Creationist Vs Evolutionary Theory

[Mcdilly-Willy]

Well what about those who believe that god intelligently designed the big bang, and left the rest up to physics and nature, what is their purpose in science?

 

Right so the creationist/scientist is seeking truth in the rest of the universe appart from the big bang because he thinks or knows that god did that bit. Can he be doing this? No he can't, science rules that you must be seeking truth in everything, even the origins of the universe. Where is his place?

 

By your reasoning PeerieBryan there is no place for this attitude, but clearly there are those who do believe and practice this. So there must be a crossing point somewhere between science and religion.

 

Anyone interested in taking a stab at it?

[invader]

Yeah I never thought of that.

 

Give yourself Millions of years and you got a great theory. No one can argue with that cause they wern't there.

 

Great way to debate ain't it.

 

End of argument you may say. Hmmm!!??

 

Not just millions but thousands of millions of years. This must be the reason why we don't see evolution in existence today.!

 

It take thousands of millions of years!

 

 

OK

The big Bang hey. Well what if you get two syllables and put them together?

Do you get a big bang?

 

Can Language be arguably defined as the ultimate in evolution?

 

Maybe language ultimately defines evolution?

 

It's constantly changing, being added to second by second.

 

Some would argue that it is an evolutionary principal that controls it.

 

The fact that it exists and changes surely proves its evolutionary history?

 

Or is it added to by intelligent thought application.!!??

 

Maybe you could also show the same evolutionary existence of breathing.

 

We now breathe an air, heavily poisened by toxins caused by global warming. Eventually this MUST result in a lung capable of breathing this air or the human race will die! True or not?

 

Unfortunately this may take millions of years to develope.

 

The bird, is it the the evolution of the dinosaur.

Great Idea until you start to compare the lungs of the former with the present. It just doesn't hold water (or should I say air). There has to be BILLIONS of skeletal remains of dinosaurs whose lungs just didn't work for them as theyattempted to fly through the thousand and millions of years.

 

And where are they?

 

If our lungs don't work then we die. It's as simple as that.

 

 

 

You and I may be dead before we even see a slight change.

 

 

Maybe too many evolutionaries and creationaries are believing (if I can use that word) in what other people think/assume/(despite there intellect)

as to what happened in the beginning. One thing is sure:

 

If you believe in the Big bang or Creation you believe one thing:

 

The earth, as we know it, was covered in a liquid. What that liquid was is open to suggestion (and that is all it is open to as there were NO eye witness accounts at that time).

 

Science is a different kettle of fish all together. It has a scientific method of laboritory testing of things(!?) Everything must be scientifically tested in the lab under controlled conditions to get the results. These results are the scientifically correct.

 

To suggest that evolution is a science is the biggest laugh amongst the scientific community. Its the least scientific area there is along with creationism.

 

No one was there at the biginning, in fact no one was there 390

million years ago.

 

How the can you say that its scientific?

 

No EYE witnesses to the event. For millions of millenia perhaps??!!

 

It is all theory.

 

Even Darwin himself is stated to have said he wished he had never started it all!!!!

 

Theory is one thing. Proof is another.

 

Proof is a scientific tool.

 

Belief is a concept that we develop when:

 

a) scientific proof is not available

scientific proof fails us

c) ignorance allows us to make up ideas

 

I put it to you that both evolution and creation are born out of a)

 

We have no proof that evolution exists. It is all theory and faith, and the same exists for creation, it is both theory and faith. Theory that it may exist and faith in the existence.

 

there is not one shred of hard scientific evidence that proves creation happened and in the same context that evolution has occurred.

 

We are at loggerheads here. Lack of hard scientific proof.

 

This is where believe comes in

this is where a faith works

this is where the supernatural begins!

 

Engage

[Fjool]

I enjoyed that post. Not sure I agree 100%, but I enjoyed reading it.

[cuckoo]

Hmm Very deep and meaningful

[JAStewart]

No one was there at the biginning, in fact no one was there 390

million years ago.

 

How the can you say that its scientific?

 

No EYE witnesses to the event. For millions of millenia perhaps??!!

 

It is all theory.

 

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

[JAStewart]

There is a huge misunderstanding with evolution.

 

People think that we evolved from present day monkeys (ones that you'd see in zoo) however, this is false. We didn't evolve from that kind of monkey, it was a different one that I only caught the latin name of and can't remember it now

[Njugle]

There is a huge misunderstanding with evolution.

 

People think that we evolved from present day monkeys (ones that you'd see in zoo) however, this is false. We didn't evolve from that kind of monkey, it was a different one that I only caught the latin name of and can't remember it now

 

Really? 8O I've not heard that since Victorian times.

 

There is a misconception that we are most closely related to gorillas, when we are actually closer to chimpanzees, i think bonobo chimps at that, which a re a distinct species from other chimps, i don't think any of them are technically 'monkeys' anyways.

 

It may be Homo habilis you are thinking of JAS, but this is still fairly controversial. Homo ergaster is possibly the descendant of this which in turn is thought to have become homo erectus, which led to man. But, like all things archaeological and palaentological, the fossil record is varied and controversial.

 

HTH

[invader]

yea the fossil record!

[ArabiaTerra]

Not just millions but thousands of millions of years. This must be the reason why we don't see evolution in existence today.!

 

You want to see evolution? Where did MRSA come from then?

 

We now breathe an air, heavily poisened by toxins caused by global warming. Eventually this MUST result in a lung capable of breathing this air or the human race will die! True or not?

 

Not true, the Human Race may indeed die. (and when did Global Warming start producing toxins?)

 

The bird, is it the the evolution of the dinosaur.

Great Idea until you start to compare the lungs of the former with the present. It just doesn't hold water (or should I say air). There has to be BILLIONS of skeletal remains of dinosaurs whose lungs just didn't work for them as theyattempted to fly through the thousand and millions of years.

 

There is a considerable amount of new evidence which has been found recently in China which fills in many of the gaps in the evolutionary story of birds and dinosaurs. Of course this has raised many more questions, but that's science.

 

To suggest that evolution is a science is the biggest laugh amongst the scientific community. Its the least scientific area there is along with creationism.

 

The proof of evolution is there in the rocks. Old rocks have simple fossils in them, and the fossils become more complex in a clear and consistent way as the rocks you examine become younger. (barring, of course the "missing links" so beloved of creationists. They love it when a missing link is found as it gives them twice as many "gaps" for their god to hide in)

 

Even Darwin himself is stated to have said he wished he had never started it all!!!!

 

stoness!

 

We have no proof that evolution exists. It is all theory and faith,...

 

Are you trying to say Fossils don't exist? Look at the rocks!

 

As I have stated before if you haven't bothered to find out even the simplest thing about evolution please don't post here, go and read Dawkins instead, you will learn something.

 

I can also reccommend "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer, based on the Channel 4 series of the same name. Easier going than Dawkins, but just as good."The science of Discworl III, Darwins Watch" by Terry Prattchett, et al, also covers the same ground in a very entertaining style.

[trout]

Well what about those who believe that god intelligently designed the big bang, and left the rest up to physics and nature, what is their purpose in science?

 

Right so the creationist/scientist is seeking truth in the rest of the universe appart from the big bang because he thinks or knows that god did that bit. Can he be doing this? No he can't, science rules that you must be seeking truth in everything, even the origins of the universe. Where is his place?

 

By your reasoning PeerieBryan there is no place for this attitude, but clearly there are those who do believe and practice this. So there must be a crossing point somewhere between science and religion.

 

Anyone interested in taking a stab at it?

 

I thought Evil Inky had infact done so, no? Though his suggestion was a little tongue in cheek, you were then quite rude to him and dismissed him entirely, further damning him that his input was not warranted.

 

May I be as bold to point out if you don't agree with someones opinion, constructively put forward a case for or against it . . . that is how to "compliment the debate in a way that would continue its development", respectfully.

[JAStewart]

Something I always wondered is: Why does the universe need justification but god doesn't?

[Sudden Stop]

I get the impression that most of the 'evidence' for the existance of god (and creationism) comes from one book - the bible. You know how it goes: ' but the bible say this...' or the 'the bible shows that...'

 

Surely one 2000 year old text cannot out weigh all the research and pure science that has formed theories and then backed them up with physical evidence that can be seen and touched.

 

The existance of a god and therefore creationism simply cannot be postivily proved and relys on highlighting the negative aspects of other theories. It's almost like a process of elimination, isn't it - Oh, there's a missing link in the huge amount of physical evidence for evolution - that proves it was god. Not really. It just shows that a total, complete collection of samples has yet to found.

[wally jumblat]

Scientific Thinking vs Faith explained using flow charts:

 

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png

[PoolHaddock]

We have no proof that evolution exists. It is all theory and faith

You're almost half right. If you're reffering to macroevolution (big evolutionary steps, ie. fast adaptaions to new environments being passed down from generation to generation) - it's existence is disputed (by some). As you say, because it was never witnessed, what we currently know is based on theory, but also some evidence. As ArabiaTerra points out: "Look at the rocks!".

 

Microevolution on the other hand (small, very very slight changes brought on through environmental factors), is generally seen as fact. If you look out your window right now, in every native living object you can see, you will witness this localised evolution. In shetland for example, our native starlings are ever so slightly different than the starlings you will find in Glasgow. We have our own, fairly radically different bumble bee... you could probably go on ad infinitum.

 

Some believe that what we percieve as Macroevolution is simply microevolution at work over a great deal of time. They believe creatures have slllowwwlly evolved to suit their environment over a long time, which would of course mean that any environmental changes would probably be disasterous for those affected. On the other hand, if you were to compound a lot of these changes into one step (two fossils of the same species with a 2 million year age gap for example), you would effectively be looking at Macroevolution.

 

With Macroevolution, environmental changes could trigger fast adaptaion and possibly ensure species survival. This theory is, however, dependant on species too. Not all animals will be capable of this fast adaptation. Animals that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years (Komodo Dragon, crocodiles and alligators spring to mind) may not be able to adapt quickly enough. It is also macroevolution (I think) that causes animals to get rid of features they don't use (tails, for example), but also gain new skills. In mankind, the use of primitive tools could be seen as a new, fairly huge evolutionary step.

 

So invader, although there might be some small truth in your quote above, it is a bit of a sweeping generalisation that's not strictly true. I could be less eloquent and call it a "dirty lie!"

You could argue that this entire post is just one theory, so I will pre-empt you, and point that out myself!

 

I think evolution theory (looking at fossils in particular) is all a bit like trying to fix the broken pieces of an object you've never ever seen before with only a few of the pieces you need (and the object's probably a silly shape too!).

 

 

P.s. This is a great thread btw.

[Sudden Stop]

Scientific Thinking vs Faith explained using flow charts:

 

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png

 

Too true.