Jump to content

Creationism vs. Evolution


Recommended Posts

The bold does apply to animals in nature. I highly doubt it can be applied to current humans since it is pretty easy for anyone to have children.

 

This statement makes me fear that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolutionary theory actually is.

 

In biological terms, fitness is the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation for individuals of a given genotype or phenotype.

 

As for evolution in humans, a comprehensive study of human evolutionary trajectories was undertaken as a part of the Framingham heart study. This study showed that women in the Framingham population had evolved to be slightly shorter and stouter, to have lower total cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure, to have their first child earlier, and to reach menopause later - thus unequivocally showing that certain human phenotypes have higher biological fitness than others, contrary to your statement.

 

 

 

Regarding evolution; someone can believe in evolution as in all life originating from different independent cells and evolving independently of each other, and not believe in evolutionary theory as in all life originating from a single cell.

 

Only there are a multitude of independent lines of evidence for common ancestry across the tree of life, as has been said by multiple posters ad nauseum, with a significant body of supporting material, and none for different organisms having independent origins. Choosing to ignore evidence (or claim there is none despite being presented with it) in favor of an option you happen to ideologically prefer is rather unscientific.

 

 

 

Anyone who tries to fit a blueprint together without knowing if all life originated from a single cell or multiple independent cells is basically doing a lot guess work that will eventually look like there is missing pieces in the master puzzle.

 

I'm not sure where this "cell" idea came from, as replicating "proto - life" molecules are extremely unlikely to have looked anything like what we generally consider to be modern organismal cells. In addition, you seem to be repeating the logical fallacy that one must understand abiogenesis to understand evolution. The basic premises of evolution have been directly observed in things like the Lenski experiment which I cited previously.

 

Is it possible for you to start supporting some of your claims with references?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is sad that there are adults that think ideas like evolution were made up by scientists that then wishfully looked for evidence to support the theory. Science is a constant debate on what the evide

Many believers more than 150 years ago said the same thing. They're still waiting, too (or, more likely, dead).

The hipbone in birds and amphibians has a different purpose because they aren't large animals. Remove the hip bone from a bird and let me know if it is able to fly without control of the rear feather,

Posted Images

As they undergo transformation into other elements in the stars, then those elements are distributed throughout space and land on worlds, and further undergo natural chemical processes, combinations, alterations, acted upon by other forces like shifts in temperature and electromagnetism transform into simple life-like molecules which themselves evolve and change through vast epochs of time... Yes... One day all of that might eventually express itself as a human with access to technology of humans who uses that technology to create sock puppet accounts on internet forums like these.

 

Your ignorance of the subject doesn't make it somehow impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks iNow for you kind reply. I've studied your post, but doesn't it seem, even to you, a bit unconvincing.

 

Could plain hydrogen atoms do it all (including your post) without an outside influence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't accept that hydrogen atoms can spontaneously generate a powerful intelligence such as yourself.

 

Isn't it reminiscent of the old ideas that mud and wool could spontaneously generate frogs and mice? I mean really!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't accept that hydrogen atoms can spontaneously generate a powerful intelligence such as yourself.

 

Isn't it reminiscent of the old ideas that mud and wool could spontaneously generate frogs and mice? I mean really!!!

That is because saying hydrogen atoms spontaneously generate anything is disingenuous at best. Order can arise from chaos in energy rich environments but the steps from hydrogen to you are nothing like wool giving rise to mice or mud giving rise to frogs...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't accept that hydrogen atoms can spontaneously generate a powerful intelligence such as yourself.

 

Isn't it reminiscent of the old ideas that mud and wool could spontaneously generate frogs and mice? I mean really!!!

Hydrogen can't spontaneously generate Life. Earth has many heavy elements. Hydrogen and helium are the only elements that created on thier own in the universe. All the elements heavier than that were created in neuclear fusion in stars. Our solar system was created from what came out of a large star exploding.

 

Once you have heavier elements some can naturally create molecules. Some of these molecules may split. When they split some of them may attract elements of the atoms that broke off. This results in 2 molecules similar to the one that split. This is much like DNA but much simpler.

Are you still with me? Agree this is possible?

 

I think the reason some people don't believe in evolution is they have a hard time comprehending the time frame. It took almost a billion years until the first cell developed. So to say that mud, wool, or hydrogen would spontaneously generate frogs, mice or a powerful intelligence is so far from the truth that their has to be a more complete understanding of the process and the science behind this process. And more importantly an understanding of the time frame we are taking about. Even now with modern life forms it still takes a million years for a new species to develop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BusaDave9, on 24 Dec 2013 - 01:48 AM, said:

I think the reason some people don't believe in evolution is they have a hard time comprehending the time frame.

And also the synergistic or emergent effect of increasingly complex molecular arrangements and interactions leading to the process called life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose Evolution makes sense, up to a certain point. You can see that hydrogen atoms might combine with atoms of other elements, to make molecules of simple chemicals. And these simple chemicals might then interact with each other, and "evolve" into more complex chemicals. But,how far can this process go?

 

StringJunky says in #61 that it can lead to "life". That seems a leap of faith. No-one has yet proved how life started, and where. Was it in small warm ponds, arctic ice, clay replicators, panspermic comets? There are many theories. But they lack any scientific proof.

 

In the absence of such proof, why shouldn't someone say life was started by a God. Isn't that as good a provisional hypothesis as any other?

Edited by Dekan
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose Evolution makes sense, up to a certain point. You can see that hydrogen atoms might combine with atoms of other elements, to make molecules of simple chemicals. And these simple chemicals might then interact with each other, and "evolve" into more complex chemicals. But,how far can this process go?

It has progressed to the person on the other end of this computer...

 

StringJunky says in #61 that it can lead to "life". That seems a leap of faith. No-one has yet proved how life started, and where. Was it in small warm ponds, arctic ice, clay replicators, panspermic comets? There are many theories.

There is considerable evidence of how life started, no where near as much as supports evolution but quite a bit, sadly most of the evidence is quite complex and boring chemistry but I have three lectures by Jack Szostak that make it pretty clear, ask and i will direct you to them.

 

But they lack any scientific proof.

Science does not deal in proof

 

In the absence of such proof, why shouldn't someone say life was started by a God. Isn't that as good a provisional hypothesis as any other?

God is not an answer, it raises more questions that cannot be answered and stifles any further inquiry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose Evolution makes sense, up to a certain point. You can see that hydrogen atoms might combine with atoms of other elements, to make molecules of simple chemicals. And these simple chemicals might then interact with each other, and "evolve" into more complex chemicals. But,how far can this process go?

 

 

You need to study a bit more on star formation, supernovea and heavy elements. Stellar fusion of hydrogen and subsequent elements is where all of the elements heavier than oxygen come from. As a carbon based lifeform you are mostly composed of stardust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
doG, on 25 Dec 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

 

You need to study a bit more on star formation, supernovea and heavy elements. Stellar fusion of hydrogen and subsequent elements is where all of the elements heavier than oxygen come from. As a carbon based lifeform you are mostly composed of stardust.

John Gribbin's Stardust comes to mind. Buy it Dekan it's a very readable paperback and you should find it somewhere for only a few quid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

as an atheist myself brought up in a babtist/catholic community, i feel your pain. in trying to stick to the thread purpose as posted above by the moderator, i only have a few things to offer as possible arguments for creationism.

 

how much time and sand would it take to build a sand castle by pouring sand out of your hand and letting it hit the ground. i think we can all agree, as people of science, that the rules of entropy prevent this from happening. so far as we can tell the entire universe goes from order to chaos. lifeforms go against this rule and scientists cannot repeat how it started. we are also the goldilocks of the universe. our soup is unbelievably just right. if we won the gallactic lottery, we did so a thousand times over. and of course, in the end, we cannot prove with certainty that our universe is truly real - all particles are actually waves, the universe is an empty hollogram, ect... oh, dont forget the bones. we must use deductive reasoning to fill in the gaps between the bones of evolution. there are large gaps to say the least. according to fossil record there are explosions of life that require a modification of how evolution works. our original assumptions were wrong.

 

ok, the shoe goes back on the other foot for me now.

 

-a man that cannot look beyond logic is effectively a sociopath. science is merely a simple tool.-

Edited by davidivad
Link to post
Share on other sites

lifeforms go against this rule and scientists cannot repeat how it started.

The first life was simply molecules that, when broken apart, can allow atoms to rejoin the molecule and create 2 molecules like the original molecule. Scientists can recreate this in a lab but then skeptics say "that molecule isn't life". They expect a scientist to throw mud and water into a test tube and have an amoeba crawl out where there was no live before. People need to realize it took almost a billion years for life to evolve to a cell. The biggest reason there are skeptics to the theory of evolution is they don't comprehend the time frames.

 

 

dont forget the bones. we must use deductive reasoning to fill in the gaps between the bones of evolution. there are large gaps to say the least. according to fossil record there are explosions of life that require a modification of how evolution works. our original assumptions were wrong.

Large gaps? There will always be gaps. So there is a large gap between this species and that so now lets throw out the whole theory of evolution? ? ? ? ? ?

I think the bones are one of the best arguments for evolution. All animals are variations on a theme. The more closely the species are related the more similar their structure. Once you start talking about the reptiles, birds and mammals. Species all have 4 appendages. The rear legs are attached to a hip that is attached to the back bone. The forelegs are never attached to the backbone but instead there is a clavicle and scapula that allow the shoulder joint to float more so than the rear legs.

But the species are not always as I described. They are variations on a theme based on how closely related they are. The hips of mammals are not like the hips of reptiles or birds. But if you go back to the time of the dinosaurs the hips of the birds and the replies are much more alike.

Look at an x-ray of your forearm. There are 2 bones there to allow you to twist your wrist. Those 2 bones are also in the wings of birds. Some joints use a ball and socket to allow rotation. For example your hip. This is similar to other animals.

Look at the bones of a bat wing. You see the bones of your hand.

It's all variations on a theme. If you find a gap don't through out the baby with the bath water.

post-100725-0-40059700-1389358790_thumb.jpg

Edited by BusaDave9
Link to post
Share on other sites

my goal was to think like a creationist. did i do that well?eek.gif

 

 

You forgot that the earth is only 6,000 years old and most importantly no matter what the evidence says you must ignore it in favor of scripture...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Large gaps? There will always be gaps. So there is a large gap between this species and that so now lets throw out the whole theory of evolution? ? ? ? ? ?

Throw out theory of aging as well. There are gaps between me and when I was a baby. Never seen a baby with an old man's head.

Edited by john5746
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The biggest reason there are skeptics to the theory of evolution is they don't comprehend the time frames.

There are basically two groups of creationists:

 

The first group are simply liars. They now very well that their claims are BS and lie deliberately, for financial or political gains. This group includes (probably) all creationist gurus - do you think all these creationist "scientists" with MSc's or PhD's REALLY don't know that e.g. atoms don't bond by random chance? Their claims would be akin to seeing a physicist claiming that when you drop a ball, the chances that it will start falling downwards (and not upwards or to the left) are so small that it requires an "intelligent pusher" to explain this.

 

The second group are ordinary people. They either don't have enough brains or are in such a deep state of denial that no evidence can convince them.

 

In my whole (albeit short) life I've seen just one case of creationist becoming an evolutionist - and that was the case of an Iranian apostate from Islam, Ali Sina.

Edited by SlavicWolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

The second group are ordinary people. They either don't have enough brains or are in such a deep state of denial that no evidence can convince them.

 

I wouldn't say it was brains they lack, but rather training in critical thinking and other intermediate education. Some of the phrases creationists use can seem pretty compelling because they're based on misinformation, so if you aren't in the habit of checking sources and reasoning things out, or if you didn't have the correct information to begin with, their arguments can seem controversial. "If we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?" is one that gets a lot of people. If you don't know why the question itself is wrong, it's hard not to think that's a good question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are basically two groups of creationists:

 

The first group are simply liars. They now very well that their claims are BS and lie deliberately, for financial or political gains. This group includes (probably) all creationist gurus - do you think all these creationist "scientists" with MSc's or PhD's REALLY don't know that e.g. atoms don't bond by random chance? Their claims would be akin to seeing a physicist claiming that when you drop a ball, the chances that it will start falling downwards (and not upwards or to the left) are so small that it requires an "intelligent pusher" to explain this.

 

 

 

You are absolutely correct. Their have been many instances were extremist on both sides of this fence have laid down some pretty thick lies to try and prove their point. Then the mindless just blindly follow, without any research themselves. Once anyone has a closed mind, it is nearly impossible to teach them anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.