Evolution Vs Creationism

[Makalakumu]

Anyone want to participate? What do people think about this recent drive toward creationism in our schools? What do you think of this site?

http://www.icr.org/

Are there any creationists out there?

John

 

[MA-Caver]

I haven't seen the site (yet) but I consider myself a Creationist/evoluntionist. Mainly because I see that the "day" quoted in the bible (KJV) can equal to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to us. Thus as God was creating things were evolving... they still are... even man.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh yeah...these are the guys who apparently have a painting in their lobby showing one of Noah's sons feeding the animals...including, it seems, a stegosaur.

Is there a smiley face for complete stupidity?

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Oh yeah...these are the guys who apparently have a painting in their lobby showing one of Noah's sons feeding the animals...including, it seems, a stegosaur.

Is there a smiley face for complete stupidity?

unfortunatily...I couldn't find a smiley face for complete stupidity....

 

[Makalakumu]

Scientifically, there is no support for the explanation that God intervened at all with evolution. It is absolutely untestable. The anthropic principle stands on faith alone and is completely inductive.

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Scientifically, there is no support for the explanation that God intervened at all with evolution. It is absolutely untestable. The anthropic principle stands on faith alone and is completely inductive.

Well that's because *sometimes* science doesn't recoginize God.
But to my own personal beliefs God created these things and then allowed them to evolve on their own in their own time over the course of millions of years.
As for Dinosaurs... I believe they were also part of God's creation(s) but they lived out their span that he intended for them... or that (as some believe) they evolved themselves into something else. Birds? Smaller versions of reptiles? Who knows?

Mebbe my beliefs are too simplistic for science and aren't going to hold up to scrutinity but far as I'm concerned that doesn't really help out in my own personal salvation. It just confirms things that I know base on faith alone, anthropic or not.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

MACaver

I believe in God. I posted the bit about the anthropic principle to show that religion and science tread different territories. The only thing I see when they cross over is conflict.

John

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
MACaver

I believe in God. I posted the bit about the anthropic principle to show that religion and science tread different territories. The only thing I see when they cross over is conflict.

John

We've got this guy named Chuck Missler in Idaho. He talks about how the speed of light is not constant but subject to fluctuations in gravity and energy. If this is the case, our concepts of the age of the universe can not be proven either. He can almost convince me; so, I'm sure some of you might be bowled over. His theories about the flood are down right entertaining. He claims that the flood occured because Fallen Angels mated with humans and created Mythical beasts such as Goliath, Heraclease, and the Titans. I could listen to this guy talk all day and not get bored.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

About 7 years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) were on a vacation to Washington DC. We were touring the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We were standing by one of the diorama's of early humans around a fire pit. We almost couldn't believe it when a man a bit older than we were (early 30's) told a youngster with him (I am assuming his son) that "This never happened. It is all made up. God created Man".

Now, this wasn't an image of men walking with dinosaurs. It was just a tribal setting from perhaps 25,000 years ago. And this fellow visitor to the Smithsonian was teaching the youth that history isn't real.

That absolute literal translation of the bible is still being taught and believed in our country. There is not enough skepticism in our world. And too many of us do not understand that Science is self correcting ... whereas Faith is not.

Mike

P.S. The web site is garbage ... the article I read treated Noah and the Flood as fact when discussing how DNA can store and disperse the genetic material after such a catastrophic event. By treating DNA as fact, in the same sentence as treating 'The Flood' as fact belies any credibility.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by michaeledward
About 7 years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) were on a vacation to Washington DC. We were touring the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We were standing by one of the diorama's of early humans around a fire pit. We almost couldn't believe it when a man a bit older than we were (early 30's) told a youngster with him (I am assuming his son) that "This never happened. It is all made up. God created Man".

Now, this wasn't an image of men walking with dinosaurs. It was just a tribal setting from perhaps 25,000 years ago. And this fellow visitor to the Smithsonian was teaching the youth that history isn't real.

That absolute literal translation of the bible is still being taught and believed in our country. There is not enough skepticism in our world. And too many of us do not understand that Science is self correcting ... whereas Faith is not.

Mike

P.S. The web site is garbage ... the article I read treated Noah and the Flood as fact when discussing how DNA can store and disperse the genetic material after such a catastrophic event. By treating DNA as fact, in the same sentence as treating 'The Flood' as fact belies any credibility.

You have got to realize that man was created roughly ten thousand years ago at precisly 9:00 AM :shrug: Just kidding. However we have the most ill concieved notion of early man. First of all, they had a better diet and actualy did live longer. Secondly, and this is what I find most interesting, the language they used was by far more complex than ours. Precision of thought meant life or death. Even the Eskimos (Inuit) have about sixty words for snow, yet we continualy dumb down fully confident we are the most advanced peoples to ever walk the earth. My point is that the whole "ugh ugh err err" caveman mentality is absolutly false. Of course their are other races of man like creatures that fit this profile but they aren't exactly are ancestors.
Sean

 

[MisterMike]

OK, so some guy decides that a lot of animals look like each other and there for must have turned into each other over time. Ya, sounds like a real nifty idea.

So if I follow this logic, we all came from the same kind of single celled creature millions and billions(?) of years ago? WOW! What are the odds of that?? It's so neat knowing we're the only fluke in the universe.

I heard the Pilgrims thought snakes came from sticks. Quick, somebody call National Geographic!

 

[Makalakumu]

Hi Mike

Good post. Thanks for taking the other side. In a few words, you pointed out a major problem with the theory of evolution. How did life start?

John

 

[michaeledward]

So if I follow this logic, we all came from the same kind of single celled creature millions and billions(?) of years ago? WOW! What are the odds of that?? It's so neat knowing we're the only fluke in the universe.

Or ... amenio acids combined to form proteins in many different places around the globe some 3.5 to 4 BILLION years ago, and they all were subject to mutation and natural selection and time allowed them to evolve.

The odds are astronomically large. Fortuneately, hitting the odds requires only 2 things, repeated attemps and time. Amongst the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies that have existed for the past 15 to 20 billion years, we've had a pretty good run.

You're use of the word Fluke seems to intend an 'accident' (at least I hope you don't mean the dictionary definition of 'flatfish'). No reasoned thinker could possibly come to the conclusion that homo sapiens are an accident of the universe. We are a part of the universe, drawn from all of that which has come before us, and all of the powers in the universe acting upon that which preceded us.

It is so much more reasonable to say that 'God created a garden, and pulled a man (that spoke Kings English perfectly) out of the mud, and pulled woman from the mans rib'.

 

[Makalakumu]

Bubble Theory (I know it sounds corny) states that the primordial soup turned out the parts of the biological molecules we need for life. These were various protiens and amino acids. These particals, in solution were carried to the surface of the soup in bubbles. When the bubbles reached the surface, they popped and cast their contents into the atmosphere. Here, they are incorporated into storm clouds and chemical bonds are formed as the static electricity excites the electrons of the bio molecules. These larger molecules act as condesation nuclei for droplets and they fall back into the soup. Here, they pick up more peices of amino acids and other organic compounds in solution and are brought back to the surface in bubbles. Then the cycle begins anew. This is the current theory regarding molecular evolution. It is believed that the cyclic nature of this theory would circumvent the astronomical odds that life would self assemble under random mechanisms.

John

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by michaeledward


It is so much more reasonable to say that 'God created a garden, and pulled a man (that spoke Kings English perfectly) out of the mud, and pulled woman from the mans rib'.

That's obviously debateable. But both schools of thought are just that, beliefs. But we know which one is taught in schools.

 

[heretic888]

Thought I'd jump in about now...

Anyone want to participate? What do people think about this recent drive toward creationism in our schools?

I was unaware of any "recent drive toward creationism" in the school system, but if I were to make a guess, I'd say (assuming it is true) that its probably some kind of political backlash from the neo-conservatives in this country.

What do you think of this site?

Pseudo-science, plain and simple. These guys are attempting to use the tools of science to prove or justify their religious beliefs. They already have in their heads what they believe the "conclusion" to the experiment or observation should be. Last time I checked, the conclusion is the final stage of the scientific method; not the first.

Thus, pseudo-science.

Are there any creationists out there?

Depends on your definition.

I haven't seen the site (yet) but I consider myself a Creationist/evoluntionist. Mainly because I see that the "day" quoted in the bible (KJV) can equal to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to us.

In my opinion, and I mean no offense by this, the major problem with that position is that it is heavily revisionistic. Some people have a tendency to project modern scientific knowledge and discoveries onto the "ancients' writings". They are, in essence, revising the common understanding of these texts to fit in with our modernist worldviews.

The dilemma is that no one that read the Bible up til the time evolutionary theory was highly refined would have interpreted one of the "days" as meaning anything other than a single solar day --- including the earliest readers of the text and probably the authors themselves. They all thought it was just a regular ol' day. Then, suddenly, when we find out the universe is actually *billions* of years old, some then decide that each "day" really means an epoch or era. Curiously, however, these ideas of God creating the universe via evolution were never articulated until science had already explained what evolution was in the first place!!

This, in my opinion, also has a slight tinge of pseudo-science --- but it is an understandable position.

Oh yeah...these are the guys who apparently have a painting in their lobby showing one of Noah's sons feeding the animals...including, it seems, a stegosaur.

Yep. Almost as ridiculous as those "sculpts" of human footprints-within-a-dinosaur's. The joys of scientific creationism are endless.

Scientifically, there is no support for the explanation that God intervened at all with evolution. It is absolutely untestable. The anthropic principle stands on faith alone and is completely inductive.

This assumes that the creation of humankind required some kind of special intervention in the first place. Who's to say that evolution itself is simply not "God-in-action" (so to speak), thus completely negating the need for a special intervention (what, God's gonna intervene on himself??)???

Well that's because *sometimes* science doesn't recoginize God.

Well, the scientific community (as an academic field) doesn't recognize "God" as a scientific "fact" at all. However, there are many individuals within that community that do believe in God; this is usually independent of their careers as scientists, though.

Mebbe my beliefs are too simplistic for science and aren't going to hold up to scrutinity but far as I'm concerned that doesn't really help out in my own personal salvation. It just confirms things that I know base on faith alone, anthropic or not.

Technically speaking, you don't "know" anything based on faith. You believe based on faith.

About 7 years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) were on a vacation to Washington DC. We were touring the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We were standing by one of the diorama's of early humans around a fire pit. We almost couldn't believe it when a man a bit older than we were (early 30's) told a youngster with him (I am assuming his son) that "This never happened. It is all made up. God created Man".

That really isn't that surprising. Many people in the world still think like that.

That absolute literal translation of the bible is still being taught and believed in our country.

Its being taught in a lot of other countries, too.

And too many of us do not understand that Science is self correcting ... whereas Faith is not.

He's got a point there.

P.S. The web site is garbage ... the article I read treated Noah and the Flood as fact when discussing how DNA can store and disperse the genetic material after such a catastrophic event. By treating DNA as fact, in the same sentence as treating 'The Flood' as fact belies any credibility.

I'm inclined to agree.

However we have the most ill concieved notion of early man. First of all, they had a better diet and actualy did live longer.

This must be your own pet hypothesis, then, because I've taken numerous anthropology and biology classes and none of my professors expressed that kind of idea.

Regarding diet, early man usually went long periods of time without eating at all. When they managed to kill (or find) a large animal, they would usually gorge themselves and then go for more periods of time without eating. I doubt that was very healthy.

Regarding the lifespans, its fairly evident the further back we go the shorter people actually lived. Particularly, considering all the diseases (hee: no medicine yet) and chaotic elements they had to deal with.

Secondly, and this is what I find most interesting, the language they used was by far more complex than ours.

This is also a false assumption. Comparing homo sapien sapiens to our earlier ancestors gives ready proof that we have a higher level of communication developed.

Even the Eskimos (Inuit) have about sixty words for snow

The Inuit aren't "early man" they are a still-existing homo sapien culture.

yet we continualy dumb down fully confident we are the most advanced peoples to ever walk the earth.

Yes, and we have numerous words for a single concept as well (often things like money, sex, and violence). So what??

These are cultural differences on the horizontal scale that do not prove a "higher" level of communication one way or another. Also, for all your claims that the Inuit have a "higher language" than us, they were not the ones that established a worldwide informational "web" (which you're using right now).

My point is that the whole "ugh ugh err err" caveman mentality is absolutly false.

I suggest taking some anthropology courses, friend. The Inuit are not cavemen.

And, also, that mentality is quite accurate (when compared to our own understanding of language). Although, it does become overtly caricaturized by the media.

OK, so some guy decides that a lot of animals look like each other and there for must have turned into each other over time. Ya, sounds like a real nifty idea.

You obvioulsy have a very limited understanding of the scientific method, or the particular evidence used to support evolutionary theory.

No reasoned thinker could possibly come to the conclusion that homo sapiens are an accident of the universe. We are a part of the universe, drawn from all of that which has come before us, and all of the powers in the universe acting upon that which preceded us.

*nods* Yes, I agree.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

That's obviously debateable. But both schools of thought are just that, beliefs. But we know which one is taught in schools.

There's a reason for that.

The name of the course that is taken is biology, not religion. Thus, you teach biological theories, not religious theology.

 

[Makalakumu]

The fundamental elements religion cannot be tested and therefore can never be science. Science, although it requires an amount of faith, is testable and falsifyable.

If you don't like something, go out and find the evidence against it. If you can't it doesn't matter if you don't like it, the theory stands no matter how unpalatable it is.

Which brings me to the concept of scientific creationism. Totally untestable. Every mechanism we see that could cause evolution has a theory which lays out a natural mechanism. Postulating that these natural mechanisms are the work of God's creation is a null statement as far as science is concerned.

Besides, supposing that the above statement is true and that God is "sentient and good" there are alot of things in which God could be called into account. One being the Permian extinction. 90% of all life vanished from the face of the Earth. Doesn't sound like good to me...(there are some logical problems with this thought, but I'll throw it in and see what happens.)

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by heretic888

This must be your own pet hypothesis, then, because I've taken numerous anthropology and biology classes and none of my professors expressed that kind of idea.

Regarding diet, early man usually went long periods of time without eating at all. When they managed to kill (or find) a large animal, they would usually gorge themselves and then go for more periods of time without eating. I doubt that was very healthy.

Regarding the lifespans, its fairly evident the further back we go the shorter people actually lived. Particularly, considering all the diseases (hee: no medicine yet) and chaotic elements they had to deal with.



This is also a false assumption. Comparing homo sapien sapiens to our earlier ancestors gives ready proof that we have a higher level of communication developed.



The Inuit aren't "early man" they are a still-existing homo sapien culture.



Yes, and we have numerous words for a single concept as well (often things like money, sex, and violence). So what??

These are cultural differences on the horizontal scale that do not prove a "higher" level of communication one way or another. Also, for all your claims that the Inuit have a "higher language" than us, they were not the ones that established a worldwide informational "web" (which you're using right now).



I suggest taking some anthropology courses, friend. The Inuit are not cavemen.

And, also, that mentality is quite accurate (when compared to our own understanding of language). Although, it does become overtly caricaturized by the media.



You obvioulsy have a very limited understanding of the scientific method, or the particular evidence used to support evolutionary theory.



*nods* Yes, I agree.

Laterz.

So the invention of the internet means we are more complex thinkers. Thats a crock. We have a complex society so people can think as little or as much as they want. You should meet some of the people I work with; so , the less advanced a society the more advanced its language must be to insure survival. Secondly, when I refer to cave men I am talking about homo sapiens, not some ape like creature the scientific community names as early man yet finds out later that a group like the Neandrathal actualy coexisted with homosapiens. That little thing called the agricultural revolution was less nutricious(sp) than what people ate before and life spans decreased and disease actualy increased. And I see you are suggesting they had no knowledge of medicinal herbs. You know I took a cultural anthropology course, All your physical stuff is purly theory and not fact. The Inuit are about as close to cave men as we have right now and I doubt the northern peoples lived much differently back then. Since this a Martial arts web site I'll bet the Martial arts were studied very carefully as well; but, the Daruma story is what everyone likes to go with. I think its happened over and over again through out the Milinea.
Sean

 

[heretic888]

The fundamental elements religion cannot be tested and therefore can never be science. Science, although it requires an amount of faith, is testable and falsifyable.

Well, that depends on your definitions of both "science" and "religion". Suffice to say, some aspects of religion can indeed by validated/invalidated by some aspects of science.

If you don't like something, go out and find the evidence against it. If you can't it doesn't matter if you don't like it, the theory stands no matter how unpalatable it is.

Yup.

Which brings me to the concept of scientific creationism. Totally untestable. Every mechanism we see that could cause evolution has a theory which lays out a natural mechanism. Postulating that these natural mechanisms are the work of God's creation is a null statement as far as science is concerned.

I guess so.

Besides, supposing that the above statement is true and that God is "sentient and good" there are alot of things in which God could be called into account. One being the Permian extinction. 90% of all life vanished from the face of the Earth. Doesn't sound like good to me...(there are some logical problems with this thought, but I'll throw it in and see what happens.)

Suppose so. Laterz.