Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory

[Njugle]

I apologise in advance for this

 

To those who believe solely in science and evolution; without any higher power or governing force, or indeed purpose, why would anything evolve? Is all life merely "mutated earth", and as such as valueless as the rock of which it is a part. Or should we, in fact, put as much effort to preserving rock, sand and soil; being of equal importance to all living matter, on equal terms. Life is indeed, then, nothing special, and maybe even merely a developed destructive force present on a world which otherwise would remain untarnished and reactive with it's surroundings on equal terms?

 

Any zen scientists care to take one that one?

 

disclaimer, for reasons of conscience: should this thought render anybody truly without hope, PM me for resolution immediately >

[Muppet]

 

To those who believe solely in science and evolution; without any higher power or governing force, or indeed purpose,

 

But surely there is a purpose! survival!

[Njugle]

But that 'survival' is only a by-product of the freakish mutation of minerals that originated life, and thus you may equally talk of the survival of rock.(?)

[Fjool]

I once asked a Scientologist what the meaning of life was and their answer was 'to survive'. Seemed like a lame cop-out to me at the time and I'm still not convinced that 'survival' is any kind of decent answer since it still begs the question 'Why?'. Why should we be arsed to 'survive'?

[DeMascus]

But that 'survival' is only a by-product of the freakish mutation of minerals that originated life, and thus you may equally talk of the survival of rock.(?)

 

True that survival was a by-product of the environment that created the origins of life on this planet, but I don't think therefore you can infer survival of the rock, because where a rock is, an organism has the added survival concept that has become important to its being.

[invader]

Micro evolution does happen. I admit that, however how it happens is no proof of evolution as such i.e life from nothing. Micro evolution happens because an organisms DNA already contains the information for that change to come about and it is more often dictated by such things as climate, stress population etc. There is no upward evolution happening here in micro evolution. We can for example, breed different traits in dogs but only because these traits are already present. Also we, the human breeder, are using our intelligence and understanding of the breed to force the desired trait to be switched on.

 

In nature we see a great variation in the animal kingdom within the same types. E.g. lizards, elephants, fish the list is as long as there are types of animal/fish/plant on the earth. Again what is important here is that all these types contain, within each species type, the information in their genes to have the traits of all of the types specific variations. Why they don't display all the differences is, as I stated above due to various factors such as climate, stress etc. We ourselves contain within our DNA the ability to be any skin colour/ eye colour/ hair colour etc. In fact occasionally you get a black baby born to white parents and visa versa and not through the result of the mother being promiscuous but rather as a result of the DNA just getting it slightly wrong. This kind of thing generally would not rresult in a problem nor can it be said to be evolution. The information was already there.

 

to quote an evolutionist:

 

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.†John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,†Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

 

The marvel is that optimal genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need†can produce the machinery.

 

The other thing to ponder here is just what the fossil record is and shows.

 

All it is is a record of creatures now dead ( - although some still exist today) who met with the correct requisites at their time of death to preserve them as fossils. (e.g rapid burial, correct heat and pressure etc). You do find fossils on there own but more often you find them in fossil beds and not only one species. Quite usually there are many hundreds of different species found massed together. What is the possible cause of this seeming mass burial / fossilisation ? The other amazing fact is that the fossils show no signs of having been partly devoured after their death. This proves rapid burial. A famous case is that of a mammoth fossil found I think in Siberia in the act of giving birth to a baby with an immature (young) mammoth at her side, almost all were completely intact apart from recent wear and tear from weather after being exposed. Her death and fossilisation had to be extremely rapid for her not to have been eaten or part eaten by something.

 

As to there being any missing link fossils found then tell me what they are. In all my fossil hunting and studying of fossils I have never come across one.

 

Now as to a tree falling in a forest, does it make a noise if no one is there to hear it?

 

To be scientific about the origin of the universe the only scientific conclusion we can come to is that we don't know.

 

We must follow the scientific method in all our scientific research because if we don't the we are no longer scientists, and that method is witness, record, examine and test.

 

Witnesses to the origin of the universe ? Nil

Scientific[/b] records of the origin of the universe ? Nil

Actual hands on at the time examination of the origin of the universe ? Nil

Testing done at the time under controlled laboritory conditions ? Nil

 

I believe in faith that the cosmos was created by God at some not too distant time in the past and then He created us on this planet. Just as an evolutionist must believe in faith that at some point in the past the cosmos came into being and because of that life has evolved.

[Styles]

It allways vexes me that people put down hate, intolerence, envy, distrust, anger and hatred as in reality humans have evolved these states of mind to give us an advatage if we are truthful. they would not exist and would have been bred out if they were not an advantage. Ponder that, what people call negative feelings are a bilogical advantage and more than that part of the formula for us being so succesful!

[JAStewart]

Witnesses to the origin of the universe ? Nil

Scientific[/b] records of the origin of the universe ? Nil

Actual hands on at the time examination of the origin of the universe ? Nil

Testing done at the time under controlled laboritory conditions ? Nil.

 

 

I'll ask again:

 

A tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it - does it make a sound?

[Evil Inky]

 

Witnesses to the origin of the universe ? Nil

Scientific[/b] records of the origin of the universe ? Nil

Actual hands on at the time examination of the origin of the universe ? Nil

Testing done at the time under controlled laboritory conditions ? Nil

Yet, there is observable evidence of the Big Bang, for instance, the Hubble expansion, and the cosmic microwave background.

I believe in faith that the cosmos was created by God at some not too distant time in the past and then He created us on this planet. Just as an evolutionist must believe in faith that at some point in the past the cosmos came into being and because of that life has evolved.

The difference is that the "evolutionist" bases their views on the origin of the cosmos, and the origin of life, on the available evidence.

[PoolHaddock]

It allways vexes me that people put down hate, intolerence, envy, distrust, anger and hatred as in reality humans have evolved these states of mind to give us an advatage if we are truthful. they would not exist and would have been bred out if they were not an advantage. Ponder that, what people call negative feelings are a bilogical advantage and more than that part of the formula for us being so succesful!

Ponder this "styles".

 

Rottweilers often go crazy in their latter years as their brain gets compressed by a skull that's too small for it.

 

Biological advantage?

 

[Edit] I should add; as with humans in your example above, not all dogs share this sad trait.

[Njugle]

But that 'survival' is only a by-product of the freakish mutation of minerals that originated life, and thus you may equally talk of the survival of rock.(?)

 

True that survival was a by-product of the environment that created the origins of life on this planet, but I don't think therefore you can infer survival of the rock, because where a rock is, an organism has the added survival concept that has become important to its being.

 

As for a flame it becomes "important to its being" to ignite other combustable material? To perpetuate the reaction? If we are simply born of a chemical reaction, why is there any desire to perpetuate. A flame knows no desire. And to further the metaphor, a single twig burning is as impressive as life itself, however, if that flame 'fulfils it's desire', there may not be much left of the tree. (In fact it may then fall down in the forest with no-one around to hear it )

 

Ahem, anyway:

"a scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone"

That's not very human, surely? Doesn't sound very ethical either. Not to mention art.

[PoolHaddock]

 

To those who believe solely in science and evolution; without any higher power or governing force, or indeed purpose,

 

But surely there is a purpose! survival!

Survival surely can't be seen as a sole purpose. Life is, in itself, a purpose. Survival is more like an accompaniment to life; a hard wired obsession that's present in every living organism - an obsession (instinct), which in every living creature, will never meet resolution (indefinate survival). Or at least, won't meet the desired resolution! (but there would be no resolution with the desired resolution?! Confused!??)

 

This lust for life (fir god sake!)(sorry, been at the pub, got that song stuck in my head) has evolved in every creature on the face of the planet, and probably (possibly) beyond. On the smallest scale, this begins with the protozoa. It avoids conditions that are not suited to it's requirements for survival. Then imagine a giant evolutionary leap to the house fly. It's eyes are effectively acute motion sensors. The fly can see the smallest movement and asses whether it posseses a threat or not. If the movement is too close, or too fast, it will escape. This helps ensure survival. Why do you think it's so hard to catch a bluebottle?

 

Then another leap, to the mouse. Unlike the other two examples, mice learn and decide whether something is a threat or not (to a certain degree). If a mouse was to be attacked by a cat, it would most likely avoid cats in the future. If a cat was to share it's collection of fine cheeses with the mouse, chances are the mouse would grow to trust the cat, and they would arrange some sort of mutual cheese agreement ( ). Ok, so this example is a little bit silly, but you get the gist. PM me if you want a more real world example!!

 

Carry on through every living creature you can think of (with the exception of a few (the 'instict' is still present, but is somehow over-ridden at the ends of thier lives) - lemmings, praying manta etc. (will talk about this another day in answer to another post in this thread... It's too late at night now!)) and I guarantee you, this "obsession" will be present.

 

Survival is a captain going down with his ship, but still holding his breath for as long as possible. It's in your nature to do so. Forget purpose!

 

Edit - Things written in Red were added after another read through (and a clearer head!).

[DeMascus]

I don't think therefore you can infer survival of the rock, because where a rock is, an organism has the added survival concept that has become important to its being.

 

As for a flame it becomes "important to its being" to ignite other combustable material? To perpetuate the reaction? If we are simply born of a chemical reaction, why is there any desire to perpetuate. A flame knows no desire. And to further the metaphor, a single twig burning is as impressive as life itself, however, if that flame 'fulfils it's desire', there may not be much left of the tree. (In fact it may then fall down in the forest with no-one around to hear it )

 

I would disagree that it is important to a flames being to ignite other combustible material. because flames are a chemical reaction that can start anywhere if the conditions are right. Whereas a living organism needs a certain amount of continuity, to pass on its *NA. There are also a lot of aspects to desire that would not fit with a single celled organism let alone a chemical reaction, A flame doesn't know.

[Njugle]

I would disagree that it is important to a flames being to ignite other combustible material. because flames are a chemical reaction that can start anywhere if the conditions are right. Whereas a living organism needs a certain amount of continuity, to pass on its *NA. There are also a lot of aspects to desire that would not fit with a single celled organism let alone a chemical reaction, A flame doesn't know.

Which was the point i was drawing out, poorly i'll grant you. To place all importance and emphasis on empirical science with, as Darwin states, a "heart of stone" there is little or nothing you can do to argue life to be anything more than an elaborate self-perpetuating chemical and later biological reaction. Pretty hard to legislate that one, if you see what i mean.

 

Whilst at the same time, we as a species, can no more hope to perceive ofany 'creator' that started this reaction than (as Evil-Inky rightly stated) a two dimensional creature could perceive a sphere. Especially given that any 'creator' may not be a sentient being anyway. Which, conveniently, brings us back to theories like the Big Bang.

 

Hence as i ride rough-shod over the barrier between creationism and evolution Here is a tale of two parts, if you'll indulge me.

 

One of the "creation myths" of Hinduism, with "scientific theories" in parenthesis:

 

"Before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.(pre-big bang).A giant cobra floated on the waters.(spiral galaxy/universe in pre-time alternative space?) Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu ( metaphysical entity which released big-bang? Dark matter?). He was watched over by the mighty serpent.

 

Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Aum. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.

 

Aum, or Om (Dark energy?)

 

The night had ended, Vishnu awoke(Big bang?). As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower(expanding dark matter, energy and matter?). In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma.(gravity? matter?) He awaited the Lord’s command. Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed (gravity?). Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the World.’ A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. (time began)

 

Brahma remained in the lotus flower(expanding matter, dark matter?), floating and tossing on the sea(space-time). He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean.(decelerated expansion of universe) Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three.(galaxies, solar systems, planets+stars) He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.

 

The earth was bare. Brahma (gravity and or matter?)set to work.(compiling matter/energy required for life) He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.

 

The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma’s creation."

 

Hope you enjoy my whimsical tale, just food for thought, don't take it seriously, or over-analyse it, it is not intended that way, i assure you.

 

[invader]

I have a question for all the evolutionists out there.

 

What about all the millions of intermediate fossils there are in abundance on the earth that just overwhelmingly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have evolved into what we are today?

 

There should be billions of fossils showing this evolutionary process. Intermediate ones from each stage - the ones that died at child birth/ 20 or so etc due to distinct evolutionary jumps - i.e. the ones that didn't make it due to their changes. And also ( I know I shouldn't start a new sentence with and but what the heck!) the ones that did make it to pass on their information to the next generation?

 

Where are they?

 

And please don't come with the arguement that they were few and far between so the chances of them fossilizing were remote. This just won't hold water? in my book ( I'll go back to water in a later post).

 

No if they were the forefathers of us through their evolutionary jumps then traces must survive even fossilized traces. Where are they?

 

Dinasuars when did they become extinct? any answers here please?

 

Which came first—the commitment to naturalistic evolution and the necessity that animals arose from different animals, or the data to support it?

 

In fact lets not pussy foot around here any longer. What was here just supposedly millions of millie-seconds after the big bang?

 

engage

 

 

I also find this forum to be challengingly stimulating.

 

There are many good brains all striving to be right here.

 

The thing is we cannot be right in as much as we will never know precisely what happened.