Stirring the pot - creation vs. evolutionism

[paintingploddy]

I\'m three pages too late and our sponsor seems to have dropped out temporarily. Yes i do believe the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. My personal experience in studying geomorphology has convinced me that this is logical. I certainly prefer it to the fossil record being created in the great flood together with all sedimentary rocks. If there is another hypothesis you wish to offer then please do so. Let me know if you wish to debate gravity, though i will give you credit for being far more articulate than most who play \"Devil\'s\" advocate against evolution.

 

[Rodnik]

@Everyone--
For those of you that have never studied philosophy (or at least studied, in depth)---I\'ll pass along a quick Wiki link
I spent a year pondering this in a philosophy class years ago---and it\'s always interesting if you open your mind to the possibilities.
The argument basically tries to demonstrate
that creation happened first---and evolution followed----and has been argued by many men/women \"better\" than us.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument




@Mosch
Since I asked and didn\'t follow up on my sources---here they a re. I want to make sure you see that I\'m not \"theorizing\" about the definition.

Excerpt from Roget\'s Thesaurus---same in the book as online---Webster\'s collegiate defines it similarly.

I can\'t speak to why the Knaur\'s has an incomplete definition/thesaurus, as I\'ve never seen that dictionary--for obvious reasons.

Main Entry: theory
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: belief
Synonyms: approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot*, speculation, stab*, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding

Antonyms: fact, proof, reality


What I find funny is that \"religion\" and \"theory\" share many of the same synonyms in some texts----philosophy, doctrine, dogma-----

 

[Rodnik]

Oh yea...another point to ponder...

And the other option to the \"first cause\" is to consider the universe non-existent. It can\'t be reproduced or re-created, and it can\'t be explained. This means that from a scientist\'s standpoint, it\'s a bogus event.....but the problem is \"the universe is here\"--so there MUST be an explanation.
That\'s where the philosophy kicks in------
----and the headaches...

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Rodnik
And the other option to the \"first cause\" is to consider the universe non-existent. It can\'t be reproduced or re-created, and it can\'t be explained. This means that from a scientist\'s standpoint, it\'s a bogus event.....but the problem is \"the universe is here\"--so there MUST be an explanation.
That\'s where the philosophy kicks in------
----and the headaches...

If a scientist can observe something, we tend to accept that it exists. Just because we can\'t recreate the whole universe in an experimental setting doesn\'t invalidate its existence. We can, after all, recreate many different aspects of it in a reproducible manner

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von Rodnik
I can\'t speak to why the Knaur\'s has an incomplete definition/thesaurus, as I\'ve never seen that dictionary--for obvious reasons.

I actually rephrased it in my own words. I could give you the exact quote if you like, but I am German and so is my dictionary, sorry
However, I would like to direct your attention towards the english wikipedia entry which may clear up this point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

I agree that in the daily lifes people may use theory in the sense of belief. A scientific theory however is \"(...)a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.\" and I think we both agree when we say the theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
This is what I said before and it is a lot more than just \"theory = guesswork\".

So now please let us agree that theory is a well defined term and needs a lot less discussion than the actual topic, creationism and its relation to evolution

 

[treide]

Darn, I wish I had logged on to participate in this discussion earlier!

I too don\'t see any reason why evolutionary theory and creationism are mutually exclusive, as long as the divine \"spark\" is applied very early in the game (i.e., the origin of the universe). It is a matter of personal preference (read upbringing/indoctrination) whether you wish to label that spark as \"God\" or some as yet undiscovered law of physics.

Back to the whole evolution/creationism debate. I just don\'t understand how people can\'t believe that organisms change over time. There are so many examples of this that the theory of evolution is ironclad, in my opinion.

Some examples:

Mutating bacteria and viruses (try arguing this doesn\'t happen to someone suffering from Staphylococcus, tuberculosis, or HIV strains that have developed drug resistance).

Darwin\'s finches - \"The Beak of the Finch\" by Jonathan Weiner is a nice, not overly technical read for those wanting to understand how environmental pressures change species within the timespan of a single researcher\'s career.

Comparative embryology - This is one of the strongest arguments for evolution, in my opinion. Take any vertebrate and compare the embryos early on in development, and they are virtually indistinguishable. How the same embryonic \"limb bud\" can turn into a flipper, a human arm, a wing etc. is fascinating, and clearly linked to specific genetically coded developmental signals.

Originally posted by Undave

Eyes are a good example of parallel evolution as human eyes are virtually identical to thos of octopi despite being products of different evolutionary pathways.

This is also a cool example of evolutionary processes. I\'ll open another can of worms related to it - many view Homo sapiens as the pinnacle of creationism/evolution, and the comparison of the human and cephalopod eye is a good example of why that is not the case. Although there are remarkable similarities to human eyes, the cephalopod eye is designed \"better\". Light entering our eyes has to pass through blood vessels, nerve axons and other cell layers before actually reaching the photoceptors, resulting in a marred image that has to be \"edited\" by the brain before the image is perceived. Cephalopod eyes have all that junk behind the photoreceptors, so there is no need for that extra processing step.

I could go on, but that should do for now!

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by paintingploddy
I\'m three pages too late and our sponsor seems to have dropped out temporarily. Yes i do believe the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. My personal experience in studying geomorphology has convinced me that this is logical. I certainly prefer it to the fossil record being created in the great flood together with all sedimentary rocks. If there is another hypothesis you wish to offer then please do so. Let me know if you wish to debate gravity, though i will give you credit for being far more articulate than most who play \"Devil\'s\" advocate against evolution.

The reason I ask is that the head of the Colorado River is some 2000 ft lower then the high point of the Grand Canyon. Link this with the fact that almost all of the rivers hooking up with the Colorado River flow into it acutely instead of normal river angles. This usually only seen in drainage basins, but what does the Colorado river drain? The plains. (IMO) The only way the Grand Canyon could have been carved is in a flood. It doesn\'t have to be a biblical flood, it could be a frozen lake covering most of the plains that thawed in an ice age if you choose to believe that.

Also, it is taught that coal has to form over millions of years. But there are trees standing vertically in rock where the top is in one coal deposit and the bottom is in another. The section in between is petrified.

And why is coal usually found in between layers of clay? Isn\'t coal compressed organic matter? Organic matter of that quantity doesn\'t grow in clay does it.

And yes, I have stopped reading this thread; I just wanted to make certain I wasn\'t being mocked.

@Mosch - thanks for at least taking the time to try and watch one of the original videos. I don\'t know if you watched all of it or what you thought but I do appreciate you at least being open to counter argument. It is such a close-minded topic from both sides.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by treideThis is also a cool example of evolutionary processes. I\'ll open another can of worms related to it - many view Homo sapiens as the pinnacle of creationism/evolution, and the comparison of the human and cephalopod eye is a good example of why that is not the case. Although there are remarkable similarities to human eyes, the cephalopod eye is designed \"better\". Light entering our eyes has to pass through blood vessels, nerve axons and other cell layers before actually reaching the photoceptors, resulting in a marred image that has to be \"edited\" by the brain before the image is perceived. Cephalopod eyes have all that junk behind the photoreceptors, so there is no need for that extra processing step.

Without blood vessels in the front of your eyes you would quickly be blinded by UV radiation. An octopus has the advantage of several tons of water overhead to filter out the UV radiation. Not such a dumb design, eh?

 

[treide]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb

Originally posted by treideThis is also a cool example of evolutionary processes. I\'ll open another can of worms related to it - many view Homo sapiens as the pinnacle of creationism/evolution, and the comparison of the human and cephalopod eye is a good example of why that is not the case. Although there are remarkable similarities to human eyes, the cephalopod eye is designed \"better\". Light entering our eyes has to pass through blood vessels, nerve axons and other cell layers before actually reaching the photoceptors, resulting in a marred image that has to be \"edited\" by the brain before the image is perceived. Cephalopod eyes have all that junk behind the photoreceptors, so there is no need for that extra processing step.

Without blood vessels in the front of your eyes you would quickly be blinded by UV radiation. An octopus has the advantage of several tons of water overhead to filter out the UV radiation. Not such a dumb design, eh?

Not a \"dumb\" design, but not as efficient for the job of accumulating accurate visual information.

Your point about the octopus having water to shield the eye from harmful effects of UV radiation was an interesting one, but after a quick Google search, it turns out terrestrial molluscs also benefit from the same design. Here\'s a link - informative for anyone interested in invertebrate anatomy.

http://www.weichtiere.at/english/mollusca/eyes.html

 

[paintingploddy]

You are also ignoring the fact that other processes may also contribute to the final result, including but not limited to tectonic eventsand erosion occurring at different rates. If the Grand Canyon was caused in a cataclysimic flood how did water of such force get channelled into such a narrow space? Even taking locations as the the Dardanelles and the Straits of Gibraltar these are very shallow compared to the depth of the Grand canyon.

I\'m personally not that familiar with the overall landscape or the current theories regarding the formation of the Canyon however if the area was intially a plain the river wiould have carved out a channel. The orogenic episode that formed the Rockies would have commenced at point a in time. As the level of the ground increased so would the energy in the river increasing the erosion. In essence the erosion in the Canyon and the uplift of the surrounding land were very well poised resulting in the very deep canyon you have today. This is speculation and half remembered theory from two decades ago however and related to a local gorge here in Australia.

I\'d love to see a link to this tree you mentioned.

In relation to the coal I\'d have to do some research. My memory doesn\'t help me go that far back.

Question to you though, if events like the Grand Canyon are the result of one huge flood please show me an example of a documented historical (not biblical)event which leads to a large scale landscape or geological feature?

 

[paintingploddy]

I\'ve just reread your last response aimed towards me. The tree first. Assuming what you say is correct and hypothesis only. The petrified section may be so due to a different form of rock surrounding it. Sedimentary rocks generally occur in sequences and aren\'t uniform . The middle section may be in a slightly different rock than the upper and lower sections. If conditions are different in each section this may affect the amount and composition of water, temperature and pressure brought to bear leading to a different result throughout the same tree. Anyway, if it is documented and you can forward me a link, I\'m sure someone will have bent there mind to explain it.

In relation to the organic matter in clay, the organic matter would have been deposited when the area was exposed and the clay subsequently deposited on top. The pressure from succeding layers will compress both mud and organic matter allowing diagenesis (the process that changes ordinary sediment to rock) to occur. Bear in mind the clay will have thinnerseams of organic matter running through it and vice versa with the coal. The whole representing a changing sequence over time.

Thank you for letting me push my mind in these areas again. I might have to pull out a couple of my old text books. i\'d forgotten why I started studying this in the first place.

 

[tomusannonymous]

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki

Originally posted by No Such Agency

Originally posted by tomusannonymous
i think a lot of ppl don\'t believe in creationism because then they are responsible for what they do in there life. they don\'t have to \"own up\" for anything or behave themselves with evolutionism.

its like if a child had split up parents and prefered to stay with the (for example) \"easy going father\" over the \"strict mother\"....

im not trying to say creationsim is right but why *some* ppl tend to dismiss it so easily.

Are you trying to insult half the people in this thread?

No he\'s trying to insult 90% of the people in this thread and anyone who doesn\'t believe in god as well! lol

it\'s only insulting if its true

 

[DrEvilmonki]

Originally posted by tomusannonymous



it\'s only insulting if its true

Nonsense, I call my brother a fat bastard all the time - a clear insult and completely factually incorrect.

But since this isn\'t adding to any interesting aspect to this thread I think I will ignore you until you have something with a point to say.

 

[DrEvilmonki]

The argument that since their was nothing before the universe existed and therefore some god entity must have made it really begs the question what made the god?

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by DrEvilmonki
The argument that since their was nothing before the universe existed and therefore some god entity must have made it really begs the question what made the god?

The assumption here is that time is invariable. Time itself has been used as simply another co-ordinate in the space-time construct. It\'s also been demonstrated that the passing of time is different for different observers. So, where was time before the Universe began? If time is just another co-ordinate for our position in time and space, then did it exist, does \'time\' have any meaning before the Universe began? It\'s been postulated that we could experimentally reverse the arrow of time even... make it run backwards. More and more, time appears to be a human construct.

As for what did actually exist before the Big Bang, well, there\'s evidence and reasonable hypothesis that support something called the Zero Point Field. Fascinating stuff.

 

[farseerlum]

one thing you have to get your mind around if you want to discuss the universe, is the fact there isn\'t really any universe.

well there are bits of stuff, lot\'s of bits of stuff but they keep appearing and disapearing all the time. there sems to be a few bits that are relativly stable and we call them atoms but when we look inside we find empty space.

it\'s all energy. maybe. some think it\'s just math. a cosmic balance sheet.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Originally posted by paintingploddyQuestion to you though, if events like the Grand Canyon are the result of one huge flood please show me an example of a documented historical (not biblical)event which leads to a large scale landscape or geological feature?

How large scale do you want? Are you talking about things like the Hawaiian Islands growing out of the sea? Would you accept the lose of several miles in beach front in the Caribbean? How about the renovation of the top of St Helens and the insanely large ash cloud? The cracks in the California desert creating 10-15 foot shelfs could also be viewed as large depending on the scale you are looking for. And in mythology, Atlantis? Grain of salt given the source.

The flow patterns of the river and the damage done to the Arizona hills are consistent with a levee breaking. Farmers spending huge amounts of time and money defending the levees because if more than a drop comes over, the cause is lost. The river pattern is consistent with the drainage of a large delta in the central plains, but there is no delta at the head of the Colorado River, just the plains.

 

[johnboyjjb]

Creationists need micro-evolution. Without it, Noah would never have been able to get every breed of dog on the ark. Instead he only needed 2.

 

[Rodnik]

@mosch

So now please let us agree that theory is a well defined term and needs a lot less discussion than the actual topic, creationism and its relation to evolution

A guess, no matter how educated/informed/etc, is still a just a guess.

So, how about we \"agree to disagree\" and move on?...

@NSA

If a scientist can observe something, we tend to accept that it exists.

Yea..I know I went a little overboard there---

But you have to admit---the Scientific Method doesn\'t address things that do not fit in a cause/effect relationship---which is the basis the method was built on. And scientists can\'t determine the cause of the universe---only the effects of that cause.

And again...certainly evolution does take place. But it only started taking place after the initial creation. (Just to reiterate my views).

The argument that since their was nothing before the universe existed and therefore some god entity must have made it really begs the question what made the god?

The argument for this as First Cause is the \"copout\" of the theological argument.
The \"First Cause\" (of out of respect for all religions) is eternal, and thus doesn\'t need a \"cause\".

That\'s where the gap between religion/faith and science never gets filled. Science explains the effects, but only to the initial effects of an apparent singular cause. It can\'t explain the initial, or \"First\" cause. The scientific method breaks down here as well--because of the lack of an explainable cause.


And even if a person partakes in the zero-point field discussions----
Scientist contend that you can\'t get \"nothing from nothing\". So, even in zero-point---that is energy so low it can\'t be removed from the system---
Well---it\'s still \"something\"--no matter how minute. So, where did the initial \"something\" come from?

And for those that haven\'t read \"A Brief History of Time\", by Stephen Hawking--a guy that knows a little something about science---
Well..he apparently suffers the same challenges....as indicated by this excerpt from the book:

\"It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief.\"

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by Rodnik
And even if a person partakes in the zero-point field discussions----
Scientist contend that you can\'t get \"nothing from nothing\".

Ahhhh, but \'nothing\' is unstable, which is why we\'ve got something.

Originally posted by RodnikAnd for those that haven\'t read \"A Brief History of Time\", by Stephen Hawking--a guy that knows a little something about science---

What\'s more is that he admits he doesn\'t have the answers, quite unlike many creationists and evolutionists who will argue one way or the other, each declaring they have better answers. The Truth is, we don\'t know... yet.