Poll: Creation vs Evolution

[petrek]

In re"<< In re"You're not a science type, are you? It's fairly easy to have amino-acids spontaneously form themselves out of simple, non-organic molecules under the right conditions. These amino-acids then became the basis for the first life-forms. No mystery, no 'riddle of life' or whatever. Just some basic chemistry."

Experiments? >>

Some experiments have already been carried out, all with results which comply to theories."

So what you're saying is that inteligently designed experiments using known scientific substances existant in all life-forms under controlled conditions are capable of producing results which comply with the theories that inteligent design is not necessary to produce life?

Dave

 

[petrek]

In re"As Elledan mentioned, this "philosophical" definition of evolution is completely and utterly false. If you want to attack evolution that badly the least you could do is take the trouble to learn something about it. Read this brief intro to evolution and bring your comments/concerns back to this thread so they can be addressed. [Note: That FAQ is by no means a definitive text but hopefully it can dispel some common Creationist misconceptions.]"

Actually I read a part of his opinion a few days ago, the two statements he made that stuck in my mind were:

A)His opinion that "very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it.", and thus implying that his understood definition (one which is necessarily based on the opinions of other biologists) of the word evolution is to be trusted over the understood definition of the majority of biologists.


B)"The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution."

Whereas on a web page updating peppered moth story this statement is made "What we do know is that the rise and fall of dark-colored moths, a phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," remains a striking and persuasive example of natural selection in action."

There seems to be a major problem as to the universally recognized meaning of evolution, and a quick glance at a dictionary should readily confirm this. As I stated in an earlier discussion on this topic, even though I fundamentally believe the King James Bible is the literal word of God, I have no trouble believing in evolution, if by evolution you mean:

A)"The gradual process of development or change" as in I am different from my parents

and not

B)"The theory that all forms of life originated by descent from earlier forms" Webster's Dictionary 1997 SAA

Or

"The formation of the heavenly bodies by the concentration and consolidation of cosmic matter" Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1959

Or for that matter any definition that contradicts the literal word of God.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Here is just a little excert on the dating methods used to "date" objects in support of a number of the commonly understood dictionary definitions of the word evolution.

Using the K-Ar (potassium-argon) "dating" methed of five andesite lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, with one lava flow occuring in 1949, three lava flows in 1954, and one in 1975, the "dates" ranged in age from less than 270,000 years old to 3.5 million years old.

A.A. Snelling, "The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon 'Ages' for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon 'Dating,'" Proc. 4th ICC, 1998, p.503-525


When Geologist Dr. Steve Austin used different methods to get the radiometric "ages" for basaltic rocks from the Uinkaret Plateau of the Grand Canyon,(rocks most geologists accept as only thousands of years old) he got these results:
- Six potassium-argon model ages gave results between 10,000 years and 117 million years
- Five rubidium-strontium ages gave results between 1,270 and 1,390 million years
-Rubidium-strontium isochron gave a result of 1,340 million years
-Lead-lead isochron gave a result of 2,600 million years

S.A. Austin, editor, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe" (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), p. 120-131

Dave

 

[HombrePequeno]

Dating anything that happened after around 1940 will yield unreliable results. You can blame this on our nuclear bomb testing.

Not sure aboot those others.

Edit: Well what do you know? Here's something on the Grand Canyon Dating Project: A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

 

[petrek]

While the critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project does call into question Rb/Sr isochron date obtained by ICR it does nothing to explain the other methods used and the extreme variation of the results, other than referring to them as a laundry-list of anomolous dates.
Dave

 

[petrek]

In re"Dating anything that happened after around 1940 will yield unreliable results. You can blame this on our nuclear bomb testing."

While I have heard this mentioned before, I have heard nothing as to the extent of the implications. ie: does it necessarily produce unreliable results over the entire globe, or are the effects contained to a certain portion of the earth's surface? Are all "dating" methods affected or are only some affected? by how much are the "dates" supposedly affected?

Please provide sources on the subject

Dave

 

[HombrePequeno]

Well quite honestly I don't feel like searching through a bunch of dating method articles so I'll just give you this: Steve Austin



<< While I have heard this mentioned before, I have heard nothing as to the extent of the implications. ie: does it necessarily produce unreliable results over the entire globe, or are the effects contained to a certain portion of the earth's surface? Are all "dating" methods affected or are only some affected? by how much are the "dates" supposedly affected? >>



It affects the entire globe. I'm not sure which dating methods it effects but I guess I'll do a search on it.

 

[cuteybunny]

evolution vs creation huh? i think you're both wrong
we're living in a dream world, well sorta but it's hard to explain.

 

[Jeff7]

Love your sig, Sp3nce.

 

[Moonbeam]

Anybody know why the Church had a hard time accepting that the earth wasn't the center of the Cosmos. I got a feeling we could be having this same conversation a few years back with flat substituted for Creation and round for evolution.

 

[StUdMaN]

the only problem I see with evolution is that those who push it are constantly trying to prove that there is no God,I think we were created but not in the way any holy books suggest.I think God "experimented" with what was best then took that and guided it's progress
evolution wasnt first proposed by Darwin if fact he seemed to have ripped off the ideas pretty blatently saw Burke on connections talk about the 2 bug guys never mentioned Lynton
the whole idea put forth by modern evolution nuts is that little changes have made RANDOMLY
have a big problem with this one-nothing is RANDOM(never seen anything that would convince me of this)it might not be fully understood(the causes)but is there nonetheless
e.g. an alien cutting a hot red fart on the far side of space unbeknownst to him releases several electrons in his noxious cloud that by their posistions effect the measurments of very fine scientiffic instruments here in small but definate ways(a RND # gen)
this alien farting could be called random factors but whos to know wether it threw off the results or not?Random evencts have a cause always there is nothing truly random

 

[linuxboy]

Anybody know why the Church had a hard time accepting that the earth wasn't the center of the Cosmos

I would suspect that recognizing oneself as not the all-important center of the universe (which was created for oneself according to them, BTW) would be very difficult indeed. It is much easier on the ego to claim superiority than to admit error, especially if it meant sharing power with someone else.

Cheers !

 

[Moonbeam]

I should have put my question differently linuxboy. I was wondering if there's anything literal in the Bible like 'the earth is the center of the universe' that literalists had to eat when the telescope made it pretty plain was wrong.

 

[BeaverTail]

We evolved.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Isn't it funny that many Athiests and Christians argue so much alike? Well each is a religion and so I suppose that's to be expected.

 

[Daxxax]

This is a little off the main topic, but this is something that has always bothered me, My parents are very religous, I went to church three times a week during my childhood. Up to a few years ago I firmly belived it all. now I'm really doubting the whole thing. to many questions that have no answears. For example God is suppose to come back to earth right?? many people think that the time is very near. My question is why did he wait this long?? How many people were on earth when they killed jesus?? I'm sure it was probably only a few hundread million maybe even less then that. why would he wait till the world got up to 7 billion people and then send 60 to 70 percent of them to hell?? another question is if God knows the future like the bible says why would he of created us in the first place knowing that millions and millions of people would end up in everlasting hell. Let me put it to you this way if you were married and had problems having kids and the doctor said that there is a 70 percent chance that if you and your partner concieve a child it would be born to be tormented for ever and ever with no hopes of ever getting out would you still take the chance?? of course not!! I know people will say "but god gave you a free will and you can chose to goto heaven if you just trust him" but that doesn't make sense to me. Also if God is perfect and he created the angles perfectly why did Lucifer turn against him?? Why did he even have a hint of anger towards him. These are just a few of the questions that will never be answeared.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Some people already mentioned this, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so what are you guys arguing about? Evolution is about as close to fact as you can get. I guess you don't believe that smoking causes lung cancer either, right?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Neither. Live and let live, think for yourself and don't rely on other people's myths or theories.

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

<< Some people already mentioned this, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so what are you guys arguing about? Evolution is about as close to fact as you can get. I guess you don't believe that smoking causes lung cancer either, right? >>


Actually it does have quite a bit to do with the origin of life. Now I am in total agreement that evolution is fact, but it is directly responsible for the blobs of cellular goo in front of our respective computers
From Websters 1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, so I am gonna take a minute to do so. If we look at Miller/Urey, we can VERY PLAINLY see that it is possible to form organic compounds from inorganic chemicals (it has been a while, but CH4, NH3, and O2 I believe) Add a little energy vis a vis lightning and *ZAP* we have these organic compounds. So from these very basic structures, we have acheived a higher order and complexity, the very definition of evolution. And there we have it. Evolution wins.

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< Isn't it funny that many Athiests and Christians argue so much alike? Well each is a religion and so I suppose that's to be expected. >>



You've been badly misinformed. Atheism isn't a religion. There are religions that are atheist but atheism in itself isn't a religion. That would be like saying that theism is a religion even though religions are theist and not the other way around.

 

[DrMoreau]

<< Neither. Live and let live, think for yourself and don't rely on other people's myths or theories. >>



Well said, EngineNr9.

I'm a Deist, and my complaint with organized religions is that they were all formed around a small group of people who decided they wanted to believe a certain way and live accordingly. Nothing wrong with that, except over the centuries this small group of believers turned into an organization with a mass of followers all proclaiming that if others don't believe and live as they do, then you are damned.

Everyone should be free to form their own spirituality.

Critical thinking is the best defense against being duped by all the nincompoopery that science eventually exposes (world is flat theory for example).

And tolerance can go a long way in making this world a better place.

 

[petrek]

In re"Some people already mentioned this, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so what are you guys arguing about?"

as mentioned above, the word evolution has more than one meaning, and one defined meaning is "Organic evolution as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms." Encyclopedia.com

Dave

 

[Elledan]

<< Arguing with a bible pounder is like trying to swim up a waterfall
>>

Tell me about it...

Anyway, I'll summarize some of my points for the convenience of those who lost track of the discussion:

- Evolution is a fact. Only its exact mechanisms have yet to be mapped.

- Genesis (creation) can not be compared to evolution. It should be compared to biogenesis, since both are 'theories' (technically, genesis is _not_ a theory) on the formation of life on this planet. Evolution is about what happens after the formation of the first life-forms.

- Genesis can only be proven by absence of proof for biogenesis or any other scientifically acceptable theory. Since this is unlikely to ever happen, genesis isn't worth it to be considered.

- Religions are purely based on blind faith, they're not based on any observations or mathematical evidence. It's likely that they're some kind of construction used to control a civilization since every civilization so far has known at least one religion.
Apparently religion is an essential part of more primitive and perhaps unenlightened civilizations. There's a lot of evidence which seems to support this theory.


Finally, I would like to make one more comment: Logic is the foundation of everything. Something which is founded on some twisted or malformed kind of logic is bound to collapse.

 

[Elledan]

<< In re"Some people already mentioned this, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, so what are you guys arguing about?"

as mentioned above, the word evolution has more than one meaning, and one defined meaning is "Organic evolution as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms." Encyclopedia.com

Dave >>

Again, evolution has nothing to do with the formation of life. That part is described by biogenesis. Any definition which claims otherwise is flawed.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's about the origin of species.