Stirring the pot - creation vs. evolutionism

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von supervike
I think evolution has a ton of holes in it, and SOMETIMES it is treated as a \'belief\' system too. There is much blind faith in that approach as well. It is still, a THEORY, it is not concrete evidence.

While I agree with you, I want to say two things.
1) Theory, as you know, does not mean \"stuff we made up\". There may not be enough evidence to sway those who don\'t want to believe it, but it has yet to be proven wrong.
2) The one BIG advantage science has over religion is that theories can be amended. Problem with the theory of evolution? Change it so that the problem is taken into account. Problem with creationism? Everything down the tubes.

 

[Rodnik]

Theory, as you know, does not mean \"stuff we made up\". There may not be enough evidence to sway those who don\'t want to believe it, but it has yet to be proven wrong.

Mosch, I\'d be careful in how you approach that argument. If you look it up, check a thesaurus, etc...Theory is defined as \"Belief\", for all intents and purposes. And the antonyms of the word actually contradict your statement----those being \"fact\", \"proof\", \"reality\" and the like.
Some of the synonyms being \"assumption\", \"conjecture\", etc.
A few of the synonyms I find particularly ironic---especially in the context of this argument.

doctrine, dogma, ideology, philosophy.....


And religion CAN be amended....that\'s how the protestant religions came into being (by and large, anyway)---

If they couldn\'t be...there would only be one big church for any given \"supreme being\".

 

[Ritual]

@rodnik
I think you understand Mosch\'s point without looking up the word theory in the dictionary, right? And, it\'s not strange that antonyms of the word are \"fact\", \"proof\" and the like. A scientific theory is NOT 100 % fact or reality, nor will it ever be. It is a model used to understand the mechanism of something. A model is constantly questioned and put to the test by the scientific community.

 

[lizcam]

I\'m a preachers daughter (figures, eh?). I\'ve been raised with creationism soaked into every pore of my body, back before it had a name. I went to schools the church ran and had textbooks with black ink over sections that the school didn\'t believe in.

That being said, I\'m a die hard evolutionism person. I had to struggle with this debate from the point of view of, \"If I truely believe this I\'m going to go to hell for it.\" So when I finally came to the conclusion that there is ABSOLUTLY NO WAY CREATIONISM IS THE TRUTH I was doing it knowing I was right but having that little tiny voice saying to me everytime I afirmed it, \"die, Liz, Die! God doesn\'t love you anymore!\"

Evolution is the truth. Deal with it.

 

[Rodnik]

I think you understand Mosch\'s point without looking up the word theory in the dictionary, right? And, it\'s not strange that antonyms of the word are \"fact\", \"proof\" and the like. A scientific theory is NOT 100 % fact or reality, nor will it ever be. It is a model used to understand the mechanism of something. A model is constantly questioned and put to the test by the scientific community.

With all due respect, I didn\'t \"look it up\". I was simply spouting from memory.

But yes, I understood the point---to give a theory more credibility than a religion. When in fact, they are the same thing--\"a belief\".

Again, I\'m not taking sides---it\'s just the argument Mosch was making lost credibility when he took the approach that a theory was superior to a religious belief.

 

[Rodnik]

Evolution is the truth. Deal with it.

LOL..spoken like a true preacher.

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
Agree with most of what was said above, but thought I would share a counterexample to Darwinism, that I have found having just created life with my wife.

Darwins theory, in the simplest form is that adaptive traits and non adaptive traits come with each new generation, and that those will adaptive traits will survive and those with non-adaptive traits will die off, thus elvovling whatever species.

My counterexample: the human child.

A human baby is born barely mobile, it can\'t lift it\'s own grossly huge head, it cannot see past 6 inches, it has a basic set of \'reflexes\' but no motor control, and (this one I really didn\'t know) it has to be taught how to feed and it has little or no immune system until it feeds.

How the heck are any of those adaptive traits?!? I\'m sure I am missing some there.

Ever see the birth of a horse or cow or goat on a farm. Within minutes the baby is up on it\'s feet and feeding from mom.

How the heck did we become a dominant species?

The way humans come into the world is not limited to humans - if you look at the developmental stages of predators versus prey animals out there most of the predators have comparatively long periods of infancy - dogs and cats are both born blind and have a period of complete dependence upon the parents for all food. Most primates share the same pattern as well - a comparatively long period of infancy/parental dependence prior to reaching an adult state.

Prey animals need to be able to move to avoid getting eaten at birth - something that does happen in the wild all the time.

 

[Ritual]

@rodnik
It is not exactly the same just because the dictionary says the words are synonyms! A scientific theory is built around observations and experiments and it is constantly re-shaped so that it involves new observations etc. etc. If it turns out to be useless you stop using it. Religion doesn\'t work like that. Yes, religions are also changed constantly, but not for the same reasons. Religions and science has different foundations!

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by supervike
I think evolution has a ton of holes in it, and SOMETIMES it is treated as a \'belief\' system too. There is much blind faith in that approach as well. It is still, a THEORY, it is not concrete evidence.

I think the major difference here Vike is that most evolutionists look at their \"belief\" and realize that it is subject to change as more evidence is brought foreward that either supports the theory or that disproves features of it - whereas most of the folks I\'ve dealt with who are creationists do not accept that there could be different points of view on the origin of species.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by steelcult

I think the major difference here Vike is that most evolutionists look at their \"belief\" and realize that it is subject to change as more evidence is brought foreward that either supports the theory or that disproves features of it - whereas most of the folks I\'ve dealt with who are creationists do not accept that there could be different points of view on the origin of species.

But, I don\'t think that is totally true. Evolutionists have been dismissing evidence for quite some time, and they continue to do so. There are still major flaws with the theory, yet they are being held onto as fervently as bible thumpers hold onto creationism.

While I totally buy into Micro Evolution, I have a hard time accepting Macro Evolution simply because they dismiss things that are not \'consistant\' with the existing theory. Macro Evolution deals mostly with the fossil record, and I don\'t think there is a real understanding of what it means to be a fossil.

There are mysterious items found \'petrified\' all the time...but since they don\'t fit the criteria they seem to be dismissed.

I am not a creationist really either, so please don\'t paint me into that corner.

All I am saying is that there are holes, sometimes huge gaps in the Evolution model, and I can\'t accept it as a fact....It may be the best explanation thus far, but some scientists have stopped looking for a better one.

 

[No Such Agency]

OK I said I was not going to debate this but I can\'t allow misconceptions like this to sit.

Originally posted by johnboyjjb
My understanding of bacterial adaptability is that the genetic coding for an improvement has always been there and gets bred to the surface or that genetic code is lost; the bacteria has lost the ability to do something and is weaker.
...
The problem with the second one is that the new bacteria is less capable and complex than the original. Evolution demands that things get more complex.

Originally posted by johnboyjjb
The problem is the loss of genetic coding. Once all of a genetic coding is bred out of something, it can not go back. You would eventually run out of genetic code to drop.

New diversity is continually generated by mutations and genomic rearrangements. Some mutations are immediately harmful, some are immediately beneficial and many are neutral. The \"genetic coding for an improvement\" is NOT always there, it can appear de novo via mutation of an existing sequence. Genes are often duplicated in genomes, allowing one copy to retain its original function and the other(s) to accumulate mutations and acquire a new function or a new mode of regulation.

Evolution does not \"demand\" that organisms or their genomes get more complex. The above post about parasites covers it nicely - evolution is all about what works - be it complexity, or simplicity. There are living examples of organisms who have acquired more complicated genomes than their relatives (eg. many plants), and those that have lost complexity (aforementioned parasites).

 

[Avelorn]

In my opinion the most misunderstood part of evolution is \"survival of the fittest\", it\'s often mistaken for survival of the \"strongest\". The traits we have aren\'t because they are the best traits for surviving under all conditions. We have different traits and we have survived because of them, that\'s all. That\'s why there are so many different types of lifeforms. I also often smell some kind of \"mysticism\" going on in discussions of evolution as well.. as if we develop traits responding to the environment. Like there is a meaning in mutations. \"because we needed eyesight to blabla it was developed\". That is turning the concepts around. Well from an evolutionary perspective I think. But you might of course believe that.. and then it begs the question why?

Why we have become the dominant specie is not because we are the strongest, have best smelling or eyesight etc. etc. In our case it might instead be about brain-size, cooperation, physical traits that allow us manipulate our environment and adapt it to us (instead of the other way around) and finally as I see it.. love! It is our ability to care for and trust each other that have us not going in to a war of all against all.

Myself I am not a creationist in the sense that I believe the story of creation in the bible. But I do believe in God.. and I do believe that someone got the whole machinery going. What I don\'t think however is mixing non-scientific theories with scientific theories. For \"Intelligent design\" to be a theory it would have to be able to be falsified. Which currently I have seen nothing of the like.. it\'s quite simply nothing at all at the moment, just refrasing thoughts that has been discussed through centuries using more \"scientific\" words. Religion is one thing and science is another thing. While I have no problem criticising science and the scientific method that doesn\'t mean everything is arbitrary. Nothing is ever simple.

Counter arguments to this guy:

I watched 20minutes of the first movie and still IMO he haven\'t provided any arguments or counterarguments for much (except that endothermic nonsense) Just rethorics. Are there any interesting parts later on? Anything special that anyone feel needs answering? They were awefully long..

 

[Evil Dave]

]

It was a monolith.

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by supervike
Evolutionists have been dismissing evidence for quite some time, and they continue to do so. There are still major flaws with the theory, yet they are being held onto as fervently as bible thumpers hold onto creationism.

Jim, that some things can\'t be explained by the current theory doesn\'t mean you throw it in the bin, you continue to work on it to make it better. But it\'s a slow process and you can\'t focus on every detail at once.

 

[Rodnik]

A scientific theory is built around observations and experiments and it is constantly re-shaped so that it involves new observations etc. etc. ...

But my point is that religion does work the same way. The only difference is how they each define the result.

A couple of brief, quick, and bad examples, before I check out--I wished I could stay, but alas I\'ve got some other things to do...

So...a person \"observes\" that Jesus raises someone from the dead. Jesus has performed other witnessed miracles, thus the conclusion is made he is \"the chosen\".

The non-canonical gospels were \"removed\" because, through comparison and relayed historical accounts, they weren\'t believed to be \"accurate\". As a result, the doctrine can be taught more \"accurately\"---by omitting certain unproven points and, as a result, strengthening the belief system.

The Bible was built in the exact same way theories are built---through observations and amendments (and in some cases, omissions of \"bad data\"). The only difference were how the observations were defined (Miracle vs Science).


Anyway...

There is \"scientific\" evidence today that supports certain accounts in the bible----the only difference is science explains an event away as a \"scientific\" event (seismic, geologic, weather-related, etc)...and the other explains it as a \"miracle\".

Perhaps it\'s man explaining the miracle with science, but the truth is the science is the result of the miracle. (Just an alternate view, mind you).


Anyway. I wish I could hang longer, as you guys always impress me with the depths these conversations reach. If I get a chance to post again later, I certainly will.

Cheers!
Kev

 

[Modderrhu]

Originally posted by supervike
But, I don\'t think that is totally true. Evolutionists have been dismissing evidence for quite some time, and they continue to do so. There are still major flaws with the theory, yet they are being held onto as fervently as bible thumpers hold onto creationism.

...

There are mysterious items found \'petrified\' all the time...but since they don\'t fit the criteria they seem to be dismissed.

I am not a creationist really either, so please don\'t paint me into that corner.

All I am saying is that there are holes, sometimes huge gaps in the Evolution model, and I can\'t accept it as a fact....It may be the best explanation thus far, but some scientists have stopped looking for a better one.

Hear, hear! A most excellent passage, Jim!

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by johnboyjjb
The problem with this as a proof for evolution is that the first one is not evolution. It is breeding.

Evolution demands that things get more complex.

Um, Johnboy, all evolution is is breeding at its core - the ability of your decendants to have more children because they are adapted better because of your genes.

As for your second point - no actually evolution demands things streamline to fit the job and environment - for example, I point to the horse - Eohippus, the ancestor of Trigger and Mr Ed had 5 toes on each foot - yet those notable descendants of Eohippus have only one toe on each foot - thus showing movement from complex to simple in the evolutionary process.

Humans are actually quite primative structurally (our limb structure is that of the earliest protomammals for example) and thus when armed with culture also prove to be quite adaptive.

 

[Ritual]

@rodnik
An \"observation\" in a scientific context must match certain criteria to be useful. For instance, I can\'t say \"Hey everyone! I\'ve seen the skeleton of a pre-historic primate that looked exactly like a mix between man and ape!\" and use that as an argument for evolution theory. If I find that skeleton and can show it to the world, then it is a viable observation. If I discover an effect and can re-produce the same effect over and over, then it is a viable observation.

 

[Rodnik]

An \"observation\" in a scientific context must match certain criteria

Yes. And an observation in a religious context must match certain criteria----

For something to be deemed and actual \"miracle\" by the Catholic church, for example---it MUST meet the criteria.

Where science explains the credible, it can\'t explain the incredible---the \"miracles\", so to speak.

Anyway...I\'m leaving now, if I can manage to stay away.

Dammit man..I love you guys...!!
Kev
:bouncy:

 

[Ritual]

Originally posted by Rodnik

An \"observation\" in a scientific context must match certain criteria

Yes. And an observation in a religious context must match certain criteria----

For something to be deemed and actual \"miracle\" by the Catholic church, for example---it MUST meet the criteria.

I know, but those criteria aren\'t the same as in a scientific context. And, the entire concept of miracle is based on belief, whereas the concept of a scientifically viable observation is something that everyone can see or experience.

EDIT: You\'ll be back!