Creation Vs Evolution

[Guest Jdiddy]

Hi, I just created this acct upon the urges of a co-worker and friend. I am curious as to how anyone can really believe that evolution is actually fact, and can throw out some reasons why they believe it to be so. I dont want to start a bash fest or anything like that, just a convo in how they believe in evolution, then see how some ppl that are one here might be supporters of creation science. On a side note I am curious as to why evolution is the only science tought in schools when you really cant factually 100% prove evolution, or creation science, to me both sides should be tought, with neither being right or wrong. It seems to me that Evolution takes as much or more faith to believe than creation in 7 days. (just my thoughts)

[Outback Jack]

Well, let's see here...

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to why evolution is the only science tought in schools

Because evolution is science. Creationism is religion, which is nothing more than saying everything was done by magic.

[Ouroboros]

Welcome JDiddy,

 

Why do I believe in Evolution? Because the evidence and the reasoning behind it is solid and makes sense. So it's more than just "blind faith". Actually it's more like knowing.

 

For instance, only Evolution can give a reasonable explanation to the human C-vitamin deficiency (which we share with chimps). Creationism can not.

[Guest Davka]

jdiddy - rather than have us re-hash the same arguments all over again, I suggest you take a look at the "Don't believe in evolution?" thread in Science and Religion.

 

Also, I just have to ask - what is your educational background? Have you taken any biology classes?

[Guest Jdiddy]

Well, let's see here...

 

 

 

 

I am curious as to why evolution is the only science tought in schools

Because evolution is science. Creationism is religion, which is nothing more than saying everything was done by magic.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Yes, I have a college education, been to biology classes etc, and I just dont buy it, too many holes and I do realize it takes faith to beilieve in creation in 7 days as well, but when i look around at all the things in this world my mind tells me this isnt evolution or just a series of accidents that created this world. I do realize that creation science does get its basis from religion, however if thats the main opponent to evolution and thats the other main view on the subject and neither can be totally proved, I like the idea of being able to see both sides, not being force fed something that is a theory that has never been proven as a fact, but is being taught in todays schools as fact. Also on a side note, I think that to many atheists evolution is a type of religion to them, ya they dont hold regular "church" services or anything, but it seems like to them it is a type of religion.

 

I have not heard about the vitamin C thing, but we all need water, so does every other animal on the planet, does that prove creation or evolution?? i dont know about that.........

[Ouroboros]

I have not heard about the vitamin C thing, but we all need water, so does every other animal on the planet, does that prove creation or evolution?? i dont know about that.........

The majority of animals produce their own C-vitamin, except for a handful of creatures. And the reason why not, is because the gene that produce the C-Vitamin in all other creatures is defected in these few. These are examples of mutations, and unfortunately with negative effects. However, Chimps and Humans share the same defect, and the only three explanations are

 

1. The impossible happened. Two exactly identical mutations with the first chimps (Koko and Bobo?) and the first humans (Adam and Eve) happened a long time ago. And the chance of this is astronomically low, even less than the Creationists calculations for "Life to happen by chance." So if the probability for life is so low, then the probability for identical mutations like this is even less. In the light of probability then, evolution is more likely.

 

2. God intentionally gave chimps and humans identical genetic defects. This speaks heavy against a "good" God. Intentionally design us flawed, and identically to an animal? That should put some thoughts into your mind about what kind of God this is.

 

3. Evolution is true, and chimps and humans share a common ancestor who had this mutation.

 

So from the three explanations, two of them point more towards evolution, and the second one points to a strange and weird notion of God.

 

Now, from what I understand, there are more of these genetic equalities between humans and chimps. So this is not the only one, but there are more, just like this.

 

So maybe the 4th option is that Adam and Eve where chimpanzees?

 

(All this is of course to the level of knowledge I have, and so far I haven't heard or read anything that contradicts this. The information that the genetic defect is identical, and up to 22 of other kinds, I got from an interview I heard many years ago with a scientist. I don't remember which one, or where, and I haven't looked for any good source material to prove this, but I'm going off the knowledge I remember hearing back then. Just a little disclaimer. But then again, this is not the only argument for evolution.)

[Guest Davka]

I do realize that creation science does get its basis from religion, however if thats the main opponent to evolution and thats the other main view on the subject and neither can be totally proved, I like the idea of being able to see both sides, not being force fed something that is a theory that has never been proven as a fact, but is being taught in todays schools as fact.

 

Do you know what the scientific definition of a "theory" is? I'm not trying to be condescending, just trying to figure out where you're coming from so I don't end up telling you a bunch of stuff you already know.

 

According to the scientific definition, "Creation science" is not even a theory. It's speculation, or an assertion, but not a theory. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of evolution.

 

Having said that, I agree that debate between the two positions should be encouraged in school, because most people really don't know the difference between scientific theory and the way that the word "theory" is used in everyday speech, which is as a hunch or opinion. Creation science is an opinion. Evolution is a theory. If you like, I'd be glad to explain the difference.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Check this out as far as the Vitamin C idea comes from, too long to post.

 

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blo...in_c_pseudogene

 

Questions about evolution, not trying to be an ass either just questioning.

 

Why did all the monkeys not mutate into humans? Why do we still have monkeys, is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

 

Why are the clams found on mountain tops of mount Everest that are "dated" to millions of yrs old still look the same as todays clams? After evolving for millions of yrs why no change?

 

0+0=0, 0*0=0, 0/0=0, where can somethng be created without something else being added? At some point something had to be added in order to create the universe right?

 

why would a fish that was thought to be extinct for 80 million yrs (Coelacanth that was found off the coast or in a river in Indonesia recently, and still not have evolved above what we already had from fossdil records dated back to 80 million yrs? Just asking bc i have never seen anything evolve besides behaviors.

[florduh]

not being force fed something that is a theory that has never been proven as a fact

 

Although you stated that you studied biology (and presumable other sciences) in college, you must have missed a few semesters. The "theory" of evolution is a fact. Go back to the books and see how in this context the word 'theory' is not synonymous with 'supposition' or 'speculation' or 'guess'.

 

The only reason you "don't buy it" is your preconditioning (most of us Ex-ers call it what it is - brainwashing). Since the science doesn't fit with your preconceived sacred and untouchable beliefs, it must be wrong. Well, it isn't. Accepting the mountains of evidence confirming the process of evolution doesn't take any faith at all, just a rational mind that is free of superstition and interested in reality and facts. The natural world is awesome enough without any magic tacked onto it.

 

Think about why you reject the literal reality of the other creation myths. How is your chosen myth better, or backed by more evidence than the others?

[Vixentrox]

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

 

Nice creation stories....none more valid than the other. Idiot Christians seem to think they have a monopoly on creationism and that seems to be the only version of propoganda they would like taught.

[florduh]

is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

 

I'm starting to think you never really attended a biology class. You are woefully misinformed as to what evolution actually is. Humans and "monkeys" evolved from a common ancestor, so the monkeys aren't going to turn into humans (though a few in Washington come close).

[Guest Jdiddy]

Pretty interesdting video

 

 

 

I Never said i wanted my view to be the only view, Evolution is not fact, no more so than i can prove creationism to be, and if you can prove that it is without a shadow of a doubt than there are a number of christian organizations that will offer up very substantial sums of money if you could.

[florduh]

Evolution is not fact, no more so than i can prove creationism to be, and if you can prove that it is without a shadow of a doubt than there are a number of christian organizations that will offer up very substantial sums of money if you could.

 

There is no evidence for Creationism other than the ancient texts, but there is a ton of evidence for evolution. More than enough was presented in the biology classes you supposedly attended. The catch is that if you throw out carbon dating and believe that a couple of unanswered questions negate the entire science, you will never accept it.

 

The church went through this process when it finally had to concede, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that the Earth is not flat and that the sun does not revolve around it.

 

It's sad that science and progress has always had to fight for every inch of acceptance from the superstitious who fear that reality might undermine their faith.

[Guest Davka]

jdiddy, you are rapidly proving that you are not worth talking to. Your ignorance is abysmal, yet you act as though you think you know something about evolution. You know nothing, clearly.

 

Here's a challenge: go take a college-level Biology 101 class, and get at least a B- in the class. Then come back and try to debate with us.

 

Right now it's like a 2nd-grader challenging a college student by saying "oh yeah? Well what if the books are all lying to you, huh, what then?" You don't know enough about either evolution or "creation science" to argue your position.

 

I'll see you next summer, after you've taken that class. We can talk about peptide chains and independent verification of theoretical constructs. I'm damned sure not going to waste my time trying to educate you here.

[Ouroboros]

Check this out as far as the Vitamin C idea comes from, too long to post.

 

http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blo...in_c_pseudogene

So what is the authors argument against the C-vitamin deficiency? That the produced protein got another function would only prove that evolution works, in the sense that a deleted or mutated gene can bring on new functionality. And if it's easy to prove simultaneous and identical mutation, then why doesn't he?

 

Instead I found instructions from a University, how they should proceed in the lab for testing these genes and compare the deletions. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psb.ball.html

 

So I don't know. The speculating theorists against the practical experimentalists? Ideas vs reality? Hope of something else, or experiments that confirms?

 

 

Questions about evolution, not trying to be an ass either just questioning.

 

Why did all the monkeys not mutate into humans? Why do we still have monkeys, is there ever going to be a missing link, half human half money?

I think that's a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

 

Computers evolved (with humans help), did they not? And cars? So why are there still Ford cars and Linux computers? Why do we still have analog watches? Why can't we find the missing link between Ford and Mercedes? And were is the missing link between Apple and Windows?

 

Why are the clams found on mountain tops of mount Everest that are "dated" to millions of yrs old still look the same as todays clams? After evolving for millions of yrs why no change?

I read an article about this once, and it's very important when the do dating that they take into account the original living environment. If the original environment were different, and had a high concentration of the isotopes, the measuring will be off. So there are chances of dating to be wrong. That's why they use alternative methods simultaneous, to reduce those errors.

 

Say for instance that you measure a runners time around a track, and you only use your favorite watch. Now, one day, your watch is running out of battery, and show wrong time, and it's obvious to you that it didn't clock it right. Does this mean that the runner really took 5 days to get around that track, or was it because at this time your watch didn't work properly? Or does it mean that all the other days when the watch was working, it was giving the wrong time, and this time it was right? All the pieces needs to be together for it to be correct, and in measuring age, they use multiple methods for exactly this purpose to avoid errors.

 

Can you explain Supernova 1987A, and how long ago that supernova happened?

 

0+0=0, 0*0=0, 0/0=0, where can somethng be created without something else being added? At some point something had to be added in order to create the universe right?

0/0 is illegal btw. It is not =0.

 

I can just as well say: because a/a = 1, then 0/0 =1

 

If something has to be created, then how was God created?

 

why would a fish that was thought to be extinct for 80 million yrs (Coelacanth that was found off the coast or in a river in Indonesia recently, and still not have evolved above what we already had from fossdil records dated back to 80 million yrs?

I'm not familiar with that example, but one thing I have seen over the years is: when scientists are wrong, it is usually other scientists proving it to be wrong and correcting the information.

 

Something you have to learn about science is that it's not perfect, and it's not absolute, it is a approximation of truth. It is the journey and search for the knowledge how things work. And if some minor things here and there, anecdotes of kind, then it doesn't break the rest. I'm certain there are plenty of errors in science even right now, but that's why scientists keep on testing and re-testing and keep on experimenting and reasoning, and step by step the errors are removed. That's the beauty of science, it is corrective. While religion is static, crystallized, and won't change from errors, but rather excuse the errors and keep them with pride.

 

Just asking bc i have never seen anything evolve besides behaviors.

Ok. Question for you: do you believe in the story of Noah and the ark? If you do, did Noah bring on all the different kinds of dogs that exists? Like poodles, dalmatians, golden, papillon, etc? Or was it just a "kind" of dog?

 

If it was just a kind of dog, then where did all the new alleles come from? Since it's evidently based on genetic disposition, all the subclasses of dogs must have mutated since then? Right? So it's more than just behavior.

[Legion]

Jdiddy I believe that when we characterize evolution as a purely chance process we go astray. Perhaps we could look at the analogous process of learning instead of evolution.

 

I have little doubt that you have learned some things in your life and as a result have some understanding. But learning often involves a lot of trial and error. We try and we fail and we get back up and try again. And after some time our understanding is transformed and we have learned.

 

Would we then say that our current understanding is the result of chance alone? I don’t believe so, because while we may have tried different things in an almost random fashion, the things that worked did not work randomly. They worked for a reason.

 

I think evolution is similar. Species try different ways of composing their members, and chance can play a roll. But the organisms that actually function well in their environment don’t do so for random reasons. So we see that the species that exist today are exquisitely adapted to their way of life. The species that exist today have learned through innumerable trials and errors how to live.

 

I hope I made some sense there.

[Ouroboros]

You know what is interesting? Not even scientists believe there was "nothing" before Big Bang. There was something, but they have no good name for it. It was a point of super-high energy plasma, where even space and time was broken down. This means, something was there, not nothing.

 

The Ex Nihilo argument is a Christian invention. It is a theological argument that God created the Universe out of nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

 

I would say the video is making a strawman.

 

I Never said i wanted my view to be the only view, Evolution is not fact, no more so than i can prove creationism to be, and if you can prove that it is without a shadow of a doubt than there are a number of christian organizations that will offer up very substantial sums of money if you could.

Yeah, I don't hold those kind of "bets" as being totally honest or serious. The same people who will evaluate if the "evidence is good enough" are the same ones who pay out the money. So of course no evidence will ever be enough to convince them.

 

I could set up a game like that too. Prove that God exists, and I'll give you $1,000,000. Do you think you can take on that challenge? You know even before we start that I won't accept any of your arguments or so called proofs, so why do you think my game would somehow prove me right? You wouldn't, correct? Then I have no reason to think that just because those "bets" aren't fill somehow they would validate Creationism.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Your condescending tone is fine, and im sure that I have nothing to gain from trying to prove I have taken and passed bio 101, I did though and I made an 89 if you must know-lol

 

I never claimed to be an expert by any strech of your imagination, but what I think im hearing here is that Evolution cant be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, which is fine, bc I cant prove my beliefs either, I was just curious as to what you all believe, and to question it, some ppl have been constructive, while others have been less so, and thats to be expected on forums. Have any of you studied about how the early text books when speaking of evolution change, one might say there was a big bang, one might say we evolved from fish in the ocean, im paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea, for something so "solid" of an idea such as evolution goes, why the changes in stories?? I'm just curious here, humor me ppl, i mean there are diff interpretations of the Bible, maybe thats the same for evolution, enlighten me please.

[Guest Jdiddy]

good posts guys, you all are posting quicker than i read them lol. As far as the proving thing goes, your right, it would be very hard for me to prove God exists, however if someone could prove evolution without a shadow of a doubt, I would certainly be open to hear it, have it tested, if there were no holes in it, i dont see why you wouldnt have proven it. but if there is a chance that its wrong, ie: something that maybe is missing here or there, that may seem small but is a hole, something that could make everything wrong, then isnt it kind of a mater of faith to believe in evolution just the same as creation for me?

[Legion]

Jdiddy could you please address the content of my post above? I have some things to learn here as well.

 

Oh and I think you are absolutely right about different people having different interprtetions of evolution. Some scientists constantly bicker among themselves as to why and how it occurs. They have different understandings of it.

[Guest Jdiddy]

I have not studied this but to the question of the ark, maybe there were a few different species of dogs in the beginning, im no mathmetician, but those dogs bred, two diff ones bred made a new breed, the new breed bred with one of the old ones so on and so forth, until we have what we have today, as far as the diff types of dogs go, but I still believe God made the first dogs, not evolution. Though the breeds changed, they still came from the first dogs that God created, and they are still dogs, they didnt change into something new, just another breed.

[Legion]

Why do I make the effort?

[Guest Jdiddy]

Jdiddy I believe that when we characterize evolution as a purely chance process we go astray. Perhaps we could look at the analogous process of learning instead of evolution.

 

I have little doubt that you have learned some things in your life and as a result have some understanding. But learning often involves a lot of trial and error. We try and we fail and we get back up and try again. And after some time our understanding is transformed and we have learned.

 

Would we then say that our current understanding is the result of chance alone? I don’t believe so, because while we may have tried different things in an almost random fashion, the things that worked did not work randomly. They worked for a reason.

 

I think evolution is similar. Species try different ways of composing their members, and chance can play a roll. But the organisms that actually function well in their environment don’t do so for random reasons. So we see that the species that exist today are exquisitely adapted to their way of life. The species that exist today have learned through innumerable trials and errors how to live.

 

I hope I made some sense there.

 

 

Im at work here so im replying as i can. Ok I see what your trying to say and i think many ppl say "purely by chance" simply bc there (in evolution) is no intelligent design ie: all powerful creator, so we interpret that as chance. For me to learn something like riding a bike, I wrecked a few times before i got it right, but i learned from my mistakes and used that knowledge from my stored memories (from my brain) and then learned to ride the bike. I guess my problem is where is the "brain" in evolutions thinking? You could say the organisms brain, however, as much as i think i need to fly (and I know that is super far fetched, but you can get my drift) to survive better, short of hopping into a plane, im not flying anywhere. Where is the learning center for the universe, how would it keep track of what works and what doesnt? to say that it could wouldnt it mean that it was alive, or somehow interconnected with everything else? I see what your point was, just dont quite see how "it" knows what works and what doesnt. trial and error is all fine and good, but for that reason to work wouldnt it need to remember? Hope that makes some sense.

[Guest Jdiddy]

Question, Do you all believe that things stop evolving?