A simple reason why creationism is false

[Visitor]

I've read many posts in these forums defending and debunking creation but I don't think that anyone has mentioned this simple reason why not only creation is false but evolution is the only rational truth.

It is a simple biological fact. A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals. It would require constant inbreeding and the gene pool would not be diverse as it is in all species. If evolution is a fact, and it is, this would never happen because unique species would arise slowly from large populations with a large gene pool. Mankind could not have risen from one man and woman. Creationism is false and evolution is truth.

 

[Royce]

What you say about creation may or may not be true but the reason that you give is definitely wrong. there are countless examples of specific breeds of cats and dog arising from one animal. Also take Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands where one species of birds probably from one pair blown onto the islands genetically diverged to fill numerous niches in their environment.

 

[Visitor]

With regard to the breeds of cats and dogs, they are not distinct species and when an oddball is born it is not continuously bred with it's brothers and sisters. (Some breeders do do that but they are making genetic cripples that will have to be outbred sooner or later)

The same goes for the species on Galapogos. You are making an assumption that only 2 birds ended up there and they just happened to be male and female of the same species. Very unlikely, much more likely that there were more that provided the genetic diversity necessary for a healthy population that later evolved into unique species only after creating a viable population.

The Florida panther is a good example. The small population there led to inbreeding and genetic defects that were killing off the population even quicker. It took introducing close relatives, cougars from out west, to introduce fresh genes to straighten their genes out and make them healthy. If your theory is correct, they would have been ok with just being protected, they were far from ok and the cause was inbreeding and there were a lot more than 2.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Visitor
I've read many posts in these forums defending and debunking creation but I don't think that anyone has mentioned this simple reason why not only creation is false but evolution is the only rational truth.

It is a simple biological fact. A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals. It would require constant inbreeding and the gene pool would not be diverse as it is in all species. If evolution is a fact, and it is, this would never happen because unique species would arise slowly from large populations with a large gene pool. Mankind could not have risen from one man and woman. Creationism is false and evolution is truth.

I actually have a bigger problem with the whole universe being created in 7 days thing(or 3000 years, or whatever it is now that they take 7 days to mean)

 

[FZ+]

It is a simple biological fact. A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals.

As opposed to evolution, which proposes a healthy population growing from 0 individuals?

The above is only useful, if we combine the other "argument" creationists use - the idea that no new genetic material can appear, and so evolution cannot occur. In that case, yes. We must pity Adam and Eve, developing with every genetic disorder in the book. [:p]

 

[Iacchus32]

So, perhaps we shouldn't take the Bible too literally then? Is this the best you can do? Granted, there is such a thing as being gullible and believing in things blindly but, that could apply to just about anything.

Now what I would like to know, is why is that of all the creatures on this planet, only human beings seem to be capable of discerning the matter? Or, even care for that matter. And, if we're so far advanced over the other species, to where we can say hey, it's totally "irrational" to believe in God, then why don't any of the other species even begin to exhibit such "primitive traits" which, they apparently don't?

 

[FZ+]

So, perhaps we shouldn't take the Bible too literally then?

Tell that to the creationists.

Now what I would like to know, is why is that of all the creatures on this planet, only human beings seem to be capable of discerning the matter?

Because you are not looking hard enough. A wide variety of other animals have been observed to take on irrational, and useless actions which correspond to religious rituals. By varying feed rates, chickens have been trained to dance in worship for a feeder-god.

 

[Royce]

Well I don't take the bible literally nor believe that Genesis is any more than folk tales. Every culture has creation myths. Yet I believe that God created and is the master of the universe. As I have often said; "God said let there be light. Big Bang!"

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+

Tell that to the creationists.

Because you are not looking hard enough. A wide variety of other animals have been observed to take on irrational, and useless actions which correspond to religious rituals. By varying feed rates, chickens have been trained to dance in worship for a feeder-god.

Now that you mention it, there are a lot of ritualistic things that do occur in the animal kingdom, but these things typically entail some sort of mating ritual, and it's kind of hard to imagine as a direct sign of "God worship." However, since religion is supposed to represent "the marriage" of mankind to God, then maybe there's something there?

 

[Rader]

Intellegent Design

Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can explain the "Intellegent Design" apparently found in Nature.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rader
Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can explain the "Intellegent Design" apparently found in Nature.

Neither can "intelligent design", which is such nonsense that it barely qualifies as pseudoscience.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Zero
Neither can "intelligent design", which is such nonsense that it barely qualifies as pseudoscience.

Intellegent Design is not without scientific foundation. It is evident in both the architecture of the universe and the features of living systems.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rader
Intellegent Design is not without scientific foundation. It is evident in both the architecture of the universe and the features of living systems.

It is UTTERLY without scientific foundation. In fact, the features of living systems almost proves ID to be wrong.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Zero
It is UTTERLY without scientific foundation. In fact, the features of living systems almost proves ID to be wrong.

Almost proves, that means then not quite. Just you or anybody else is not sure. I said there was evidence, and biological systems show plenty of it. Creationism is a fariry tale and Evolutionism does not explain "Intellegent Design"

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rader
Almost proves, that means then not quite. Just you or anybody else is not sure. I said there was evidence, and biological systems show plenty of it. Creationism is a fariry tale and Evolutionism does not explain "Intellegent Design"

No, see, science is always provisional, therefore we can never claim to know anything 100%. However, while evolutionary theories aren't perfect, "Intelligent Design" contains NO theories.

 

[FZ+]

I do not think Intelligent Design has any scientific credibility. Even if it was shown that an additional process is required, it is by nature impossible to show that it is intelligent, and even less likely that it is of a similar intelligence to humans. The thing ultimately constitutes an attempt to shoehorn God where He simply does not fit, hurting religion (perhaps deservingly?) and science in the process. Moreover, evolution is a complex dynamical process. It relies on the lack of order, the existence of randomness.

 

[Nereid]

How much intelligence do you need to make the universe go "Bang!"? bigly of course.

FZ+ wrote: The thing ultimately constitutes an attempt to shoehorn God where He simply does not fit, hurting religion (perhaps deservingly?) and science in the process.

I like that!

Except for the "He" part; didn't you know that God is trans-metagender? metasex (category1, class A) on Mondays (except when there's a full Moon), superposition of transfinite class metametasex (mode zeta) on Fridays, and so on ...

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Visitor

It is a simple biological fact. A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals. It would require constant inbreeding and the gene pool would not be diverse as it is in all species. If evolution is a fact, and it is, this would never happen because unique species would arise slowly from large populations with a large gene pool. Mankind could not have risen from one man and woman. Creationism is false and evolution is truth.

Genesis does not equal or represent creation. If there is not intelligent design, then where does our intelligence actually come from? We did not construct the human brain using our intelligence. Therefore, it is not logical to conclude that intelligence does not exist outside of the human mind. That is solipsistic. Our intelligence did not just randomly emerge after eons of aimless mutation, just as if we take apart a swiss watch and juggle around the pieces for an eon, it will not randomly construct itself. That is against the second law of thermodynamics. Even if It did, then perhaps eons of mutation IS intelligent design. Intelligence is relative. We may be severely lacking in intelligence to even recognize a higher intellicence-- just as a frog can never comprehend that it is not the most intelligent thing on Earth.

all currently living human beings can be traced to one prehistoric individual... the skeloton is named Lucy I believe. Futher, it is KNOWN that all animals, whether fly or human are so genetically similar that they must all have a common ancestor. All human beings are blood related to some degree, they all have a common ancestor. Genetics do not work in the way you imply. Actually, in the short term, inbreeding is bad on genes but in the longer run it actually creates new diverity. If you think about this, you will see it is true... otherwise, all living species must have a specific point in time where the whole specie's gene pool gets so mdddied that the species becomes extinct. When is humanity destined for this?


By the way, Genesis does not say that all humans came from Adam and Eve. It does not say that Adam and eve were the last created humans, only the first. When Cain was exiled, he went to the land of nod and got married, implying that there were other humans in existence. The bible does not say where they came from or if they were related to adam and eve.

 

[Janitor]

I haven't been a Creationist since I was a kid, but I would be a little careful about sweeping statements like: "A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals." The reason I say this is that there certainly exist species even today on Earth which do something even more impressive (in a sense) than that. I am talking about asexual organisms which produce progeny quite successfully. Put just one organism of that type in a suitable environment, come back later and you will find lots of descendents.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by FZ+
I do not think Intelligent Design has any scientific credibility. Even if it was shown that an additional process is required, it is by nature impossible to show that it is intelligent, and even less likely that it is of a similar intelligence to humans. The thing ultimately constitutes an attempt to shoehorn God where He simply does not fit, hurting religion (perhaps deservingly?) and science in the process. Moreover, evolution is a complex dynamical process. It relies on the lack of order, the existence of randomness.

Your entitled to your opinion that's not mine and its not held by myself. Your missing the point what "Intellegent Design " is, it is more not less or equal. Things fit where they fit.

Moreover, evolution is a complex dynamical process. It relies on the lack of order, the existence of randomness.

You compare then evolution to QM? If that was the case there would be no two of anything.

Whats more supprising to me is that Nereid agrees with your post. Now i ask myself, why would on another thread, he be trying to scientifically, try to calulate with specific data, if we were in the midst of a sixth mass extintion. We could just say for no reason at all it might or might not occur.

Nereid How much intelligence do you need to make the universe go "Bang!"? bigly of course.

Just enough, that the point

 

[FZ+]

Your entitled to your opinion that's not mine and its not held by myself. Your missing the point what "Intellegent Design " is, it is more not less or equal. Things fit where they fit.

More what? Evolution, as I said, is dependent on things not fitting, and hence changing. The existence of an underlying design undermines the whole mechanism, and undos much of what we observe.

You compare then evolution to QM? If that was the case there would be no two of anything.

No. QM is a stochastic random process. I am referring to complexity/chaos theory. Evolution relies on emerging instabilities, and pseudorandom chance actions. Naively putting in a design does not make the process "better", but undermines the whole thing. It is additionally not reflected in the evidence we have - we don't see averages, but rather a jerky series of changes. Evolution does not defy logic. God does that.

There are, usually, no two of anything. Every individual is often different. Mutations, environmental differences and so on pull populations apart. Evolution involves an unstable shifting balance between these forces, and interbreeding etc which tries to pull the population back together.

 

[Royce]

I agree that intellegent design cannot be scientifically supported; but, that is because science doesn't have a clue yet what intellegence is or how it came about.
Why would you think that randomness is not designed into the system just so that evolution etc would work as it has to come up with the nessecary diversity needed to support all of life. Not just here on Earth but wherever it may occur.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I agree that intellegent design cannot be scientifically supported; but, that is because science doesn't have a clue yet what intellegence is or how it came about.
Why would you think that randomness is not designed into the system just so that evolution etc would work as it has to come up with the nessecary diversity needed to support all of life. Not just here on Earth but wherever it may occur.

The problem with that idea is that it is unfalsifiable, and can cover any situation or evidence. ANYTHING we discover, no matter how little it points to intelligence, you can claim that some intelligence made it appear that way for an unknown reason. This idea that randomness is a sign of design reminds me of creationists who claim that the universe was created with the appearance of age.
Really, though, once you go down that path, it falls apart, because then literally anything can be claimed, and everything has equal weight, and we can't move forward from there.

 

[elwestrand]

Originally posted by Zero

Really, though, once you go down that path, it falls apart, because then literally anything can be claimed, and everything has equal weight, and we can't move forward from there.

Why are you insinuating that that isn't merely the way it actually is? Apparently it is not intellectually satisfying if "everything has equal weight." But the opposite is also unfalsifiable.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Why are you insinuating that that isn't merely the way it actually is? Apparently it is not intellectually satisfying if "everything has equal weight." But the opposite is also unfalsifiable.

I don't understand what you are getting at. It is not intellectually practical to assume that all ideas have equal value. We don't have the time or capacity to explore every possiblility, so we go with the most probable ideas. Once you claim that things are MADE to look one way, while they are really another, you run into problems. First, is assumes without reason that something created everything else. Secondly, once you throw observation out the window, every else goes to crap...and I mean EVERYTHING.

If you say that "God" created life to look as though is wasn't created, I could counter that nothing existed until 7 seconds ago, and was just created. I could say that everything is made out of green cheese with the APPEARANCE that other types of substances exist. Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem with that idea is that it is unfalsifiable, and can cover any situation or evidence. ANYTHING we discover, no matter how little it points to intelligence, you can claim that some intelligence made it appear that way for an unknown reason. This idea that randomness is a sign of design reminds me of creationists who claim that the universe was created with the appearance of age.
Really, though, once you go down that path, it falls apart, because then literally anything can be claimed, and everything has equal weight, and we can't move forward from there.

Zero we've been down this path before, or at least very similar. No it isn't science. Its philosophy or maybe metaphysics. Science is not all there is to human intellect or thinking. It is a specific tool to be used for a specific purpose or line of inquiry. It is not and cannot be used to investigate everything there is that the human mind wants and needs to investigate.
I know that you are a materialist and I respect that but there is more to reality than the material empirical universe. If nothing else there is our minds and all of the subjective perceptions and abstract thoughts and ideas that we have. One of my abstract ideas is that there is also a spiritual reality and a creator and master of the universe who is rational and intelligent and used those attributes when he designed the universe.
Can I prove it? Is it falsifiable? No, but as I said this is not science this is philosophy not physics.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero we've been down this path before, or at least very similar. No it isn't science. Its philosophy or maybe metaphysics. Science is not all there is to human intellect or thinking. It is a specific tool to be used for a specific purpose or line of inquiry. It is not and cannot be used to investigate everything there is that the human mind wants and needs to investigate.
I know that you are a materialist and I respect that but there is more to reality than the material empirical universe. If nothing else there is our minds and all of the subjective perceptions and abstract thoughts and ideas that we have. One of my abstract ideas is that there is also a spiritual reality and a creator and master of the universe who is rational and intelligent and used those attributes when he designed the universe.
Can I prove it? Is it falsifiable? No, but as I said this is not science this is philosophy not physics.

Should philosophy be where you go when you aren't able to back up what you believe with any evidence? Sounds like philosophy is a place to hide from reality. I don't understand why the same standards don't apply. If you make a comment about objective reality, you have to play by a different set of rules than if you are making a subjective claim. Discussions about the origins of the universe are discussions about objective reality, which means you can't use subjective "evidence" to make your case.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
Should philosophy be where you go when you aren't able to back up what you believe with any evidence? Sounds like philosophy is a place to hide from reality.

No, philosophy is presently the only place where we can find all of reality not just what we can measure, touch and see. It is the place to speculate about everything and anything. Something we can't really do in objective science.

I don't understand why the same standards don't apply. If you make a comment about objective reality, you have to play by a different set of rules than if you are making a subjective claim.

Because one is science with a strict set of rules called The Scientific Method and the other is speculation, reasoning and just possibly a hint of logic even if its ones own particular brand of logic.

Discussions about the origins of the universe are discussions about objective reality, which means you can't use subjective "evidence" to make your case.

The origins of the universe are speculations supported by empirical evidence and are widely accepted. I accept the Big Bang with little reservation; however, the why and how and what was before or where it all came from is pure speculation and is therefore philosophy not science.
What difference is there really if I speculate that the universe came originally from a virtual particle that escaped returning to the vacuum that created it by inflation or is I speculate the it came about by the will of a creator. Both statements have the same value, 0, and are equally unreasonable. Neither can be proved or disproved yet one is considered science and the other superstition.
Hows that for bias and double standards in the unbiased, open minded and totally fair world of science which still ridicules and castigates its members who think outside the box for twenty years until there hypothesis becomes accepted and is put in all of the textbooks as gospel.

 

[Zero]

See, you keep making the utterly unfounded assumption that there is something besides the material. It biases all the rest of your "logic" and invalidates it.

 

[FZ+]

What difference is there really if I speculate that the universe came originally from a virtual particle that escaped returning to the vacuum that created it by inflation or is I speculate the it came about by the will of a creator.

Because virtual particles have been observed, and a creator has not. Because a creator introduces a variety of baggage that have not been justified. Because the nature of a creator has been constructed to make it immune to scientific inquiry. Because we cannot yet justify a radical shift in the laws of the universe between the start (which, supposed belongs to God), and the rest, which we cannot find any need for God in. If we presume this inconsistency in the universe, we jam up practically everything else.

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Why are you insinuating that that isn't merely the way it actually is? Apparently it is not intellectually satisfying if "everything has equal weight." But the opposite is also unfalsifiable.

Because if everything has equal weight I can say the my gym shorts traveled back in time and created the universe in a manner in which every looks to us the way it us, but it is really made out of cheese that just has the ability to look like other things. And that theory would be just as valid as a theory of god.

Or I could say that we are all in a video game, matrix style, and that I am really the virtual representation of the being outside the video game playing for real, so I am god. You all simply do not have the ability to recognize the truth, because I programmed it like that.

Its funny, although one of the main claims of religion is the finding of meaning and significance in life, but if you follow the above logic, you give nothing meaning, and there is no significance.

Although it is fun and very much in human nature to create self-disillusionment, it is not, as you call it "intellectually satisfying."

 

[Zero]

In order to show the illogic of "God" claims, simply insert "Zero's left boot" any place where you see "God" or "a creator".

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
See, you keep making the utterly unfounded assumption that there is something besides the material. It biases all the rest of your "logic" and invalidates it.

First of all it is not an assumption but an experience, a subjective experience, granted; but, as I can only experience anything subjectively including the objective universe, my subjective experience is just as real and carries just as much wieght as any and all experiences.

There are things that are intrinsic to me and there are things that are extrinsic to me. I can and do recognize the difference. The objective universe is extrinsic, so is the subjective and spiritual.
By the same reassoning that I know that the objective universe exists and is real, I know that the spiritual and subjective universe is real.

To me it is obvious, yet how do I explain or support the experience of blue or red to one who has never seen much less ever seen color?
I am constantly reminded that; "None are so blind as those who will not see."

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by Royce
To me it is obvious, yet how do I explain or support the experience of blue or red to one who has never seen much less ever seen color?
I am constantly reminded that; "None are so blind as those who will not see."

All hail my Gym Shorts, thy Savior and Creator. There is no doubt of their omniscience as I can see it in my head.

Of course many none believers out there have not the vison for sight and you are all blind to my Gym Shorts mighty power and divinity.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Deeviant
All hail my Gym Shorts, thy Savior and Creator. There is no doubt of their omniscience as I can see it in my head.

Of course many none believers out there have not the vison for sight and you are all blind to my Gym Shorts mighty power and divinity.

Thank you for this well thought out, intelligent and enlightening post. You show not only your rudeness but also your ignorance. Only a fool thinks that something he doesn't understand or know anything about is foolish. You still have a ways to go before you can beat Zero in sarcasm. He at least can be original, funny and yet poignant.