Creation/Evolution controversy

[Barkhorn1x]

I would say that there has been no proof of eather creation or evloition, creation (if so) you could that natral selection is not true because god can just stop it, or say that evloition did happen and it is jsut how you interpit the bible that says "seven days" what defines a day for god... idk lol

Advice for you mon ami;

1. Try not to parade your stunning level of ignorance on these boards in the future.

2. It's called Spellchecker - you can find it under Tools in any word processor program.


A scientist = "OK, I think evolutionary theory is solid because I have access to reams and reams of data that support it."

You = Well it could be either or, "...it is jsut how you interpit the bible that says "seven days" what defines a day for god..."


Barkhorn.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Well, I stopped reading the posts about half way down, but here's the thing. Creationism and evolution to not conflict. Creationism deals with how life began on earth, and evolution deals with how life changes and adapts in response to environmental stimuli. Abiogenesis is the competing theory of creationism. Not evolution.

Not quite;

Evolutionary Theory = science
Creationism = psuedo-science

This is getting tiresome people - do pay attention!

Barkhorn.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Why is it that "Creation Science" organizations exist in ONLY the US and Australia?

Not so coincidentally, these are the same places that have - relatively - large groups of Xtian Fundies.

Hmm...how come certain Xtians are so threatened by Evolution??

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." ~Carl Sagan, 1987

...and neither can I.

Barkhorn

 

[Katazia]

Awake,

Who is saying it has to be one or the other? IMHO it would have to be both.

But you have no support for that opinion.

Everything comes from somewhere.

What’s your evidence? Through science what we observe is that nothing is created or destroyed but anything can be changed from one thing to another, i.e. matter to energy, energy to matter.

Let's say "the source of all" created everything and nature/evolution did the rest.

But why say it? There is no sound reason to say that anything was created ever.

Kat

 

[SVRP]

A true scientist will research both sides of the argument of evolution vs. creation without injecting their own biasness or presuppositions. They should try to be as objective as possible while doing the research, and try to be skeptical of the answers if the facts do not support the conclusions. And sometimes this may lead to reading reams of material from the opposition, including their websites.
The truth is all scientists have access to the data and fossil remains. It is the interpretation of this data that mark the differences from the evolutionists and the creationists.

At the height of his professional career, Pierre-Paul Grassé was considered by many to be France’s greatest living zoologist. In fact, Dobzhansky wrote of him: “Now one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic” (1975, 29:376). In 1977, Grassé wrote in The Evolution of Living Organisms:
“Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.
Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved (pp. 8,202).”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-safull.htm#arg01

 

[Persol]

You mean that the creationists throw there hands up in the air and say "god did it" while the evolutionists continue to try and figure out how it happened?

Nobody can rightly claim that the current theory is 100% correct, but it sure as hell is better than the god of gaps.

 

[Awake]

I concede that I don't actually know how all this (time, universe, everything) got started. I don't have any real proof and don't know a whole lot about science (astronomy, chemistry, biology etc.) But what I believe is that the "source of all" (energy of all that is) was. Through the "big bang" or whatever other term you want to use, the energy suddenly spread out at unfathomable speed. This energy transformed into all that is. As far as I know it continues to spread. As well it continues to change. Now, as far as evolution goes, everything on the earth continues to change and adapt.
You are right I don't have any hard data proofs for the claims I believe but I haven't focused as much time on what happened or how it happened as I have on what I consider a personal spiritual path.
I will although read and try to learn others views.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

A true scientist will research both sides of the argument of evolution vs. creation without injecting their own biasness or presuppositions.

Yea, and when this research turns up a MOUNTAIN of evidence in support of Evolutionary theory - and shows Creation "science" to be nothing more than argument from ignorance - a true scientist will support Evolutionary theory.

Barkhorn.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

A true scientist will research both sides of the argument of evolution vs. creation ...

Rubbish. A true scientist doesn't 'research ... arguments'. Rather, s/he tests theories and/or the inferences of those theories. How might 'a true scientist' research the proposition that 'God did it'?

 

[Repo Man]

The reason this debate always gets silly is that this is the mentality of the people on the other side.

Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics

TOPEKA, KS—The second law of thermodynamics, a fundamental scientific principle stating that entropy increases over time as organized forms decay into greater states of randomness, has come under fire from conservative Christian groups, who are demanding that the law be repealed.

"What do these scientists want us teaching our children? That the universe will continue to expand until it reaches eventual heat death?" asked Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed, speaking at a rally protesting a recent Kansas Board Of Education decision upholding the law. "That's hardly an optimistic view of a world the Lord created for mankind. The American people are sending a strong message here: We don't like the implications of this law, and we will not rest until it has been reversed in the courts."

The controversial law of nature, which asserts that matter continually breaks down as disorder increases and heat is lost, has long been decried by Christian fundamentalists as running counter to their religion's doctrine of Divine grace and eternal salvation.

"Why can't disorder decrease over time instead of everything decaying?" asked Jim Muldoon of Emporia, KS. "Is that too much to ask? This is our children's future we're talking about."

"I wouldn't want my child growing up in a world headed for total heat death and dissolution into a vacuum," said Kansas state senator Will Blanchard (R-Hutchinson). "No decent parent would want that."

Calling the second law of thermodynamics "a deeply disturbing scientific principle that threatens our children's understanding of God's universe as a benevolent and loving place," Blanchard is spearheading a nationwide grassroots campaign to have the law removed from high-school physics textbooks. The plan has already met with significant support in the state legislatures of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi.

"My daughter's schoolbooks tell her that we live in a world ruled by disorder," said Knox Heflin, one of several dozen fundamentalists who spoke out against the teaching of the law at a Statesboro (GA) School Board hearing. "That's a direct contradiction of what it says in the Bible, about how everything is going to get better, and we'll all live happily up in heaven after the End Times."

"The only 'heat death' Jesus ever mentioned is the one that sinners will suffer for all eternity in the Lake of Fire," said Indianola (MS) School Board president Bernice McCallum. "Now more than ever, we need to hear what the Bible has to say about our public schools' physical-science curricula."

Above: Conservative Christians protest the second law of thermodynamics on the steps of the Kansas Capitol.

Above: Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed holds a textbook he claims is being used to teach physics in schools.

http://www.theonion.com/onion3631/christian_right_lobbies.html

 

[Raithere]

Well, I stopped reading the posts about half way down, but here's the thing. Creationism and evolution to not conflict. Creationism deals with how life began on earth, and evolution deals with how life changes and adapts in response to environmental stimuli. Abiogenesis is the competing theory of creationism. Not evolution.

The problem is that while abiogenesis is a testable and disprovable theory, Creationism, or Intelligent Design, does not even conform to the demands of a scientific hypothesis. I.D. instead relies purely upon an argument from ignorance, "We cannot imagine how X could possibly evolve naturally so it must have been created by an intelligent agent." Such an 'hypothesis' is not disprovable. One would have to come up with some way of proving whether or not something was created by an intelligent agent. Instead Creationists like to make up statistics as 'proof' of how improbable the 'random' development of life is. The problem here is that evolution and abiogenesis are not random (and it is thusly a straw man argument) and that probability cannot be determined from a single instance (we only have one Universe to observe).

Who is saying it has to be one or the other? IMHO it would have to be both. Everything comes from somewhere. Let's say "the source of all" created everything and nature/evolution did the rest.

Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. If 'everything comes from somewhere' then 'the source of all' must also 'come from somewhere'. All that you are doing is arbitrarily assigning the property of being eternal (infinite) to some imagined 'source of all'. This is no more or less defensible than other infinities such as infinite recession or an eternal Universe except that you have no argument that warrants an external 'source'.

~Raithere

 

[Katazia]

Repo mna,

They have to be joking, right?

Kat

 

[Repo Man]

Repo mna,

They have to be joking, right?

Kat

Yes Kat, it's The Onion. "America's Finest News Source".

But the underlying sentiment isn't too much of an exaggeration. That's why it is funny.

 

[martinhd28v01]

For all the people who are hard core creationists, I can only think back to examples in our past. When Hubble first discovered the expanding universe, or when the earth was found not to be the center of the universe, these discoveries once found were not suddenly understood by all of mankind all over the globe. The information and understanding of such things gradually spread across the planet as if a growing life form itself. The same is true of evolution, this controversy points out that not everyone understands evolution and thus just go with the safe bet(oh, I'll just tell myself God did it and then I can sleep better at night).

The fact is the newest breakthroughts are only know by a few people, and then gradually filter out into the public. Evolution is as good of an example of this as any.

 

[Katazia]

Phew - thanks repo.

 

[Idle Mind]

Barkhorn

Not quite;

Evolutionary Theory = science
Creationism = psuedo-science

This is getting tiresome people - do pay attention!

That's nice. However, it is completely irrelevant. Notice that I did not state what I actually think, but merely pointed out where people are misguided in arguing on this topic.

Raithere:
I agree with you completely. The point I was trying to make, was that creationism and evolution do not necessarily conflict, since evolution makes no mention of how life came to be. This does not mean that I believe in a creationist origin.

 

[Awake]

~Raithere
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that there are no infinites? Or are you saying you know how and where the universe started? I personally believe that in our finite minds we can not even comprehend the enormity of the infinite nor the prospect of the beginning.

So if the "source of all" has to come from somewhere where would it come from? If you don't believe there was or is a "source of all", where and how, in your opinion, did our universe start?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

So if the "source of all" has to come from somewhere where would it come from? If you don't believe there was or is a "source of all", where and how, in your opinion, did our universe start?

Using "God(s)" as a place-holder for "we don't know" accomplishes nothing:

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-- Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)

 

[Ellimist]

If I may, I would like to make some of this clearer for whoever needs a little explanation or *help*, ha.

1. Regardless of abiogenesis, the ideas of creationism and evolution do conflict because - creationism purports that humans were first, came out of nothing/dust. Evolution shows that humans slowly came about and changed over a long period of time. It is moreso the human evolution, not the animal evolution, that pisses off the creationists. Science is once again, much like heliocentrism, proving things they think they know, wrong.

2. SVRP - you meant to say "a layman" or "a civilian" or "someone not in science". This is because scientists don't have the time to deal with children refusing to accept that (dagr8n8 shouldn't read this next part)

Santa Claus isn't real. It would take years to research all of evolution, for there is so much there, and hundreds of scientists do this, it is their job. Now, creationism... it is a fruitless search. A wild-goose chase. A foolish attempt. Scientists don't waste their time in bullshit. They get paid to study science, not religion. Anyway, it has already been said well, but you need to have it re-iterated. [True] Scientists rely on evidence.

Human Origin Score Board (in quadrillions of pieces of evidence(may be over or underestimated due to lack of knowledge of exact amount(this applies only to the evolution category(because I know the actually amount of the other one)))):
Evolution = 516
Creationism = zero
Panspermia = I don't think so.

 

[Idle Mind]

Okay Ellimist, I will concede that point. However, not all creationists have a problem with evolution. There is only a small group of people who takes the writings of the bible literally. Only in this case do the two ideas truly conflict.