Creation vs. Evolution

[Doc Intrepid]

While the point/counterpoint in this thread is by turns amusing and intriguing, and demonstrates that some of you are fairly well-informed scuba divers ( ), I prefer to conclude that evolution and creation are NOT mutually exclusive.

Upon adopting a sufficiently broad perspective, you reach a point where rational discourse might actually depend upon an element of faith.

For example, if Darwinian Theory were - for the sake of argument - accepted as entirely accurate (on this planet), the formation of this planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and finally our universe, appears at present to depend upon some form of "big bang" initiation (as calculated by rates of expansion, etc.)

And before that? What existed that enabled the 'big bang' to occur? At which point, going back in a teleological progression, was 'something' created from 'nothing'? How did it come into existence?

There is room for both evolution and faith within the scientific paradigm.

 

[Soggy]

There is room for both evolution and faith within the scientific paradigm.

Yes, there is, but not in the typical Judeo-Christian sense of faith since the Theory of Evolution directly contradicts the Bible.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Me...
Originally Posted by MikeFerrara
To my knowledge no one has demonstrated that a cold blooded fish (Or a single celled critter) can evolve into a horse or a man either by experimentation or observation.

FOSSIL RECORD!

I don't think so.


Me...
Taken to that extent is it falsifyable? Is it testable by experimentation? Has it been observed?

Yes, yes, and yes

I think it's no, no and no.


Me...
How is it predictive?



[/QUOTE]Go back and read some of lamont and thassalmania's posts. They explain the predictive nature of evolutionary theory in a few places.[/QUOTE]

It predicts future events that are similar? What does it predict the next fish to evolve into a mamal is and when will that happen?

Me...
Is it really even logical?...life from no life and then the addition of an almost infinite amount of genetic information?

Again, one more time, life from no life is not part of evoutionary theory and despite your claims to the contrary, has no bearing on the theory. Even though I don't believe this, a god could have created the first microorganisms and set into motion the chain of events that led to evolution. We would still be left with evolution.

ok, then start with a single celled (or less) creature.


Me...
I'm not even sure we really have a theory here.

Fortunately for all the scientists out there in the world, you are wholly incorrect. Tell me, do you really think that there would be an entire branch of science based on a theory that isn't even a theory!? That's absurd.

Yes it is fortunate for the scientists and you raise a great question. Why exactly does that branch of science exist?

 

[mislav]

You have not been forgotten. I looked at the link last night, but it does not have an English version and I don't have a subscription to Nature.

Your translation helps, but I would need to see what they mean by 'dead'. It seems rather interesting.

Of course, some people insist that Jesus never existed at all and that’s fine. The James Ossuary has been back in the news since Wolfgang Krumbein released his report in June, but that’s a different matter.

Yes, sandjeep - you're right, it's rather interesting. I'm sorry I can't help with releasing that article in full, they sell it for a living. Here are the first paragraph and a short summary, but sadly they don't say much about the mechanism itself.

I think it's interesting that a bacteria can enter such a state and come back from it but I don't see what it has to do with Christianity.

I'll explain below what it has to do with the Christianity, I'd hate to repeat myself - this thread is already as repetitive as it gets.

If you think the bacteria is dead, mash one up some or stick it in my 3000 deg F forge and see how quick it comes back from being really dead. Or...just take a batch of the same chemicals the bacteria is made up of, toss it down and see if it generates itself.

You're losing your cool here, Mike. Just as you did with that 'dormant' remark you gave me earlier. It's not that I think this bacteria is dead. It is dead by all the standards. If you dispute those standards, then you claim the same for Jesus. With that I can similarly say - Jesus was dormant and not really dead. Still, I'd have more proof of him really not being dead, Swoon Theory et al, then you would of proving this bacteria wasn't dead.

Subject it to the right conditions and give it millions of years, and my money is on yes, it will generate itself. But that has as much to do with evolution as dead bacteria have to do with Christianity.

Soggy, the fact that Jesus came back from the dead was named in this thread as the foundation of Christianity. How do we know it's a fact? Because the Bible says so, based on testimonies of retold accounts of eyewitnesses and rumors. No direct proof of anything there.

Creationists take what's in the Bible as the only truth and nothing contradicting it can ever be true. They have repeatedly stated that science can not prove that anything could come alive from being dead, but that Christianity does. They say, evolution is no good unless it can prove it's first step. Well, guess what - here's a revealed mechanism of how that first step was made:

Science as of recently, has it's own Jesus - the Deinococcus radiodurans bacteria which comes back from being dead. We can recreate this event and prove it all the way. No rumors here, just direct, unmistakable proof of this really happening.

This is where I correlate things: If creationists are willing to believe in Creationist theory based on what little they've got, why are they not willing to believe in a Theory of Evolution since they are presented with much stronger evidence for it?

Fossils, the timeline, especially the transitional fossils are a much better proof of ToE than the Bible is of validity of Christianity. Why not open your mind?

 

[Soggy]

Mike, you are making yourself look bad. Really, you are. You are denying a consistent, testible, and observable theory based soley on your unwillingness to open your mind and accept that your unfounded belief might be incorrect.

Your questions have been answered...repeatedly. You continue to outright *change* those answers so that they are incorrect and then use that to justify your argument. It looks very poor and I'm surprised and disappointed to see that type of behavior out of an engineer.

 

[Soggy]

Science as of recently, has it's own Jesus - the Deinococcus radiodurans bacteria which comes back from being dead. We can recreate this event and prove it all the way. No rumors here, just direct, unmistakable proof of this really happening.

Cool! I'll have to do some reading when I get a chance. At Lamont's recommendation, I'm going to try and pick up The Blind Watchmaker at lunchtime. I know it's old, but it still seems like it might be a good read.

 

[MikeFerrara]

The fossil record lead to the hypothesis of a model,

I'm with you this far

that model was confirmed by electrophoresis, immunological distance and gene sequencing.

I'm not a geneticist (or whatever you'd call it) but I don't get how this confirms it. Obviously I have to admit to a lack of knowledge in this area but...I don't think I'm alone in that, though, others might be quicker to accept it without question than I am.

That case, frankly, is closed, no matter what the biological Ludites would rather to believe.

It may be a closed case in some circles.

Denying it, in the face of current data, is an exercise in futility and on a par with the maintenance of other mythologies, such as the transmutation of base metals, whose time is long past.

I don't think so. If, as you say, such irrefutable proof exists, I haven't seen it so I am skeptical. On the other hand I don't think lead can turn into gold either.[/QUOTE]

If you want to debate the origin of the first life, go right ahead, that's not even reached the formal "theory" stage. I have complete confidence that it will and when it does we'll all slap our foreheads and say, "that was simple, why didn't I thing of it?" But I predict, based on past performance that the current creation mythologies will have nothing whatever to do with the real explanation.[/QUOTE]

As I suggested to soggy, just start with a single celled (or less) critter. Can they really demonstrate the addition of that much genetic information by experimentation or observation?

 

[Soggy]

Obviously, with this type of thing there is a certain amount of trust involved. Most of us are not evolutionary scientists, but most of us have the capacity to understand, at least in layman's terms, the basic theories. There is a certain amount of trust involved in accepting a scientific theory...trust that the theory has been reviewed by others equally or more knowledgeable and trust that the experimental evidence is not fabricated. The same goes with religion...you are trusting that the bible is a historical document and has not been falsified.

Now, with science, theories are reviewed and reviewed and revisited and tested and retested and rereviewed and reworked ad infinitum...by people all over the world. People from all sorts of different fields, all much smarter than I am have been validating the theory of evolution since Darwin's time. The theory fits everything we have ever observed. As a layman, given the rigorous scientific process that occurs, it is reasonable to trust that the theory is valid.

Let's look at religion...Christianity specifically. The Bible, though held up to be so, is not a historical document. Its authorship is unknown in most cases, and it is internally inconsistent. On top of that, it directly contradicts what we *know* to be true about the world. Biblical literalists really begin to look foolish when they try to argue that the world was created in 6 days, a few thousand years ago, given that we can prove through experimental evidence that this was not the case. Given what we know to be true about the world, it is very unreasonable to trust falsified and inconsistent documents as gospel.

 

[sandjeep]

mislav wrote

Yes, sandjeep - you're right, it's rather interesting. I'm sorry I can't help with releasing that article in full, they sell it for a living. Here are the first paragraph and a short summary, but sadly they don't say much about the mechanism itself.

Thanks for the links. Much of it is over my head, so I can only speculate how this organism achieves this. However, I wonder how it knows to do this, I understand that it keeps copies, but where did the original information come from?

They have repeatedly stated that science can not prove that anything could come alive from being dead, but that Christianity does. They say, evolution is no good unless it can prove it's first step. Well, guess what - here's a revealed mechanism of how that first step was made:

Yes, that’s correct for me. Something even like Deinococcus radiodurans had to start somewhere and have the information to do so. Would it be correct for me to say that DNA has much information and that science has no idea where this information came from? Remember I'm a non-scientist, so perhaps I'm mis-stating this.

This is where I correlate things: If creationists are willing to believe in Creationist theory based on what little they've got, why are they not willing to believe in a Theory of Evolution since they are presented with much stronger evidence for it?

Because the so-called little I have out weighs anything a scientist can ever come up with. All the evidence of ToE might lead to a wrong verdict. That happens quite a bit here in the US. A mountain of evidence can lead directly down the wrong path. When Darwin first wrote Origin, some mistakes were made according to current scientific thinking yes? Whose to say mistakes are not being made now? As H2Andy and others has said science corrects itself. Both of the sides on this thread are looking at the same evidence, but interpret it differently. 50 years from now, there may be another theory altogether, whose to know?

You did cause me to think about another aspect to this subject and that is money and funding. If ToE is a done deal, then there is no need to waste money looking for more fossils correct? ToE serves no practical purpose in everyday life, so why continue with research into this area?

 

[Soggy]

sandjeep: You're right. We should just stop studying the world around us. The christian's already have all the answers.



By your logic, because it is possible that a new theory may come into play someday, we should disregard all current scientific research. Sorry, that is just plain foolish.

Mistakes happen, yes, but is it reasonable to believe that the *same* mistakes are being made by all the scientists in all the different fields of science that have compiled evidence to support the ToE? That's absurd. Darwin was just one man. One man can make mistakes. Large numbers of people can still make mistakes, but the odds are much much lower.