's a miss translation" especially around time.

Small things make big differences in language:
Eats shoots and leaves.
Eats, shoots and leaves.

 

[Barra333]

I have little to no trust in Wikipedia so this article isn't telling me anything.

From the wikipedia artl. "Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory."

Who tells me this isn't sponsored by somebody/thing that has an interest in misleading and fooling us?

Says the guy blindly quoting the bible as fact. I would say the church has an interest in misleading and fooling people. At least science is peer reveiwed and happy to admit error when further evidence is found. Good luck with that, church.

Take the Australo-Pythecus: Those reconstructions of the skull out of pretty small 'real' pieces that where found.

What has been made in the reconstruction was artificially produced = speculation! only the pieces found of the real fossil is fact! This fact however doesn't prove nor disprove we are descendants of that ape.

Let me draw you a picture...


You have 2 complete skulls, A and B. You find a bunch of bone fragments together, and put them in places in 3D space using A and B as a reference.
Even though C is missing a bunch of material, I bet you can tell me which of A and B it most closely resembles.
Welcome to science, where we use information we have to incrementally learn about things in more detail.