Diver Dennis
Contributor
I think it about 10,000 years Twomix, according to creationists.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter Lost_At_Sea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Tassie_Rohan
Contributor
I believe its around 6000 years - creationists follow the date set by some irish monk a few hundred years ago.
I find it interesting that there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Book of Genesis. Their bones are so huge I'm surprized that their existence isn't mentioned.
Actually, it's the other way around, just like radinator explained.Green_Manelishi:
To us evolutionists it's like this: we have a victim, we have the time frame, the crime scene, the motive (adaptation) and enough evidence to see that crime (evolution) did take place.
Creationists view is like you described: The crime (evolution) never took place since the victim was created dead, it couldn't have happened yesterday since all of us just woke up this morning, there is no motive since no one is interested in adapting to the environment better than how he was created. So how did it happen? We better create a being capable of doing just that and call it - the God! We couldn't explain it otherwise!
So yes, the intelligent design/creation is real, but it's the other way around regarding who created whom.
radinator:I've noticed that the experts of the creationist camp tend to be lawyers or electrical engineers arguing biology, cosmology, genetics, and the like. Not exactly my definition of qualified, or scientist.
__________________
I was on a group dive trip a few years ago. One of the guys on the trip was a "Shrink", he had many, many degrees. He had been divorced twice and was working on wife three on the trip. He had not seen or talked to his adult children for two years. And his practice...you got it... family and marriage conseling. He was considered an expert witness by the courts and used in many divorce/custody cases. Ironic isn't it.
Tim
__________________
I was on a group dive trip a few years ago. One of the guys on the trip was a "Shrink", he had many, many degrees. He had been divorced twice and was working on wife three on the trip. He had not seen or talked to his adult children for two years. And his practice...you got it... family and marriage conseling. He was considered an expert witness by the courts and used in many divorce/custody cases. Ironic isn't it.
Tim
From GMs first link, this is Wells...
He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
I got all excited when I read this, but as it turns out he just proposed a testable hypothesis, he didn't actually test it. Or if he did, it didn't work out so well for him.
I'm really still looking for the scientific proof of creationism that everyone claims exists but no one can source.
R
He then formulates a testable hypothesis about centriole function and behavior that—if corroborated by experiment could have important implications for our understanding of cell division and cancer. Wells thus makes a case for ID by showing its strong heuristic value in biology. That is, he uses the theory of intelligent design to make new discoveries in biology.
I got all excited when I read this, but as it turns out he just proposed a testable hypothesis, he didn't actually test it. Or if he did, it didn't work out so well for him.
I'm really still looking for the scientific proof of creationism that everyone claims exists but no one can source.
R
A short discussion of an enormous subject:
Evolution IS intelligent design at work. Adaptation, the driving force of evolution, is a product of anomalies either purposely built into or formed as a product of natural biological imperfections of DNA.
No one will dispute the fact that they are here and breathing. This is because of centuries of evolution at work. Were it not for the above mentioned anomalies no living creature would have the ability to adapt and survive our ever changing environment. We, mankind, have evolved into to what we are today because of these imperfections.
Is it possible that God created life and built evolution into this intelligent design? Is it possible that life was born out of some primordial soup and because of natural imperfections has been able to evolve many varied and distinct forms of life? Both are possible. Which one is it?
The answer is ................ I don't know. No one has ever been able to scientifically prove the existence of God and no one has ever been able to "create" life from any mixture of known elements or minerals.
This puts me on the fence. As a biologist I understand evolution and how it works and I have a hard time understanding how anyone can dispute the evidence. Though there are always those that will try. I do not argue with these people and I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone here, so don't try to push anything on me. I am just putting thoughts on paper. My thoughts on this subject are just that "my thoughts". On the other hand, do I want to believe that God is watching over us and that we all have a place to go when this life is done? Hell yes.
The problem is, being an open minded intelligent, educated and inqusitive person of science and religion, I fail to see why so many people have to subscribe to one camp or the other.
One I can see the other requires faith. Can't I indulge in both? I can't see air but I know it exsists and I can study it's effects. I can't create it but it changes over time. I just don't see why so many people want to argue over something when all the facts aren't in yet.
I see good points on both sides of the coin. Mankind, for the most part, wants and requires proof of most things but we all live with things in our daily lives that we accept without the need of concrete evidence, no matter if we are scientist or religious types.
Evolution IS intelligent design at work. Adaptation, the driving force of evolution, is a product of anomalies either purposely built into or formed as a product of natural biological imperfections of DNA.
No one will dispute the fact that they are here and breathing. This is because of centuries of evolution at work. Were it not for the above mentioned anomalies no living creature would have the ability to adapt and survive our ever changing environment. We, mankind, have evolved into to what we are today because of these imperfections.
Is it possible that God created life and built evolution into this intelligent design? Is it possible that life was born out of some primordial soup and because of natural imperfections has been able to evolve many varied and distinct forms of life? Both are possible. Which one is it?
The answer is ................ I don't know. No one has ever been able to scientifically prove the existence of God and no one has ever been able to "create" life from any mixture of known elements or minerals.
This puts me on the fence. As a biologist I understand evolution and how it works and I have a hard time understanding how anyone can dispute the evidence. Though there are always those that will try. I do not argue with these people and I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone here, so don't try to push anything on me. I am just putting thoughts on paper. My thoughts on this subject are just that "my thoughts". On the other hand, do I want to believe that God is watching over us and that we all have a place to go when this life is done? Hell yes.
The problem is, being an open minded intelligent, educated and inqusitive person of science and religion, I fail to see why so many people have to subscribe to one camp or the other.
One I can see the other requires faith. Can't I indulge in both? I can't see air but I know it exsists and I can study it's effects. I can't create it but it changes over time. I just don't see why so many people want to argue over something when all the facts aren't in yet.
I see good points on both sides of the coin. Mankind, for the most part, wants and requires proof of most things but we all live with things in our daily lives that we accept without the need of concrete evidence, no matter if we are scientist or religious types.
Bob3
Contributor
So... have we figured out which came first yet?
(the chicken or the egg)
(the chicken or the egg)
WVDiver:
The basis for the beginning of the evolutionary process is up for individual interpretation. I have no issue with people believing the idea that God (or something) sparked the whole process. It's not my personal belief, but I'm OK with it, I can understand how that fits into someone's belief system. It's the idea that the earth is 6000 years old and Adam and Eve were real people... that's what I just can't wrap my brain around.
R
lamont
Contributor
It turns out that it gets even more fun if you dig into the references that G_M published. The Meyer article in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington was reviewed by an editor who was also a proponent of ID and was published in a journal that is dominated by articles on taxonomy. The journal retracted the article in the next issue. The article itself refers to a 30 year old argument about the 'cambrian explosion' not being explained by evolution and requiring ID. The logic itself is basically that since we don't understand how the cambrian explosion in diversity happened that it must be evidence of design. This is one of a larger set of the "God of the Gaps" theories where ID proponets look for gaps in understanding of evolution and conclude evidence of design. This is inherantly non-scientific since its conclusions (design) are not testable. It also is not scientiifically rigorous -- it would, theoretically, be valid to argue that for the set of all possible evolutionary theories across a large configuration space that if none of them can explain the cambrian explosion in the fossil record that it would falsify evolution. The problem comes in discovering the configuration space of all possible evolutionary theories, which nobody can currently describe -- the best ID proponents can do is argue that current evolutionary theories don't explain it, so they must be entirely wrong. The problem is that as knowledge expands the gaps contract and their beach-head becomes ever smaller. They've retreated now basically to the cambrian explosion theory, and to the issues of the origination of DNA, which are some of the hardest problems and least understood. This is similar to trying to invalidate quantum mechanics in its entirety based on the problems of the infinite self-energy of the electron, or the measurement paradox. Unfortunately, "we don't understand it yet, therefore it is God" just doesn't fly well as an actual argument.
A lot of the rest of the references are just restating the same old watchmaker argument with a little more scientifically flowerly and rigorous-sounding arguments. And it looks like this one...
...is probably is a paper which is rehashing the thermodynamical argument, and actually seems to fundamentally misunderstand information theory -- highly complex and high information systems actually have more entropy and take more to describe them. Low entropy systems are simple to describe (e.g. atoms in a lattice in a frozen solid) while higher entropy systems take more information to describe. So, either they don't understand information theory, or they're just plain making **** up to sound impressive.
I could go on digging into this stuff, but given how rapidly all these papers fall apart on inspection its rapidly losing my interest...
A lot of the rest of the references are just restating the same old watchmaker argument with a little more scientifically flowerly and rigorous-sounding arguments. And it looks like this one...
...is probably is a paper which is rehashing the thermodynamical argument, and actually seems to fundamentally misunderstand information theory -- highly complex and high information systems actually have more entropy and take more to describe them. Low entropy systems are simple to describe (e.g. atoms in a lattice in a frozen solid) while higher entropy systems take more information to describe. So, either they don't understand information theory, or they're just plain making **** up to sound impressive.
I could go on digging into this stuff, but given how rapidly all these papers fall apart on inspection its rapidly losing my interest...
- Status
Similar threads
