Evolution and Creationism

Originally posted by Syron@Oct 17 2004, 08:36 PM

What!!!!! That is EXACTLY what I said. Eukaryotes ARE Prokaryotes with adittional organelles. Look.....Eukaryotes make up animals (and plants btw) because they are the only ones capable of properly interacting with replicated cells Those additioanal organelles such as the golgi body/apparatus and others allow for greater communication and also allows for transmission of material in the colony therefore the Eukaryotes would natural tend towards a symbiotic colony

I like the fact that you've obviously done some reading, I know you wouldn't have been taught Pro and Eukaryotes, however I suggest you read a little more about it than just definitions! When you learn about amino acids and protein formation you'll see just how interliked Pro and Eukaryotes are.

Mmmm.......who taught you biology? :wack




Archaea

Unlike you we don't state things that aren't true. Recently another creature in this group was found survive above autoclave temperatures, and that's damn high. I can find more if you want but i think I've made my point.



Non-living? For the millionth time organic compound is a misnomer, it isn't living are you actually going to read it this time?



Firstly I would suggest reading the previous posts, they adress what you say anyway. You don't know much about science so there is little point argueing, a dense atmosphere is not required, neither is a lot of warmth and possibly some bacteria would be dispersed clear of the explosion.



Oh, and the theory is that life began in the ocean......life coming from outer space is only a possibility.

What are you talking about. Eukaryotes are not just prokaryotes w/ additional organelles. They have a CENTRAL NUCLEUS system! This holds the DNA.

[LegionnaireX]

legionnarex, I cant believe you have the arrogance to argue with uni grads when your not even out of high school yet!

Arrogant? You call me arrogant? Have you even bothered to notice that throughout the thread your fellow evolutionists have been making statements like "I'll know more about biology than you or anyone you know ever will". Talk to me about arrogance. :wack

Just admit it, your wrong!

Just admit it, YOUR WRONG!! Do you get me point? This arguement is in a stalemate, here, and everywhere else people debate this issue. Neither side has conclusive concrete evidence to back them up.

Anybody who believes in creationism needs to have their head seriously examined!

Did you know that Albert Einstein was a creationist? Maybe not in the biblical way, but he recognized the need for the creation of us all. There are millions of creationists in the world. Some are scientists devoting their whole lives to discovering facts about creationism. Now if you want to claim that those millions of people, some with advanced college degrees in subjects such as biology, are all dellusional,ignorant, and stupid, than you can stick your fat head in the toilet and flush it down.

I challenge you to give me the smallest shred of evidence of the existence of God and creation... Just the very smallest piece of rock-hard evidence. Not some theory like: "Evolution is not possible, therefore there is a God".. Real evidence..

Very well, how about the fact that we are all alive today? How about the fact that things exist? How about the fact that the universe exists? These are all basic proofs of a divine Creator's presence. If nothing at all existed before the universe, than, logically, nothing at all would happen.

Lets go more indepth. Ever heard of Irreducible Complexity? This refers to the many interdependent complex systems on the earth that simply could not have ever been at any other state other than the one they are in now. In other words, they simply couldn't have 'evolved'. Such as systems like that of the cleaner fish/shark, and the giraffes complex vain system. Or the birds V-formation. The V-formation allows birds at travel at faster speeds, and longer distances. Who exactly taught birds to do this magnifecent thing? Surely they do not understand complex physics and aeronautics. It was only millions of years later that pilots noticed the importance of the v-flight, and adapted it for aircraft use. Or, the many complex designs on many animals which disguise them better than modern military uniforms do. These, plus many more are absolute evidences which hint, or state, intelligent design.

Still waiting for that uncorruptible, unrefutible, abosultely clear without mistake, evidence for evolution.

In their opinion, as long as nobody else can prove that the theory of evolution is true, the world was created.

No. Do to the fact that evolution is the only other accepted theory for the origins of species, we try to fight evolution, and when evolution is defeated, than we are once again the sole explaination for the origins of species. But when another theory comes along, we will do the same with it. We are just trying to prove to everyone that creationism is still and has always been an absolute logical and valid theory.

That's about it... with proofs flying from all fields of science they still can't accept it. No matter what is presented to them they will just push it away... Mainly because they have no genuine intention of testing their belief against proofs. And that in itself is fine by me, anyone can believe in whatever they want. It pisses me off however that they try to get that unscientific crap into museums and schools.

First off, there isn't "tons of facts about evolution flying in from all fields of science". Second of all, there are many scientific arguements against evolution. Third, there are evidences of creation. And finally, we do not want to have creationism taught in schools. What we want is for evolution to be given equal ground with creationism. We want all students to know that the theory of evolution is not solid fact but just a theory to explain the origins of species. Just as creationism is also a theory to explain the origin of species.

I'll give a neutral stance to this issue: Since evolution, and creationism, are both theories of something that happened ages ago, there evidences are both open to interpretation. Evidences for evolution, are found as raw crap in the ground, and then interpreted to be fit into the evolutionary scheme of things. Same with creationism. So the fragments of evidence found here and their for both theories do nothing more than reaffirm a believer in evolution, or reaffirm at believer in creationism. So really, they do nothing. For creationism to be found true, we need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the many systems in the world could not have evolved, and must be the work of intelligence. For evolution, you must show with concrete evidences the origin of the backbone, the wing, the arm, the many unique organs among species, the origin of the eye, the origin of the ear, the origin of the concieouss mind, and simply how evolution can, and does occur.

they know a hell of a lot more then your science teacer ever will.

:wack My science teacher had to attend college, and major in the certain feild in which they wish to teach just like every other school teacher in the US.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Legionare, i think you are missing a serious point. Many of those who believe in evolution are religious as well. I believe in somesort of almighty deity, because as you said, there are some flukes in this world that just cant be explained. HOWEVER, I do not believe the world was 'created' in 6 days, epochs, eons or whatever. I believe that deity up there started it off and allowed evolution to take its course. It is quite possible to believe in science and a deity at the same time.

The way you are arguing for it makes out that you beleive you can only have science or religion. You dont seriously take the bible as hard fact in the origin of the world do you?

[Rand Al Thor]

This refers to the many interdependent complex systems on the earth that simply could not have ever been at any other state other than the one they are in now.

I were to take to and your family and put you in the woods you would all be dead in a few weeks ergo humans can not survive without electricity so we must have always had electricity. I'm sorry but the Irreducible Complexity argument is extremely flawed, especially in regards to eye evolution.

Did you know that Albert Einstein was a creationist? Maybe not in the biblical way, but he recognized the need for the creation of us all.

What makes you think this? Albert Einstein NEVER once said that we need a god to create us. Besides this is a argument from authority, Albert Einstein's opinions aren't any more valid than mine.

how about the fact that we are all alive today? How about the fact that things exist? How about the fact that the universe exists?

Argument from Ignorance, just because you have no idea why we are here doesn't mean that god created us.

Or, the many complex designs on many animals which disguise them better than modern military uniforms do.

Evolution explains this quite well, there is no need more an intelligent designer.

Do to the fact that evolution is the only other accepted theory for the origins of species, we try to fight evolution, and when evolution is defeated, than we are once again the sole explaination for the origins of species. But when another theory comes along, we will do the same with it.

This is the prefect illustration of why there isn't and never will be a "Theory of Creation". You don't care what the evidence supports, you just ignore the evidence and assume that you are correct or you ignore all evidence that doesn't support your idea. This is a prefect example of willful ignorance.

Now if you want to claim that those millions of people, some with advanced college degrees in subjects such as biology, are all dellusional,ignorant, and stupid, than you can stick your fat head in the toilet and flush it down.

Only about 1% (if not less) of scientists with degrees in the life sciences are creationists. The vast majority of scientists that don't support evolution don't have degrees in any of the sciences associated with evolution.

Third, there are evidences of creation.

Still waiting for you to post them......

For creationism to be found true, we need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the many systems in the world could not have evolved, and must be the work of intelligence.

You are mixing up intelligent design and creationism. To support creationism you would need to show that the earth and/or the universe could not have formed naturally and you must find evidence that supports the existence of a being that could have created the earth and/or the universe.

since evolution, and creationism, are both theories of something that happened ages ago

Sorry, but there exists at this time no "Theory of Creationism".

[fatsheep]

Originally posted by Rand Al Thor@Oct 25 2004, 02:18 AM
Sorry, but there exists at this time no "Theory of Creationism".

er.... Just cause you think its stupid and don't believe in it doesn't mean it ceases to exist. I'm sorry but there IS a theory of creation.

If you look at the very beginning, before the big bang, what created the intial matter or energy? These are things science is unable to explain (as of now), and thus leads to a certain matter of faith.

[Dr Zoidberg]

One can have faith. But to ignore all other points of view, despite the evidence provided and just following faith blindly, no.

[ZaPPPa]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Oct 24 2004, 09:33 PM

Very well, how about the fact that we are all alive today? How about the fact that things exist? How about the fact that the universe exists? These are all basic proofs of a divine Creator's presence. If nothing at all existed before the universe, than, logically, nothing at all would happen.

Lets go more indepth. Ever heard of Irreducible Complexity? This refers to the many interdependent complex systems on the earth that simply could not have ever been at any other state other than the one they are in now. In other words, they simply couldn't have 'evolved'. Such as systems like that of the cleaner fish/shark, and the giraffes complex vain system. Or the birds V-formation. The V-formation allows birds at travel at faster speeds, and longer distances. Who exactly taught birds to do this magnifecent thing? Surely they do not understand complex physics and aeronautics. It was only millions of years later that pilots noticed the importance of the v-flight, and adapted it for aircraft use. Or, the many complex designs on many animals which disguise them better than modern military uniforms do. These, plus many more are absolute evidences which hint, or state, intelligent design.

Still waiting for that uncorruptible, unrefutible, abosultely clear without mistake, evidence for evolution.

OMG!!!! That paragraph you just wrote is for me enough evidence that you know absolutely nothing about evolution, psychology and biology. I am not even going to begin to explain why every single example you gave is absolutely nonsense and in not even the slightest way proof of creation as opposed to evolution. My jaw actually dropped when I read it... Such ignorance... I didn't know it was possible in the 21st century!!

You examples are actually the prime examples of proof of evolution, especially the camouflage one. Many biology teacher will use exactly that example when teaching about the basics of evolution!... It is one of the easiest examples to explain, but if you don't even understand that one it only proves that it is useless discussing it with you at all.

This is why we are not exploring space yet and why technology has not advanced enough to cure cancer and many other terminal diseases. Unfortunately there are many people in high places who think exactly like you and will block any technological advancement because they fear they will be proven wrong and lose power. Lemme see.. you oppose stem cell research?

Anyway, thank you for proving my point and giving yourself the perfect example on your last question.

If you consider yourself open to things, try to think outside your 6000 year timespan. Consider billions of years and consider the 10^(a lot) of protein chains that formed in that period. The number 10^65 that may look infinite, but it is not. To discuss these things you need to think big.

[Dr Zoidberg]

You said it Zappa! Nice going mate.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by freerepublic
Sauer and his colleagues confirmed Yockey's calculations that the probability of a specific folded protein coming into being by undirected evolution is 1 in 10^65.

Good thing evolution isn't unguided, then.

Look, here's an experiment. Take a billion tons of dirt and dump it into empty space, far from anything. Wait a million years. What shape does the dirt take? Why... a sphere.

Use marbles. Scoops of ice cream. Banana peels, or oil. It doesn't matter. It always comes out a sphere.

How is that? Could it be because of the laws of physics, gravity, and topology simply guide the stuff into forming a sphere? Why, yes.

And evolution follows the same principle: the laws of physics are the guide.

[ZaPPPa]

Originally posted by Jash@Oct 25 2004, 03:46 AM
If you look at the very beginning, before the big bang, what created the intial matter or energy? These are things science is unable to explain (as of now), and thus leads to a certain matter of faith.

You are thinking in our limited view of three of four dimensions (fourth being time).

(Not directed to you specifically) And... who created God? If you believe in creation, shouldn't God be created? Or did he 'just exist'.. is he 'above that'. Doesn't God violate the so beloved law of thermodynamics? Should't someone who makes laws not violate them?

This is why creationists make it so easy for themselves. They don't need to explain how God came into existence.. he just did or always existed. They don't need to explain why a six year old innocent girl dies of a horrible disease... he has 'a reason' for that. They don't need to explain why millions of people were killed in many world wars, why cancer exists, why innocent children get blown up by mines everyday in Africa.. how much effort could it take for someone who can create the universe at the snap of a finger to not let a simple mine go off when a child steps in it??

Could someon please explain this?

[Last_Crusader]

There's actually a theology which states that God is guilty of the murder of every person that steps on a mine (or dies any way other than the natural for that matter) precisely because he does not, as you put it, snap his fingers. I believe that it came about around the time of the Holocaust. I can most likely find more if anyone's interested, but don't hold your breath.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by LegionareX
Did you know that Albert Einstein was a creationist?

No, he wasn't. This is simply an incorrect fact.

Very well, how about the fact that we are all alive today? How about the fact that things exist? How about the fact that the universe exists? These are all basic proofs of a divine Creator's presence. If nothing at all existed before the universe, than, logically, nothing at all would happen.

If you paid attention to physics, you would know that something comes from nothing all the freaking time. Constantly. It's happening right now, right under your nose. But since it happens under the Planck scale, you don't notice - you can't notice. (Unless you have a Black Hole handy...)

But let's pretend you're right, anyway. If everything requires a creator, then what created your Creator? If your Creator can exist without being created, then why can't the Universe exist without being created? How is it, exactly, that the notion of "X" existing without being created offends you, right up until the moment we define "X" as God? How did God get this special exemption? By what logic do you attribute the quality "uncreated" to God, and deny it to the Universe as a whole (remember, with the Big Bang and all, we only needed just one tiny, tiny particle to be created on its own. Nothing so complex as a God, with his petty hates and rules, but just the simplest little thing you can imagine, a single photon for instance.) Why is imagining that an intelligent being - who somehow cares about humans despite having a universe of staggering size to run - as the original uncreated entity easier for you than imagining a single puny little photon that just happened to not have a creator?

And finally, supposing you did succeed in establishing that the universe had to have a First Cause; so what? How do you link that to God? If you come across a house in the desert, you might reasonably conclude that it had a builder; but how do you leap to the conclusion that the builder is still alive? Maybe he made the place, and then died. Or went somewhere else. How do you leap to the fact that the builder cares about you, or even knew you would come by? Or that the builder was a good person? Even if you established that the universe required a First Cause (which you cannot), it does not help you in the slightest, for you have no logical reason to assume anything about this First Cause other than the fact that it was a Cause, and the First one.

Ever heard of Irreducible Complexity?

Yes, and it is simply false. There are many amazing and complex interrelationships, true: but the notion that you know so much about biology and physics that you know for a fact that these relationships could not have arisen naturally is just laughable.

Still waiting for that uncorruptible, unrefutible, abosultely clear without mistake, evidence for evolution.

The fact that it is observed every single day. Let's dispense with the tired old moths in England; just ask your doctor what anti-biotic he prescribes. It won't be penicillen. Why? Can you guess why? (Hint: the word "evolution" appears in the answer, as in "Various germs have evolved to the point where pencillen no longer works on them.") This rampant evolution of infectious diseases (made worse by people who don't take their entire prescription dose, which is just like giving the bugs training classes) is a simple, ordinary, irrefutable fact of daily life.

We are just trying to prove to everyone that creationism is still and has always been an absolute logical and valid theory.

There is no Theory of Creation. There is simply the claim that "God did it." How does that help? Here is an example word problem:

A southern state is offered a new chemical that will kill boll weevils and thus increase the cotton crop. The compay will supply the chemical to farmers for a neglible price, but wants its development expense paid back up-front. They are asking for an amount that is equal to 27 years of the increased profit from the cotton crop. The boll weevil produces 19 generations a year. Question: should the state buy the chemical or not?

Using evolutionary theory, one could calculate how long it would be before the boll weevil became effectively immune to the chemical, and thus decide if it were worth the price.

Using creation theory, one would... what, exactly? How would creation theory allow you to generate an answer to this question? It wouldn't, which is compelling proof that Creationism is not a scientific theory but merely a religous claim.

We want all students to know that the theory of evolution is not solid fact but just a theory to explain the origins of species

Evolution is as solid a fact as gravity. It is not called a "Theory" because it is in question, anymore than the "General Theory of Relativity" is in question. The words Law and Theory have very specific meanings when used by scientists, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of evidence for them (both of them, by the way, only apply to ideas that are already proven beyond a doubt). A law is generally a mechanic, like an equation; a theory is a conceptual framework.

Originally posted by ZaPPPa@Oct 25 2004, 04:15 AM
You are thinking in our limited view of three of four dimensions (fourth being time).

(Not directed to you specifically) And... who created God? If you believe in creation, shouldn't God be created? Or did he 'just exist'.. is he 'above that'. Doesn't God violate the so beloved law of thermodynamics? Should't someone who makes laws not violate them?

This is why creationists make it so easy for themselves. They don't need to explain how God came into existence.. he just did or always existed. They don't need to explain why a six year old innocent girl dies of a horrible disease... he has 'a reason' for that. They don't need to explain why millions of people were killed in many world wars, why cancer exists, why innocent children get blown up by mines everyday in Africa.. how much effort could it take for someone who can create the universe at the snap of a finger to not let a simple mine go off when a child steps in it??

Could someon please explain this?

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm thinking in our very limited understanding of time, aren't you? Isn't everyone?

I was making a point which you missed entirely. Not everything is capable of being explained by science, which brings me to my original statement: faith. Creationists don't see a reason to explain god because they believe he is infinite, therefore impossible by human standards to understand and comprehend: so explaining why things happen is irrelevant, they simply happen, grand purpose or no.

[ZaPPPa]

Yes, but this is the 21st century. The time that the church ruled people by fear has long gone. The one and only single reason why the church denounces any theory that may contradict their beliefs is because some people may start to realize that the church was wrong all along and when people realize that, people may start to doubt everything else the church tells them.... that shakes the very foundation the church is built on.. People should not think for themselves, they should be happily grazing in their flock.. This is how it was done for hundreds of years.

If I were a bishop and some kid would start asking me questions about the creation of the universe my answer would also be: "God is infinite.. There's no explanation necessary."... while actually I wouldn't have a clue.. It's a simple psychological solution to a difficult problem for a bishop. People fear the unknown.

I did not miss the point.. I dismissed the point.. I'm not a sheep. I am not satisfied with the 'infinite' answer. Just like I am not satisfied with that He had 'a reason' for the holocaust.

[ZaPPPa]

We are just trying to prove to everyone that creationism is still and has always been an absolute logical and valid theory.

Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.

Oh, and there is absolutely nothing logical about creationism. Look at this quote:

Creationists don't see a reason to explain god because they believe he is infinite, therefore impossible by human standards to understand and comprehend: so explaining why things happen is irrelevant, they simply happen, grand purpose or no.

Where's the logic in this? The very absense of logic is used all the time to describe the power of God... God violated the beloved law of thermodynamics when he created the universe.. The very same law creationists use to argue the validity of the theory of evolution. He who makes laws should not break them.. What kind of example is he setting for his followers when the very first thing he does is to break his own laws???

Think about *that* for a second.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by ZaPPPa@Oct 25 2004, 08:45 PM

Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.

exaclty.... You ignorant people who claim Creationism is a theory need to re-read your dictionary. Notice by how I wrote this statement that I didnt call creationists themselves ignorant so do not get on me about that! The problem with some of you creationists is that you can`t even consider the possibility that you may be incorrect, that alone prevents you from winning or effectivly debating in this thread. Am I an evolutionist? yes.. Do I believe that there is a chance, however slight, that the world/universe was created by a god? possible though extremely slight, about a 1 in 10^65 chance .

*viking*

Duh.. whats a Theory???

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

a model or idea that has undergone testing or validation from careful observations and can be used to make a variety of predictions of what will happen under different circumstances.
astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/Astronomynotes/glosst.htm

A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. See also hypothesis and scientific law.
college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/t.html
etc.. etc..

[Manji]

I have yet to see people sharing my theory: that there is a God and he created a multiplicity of things and that primordial cell too. I think that if God is indeed the "great architect" he wouldn't make things as they are per se but rather create the building blocks and watch them evolve. Well, I'm not talking about the christian god or the muslim god, I'm talking about an higher force....
Oh well.... getting too serious....must say..........................BOOBIES!!!!

[Portuguese Rebel]

Only about 1% (if not less) of scientists with degrees in the life sciences are creationists.

I haven't had the chance to meet one yet. And this includes endless hours roaming the net in creationist sites. The "scientists" they present are either no scientists at all, had taken their degrees in universities that operate on the first floor of a dinner, or have completely or nearly irrelevant education for the issue.

Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.

But let us analyze it as an hypothesys. I propose the creationists in here to get together a scientific hypothesys involving a fixist perspective of nature (where there is no new species evolving). Back up your claims with hard evidence.

If you want it to be taught in schools as a valid alternative to the theory of evolution you cannot leave this chalenge unanswered. Oh! Almost forgot, bible quotes DO NOT count as hard evidence...

First off, there isn't "tons of facts about evolution flying in from all fields of science"

Biology, Geology, Astronomy, Paleontology, Embryology, Chemestry, Biochemestry, Molecular Biology, Compared Anatomy, Physics... All of these sciences, and probably some more i'm forgeting, have provided data to compose what it is now called the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. The S.T.E is in strict agreement with all observed by scientists working on all the fields above.

Can i see what you got?

[Quintus Valerius]

He's got God on his side. So no matter how convincing your arguments are he'll never believe, because that would simply be the "devil" tempting him.

Sometimes I feel we haven't made it out of the Dark Ages yet!

Bloody creationists! :w00t