Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter ledhed
- 9,687 comments
- 447,422 views
- 1,620
Thats the one.Famine
Yes, 11 dimensions is the basic theory and stood for a while, but I heard they were postulating 13 or 14 these days! Supposedly to explain certain cracks in the equations... explaining unaccounted energy loss etc or someting? I am going off really old memories here, but yeah I think its definately more than 11 now.
- 1,766
On tv they showed that in the USA there's a massive riot going on in the USA because of this topic. The conservative Christians don't want the evolution theory to be explained in biology class because this goes against what the bible says. So now in the meanwhile every biology book comes with a sticker saying that it's a just a theory. If they ever add the creation theory to biology books that would be beyond ridiculous. You might as well add to geography books that the world is flat and only 5000 years old. Oh yeah, and also the information that it was created in 1 day. In history class children should be taught that there is no such thing as the ice age.
- 87,660
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
James2097Thats the one.
Yes, 11 dimensions is the basic theory and stood for a while, but I heard they were postulating 13 or 14 these days! Supposedly to explain certain cracks in the equations... explaining unaccounted energy loss etc or someting? I am going off really old memories here, but yeah I think its definately more than 11 now.
Well, originally it was 9, although 11 had been postulated earlier. The problem with 9 was that it didn't allow a coherent string theory. Revisiting the 11D idea solved the problem, unifying the 4 string theories into M-theory. And that's where we stand right now.
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Hmm....Now, Famine has gone to great lengths to say that evolution is a truth of science.
What's with sites like this?
http://www.why-the-bible.com/geology.htm
Thomas Huxely Said:
"The primary and direct evidence in favor of evolution can be furnished only by paleontology. If evolution had taken place, its marks will be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation."
"I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it."
What's with sites like this?
http://www.why-the-bible.com/geology.htm
Thomas Huxely Said:
"The primary and direct evidence in favor of evolution can be furnished only by paleontology. If evolution had taken place, its marks will be left; if it has not taken place, there will be its refutation."
"I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it."
- 383
Swift
They're just further proof of humanity's inability to cope with, or even comprehend, infinity.
- 29,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Swift
You need to take that quote within the context of the generation within which it eminated... (mid-19th century)... evolution was merely a theory then, based on observations by Mendel and Darwin (among many others) that the gene was the basic unit of heredity, and that possession of certain genes (genotype) could be distinguished by studying the phenotype (appearance) of the organism (i.e. why kids look like their parents)...
Evidence that evolution did infact occur, was primarily collected from fossil remains and paleontology etc., in the absence of techniques by which to examine the genotype of organisms... but now that the technology exists that can demonstrate WITHOUT DOUBT that species are genetically related and have common ancestry etc., this sort of argument (quoted) is now obsolete.
It's an interesting point, but if you consider, the 'science' is still the same... the 'fact' that evolution was occuring then as it is now, is also still the same... the only difference is that the techniques used to study the phenomenon have advanced to a point where we can now look at the molecular biology of organisms in precise detail. Paleontology has come a long way from the days of that quote, to the point where you can study the shapes of bones, skulls etc., and directly link them to the underlying genotype which accounts for their shape... my good friend Stefan is finishing his PhD on this very topic as we speak... here's his boss's website.. http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugha096/ .
I think it's critically important to the debate of 'Creation v Evolution' that we establish that Evolution is no longer just a theory, it is an actual phenomenon which is not fully understood, therefore there are many complementary and competing theories that try to explain it accurately... Creationism is not one of those theories.
Understanding evolution is something that you could spend your life trying to understand... but a basic grasp of evolution should be enough to discount Creationism altogether. But being an evolutionist doesn't mean you need to forget the bible altogether... evolution makes no attempt to describe creation itself. Only creationism attempts to do that... but it gets it SO wrong, it's literally unbelievable... faith in the bible shouldn't compel you to believe creation theory. But a cursory glance through the literature should be enough to tell you that alot of the claims made by creationists are fundamentally flawed.
- 383
A few minutes on google provided this:
"There are no such things as missing links. We might as well quit looking for them."
-- Dr. Austin Clark, biologist at Smithsonian Institue in Washington
What are we to make of this quote? I see many creationists use it, but I never see any references to where it originally came from, thus preventing anyone from checking it out. Without any idea about the context in which it appeared, it's impossible for us to seriously evaluate it - especially when one considers how often creationists take quotes out of context an distort their original meaning.
It should also be noted here that the quote implies that Austin Clark is a biologist at the Smithsonian Institute - but that isn't true. Clark was a curator at the Smithsonian Institute during the first half of the twentieth century. He's been dead for nearly 50 years now. Another common tactic of creationists is to cite scientific sources from 50 or 100 years ago without noting their age and without apparently understanding that science actually progresses - thus, the personal opinions of scientists from those many decades ago don't necessarily hold true today.
source
"There are no such things as missing links. We might as well quit looking for them."
-- Dr. Austin Clark, biologist at Smithsonian Institue in Washington
What are we to make of this quote? I see many creationists use it, but I never see any references to where it originally came from, thus preventing anyone from checking it out. Without any idea about the context in which it appeared, it's impossible for us to seriously evaluate it - especially when one considers how often creationists take quotes out of context an distort their original meaning.
It should also be noted here that the quote implies that Austin Clark is a biologist at the Smithsonian Institute - but that isn't true. Clark was a curator at the Smithsonian Institute during the first half of the twentieth century. He's been dead for nearly 50 years now. Another common tactic of creationists is to cite scientific sources from 50 or 100 years ago without noting their age and without apparently understanding that science actually progresses - thus, the personal opinions of scientists from those many decades ago don't necessarily hold true today.
source
- 87,660
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
And a similar thing applies to Professor Kerner.
The next two obvious question you should ask yourself, Swift are:
Why would a site purporting to be giving you the truth make up things like this?
Why are you so willing to believe these things without checking into them?
The next two obvious question you should ask yourself, Swift are:
Why would a site purporting to be giving you the truth make up things like this?
Why are you so willing to believe these things without checking into them?
- 29,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
ledhed
For as long as people insist that creationism should be taught in schools, threads like this are needed!
It's a good point though... evolution is a branch of science, and as such, published material on evolution is readily available in libraries and in journals... it's peer-reviewed and is highly verifiable and credible...
Creation theory, however, is full of self-referential stuff that is not peer-reviewed, is generally published only in creationist magazines (or on the web where anyone can write anything they want about anything they like, with no 'burden of proof'), and the basis for it is not experiment or verifiable observation, but the text of the Bible... I find it demeaning as a scientist, but I cannot understand why religious people do not find it demeaning to the Bible, because they should...
@JackTheHat - what on earth is your avatar about?
- 383
Touring Mars@JackTheHat - what on earth is your avatar about?
I know it's not too clear, had to reduce it to comply with GTP regs.
It's actually a sheep watching Fox news, Bush Jr. is on screen... make of it what you will
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Famine
Ok, I just want to make sure I've got this straight. We shouldn't acknowledge what was said by evolutionists simply because they died some years ago?
BTW, I did check into them and I found the same things on other sites as well. This one just happened to have a good amount of quotes on one page.
- 383
Swift
But you didn't check their sources.
You have no idea who these people are so why not do some research?
- 29,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Anyone near Kentucky? Fancy popping along to this...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1501&slug=Creation Museum
If I had a spare $25 million knocking about, I don't think I'd be building one of those, I tell thee...
This bloke is like creationist numero uno... you never know, if we can get the chap who designed the Nike One car to join in the debate here on GTPlanet, perhaps Mr. Ham would enjoy contributing to our little debate?! 👍
Atleast he would be on your side Swift...
As for the point about disregarding what evolutionists said 100 years ago etc., it's more a question of selectivity on behalf of creationists... if they seek to validate their anti-evolution message by quoting scientists, then why dig up a quote from an era where they didn't know any better? Why not quote Richard Dawkins, or Stephen Jay Gould, or even any recent paper on evolutionary biology, rather than an archiac quote that has since been proved to be off the mark? Why do they choose to quote Huxley yet completely ignore Darwin??
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1501&slug=Creation Museum
If I had a spare $25 million knocking about, I don't think I'd be building one of those, I tell thee...
This bloke is like creationist numero uno... you never know, if we can get the chap who designed the Nike One car to join in the debate here on GTPlanet, perhaps Mr. Ham would enjoy contributing to our little debate?! 👍
Atleast he would be on your side Swift...
As for the point about disregarding what evolutionists said 100 years ago etc., it's more a question of selectivity on behalf of creationists... if they seek to validate their anti-evolution message by quoting scientists, then why dig up a quote from an era where they didn't know any better? Why not quote Richard Dawkins, or Stephen Jay Gould, or even any recent paper on evolutionary biology, rather than an archiac quote that has since been proved to be off the mark? Why do they choose to quote Huxley yet completely ignore Darwin??
- 1,620
Creationism would never be taught in schools in Australia. Thankfully we're not that screwy!
Possibly it could be taught (along with studies of various religious beliefs - good general knowledge stuff..) in the context of "Hey, here's what people once thought, when we didn't know any better."
Possibly it could be taught (along with studies of various religious beliefs - good general knowledge stuff..) in the context of "Hey, here's what people once thought, when we didn't know any better."
- 383
"It's a foundational battle," said Ham, a native of Australia who still speaks with an accent. "You've got to get people believing the right history - and believing that you can trust the Bible."
Note he says 'right' history and not 'correct'.
Note he says 'right' history and not 'correct'.
- 383
Famine
That's not going to stop Swift believing in him...
- 29,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I think we've scared off all the creationists... 
come back, we have no-one to argue with...
I must learn to stop reading 'answersingenesis.org'... that Mr. Ham has got me quite wound up... he describes evolution as a 'belief system'...
He also explains why they have a dinosaur in the new Creation Museum... because the evolution belief system has the whole thing wrong... his logic being thus:
Evolution argues that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist, but crocodiles that existed before dinosaurs still exist, therefore humans and dinosaurs must have co-existed... (since creationism argues that humans have existed for the entire age of the Earth)...
Oh dear... Mr. Ham singularly fails to notice that species have very different evolutionary timelines... yes, the croc has survived while the dinosaurs became extinct... but why is it so hard to believe (sorry, understand) that the timeline of the dinosaurs and that of humans have never crossed, but the timeline of the crocodile has crossed both because it is so long... also, the ASSUMPTION that this argument is based on, is that humans have inhabited the Earth since creation. Not so... this, by implication, means that we (as a species), are somehow divine or are somehow superior... again, not so. There is nothing special about us as a species, other than our (sometimes) outstanding mental abilities...
The issue comes down to this... dinosaurs do exist, therefore they require an explanation... therefore, to be a credible musuem, they cannot say that they didn't exist... so, get one in, and reinvent it's history in a creationist way... argue that the croc is older than the dino, and that crocs are still about, so it's possible that humans were also around when dinosaurs were - and they must have been since humans are as old as the Earth...
What total baloney...
come back, we have no-one to argue with... I must learn to stop reading 'answersingenesis.org'... that Mr. Ham has got me quite wound up... he describes evolution as a 'belief system'...
He also explains why they have a dinosaur in the new Creation Museum... because the evolution belief system has the whole thing wrong... his logic being thus:
Evolution argues that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist, but crocodiles that existed before dinosaurs still exist, therefore humans and dinosaurs must have co-existed... (since creationism argues that humans have existed for the entire age of the Earth)...
Oh dear... Mr. Ham singularly fails to notice that species have very different evolutionary timelines... yes, the croc has survived while the dinosaurs became extinct... but why is it so hard to believe (sorry, understand) that the timeline of the dinosaurs and that of humans have never crossed, but the timeline of the crocodile has crossed both because it is so long... also, the ASSUMPTION that this argument is based on, is that humans have inhabited the Earth since creation. Not so... this, by implication, means that we (as a species), are somehow divine or are somehow superior... again, not so. There is nothing special about us as a species, other than our (sometimes) outstanding mental abilities...
The issue comes down to this... dinosaurs do exist, therefore they require an explanation... therefore, to be a credible musuem, they cannot say that they didn't exist... so, get one in, and reinvent it's history in a creationist way... argue that the croc is older than the dino, and that crocs are still about, so it's possible that humans were also around when dinosaurs were - and they must have been since humans are as old as the Earth...
What total baloney...
- 383
Swift
Which is so far-fetched when compared to some 'superior' being created the whole universe out of nothing....
- 29,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Swift
If you could do that, you would get a Nobel Prize, but science is atleast addressing the question in a rational way, by piecing together the real evidence, painstakingly, and in the case of this question, over hundreds of years, builkding an increasingly accurate picture... the reality is that one day, they will be able to show how it happened, and hopefully then the creationists will finally pack it in.
Creation theory doesn't even attempt to explain, however. It singularly ignores the facts that we do already know, that we as a species have evolved from simpler species before us, and so on... it simply addresses the issue by saying 'we can never know, therefore you might as well believe anything that we say'...
edit: infact, to say that we can never know, is simply not true... but only by rational thinking can we hope to see the reality
- 1,103
- Cribanox
Swift
From what i know...
Earth is created
Life is only in ocean
Life evolves out of ocean
All life is just little slimey blobbly things with no real shape or form.
When life comes out to land different things happen.
Millions of years pass and now we have the begginning life forms of plants nutrients etc
Sooner or later life forms into different species etc.
Humans were only animals , they evolved from other humanoid type species before them. They only survived due to their big brain, they were smart enough to escape and move to not get devoured or killed.
It all escapes me right now and i cant find where i read this from on google.
- 87,660
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
Read the thread through again. I covered it at least twice.
I also notice how you've adopted the "Quote source, watch source get obliterated, change tack" form of debate here. You brought up a site which quoted 50-year old opinions from fictional people to counter evolution and are now conveniently ignoring it.
- 29,391
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 87,660
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Swift
Professor Kerner is real?
Face it, you saw the quotes and loved it. You didn't bother to wonder who any of the people were, whether or not they said those things at all and indeed when their "scientific" opinion was formed. You posted it up without a second though.
And that's the problem. You're so used to not thinking for yourself that you don't. Anything pro-Creation MUST be right, because someone pro-Creation said it... Come ON...
