Creation vs. Evolution

[Bobbin-along]

"nothing" is a weird word. Nothing for most humans means a lack of something tangible or of interest. How many times has the dog barked and when you looked out the door you said "There's nothing there, be quiet".

You are right, nothing is something. In the spoken history of the world, it was probably more understandable to say "nothing" than to explain gasses (partially because it wasn't until recently in human history that we managed to understand gasses). Big Bang, creationism, and most development theories start us from a "nothing" state and build into what we have today. But Nothing can be something, even though we can't see it, taste it, or smell it, energy is always present and energy is something.

As to the bible I look at it with a pretty broad mind, understanding that oral history pre-dates written and that over that many years even a complete story can get abreviated. It's not surprising, and the presence of even 1 chapter in the entire bible about the creation of the world is novel since it was a time people weren't living on the planet.

 

[Bobbin-along]

Bryan,

Adaptation of a virus or any body is demonstrable and proveable. Nobody is arguing you about that. But you haven't been able to demonstrate a virus mutating/adapting/evolving into a mold, or an amoeba, or an euglena. That's where people really have issues, and rightly so. Until we can do that, evolution beyond species is always a theory.

 

[H2Andy]

But you haven't been able to demonstrate a virus mutating/adapting/evolving into a mold, or an amoeba, or an euglena.

given the time span necessary for speciation (minimum tens of thousands of years), good luck showing that within a human life-span. however, as has been pointed out, some types of viruses do evolve from each other in a relatively short time, so ... that's about as good as it gets.

however, all the evidence is there that it happens.

snapshot of earth: only single-cell organisms

later snapshot of earth: single-cell organisms and some multi-cell organisms

question: where did the multi-cell organisms come from?

evolution is the only scientific theory that can explain that

 

[H2Andy]

I know the theory. That's why I attack it. It's absurd.

we know there were simple organisms for a long time, and nothing else. then we see more complex organisms. then, worms, for example, but no birds or cats.

then worms and birds, but no cats.

then, finally, after a long time, cats.

so did God create simple organisms? then wait a long, lont time, thren create more complex organisms (multi-cell); then wait a few million years and create worms, then wait a few more million years, then create birds, then wait a few moe million years, then create cats?

because that's what the fossil record shows. here are the two answers offered by science (evolution) and religion (creationism):

simple organisms evolved into progressively more complex ones; or

at certain intervals, a supernatural being created a new batch of more complex organisms, and kept doing that for millions of years.

i find the first one simpler, more plausible, and needing less elements (no supernatural being) to work given what we know.

 

[Bobbin-along]

But in science land, that is not definitive proof, that is not fact.

If I brought back that level of anecdotal evidence or inference to my peers in physics claiming fact I would be completely laughed out of the room.

That is were we need to be open and realistic about fact, law, theory. Claiming fact based on the observation and no proveable evidence is irresponsible science. I'm a hard-tailed mean old bat when it comes to making sure that we as scientists MUST toe the line and prove everything that we throw out there. Otherwise we are not better than the Enquirer or Weekly World News who claim to have found the wolf boy or merman.

 

[Bobbin-along]

so did God create simple organisms? then wait a long, lont time, thren create more complex organisms (multi-cell); then wait a few million years and create worms, then wait a few more million years, then create birds, then wait a few moe million years, then create cats?

Why didn't it happen just like that? The biblical account doesn't say it DOESN'T work that way. Nowhere in the bible does it say that "and God saw the kudzu wasn't liked by the mole and so he made goats to eat the kudzu. And it was good". All the bible says is that plants then animals (humans being last) filled the planet. Which is conveniently the order of evolution.

As much as we want people to take leaps of faith in what evolutionists say about the records of cross phylum development why can't we be just as open minded?

 

[H2Andy]

Why didn't it happen just like that?

because the simpler explanation is usually right. as a scientist, you should know that. the better explanation is the single-organism origin.

as you may recall, my statment was:

i find the first one simpler, more plausible, and needing less elements (no supernatural being) to work given what we know.

at no point did i say the second one was impossible. i just said i liked the first one better.

Claiming fact based on the observation and no proveable evidence is irresponsible science.

lol, i never said that. my point is that no observable evidence contradicts evolution, and as such, it continues to be a viable theory, and the only scientific theory that can explain the observable data (key word being scientific)

as for what people believe, i'm happy to report that i take a laissez fare attitude.

however, don't call creationism scientific. it certainly isn't.

 

[Bobbin-along]

So how is it simpler? I'm saying that both ideas are not mutually exclusive, it's not either or.

 

[H2Andy]

so how it's simpler?

theory one: one DNA particle manages to reproduce itself and keeps doing it for a long time, getting progressively more complicated and evolving into more complex life forms.

theorty two: there is a supernatural being. at some point, it decides to create a single cell organism. then, it decides to create a multi-cell organism. then it creates flat worms. then it waits around for a long time and creates corals and jelly fish. then it waits around for a long time and creates xyz, then after a few more million years it creates abc, then edf, then ghi, then ... then ... then ...

 

[wreckchick]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about cross-phylum evolution. Are you saying that evoloutionists think that mammals can evolve into plants? If so, that's not at all my understanding of the theory. New species do not jump phyla, they branch within an existing phylum. There are species that have been reclassified as better evidence shows that they have closer genetic relationships to one group vs. the currently classified group. The critter didn't change, just our understanding of where it exists within the taxonomy.

GM, an evolved cow would be neither a cow nor a horse it would be a new unglulate species related to critters previously knows as "cows". This is the common ancestor thing many of us have been harping on.

You've said (you meaning anyone who's said it) that you believe in adaptation, but not evolution. Here's a thing, you can't seperate them. Adaptation is the key mechanism to evolution. It's what drives the whole process. Scientists will have a hard time telling you when enough adaptive traits have occured to call it a speciation event. When the new adapted critter can no longer reproduce with previously compatible individuals or when differently adapted critters with a common ancestor (there's that pesky term again) can no longer produce offspring they are now different species. Critters than can reproduce but produce sterile offspring it's called hybridizing and it's clear evidence of seperation between the species. The most common examples are between horses and donkeys. Mules and hinnies are very rarely fertile and show clear evidence of a prior relationship between donkeys and horses where there was a split into two species but there still can be some crossing.

A side note, I didn't want to bring it up really, but here goes... Chimps have 48 chromosomes to a humans 46 and share 98% of our DNA. Donkeys and horses have 62 and 64 chromosomes respectively and share less common DNA (the number escapes me at the moment) and can produce offspring. An experiment that will never take place but has crossed plenty of minds would be to see if chimps and humans can hybridize and the commonly accepted theoretical answer is yes. It would be ethically unsound to try it, but my money is on the probability it would work.

R