Evolution vs. Creationism: A Never-Ending Debate

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by maximus
i propose we simply ignore every post by physicsrocks88, as he is not helping here at all. all in favour?

Yep, ignore the person posting truths. At listen to another god which needs to have an editor - and cube the little guy who believes claims with NO evidence.

I can see this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything, other than me learning this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything...

 

[Another God]

Ahhh..obviously my last post sort of belongs at the end of page one. Unfortunately, this thread is moving faster than is humanly possible to keep up with.

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
I can see this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything, other than me learning this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything...

No, this place is perfectly designed for people to learn. Unfortunately, in all your years of education there is one thing you have failed to learn: People need to learn of their own volition. Not by having 'FACTS' jammed down their throat.

If you spent your life accepting facts, then that would explain your inability to discuss things.

We are here to think for ourselves, and in so doing learn.

To quote:
"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening,
terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in
this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the
religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by
giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their
view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and
learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness;
chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.

Think for yourself.
Question authority."
-Some guy at the beginning of a TOOL song.

 

[Hurkyl]

Aww, Kerrie, can I go off topic a bit, please?

But anyway, with this sort of mechanism, you can get genes, functional genes copied, and then you have two copies of a functional gene, so if one was to mutate, then the organism wouldn't notice it, and so over time, it may acquire a new function.

Anyways, AG, I know a lot of studying has been done in the genetic code of some living organisms. Are there documented examples of this actually occurring across generations of living specimens?

If not, I understand there has been some headway into finding indirect evidence (such as "proto-eyes"), how solid is it?

 

[FZ+]

Ok, this topic is a waste of time. If you are going to talk about the bible as a source of absolute reliability, and then transpose your personal opinion into will of god-esque infalsifiability, then you are following a faith based approach that isn't worth any reasonable discussion. With sufficient will, you can extract any statement you like from the bible, and on the grounds of absolute faith, declare them as true.
The sum result is that you must accept that (a) the bible is open to interpretation and (b) there are sources of knowledge and truth beyond it and (c) you must look on the situation without bias.

But since I am a borish, and unwise person, I will detonate some of those misconceptions...

1. Proof for the accuracy of the bible? This is utterly wrong. Any sufficiently wordy document must have some elements of truths in it, and a study focusing on correct portions is inherently biased, both from approach and interpretation. In comparision to fact that can be interpreted as wrong, sometimes blatantly, the bible has a low accuracy level.
2. The age of the Earth is well confirmed by radio-dating of uranium isotopes, carbon dating, cross referencing of other solar system objects and so on. While some methods have a percentage uncertainty, this is statistically insignificant. Based on archeological data from fossils, ice cores, mineral deposits, there is no accounting for the sorting, gradual changing of fossils, the population growth of mankind, racial variations, the existence of magnetic polarisation of sea floor, tectonic mountain formation, erosion terrain features with an Earth of less than billions of year old. The suggestion of young Earth series needs divine deception on a collossal scale, and is flatly unreasonable.
3. There is no such thing as a differentiation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The division is purely subjective, as "macro-evolution" is simply the culmination of small changes. The process of mutation is precisely the addition of genes you mentioned, or rather the changing of genes to give different characteristics. Hence we see a growth in complexity of various organisms like HIV which has developed numerous features to prevent antiviral attack.
4. Evolution works in the conjunction of mutation, natural selection and heredity. It does not work by one of the options. Mutation provides the raw creativity in the evolutionary process, heredity distributes them amongst the population, and natural selection selects them in terms of "goodness", or survivability, or any present selectional pressure.
5. The second law of thermodynamics is an invalid way to attack evolution, as the Earth is not a closed system, greater complexity in living things in fact increases their entropy capability, and temporary decreases in entropy can occur.
6. While evolution is driven by random action, it's effect follows a general trend. Consider a balloon. The gas particles move randomly, but the overall effect is to inflate the balloon. There is however no overall "goal" to evolution.
7. Uses of probability to disprove chemogenesis are incorrect, because the processes involved are not random, and life as we know it, and even life itself is not special and hence statistically significant in an objective sense.
8. Speaking of evolution as darwinism is incorrect, as unlike creationism, evolution is a dynamic science which has developed greatly since. Eg. we now know that punctuated equilibriums also play a part (contrary to some creationists, these are not rival theories, but rather complementary aspects), as well as the "selfish gene" theory, symbiosis, co-evolution etc.
9. The expectation of a direct progression is incorrect, as random processes form multiple branches and the probability of fossil preservation (and uncovering) is too low.
10. Creation itself is unscientific, relying on static absolutes and without real falsifiability or evidence. It also involves the suspension of physical laws without experimental/theoretical backing.
11. Faith is completely meaningless in science. The value of a scientific theory has nothing to do with the strength of belief.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Are there documented examples of this actually occurring across generations of living specimens?

for simple organisms like viruses, yes. just about every year we observe new mutaions. but i don't think we have any solid observations for larger, multicellular organisms. we do, however, have the fossil record. and it's almost completely filled in. almost...

 

[Another God]

Yeah... ^ ...what FZ said.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Anyways, AG, I know a lot of studying has been done in the genetic code of some living organisms. Are there documented examples of this actually occurring across generations of living specimens?

If not, I understand there has been some headway into finding indirect evidence (such as "proto-eyes"), how solid is it? [/B]

Um...well, finding it 'actually happening' in living species, in the real world.. This just can't be done. We can't 'watch' the genetic code of real organisms unfortunately. What scientists do do though, is get their basic organisms (E. coli, Saccarmyces Cerevisia (Yeast), Drosophila (Fruit Flys), and Mice), and study them through various techniques. And what they have found, by studying E coli primarily, is that all of this stuff occurs. They then study Yeast, and find out that even though Yeast is Eucaryotic (E coli is Prokaryotic), it has essentially the same mechanisms in it (constrcuted slightly differently, but the same sort of stuff), and then they look at the Genomes of the fruit fly and the mouse, and they see the same sort of genetic elements in them.

its fair to assume that it happens in larger organisms too then.

DNA is a chemical, and it is the same chemical whether in bacteria, or in humans. Proteins are made from amino acids. Amino Acids are the same chemical whether in Bacteria or Humans.

When you realize that we are made of exactly the same sort of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen based reactions as bacteria, it becomes a lot easier to accept that we are really just doing exactly the same thing as they are doing. The only difference is, that our body is composed of billions of 'bacteria' (cells) working together...

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Like FZ put it. There is no point in this thread.

Evolution has been proven - I prove it every week in my lab where I publish various experimentations.

Creationism has no proof, and won't ever have proof because it's false.

It's you guys who've been had - Cube is just trying to rous you up a bit. How can you even give the time of day to someone who is so delusional!

 

[Dave]

Why couldn't God have created a system which then evolved?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
Cube is just trying to rous you up a bit. How can you even give the time of day to someone who is so delusional!

No one is getting 'rous'ed up except you. I see someone who has a belief which I tend to disagree with, and so I will attempt to explain to him why i disagree.

If you think he is delusional, then its easy for you to ignore him. So let's practice that shall we? You ignore this thread, and us 'had people' wil carry on discussing this useless topic Agreed?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Dave
Why couldn't God have created a system which then evolved?

because then your saying that god has direct influence over the laws of physics and can violate them if he wishes. we have never observed this. evolution is random. if god intended us to be as we are, he can therefore violate probobility.

 

[Royce]

Robert Heinlein wrote a book, Some Job something. One of his best story lines in it was that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago but created it 4.5 billion years old. Blew me away, but his god was a trickster.
Why couldn't it be both, as I said before; man's body is evolved but his spirit or soul is created?

Anyway evolution is not a proven fact just tons of evidence that we take to indicate that is a viable theory. Its not complete yet and does not address genetic drift or divergence so far as I know yet, just that it happens even during a few generations.

I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally about anything in genesis. I believe it myth, legend and folklore. I do believe in evolution and creation and God and no, I not syhizoid - crazy yes. Schizoid no.

 

[Another God]

Evolution is a fact.
Natural Selection in the theory attempting to explain the fact.

It has been this way since Darwin published Origin Of The Species.

In Origin of the species Darwin managed to do two things: Prove evolution, and argue that natural selection was the most reasonable mechanism to explain it.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Another God
Evolution is a fact.
Natural Selection in the theory attempting to explain the fact.

It has been this way since Darwin published Origin Of The Species.

In Origin of the species Darwin managed to do two things: Prove evolution, and argue that natural selection was the most reasonable mechanism to explain it.

Evolution most certainly has been proven as much as any scientific claim has been proven.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Royce
Robert Heinlein wrote a book, Some Job something. One of his best story lines in it was that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago but created it 4.5 billion years old. Blew me away, but his god was a trickster.

This book just commits a syntax error.

If this God created the Earth as "4.5 billion years old".

Then how old is the Earth? You said it yourself, "4.5 billion years old."

What Heinlein is merely doing is saying that the material of the Earth is older than the Earth itself, which is true.

Our Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old as a monument. However the material is about 3 times as old.

It's certainly nothing mind-blowing, it's just syntax tricks.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by CubeX
Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.

I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.

-CubeX

No, no one asked for it. This topic went out of style about 20+ years ago when evolution was ireffutably proven. Evolution has been proven to the highest scientific degree; it has been mathematically proven.

It's not up for debate by anyone intelligent. Evolution has all the proof, and anything contradicting evolution has no proof. Simple as that.

 

[CubeX]

But the thing you all keep on lacking to say is what the true definition is! You keep on saying the same thing without saying the real point! Look on True Origins! That's where I got the definition from!

Evolution requires the addition of genes, correct?

Where has that been found in testing?

-CubeX

 

[CubeX]

Oh yeah, and to the ones who keep on saying it is "irrifutable," think again! No body, I repeat NO BODY believes in the SAME absolute things in evolution. Just look at all of the different viewpoints. Search in Google! (Man, google gets you a lot of everything, ain't it great! )

And, you see, it's impossible to have a post like this here (much to my suprise, b/c it was unactive ALL day almost) because of the replies back. By the tiem you read them all, you've had read 2 or 3 pages! By then, you can't answer in return. This is a topic that should have been a limited response, or, in other words, be kept to about a 3 person debate. My mistake! Sry!

But, I'm not here saying creationism is irrifutable, I'm here to discuss and debate. Apparently it's not the main focus of many here. But I will keep on responding to a choice few at times. I learned that you should never post more than what you can handle back.

-CubeX

but, I'm goin' to bed![zz)] I'm tired! i'll answer some more later!

 

[CubeX]

One more response. No, I don't believe in any Gap theories, or anything like that. No, God didn't use evolution to create the world.

And evolution is NOT a fact. It's still the Theory of Evolution. Sry. Look in Webster's.

-CubeX

 

[CubeX]

Another God said:

Now, in my mind, this is the most basic organism. DNA, is the most basic organism.


WHAT?! Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive! The CELL is the most basic lifeform. DNA is simply the coding, like a computer programming language. And what can DNA be broken down into molecules, and molecules to elements, and elements to protons, electrons, and nuetrons.

Are you sure you went to school that long? Or did you just simply not word this right?

-CubeX

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by CubeX
And evolution is NOT a fact. It's still the Theory of Evolution. Sry. Look in Webster's.

general relativity is also called a theory, but it has been proven several times over. germ theory is only a theory, but it is definatly a fact.

 

[Dave]

You can only prove a theory wrong.

General relativity hasn't been proved right, but there have been many experimental results which agree with it.

 

[Shark]

Cube - It's become obvious in this thread that you did NOT do any research whatsoever, and that you are in no way educated in evolution.

Evolution is a fact to the Nth degree.

You pulled the old "it's just a theory" bull****.

Do you even know what the definition of a theory is? Many theories are facts.

You are NOT educated in evolution whatsoever and those two years were spent as a completely bias look with the end result being completely uneducated.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Dave
You can only prove a theory wrong.

General relativity hasn't been proved right, but there have been many experimental results which agree with it.

Of course general relativity has been proven correct. Where the hell have you been?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Dave
General relativity hasn't been proved right, but there have been many experimental results which agree with it.

true, but creationism has no experimental results which argree with it.

there is also iffifutable proof supporting evolution and debunking creationism. for instance, we have found fossil records of animals which predate the estimated moment of creation. (age found through carbon dating). if god created all other animals at this moment of creation, how do you explian this?

 

[Another God]

Some Basic Readings...

First:
Evolution as Fact and Theory
Read that. Evolution is a fact, and it's a theory.

Secondly, if you want something a little more entertaining to read, but just as informative:
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html
Douglas Adams is always amusing, but he is also quite intellgient.

The second link contains a quote relevant to the last thing I said. (No, I didn't say it wrong, and yes I still mean it. Even under the pressure of your indignation...)

I remember once, a long time ago, needing a definition of life for a speech I was giving. Assuming there was a simple one and looking around the Internet, I was astonished at how diverse the definitions were and how very, very detailed each one had to be in order to include ‘this’ but not include ‘that’. If you think about it, a collection that includes a fruit fly and Richard Dawkins and the Great Barrier Reef is an awkward set of objects to try and compare. When we try and figure out what the rules are that we are looking for, trying to find a rule that’s self-evidently true, that turns out to be very, very hard.
...
maybe you might say about something that’s an example of Digital life, ‘does that count as being alive?’ Is it something, to coin someone’s earlier phrase, that’ll go squish if you step on it? Think about the controversial Gaia hypothesis; people say ‘is the planet alive?’, ‘is the ecosphere alive or not?’ In the end it depends on how you define such things.
...
So, in the end, in the absence of an intentional creator, you cannot say what life is, because it simply depends on what set of definitions you include in your overall definition. Without a god, life is only a matter of opinion.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Shark
Cube - It's become obvious in this thread that you did NOT do any research whatsoever, and that you are in no way educated in evolution.

Evolution is a fact to the Nth degree.

You pulled the old "it's just a theory" bull****.

Do you even know what the definition of a theory is? Many theories are facts.

You are NOT educated in evolution whatsoever and those two years were spent as a completely bias look with the end result being completely uneducated.

you are following in the footsteps of the late physicsrocks88. i would not reccomend this. rudeness is not acceptable here.

and furthermore, he is right, you can never prove a theory correct. it is the old idea that even if you commit an experamentation a hundred times and get the same result everytime, there is no way that you can know without a shadown of a doubt that it will happen again. so unless you repeat the experiement an infinite amount of times, you can never prove it. this isn't too much a limition though, and is usually overlooked or simply ignored.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Shark
Of course general relativity has been proven correct. Where the hell have you been?

Well, if you follow the Popper method of Science, then no, Relativity has not been proven. No scientific theory can ever be proven. They can only be proven wrong. That is what makes science science. Bold Hypothesis's, and falsifiable claims.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats... It is true that Cube has used a couple of the most basic errors already, but well, so what if his two years of research have been futile. Perhaps now is the time for it to be fruitful.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Another God
It is true that Cube has used a couple of the most basic errors already, but well, so what if his two years of research have been futile. Perhaps now is the time for it to be fruitful.

now you're being rude, AG!

CUBE: don't let the others get to you. this thread is just as relevant as many other threads I've seen. you are voicing your views and the views of many other throughout the world, and i feel it should be adressed here.

 

[Another God]

Evolution requires the addition of genes, correct?

No.
And I only say that because I know what you are trying to imply. You are implying that there are pre-ordained genes that need to be there for stuff to happen. The fact of the matter is that Genes do not exist. Genes are something which we classify simply to allow us 'parcel' them up into a discrete entity, thereby allowing us ease in our studying of them.

The reality of it though, is that you have DNA. A long long polymerised chain of Phosphates and ribose sugars with Base side chains. Thats all it is. A long chain of A's, C's, T's and G's... From there, if u happen to have a particular sequence of ATCG's which causes a particular protein to bind to it, (RNA Polymerase) and then a section of that DNA molecule is transcribed into RNA, and that RNA causes a ribosome to bind to it and have its codons expressed into Amino Acids added to a chain of amino acids...then you get expression of that section of DNA. If you want to call that section of DNA a Gene..then go ahead...but even if all this stuff happens, the protein which comes out the other end, is quite possibly entirely useless, and so will most likely end up being broken back down into amino acids by proteases.

What do you think a Gene is exactly?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by maximus
now you're being rude, AG!

How was that being rude? I thought it was an entirely objective statement. If Cube has spent two years 'researching both sides of this debate' and he had been to TalkOrigins many times, then by now he should know not to say "Evolution is only a theory" and "Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive!" and things like that.

I was not using ad hominen, I was merely observing that the comments used by him seem below standard for someone boasting years of research.

I could of course always be wrong.

 

[Shark]

Maximus - No you are wrong. A theory can be proven true, and certainly many have been. If you do not know this you have no place in the scientific community. Furthermore, I am not being rude by merely stating someones low level of mental ability. Is it rude to call someone retarded, retarded? No.

AG - Exactly, evolution is a fact and a theory. Some theories are facts, all facts are theories. Anyone who is deservant to be in the scientific community knows this. And if not, your education is purposeless.

Maximus (again) - To bad I need to notify you twice. AG is not being rude, he's merely, as I said, stating facts. You need to not be such an emotional nightmare and realize that one who is stupid is stupid.

 

[Dave]

Why are you so much smarter than us Shark?? Which degrees do you have?
Personally, I have none.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Another God
How was that being rude? I thought it was an entirely objective statement. If Cube has spent two years 'researching both sides of this debate' and he had been to TalkOrigins many times, then by now he should know not to say "Evolution is only a theory" and "Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive!" and things like that.

I was not using ad hominen, I was merely observing that the comments used by him seem below standard for someone boasting years of research.

I could of course always be wrong.

AG - Exactly. I am with you all the way. This maximus character obviously has some sort of issue. And so does Cube.

Cube - I understand one being "stupid" on the subject of science. Obviously if you're a creationist than you are completely and totally uneducated in science and specifically evolution. So how is it at all possible that us - who require evidence to back a claim - could ever communicate with you - someone who randomly chooses which claims they want to assert are true?

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Dave
Why are you so much smarter than us Shark?? Which degrees do you have?

1. I did not say anything that involved you. Do not assert the false claim that I stated I was smarter than you, or any "us" entity.

2. If I was smarter than you, it would be because I have had a higher ability to learn (intelligence) and because I spent more time in a better education system.

3. The degrees one has are absolutely tied to their "smartness" and intelligence. That said, what degrees I have are noones business here, simply because anyone can lie about a degree.

4. In is indisputable that someone who accepts the claim of creationism and has the same knowledge available to them, is surely much less knowledgeable (and probably less intelligent) than someone who accepts the claim of the (proven theory of) evolution.

 

[Another God]

Shark does sound an aweful lot like PhysicsRocks88...

Whatever.

Um, Nothing can be proven. A fact, is: Quoting Stephen J Gould:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

In other words, it is not Proven, it is not absolutely certain...it is provisionally accepted as true, because it is unreasonable not to.



"We know nothing other than the things that we know we don't know. And we could even be wrong about them."
-me