EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

Norsefire said:
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.
Click to expand...

So, if it does not make sense that the universe always existed - i don't necessarily disagree with you - does it make sense to say that whatever created it always existed ?
 
Kadark said:
Uh huh.
Click to expand...

Is that to be taken as a mathematical answer ? On your own admission you cannot get your head round the numbers. That's because you don't understand whta numbers you should be looking at. In short, you do not understand evolution.

Can I take it that you cannot also get your head round infinity ?
 
Myles said:
Is that to be taken as a mathematical answer ? On your own admission you cannot get your head round the numbers. That's because you don't understand whta numbers you should be looking at. In short, you do not understand evolution.

Can I take it that you cannot also get your head round infinity ?
Click to expand...

I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.
 
Norsefire said:
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.
Click to expand...

So what created the creator? If that was "always there", why isn't that equally illogical?
 
Kadark said:
I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.
Click to expand...

I've got a book for you, "Climbing Mt. Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.
 
Kadark said:
I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.
Click to expand...
Can you at least see irony, in your incredulity, at your evolved mammalian brain reaching the conclusion that it can't understand how it got to that conclusion?
 
Norsefire said:
I think the proof that the Universe or Universes, or basically existence, was Created is that it must have been. It would not be logical to assume it was "always there" because that simply does not make sense, it's impossible, it's illogical, and it leads to an overwhelming conclusion that originally, existence was created.
Click to expand...
Norsefire, come on, it is not more logical. All you do is add a God in and say God did it. Then who created God? Oh, well that's easy, God has always been there.

Please, the simpler answer is to cut out the God/Gods/Goddesses/etc.. variable.


Evolution is concerned with living things that are already here, with proteins, with DNA, etc...
 
Kadark said:
I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be. Of course I understand the calculations, which is precisely why it casts doubt on the evolutionary theory for me.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems you have a problem that scientists world wide do not have. Why not write a paper setting out your reasoning. Your name will go down in history if your objections are accepted.
 
Norsefire said:
Because such a creator is beyond our realm, therefore not bound by our physical laws.
Click to expand...

Maybe evolution is beyond your understanding also, i.e., beyond your personal realm.

You assume a creator which, in turn, forces you to put it beyond our realm because you cannot support your argument in any other way. Not very convincing when you think about it.
 
Michael said:
Norsefire, come on, it is not more logical. All you do is add a God in and say God did it. Then who created God? Oh, well that's easy, God has always been there.

Please, the simpler answer is to cut out the God/Gods/Goddesses/etc.. variable.


Evolution is concerned with living things that are already here, with proteins, with DNA, etc...
Click to expand...

If there was a Creator (a God), obviously he would not be on the same plane of existence, the same realm, we are in and therefore our rules of nature would not apply.

However, as to the universe, again how is it logical that there is a universe if there was no creator? What is existence? What is something? Why is there anything? Where did existence come from? How do you know we exist? Where did something originate? Why do we exist? The only logical conclusion is a Creator.
 
spidergoat said:
It is proven. We even know which animal is related to the very first animal.

We do know that all the present broad classifications of organisms first occurred during the Cambrian period. We can see the branching out of species, for instance the rise of bipedal apes from those that walked on all fours, the rise of large-brained bipedal apes out of the small-brained ancestors. There is massive evidence for this, and you are just in denial because you want to believe in a cherished myth.
Click to expand...

Proven as in "found to be true"
It is not beyond a shadow of doubt For we have no seen the ultimate results.
Nor have we've been able to reproduce them on that ultimate scale.


Fraggle Rocker said:
This is not speculation. It is a hypothesis derived from evidence by logical reasoning, which has been undergoing testing and peer review for more than a century without being falsified. That is much different from speculation. Our evidence for evolution is of roughly the same grade as our evidence for the entire science of astronomy, which is based on images of distant stars as they were tens of thousands of years ago, and of distant galaxies as they were tens of billions of years ago. Yet no one has challenged the theories of astronomy since the end of the Dark Ages; no one says that astronomy is based on "faith" that those galaxies are now where we calculate them to be.
Click to expand...

A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations? I concur it is indeed a hypothesis. But that does not make it proven. Linking the facts and evidence is speculation. It's frequently done just so in a court of law in which a prosecution proposes a hypothesis based on motive, opportunity, links to the crime scene, etc. Once those figures are in place a reasonable and logical hypothesis is derived...
Is the hypothesis always right? Logically, No.

And just to make sure I'm not using colloquialisms.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing

Speculation: guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

FraggleRocker you identified evolution as a hypothesis which is an educated guess and it can be reliably said that we do not have all the information regarding life in the past. It's made evident by the back and forth in the biology thread currently.

I'm sorry I'm not intrested in dogma or tradition. It's almost as bad in science as it is in religion....Well not really. Truely only in this case, I believe. Nonetheless the similarities are the same. The "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude on evolution as a fact has become tradition. Something to be past down.

Since there is no need to prosecute anyone...to come to conclusion expidently it remains a theory untill it may one day be linked to it's ultimate end. Declaring it fact as of now is an opinion we are entitled to but not factual, not logical, not proven.
 
Norsefire said:
If there was a Creator (a God), obviously he would not be on the same plane of existence, the same realm, we are in and therefore our rules of nature would not apply.

However, as to the universe, again how is it logical that there is a universe if there was no creator? What is existence? What is something? Why is there anything? Where did existence come from? How do you know we exist? Where did something originate? Why do we exist? The only logical conclusion is a Creator.
Click to expand...
Again, all you are doing is compounding the problem.

Who are/is the creator(s)?
Where did they come from?
How do we know they exist?
Where did they originate?
Why do they exist?

The only logical conclusion is a set of Creators for the Creators...

Who are these NEW creator(s)?
Where did they come from?
How do we know they exist?
Where did they originate?
Why do they exist?


See?

The fact is there is no evidence for any "Creators". So why postulate their existence as a means of answering the question?

Think of it like this. A long time ago people living on an Island asked: Why are the rocks along the beach lined up so perfectly? Rocks and shells of about the same size formed lines along the beach. The obvious answer was a Water God. Once people in Greece asked why lightening shot down from the sky. The obvious answer was a God named Zeus.

Will we ever understand the origin of the Universe? Maybe not. Or, maybe we will. When we do I am sure that the answer will not be based on Gods just as lightening and rock-orientation wasn't either.


That said, this topic is on evolution - which is a fact. Evolution is a process that takes place in things that are already here and alive. Like animals, plants, bacteria, etc...


As to the WHY am I here? That's a question everyone asks (or should) and I personally think only one individual can answer it - and answer only for themselves.

Michael
 
kadark said:
I said I cannot wrap my head around the numbers because of how improbable they show protein evolution to be.
Click to expand...
They show nothing. They are based on silly assumptions, and whatever they turn out to be is no more relevant to evolution than the square root of the number of electrons in the nearest asteroid.
 
Saquist,

I'm afraid Evolution is not a fact.
If the process is debated then it hasn't been observed thus it is a theory.
Click to expand...
No. As Darwin stated in his book - he was proud of two things - establishing the fact of evolution and proposing the theory of how things evolve.

Norsefire,

Evolution is a theory not a fact.
Click to expand...
Similar answer to you. Any basic study of biology reveals the fact of evolution. It is astonishing that anyone still wants to deny these basics.
 
Saquist said:
Why is "creators" a logical conclusions?
Click to expand...
Obviously the question then becomes who (or whom) created the Creator. Who created that creator... ad infinitum

OR, perhaps you would like to stop at the first Creator, for which we have no evidence for? I mean, really, this IS the predominate mythological tale. One or One Set of Creators (I'm thinking Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto the Japanese Creator). Not to many people bother to question their origin - it's a given.

All was a chaos, unimaginably limitless and without definite shape or form. Eon followed eon: then, lo! out of this boundless, shapeless mass something light and transparent rose up and formed the heaven. This was the Plain of High Heaven, in which materialized a deity called Ame-no-Minaka-Nushi-no-Mikoto (the Deity-of-the-August-Center-of-Heaven). Next the heavens gave birth to a deity named Takami-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the High-August-Producing-Wondrous-Deity), followed by a third called Kammi-Musubi-no-Mikoto (the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity). These three divine beings are called the Three Creating Deities.


So, why not just stop at the This is the Universe page? No need to compound things by adding three creators huh? Wouldn't you agree?

Also, the Universe can be eternal.
The Universe may have exited in a different form and what we see as a "beginning" is simply the beginning of the Universe as it is now.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top