Creationism/Intelligent Design: Is it science?

[Shaun]

So, let's debate: should we allow C/ID into public schools as an alternative to evolution? Why or why not? Should the scientific method be just as important to supporting a theory like C/ID as it is for evolution?

Let's hear your thoughts!

[Crocolyle]

Creationism and Intelligent Design should not be allowed in science classrooms since it's not accepted by mainstream science and technically isn't even a theory. There's this argument that Evolution is only a theory, when it is clear that the people who argue against evolution don't even know what a theory in the scientific sense is--a theory being an explanation for natural phenomena, where as a law is an analytic statement, not an explanation.

Because C/ID cannot be proven, as Evolution has been, through use of the scientific method, C/ID does not belong in a science class. In fact, Creatonism has been unproven by geology, since that shows the Earth is more than four-thousand years old, based on layers of sediment. If it were allowed in a scientific classroom other myths and stories of the creation of the earth should be included.

I don't think this really is even a question of the separation of church and state; it's more of a question of good science vs. speculation.

[Shaun]

All I can say is: I agree. This might be a short argument :P

[Rafael Domination]

Well...I'm not sure how to exactly tackle this subject, but I think thiat topic should be better taught in the church. Although I'd also like to argue that the sediment theory may not prove or unprove how old the earth is in the first place, I'd also caution people to simply let go of intelligent design. I mean, there are so much factors that allow life to thrive on earth, from our single, large moon, to the giant gas planets shielding us from some potentialy devastating meteors, to the amount of waters on Earth, to the way Earth orbits around the sun that evenly distributes sunlight, etc, etc. Scientists have also calculated the odds of earth occuring by accident, and they found it to be in one in a trillion, trillion, trillions, somethings. I don't exactly know the number, but they also mentioned that anything with the odds of one in a trillion trillions will NEVER happen (I have no idea how they got to that) but hey, they're the scientists, not me.

Anyhoo, even if we shouldn't let go of such a topic so quickly, I still think schools aren't the place to teach it.

[Crocolyle]

I think the idea that evolution is divinely guided is acceptable--but not when you go and say that the evolutionary process does not exist. I think the main reason people don't accept evolution is that they don't understand it--like they think there's a random sudden mutation and everything changes, whereas sudden, random mutations are first of all not that great and mutations play a very small role in it.

Like for example, let's say there's a group of horse-like creatures living on the plains. They eat the leaves of trees. For a few years there is a drought and therefore a shortage of food. Now only those among the horses with longer necks live, and out of their children only those with longer necks live. In fact, short necks aren't seen as desirable by members of the population. After a couple thousand years of this, isn't it safe to assume that these horses will have really, really long necks?

Evolution really describes any shift in genes, whether its because certain alleles are dominant or because a pressure on the population--and therefore natural selection--is creating a change in what genes are more common.

People also seem unable to think outside of the changes that take place within a life time, when the creation of a new species is a process of small, finite changes that take places of millions of years.

EDIT:

As an added note, the Catholic Church, one of the more reasonable denominations of Christianity, accepts evolution as proven scientific fact (in other words Catholics a free to believe in evolution without compromising their faith). Catholics while they consider the Bible as divinely inspired and spiritually true do not believe that it is literally true and interpret some things, Catholics do not accept the Bible as being historically or scientifically true. In other words, you need to interpret the Bible as a "contextualist" in order to extract spiritual and divine meaning from the words written.

[Rafael Domination]

While correct to some extent, I'm not one of those people who 'misunderstand' evolution. I've taken it in bio class, and while my parents think evolution states that humans descended form monkeys, my teacher 'corrected' that notion, saying that we humans and apes SHARED a common ancestor. But it's not that...just the very basics of evolution has in my opinion, more holes than the Intelligent Design theory. Just the fact that the universe can appear out of nothing (i.e. the Big Bang) and arrange itself into a complex amount of orderly systems, and then those non-living systems suddenly becoming life does not make any sense at all. My teacher explained how the early Earth might have produced amino acids via lightning storms charging up that primordial soup. But what he seemed to have forgotten was that if earth did have a lot of water back then, those amino acids would break apart in that very water. And even if those did bond, the chances of symbiotic relationships forming the very first cells is also quite far fetched, and that those simple cells could somehow produce unfathomably complex bodies is also a bit of a wild ride for me.

You do realize that if, lets say, the clotting system in humans was a product of simple steps from a mere cell, then it should be possible to work backwards from it. But the thing is, it quite 'impossible' to work backards from it. There exist biological pehnomenon and functions that would only have been possible if they came into existence immediately. The blood clotting is one of those. The moment you are cut, your blood makes dozens of decisions, and lacking one of those decisions would result in an improper clot that would lead to loss of blood and eventually, death. How then would a species lacking all those decisions from the start survive?

I used to be a believer in evolution until I read Darwin's Black Box. Personally, the ending comments of that book made me smile. Even if evolution is disproved, it won't deal a fatal blow to humanity. We endured the day when the Earth was proven round and not flat. We can endure the day if evolution is disproved. It's really not that much of a big deal.

Anyways, the topic was whether Intelligent Design was to be taught in high school. I say no, but only beacuse school isn't the place to teach something more based on Faith.

Edit: funny - evolution requires more 'faith' than intelligent design.

[Crocolyle]

I'm afraid I'm not enough of a scientist to offer a counter to the "irreducible complexity" cited in Darwin's Black Box. While I have never read that book, I've read about the book before, and from what I've read the book is wrong on several things and has a tendency to misrepresent facts. That's at least what I've heard...

Also, the origin of life (big bang, primordial soup) is not really related to the topic.

I actually don't think evolution really requires much faith to believe in...

[Shaun]

Raf, I'll jump in on all this once I get to campus. So expect some posts :P.

[Shaun]

Well...I'm not sure how to exactly tackle this subject, but I think thiat topic should be better taught in the church. Although I'd also like to argue that the sediment theory may not prove or unprove how old the earth is in the first place, I'd also caution people to simply let go of intelligent design. I mean, there are so much factors that allow life to thrive on earth, from our single, large moon, to the giant gas planets shielding us from some potentialy devastating meteors, to the amount of waters on Earth, to the way Earth orbits around the sun that evenly distributes sunlight, etc, etc. Scientists have also calculated the odds of earth occuring by accident, and they found it to be in one in a trillion, trillion, trillions, somethings. I don't exactly know the number, but they also mentioned that anything with the odds of one in a trillion trillions will NEVER happen (I have no idea how they got to that) but hey, they're the scientists, not me.

Anyhoo, even if we shouldn't let go of such a topic so quickly, I still think schools aren't the place to teach it.

First, they don't use just sediment to determine the age of the Earth. There are a lot of methods they use all at the same time to figure these things out. This is a common misconception about science, and in particular, science around evolution (both biological and stellar). Scientists rarely use one method and automatically assume they have the most accurate answer. Looking at sediment is just one way of determining age, but because the Earth is constantly shifting and changing, it isn't always accurate. Carbon dating, fluoride dating, and dozens of other techniques are often used in conjunction with sediment.
So yes, considering that we can accurately measure age with the methods we have we know without a doubt that the Earth is billions of years old and while we may be off by a few million years, that is insignificant in comparison to what some people believe (that the Earth is 4,000 years old...which is preposterous considering we know for a fact that there have been civilizations on this planet from well before 4,000 years ago that are documented).

On the subject of chance: those are actually really good odds, Raf. You're thinking so much from a humanistic perspective: one this is ultimately finite and limited in scope (I'm not being mean to you, I'm human too and we all think like this because we're human). For us, we only live 80 years, maybe more, maybe less, and so something like a on in a trillion trillion trillion chance sounds so absolutely impossible it isn't worth considering. But take this into account:
There are billions of stars in our galaxy alone.
There are billions of galaxies in our universe, all of which have billions of stars.
Of those billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, there are trillions of stars alone that could very well support life.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old, according to current measurements. In 13.7 billion years, trillions upon trillions of stars, planets, and moons can form.
The likelihood that at least one little planet could be just right for the life we know of? Very good, actually. That's not to mention that the more we learn about other stars the more we realize that rocky planets like Earth aren't really that uncommon. They're finding more and more rocky planets, some of which indicate they might have liquid water.
Whatever scientists you are listening to need a wake up call, Raf. For them to say it's impossible because the odds seem to be again it is really rather unscientific, considering that we are here after all...

Evolution really describes any shift in genes, whether its because certain alleles are dominant or because a pressure on the population--and therefore natural selection--is creating a change in what genes are more common.

People also seem unable to think outside of the changes that take place within a life time, when the creation of a new species is a process of small, finite changes that take places of millions of years.

Yes, and we've actually seen these changes in real time, by the way. Evolution is a proven fact. The part that isn't proven is the evolution from lower orders of life. But we know without a doubt that we do evolve. Some insects have evolved into stronger ones that are resistant to current forms of pesticide, and in some cases immune. Bacteria and viruses are changing and adapting all the time. Even humans have had small changes. Sickle cell is actually an evolutionary change in its early stages as a biological response to malaria.

just the very basics of evolution has in my opinion, more holes than the Intelligent Design theory. Just the fact that the universe can appear out of nothing (i.e. the Big Bang) and arrange itself into a complex amount of orderly systems, and then those non-living systems suddenly becoming life does not make any sense at all. My teacher explained how the early Earth might have produced amino acids via lightning storms charging up that primordial soup. But what he seemed to have forgotten was that if earth did have a lot of water back then, those amino acids would break apart in that very water. And even if those did bond, the chances of symbiotic relationships forming the very first cells is also quite far fetched, and that those simple cells could somehow produce unfathomably complex bodies is also a bit of a wild ride for me.

The Big Bang and Evolution are not the same theory, Raf. This tells me you don't know as much as you think you do about evolution. This is another common misconception: that evolution explains the origin of the universe. It doesn't and it never has attempted to do so. In fact, evolution has been nothing more than a scientific explanation for life on this planet and how it went from being single-celled to what we have today. It doesn't explain where life came from, and neither does it try to. It's ONLY the theory of how life adapts and changes over time. That's it. And it's proven that we do change and adapt. How life got here and how life got to where it is now are two separate fields of study that are unfortunately often lumped together.
By the way, you're talking about CHANCE again. The chances are life developing are good. We know the building blocks are everywhere. In fact, they've found such things in such hostile environments as asteroids and meteors. In all actuality, the chances that life could have arrived on Earth in some way are quite good. Also, the Earth was never covered entirely in water. That's a misconception too. There are a lot of misconceptions. And the building blocks of life can work in water. That's been proven too.
Evolution only falls prey to holes that can, with time, be explained. Intelligent Design can never fill its holes. That's why evolution is a much better theory. You have to believe in God to have ID be true. But God cannot be proven and never will. You can no more convince me that God exists than I can convince you that the Spaghetti Monster exists. If that isn't the biggest hole ever, then I don't know what is.
And again, you're basing much of your thoughts against evolution on things that are not actual evolutionary principles anyway. Read Darwin, not a whole lot in there about the origins of the universe.
Plus, recent studies are proving the theory that we were brought here by meteorite impacts...

You do realize that if, lets say, the clotting system in humans was a product of simple steps from a mere cell, then it should be possible to work backwards from it. But the thing is, it quite 'impossible' to work backards from it. There exist biological pehnomenon and functions that would only have been possible if they came into existence immediately. The blood clotting is one of those. The moment you are cut, your blood makes dozens of decisions, and lacking one of those decisions would result in an improper clot that would lead to loss of blood and eventually, death. How then would a species lacking all those decisions from the start survive?

Another misconception. This is the same argument used against the evolution of the eye. You can work backwards from anything to do with biological evolution. Scientists do it all the time. And no, there are no phenomenon that came into existence immediately. Billions of years of evolution produce a lot of complex functions that continue to become more and more complex as time progresses.
You're basing a lot of these assumptions on the idea that we were, in some ways, very complex from the start. But we weren't. Single-cell organisms have no need for blood clotting, but as time progresses and they become more complex there are points when such functions are needed. The creatures that manage to stop the "bleeding" survive and breed, passing those genes on and as they become even more complex that process gets better and better. Raf, you have got to educate yourself on this stuff. Seriously. The information is out there and you're not reading it, :P.

Edit: funny - evolution requires more 'faith' than intelligent design.

Another misconception, actually. The belief in proven, visible, scientific fact is not a matter of faith at all. ID requires the belief in something unproven, invisible, and unscientific, meaning that you cannot use any form of analysis to prove it. You have faith that God exists, but you can't prove it. In fact, nobody can. Evolution has tangible evidence. I can see evolution all around me. I can see it happening if I just look. I can't see God. ID requires absolute faith in something that can't be proven to exist.

A hundred years of evidence mounted up against thousands of years of no evidence. No, the Bible is not proof that God exists.

Also, evolution won't go away. It'll only change and adapt as new information is added to it. We know for a fact that species evolve. We just don't know all the particulars of it yet. But that's been proven. The concept that makes evolution work is real and tangible.







On a side note: I agree, ID doesn't belong in class rooms. It's not science.

[Imelda]

While correct to some extent, I'm not one of those people who 'misunderstand' evolution. I've taken it in bio class, and while my parents think evolution states that humans descended form monkeys, my teacher 'corrected' that notion, saying that we humans and apes SHARED a common ancestor. But it's not that...just the very basics of evolution has in my opinion, more holes than the Intelligent Design theory. Just the fact that the universe can appear out of nothing (i.e. the Big Bang) and arrange itself into a complex amount of orderly systems, and then those non-living systems suddenly becoming life does not make any sense at all. My teacher explained how the early Earth might have produced amino acids via lightning storms charging up that primordial soup. But what he seemed to have forgotten was that if earth did have a lot of water back then, those amino acids would break apart in that very water. And even if those did bond, the chances of symbiotic relationships forming the very first cells is also quite far fetched, and that those simple cells could somehow produce unfathomably complex bodies is also a bit of a wild ride for me.

That, my dear Rafael, is because you haven't looked into it deeply enough. Everything you say is what's taught at high-school level science, and high-school level science is not enough to challenge what's taught by the church. It's barely strong enough for an argument. Go deeper into it, though, and you'll see why these simplifications are made. Evolution is too complex to ever be studied by one person. We can each only study small parts of it--and hose parts are smaller than even the single blood-clotting section. One person cannot gather enough evidence to prove that blood clotting went all the way from the primordial soup, up to the multi-layered clotting cascade that humans exhibit today. Some people investigate the web of enzymes and other components of the cascade to see how they fit together. Some people spend their entire lives on one protein and never get fully to grips with it. Why? Because life is an enormously complicated thing. It can take huge amounts of money, time, effort, and brain power to find out what a single protein is made of and what is does--finding out how it interacts with others, and then going on further to speculate on how it arose, and whether it was possible for it to do job without some other proteins around is the work of decades, for many, many people, in many, many university departments around the world. We've only just started.

My tutor (a well-respected professor) at the university of Sheffield spends his entire life working out the structures of proteins. This requires finding out the DNA sequence of the protein, and then finding out how the chain folds to make it's shape. This is not an easy process. You have to find out which gene it's formed from, where the introns (sections of DNA that don't directly code the protein--include those in the sequence and you don't have the right protein) are, if there are any alternate splicing sites, if there are any extra components to it (haemoglobin contains iron.) Then you have to find out what shape it is, which is really, really difficult--many proteins don't keep their shape outside the living organism, so you have to find out how to isolate the protein, and then replicate and environment in which it stays folded, then you have to somehow get a picture of it, and those are really hard to interpret ... and yeah, I'm going to stop now. You see the difficulty of it, and these are just the bits you have to do to get to a point where you can say 'ok, this phosphorylates things' ... then you have to find out what the heck it phosphorylates, how it does it, and what the purpose of that is and ... yeah. Loooong process, Raf. Long, painful process, that doesn't always get results. We might have the human genome sequenced, but we still have no clue what much of it does.

At the end of all this rigorous research, however, we come up with results. Results that can (and are) reproduced by the scientific community. Theories, like evolution, are just theories, but the evidence we've gathered from unbiased scientific research all goes towards proving that it's a very viable theory.

You do realize that if, lets say, the clotting system in humans was a product of simple steps from a mere cell, then it should be possible to work backwards from it. But the thing is, it quite 'impossible' to work backards from it. There exist biological pehnomenon and functions that would only have been possible if they came into existence immediately. The blood clotting is one of those. The moment you are cut, your blood makes dozens of decisions, and lacking one of those decisions would result in an improper clot that would lead to loss of blood and eventually, death. How then would a species lacking all those decisions from the start survive?

Raf, it seems like that from the outside, but as I've just displayed, it's more complex than that. The clotting cascade is complex, and the research that goes into it even more so, but you can trace how it evolved, in parts. I don't know enough about the clotting cascade to talk about it, but I can draw parallels between that in the immune system--another complex web of proteins interacting, that seemingly would be useless unless it all popped into existence at once.

The immune system in humans has several layers--the names of which I forget, but there's one called 'complement' and another that has the white blood cells and such, and there's a third section ... one of these sections is really, really similar to the immune system in fish. Fish don't have the other two systems, yet somehow they have protection against disease that works just fine. Which shows that an organism can survive without the three complex layers of our immune system--proving that it's possible the other two layers could evolve while the third is doing the job of keeping the fish alive.

There are genes, whole messes of them, that are now inactive, but bear similarities to other still-functioning genes. It's thought that these are likely to have been part of systems that became redundant once another had evolved--part of systems that could have supported the organisms while the superior versions were arising. The same thing can happen with individual proteins.

Something else that a lot of people don't know: many proteins in things like the clotting cascade are closely related to other proteins--because they all have the same function. Phosphorylating is one common function. It's very likely that once upon a time, there was only one phosphorylating protein, that did everything, but as time and evolution did their jobs, the genes got multiplied, mutated, and specialised, so each system had its own version of the phosphorylating protein.

Ok, bored with this now.

I used to be a believer in evolution until I read Darwin's Black Box. Personally, the ending comments of that book made me smile. Even if evolution is disproved, it won't deal a fatal blow to humanity. We endured the day when the Earth was proven round and not flat. We can endure the day if evolution is disproved. It's really not that much of a big deal.

It wouldn't be ... if if we had something proven by research to replace it. Personally I won't be believing in intelligent design unless God reveals himself and says 'hey, you know, I'm sick of all this fighting, I'm sorry scientists, but the religious folk got it right, so can y'all get along now?'. Then I'd be happy to believe in it, because random gods appearing to many people is kinda proof.

Edit: funny - evolution requires more 'faith' than intelligent design.

Evolution requires only faith in the scientists who do the experiments to prove it. Which requires less faith than believing in an all-powerful being that no one's ever seen.

[Rafael Domination]

That, my dear Rafael, is because you haven't looked into it deeply enough. Everything you say is what's taught at high-school level science


High school science...which was meant to be simplified and 'true to the esscence' of what evolution is about. Seriously, me bio teacher isn't a religious nut, and yet even he doubts evolution.


Evolution requires only faith in the scientists who do the experiments to prove it. Which requires less faith than believing in an all-powerful being that no one's ever seen.


Erm...matter can come out of non-matter, life from non-living, space and time out of pure nothing, and that's believable? Beause evolution hinges on not invoking the supernatural...and if the above doesn't sound a little cuckoo then I don't know what is.

Anyways...if easy for you guys to counter what I've got right now (two 20-year-olds vs. one 17-year-old) but the thing is, there are a lot of people out there with minds bigger than mines that disagree with evolution. Darwin was under the illusion that the 'simple cell' is quite 'simple' when it isn't. And to think that it all happened by chance takes a lot more 'faith' in the unseen. That's billions of 'unseen' years vs. one 'unseen' Being.

The thing is, there are a lot of things out there that will remain a secret. Humanity's finite brain can only handle so much at one time.

Anyways, I voted 'no', creationism isn't a science, cuz' it's more of a faith.

[Shaun]

Erm...matter can come out of non-matter, life from non-living, space and time out of pure nothing, and that's believable? Beause evolution hinges on not invoking the supernatural...and if the above doesn't sound a little cuckoo then I don't know what is.

That's not evolution and if your teacher is telling you that it is it is no wonder he is doubting it. Evolution never was and never will be an explanation for the creation of the universe. It is concerned only with something that already exists. It's an attempt at a natural law of life, not an example of creation. Religious people have a problem grasping that. They think that evolution explains that there is no God, but really evolution leaves it entirely up to speculation. Other scientific theories are explanations for the creation of the universe. The Big Bang is a theory all on its own and no directly related to evolution. Stop putting them together and smack whoever is telling you they are the same thing!

Anyways...if easy for you guys to counter what I've got right now (two 20-year-olds vs. one 17-year-old) but the thing is, there are a lot of people out there with minds bigger than mines that disagree with evolution. Darwin was under the illusion that the 'simple cell' is quite 'simple' when it isn't. And to think that it all happened by chance takes a lot more 'faith' in the unseen. That's billions of 'unseen' years vs. one 'unseen' Being.

Again, same issue as above :P.
Darwin was dealing with a level of science far below what we have now. His theories have been changed and altered as we learned new information, but the basic principles are still the same. Darwin never said that the laws of natural selection were an explanation of the origins of the universe. The sooner you can recognize that, Raf, the easier evolution will be to accept. You can believe in evolution and believe in God. Doesn't matter. How we got here is completely irrelevant to what evolution discusses. If God went "poof, there's the Big Bang" and we came out of that at some point, then so be it. Doesn't matter. What matters is that evolution is sound.
And your last statement actually lacks credibility. God has never been seen. Never. Not once, not ever. There is NO proof or evidence of his existence whatsoever. None.
However, we CAN see the early universe. Much of that light from the beginning of the universe is only just now getting to us. So we're seeing a lot of things that explain how the universe was created. We know for a fact that the universe is expanding and we know from the laws we understand that it is expanding due to force and force has to exist for a reason.
If you want to pull the "matter can't come out of nothing" card, then where does God come from? Hmm? And who created God? Nothing can't come out of nothing and since God is something there's no way he can exist unless there was something before right?
Also, chance is a really poor way to look at how life evolves. In all actuality, evolution isn't about chance at all. It's more about seemingly random changes in the genes, some of which work and some of which don't. The basic principles are pretty much easy to grasp since we know that animals adapt and change slowly. We've witnessed it, actually. There are documented cases of evolutionary changes in insects and animals. Not major ones, but definitely noticeable.

The thing is, there are a lot of things out there that will remain a secret. Humanity's finite brain can only handle so much at one time.

Well, sorta. Generally we die or get old and scatter-brained before we can fill our heads to the brim. So really we don't know how much we can stuff in there. In theory one could stuff a hell of a lot of things in there. Besides, we have computers now. Sooner or later computers will be able to do calculations for us automatically and figure things out without us doing more than pushing a button.

Anyways, I voted 'no', creationism isn't a science, cuz' it's more of a faith.

That's cause you're smart :D. It's ONLY a faith, though. :P. Man didn't live with dinosaurs :P.

[Rafael Domination]

Evolution never was and never will be an explanation for the creation of the universe


But its foundation relies on the universe forming without the intervention of the supernatural. And yes, they may not be the same thing, but they hinge on that same prinicple.


You can believe in evolution and believe in God. Doesn't matter.


Now where did you pull that out from? To believe in evolution is to defy God outright. Genesis 1:1: in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth. It's either one, or the other.

If you want to pull the "matter can't come out of nothing" card, then where does God come from? Hmm? And who created God? Nothing can't come out of nothing and since God is something there's no way he can exist unless there was something before right?

Actually, God isn't called the Self-Existent One for nothing. You fail to comprehend that an infinite, omnipotent, omnicient, unknowable being doesn't need a beginning and is perfectly capable of defying any paradoxes, any logical limits you care to impose on it. He doesn't need our 'consent' or 'reasoning' to exist, and the sooner people humble themselves, the sooner God will be easier to accept.

Sooner or later computers will be able to do calculations for us automatically and figure things out without us doing more than pushing a button.

Again, like evolution, it's pure speculation.

It's ONLY a faith, though

It's a strong faith.

Anyhoo...I'll just post a link (http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html) for me to pull out random arguments from...

[Shaun]

But its foundation relies on the universe forming without the intervention of the supernatural. And yes, they may not be the same thing, but they hinge on that same prinicple.

No, it doesn't. Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing. They aren't related. They are separate theories. Evolution is concerned ONLY with life and how it goes from simpler organisms to more complex organisms and diversifies. That's it.

Now where did you pull that out from? To believe in evolution is to defy God outright. Genesis 1:1: in the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth. It's either one, or the other.

No it's not. How do you know how God created the heaven and the Earth? All it says is that he created the heaven and the Earth. It doesn't say whether or not he created the Big Bang (and I'm going with the thought that you're talking with general universal creation, not evolution, since, again, they are not the same). God is God, right? So can't God do whatever he wants? Remember, the Bible was written by people, not by God. For all you know, God could have created the universe with the Big Bang knowing that evolution would occur on Earth. You can't prove anything in the contrary and my theory about God is just as valid as your theory about God. I just like mine better because it means science has a place :P.

Actually, God isn't called the Self-Existent One for nothing. You fail to comprehend that an infinite, omnipotent, omnicient, unknowable being doesn't need a beginning and is perfectly capable of defying any paradoxes, any logical limits you care to impose on it. He doesn't need our 'consent' or 'reasoning' to exist, and the sooner people humble themselves, the sooner God will be easier to accept.

Yes, everything needs a beginning and an end. There is no such thing as infinite. All things are finite to a certain extent. God is bound by the very laws that make up this universe, whether you want to accept that or not. God has limits.
Nature doesn't need our consent or reasoning to exist either. But it does exist and we are learning why it exists. Reasoning is a human construct to explain what we already don't understand. God, if he's supposed to be taken as serious, should therefore be applicable to the same stringent standards we put on scientific theories, since all God is is a theory anyway.
And if God is unknowable, he doesn't exist.
Also, that last line is exactly why I am not religious.

Again, like evolution, it's pure speculation.

Illogical assumptions based on things you don't understand or refuse to understand, Raf. It's not speculation. With the speed at which computers are advancing, it's only a matter of time before computers can do a lot of the things scientists need them to do without the scientist having to plug all the numbers in by hand. It's going to happen because it's already happening.

It's a strong faith.

Strong faith, weak faith, doesn't matter. It's still nothing more than faith.


Wow, that link is full of stupid stuff. Raf, you really need help man. What the hell are they teaching you where you live?

This statement:
Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations are not good and can destroy a population.

Proves this guy is a moron. There's a reason why species have multiple young in the wild: because THEY FREAKING DIE! Score for evolution.

[Rafael Domination]

Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe


Yes. It. Does. The principle of 'not invoking the supernatural' and that everything happened random is the foundation of the two. The Big Bang happened out of nowhere and somehow complex organisms crawled out of some primordial sludge that somehow came from non-organic materials.


Remember, the Bible was written by people, not by God


The word inspiration used in the Bible means 'God Breathed' translated by some group of scholars. Those 'people' were the pen. God was the writer. As you said, God can do whatever he wants, and if he wants to use people to convey his word in a more understandable sense, than so be it.


Yes, everything needs a beginning and an end. There is no such thing as infinite. All things are finite to a certain extent. God is bound by the very laws that make up this universe, whether you want to accept that or not. God has limits.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There we go again. Jumping to conclusions that you can't even fathom. God is bound by no laws, logic, paradoxes imposed by us. What hHe chooses to do is predetermined, unquestionable, unstoppable and unknowable. In a way, the only limits He imposes are those He imposes on Himself. Stop trying to cram God into that finite mind, Shaun. You can't. Your head will explode.


And if God is unknowable, he doesn't exist.


What kind of speculation is that? Please make sense.


With the speed at which computers are advancing, it's only a matter of time before computers can do a lot of the things scientists need them to do without the scientist having to plug all the numbers in by hand. It's going to happen because it's already happening.



Speculation.



Proves this guy is a moron. There's a reason why species have multiple young in the wild: because THEY FREAKING DIE! Score for evolution.


One scentence? Jumping to conclusions on one scentence?

Anyways, if you want to prove that this guy is moron, why not scour everything there and disprove it? Anyways, that just proves again that evolution happened by chance: the fact that young animals have to be sent out en masse so that a few will PROBABLY survive. What if none of them survived? Even if some did, how would that help in aquiring changes in their genes?

There's a bug species that uses two fluids in separate compartments, combining them in a tough chamber iginte the fluids to singe potential predators. Try working back from there. Scientists can't. I don't think you will.

[Nyx]

I hate to sort of butt in:P but reading your guys' debate I think you'd have less problem reaching a common point if you put the religious aspect aside.

And if God is unknowable, he doesn't exist.


What kind of speculation is that? Please make sense.

That debate has little to do with evolution, it has much more to do with faith vs. science. And as Shaun already said, the sciene of evolution doesn't contradict faith.


By the way, reading through all that clearified something for me, since I thought evolution DID have something to do with how it was all created in the first place, but I can now see how one can easily believe in god and evolution as well...great now I feel like I have to do a bunch of research:rolleyes:

Anywho, sorry for randomly jumping in this thread=p

[Shaun]

Yes. It. Does. The principle of 'not invoking the supernatural' and that everything happened random is the foundation of the two. The Big Bang happened out of nowhere and somehow complex organisms crawled out of some primordial sludge that somehow came from non-organic materials.

Raf, you're not listening. The Big Bang is a separate theory, not a theory of evolution. This is the biggest problem for you because you want them to be one in the same, but they are not. They never will be, no matter how hard you wish it and try to make it seem like they are. They are two separate theories in two entirely different fields of science.

The body is made up on non-organic materials that come together to form organic materials.

The word inspiration used in the Bible means 'God Breathed' translated by some group of scholars. Those 'people' were the pen. God was the writer. As you said, God can do whatever he wants, and if he wants to use people to convey his word in a more understandable sense, than so be it.

Yup, but you can't prove that. That's the whole point. You can't prove the existence of God, but I can disprove his existence since there is no physical evidence of a God. That's the whole point of this part of the argument. Creationists argue that evolution goes against God, but at the same time God is supposedly almighty and infallible...if God is such then God must therefore be perfectly capable of doing something other than what the Bible says, since he's God. It's all ridiculous to the nth degree and that's the whole point. Besides, the Bible isn't original anyway. There is a clear connection between it and countless other faiths that preceded it. Sometimes the connection is almost exactly the same, which borders on plagiarism.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! There we go again. Jumping to conclusions that you can't even fathom. God is bound by no laws, logic, paradoxes imposed by us. What hHe chooses to do is predetermined, unquestionable, unstoppable and unknowable. In a way, the only limits He imposes are those He imposes on Himself. Stop trying to cram God into that finite mind, Shaun. You can't. Your head will explode.

I already put God into a finite mind. It's done. Over with. And I'm still here. Nothing is unquestionable. Nothing is unstoppable. Nothing is unknowable. That defies so many laws of nature that we know exist. You put limits on yourself by adhering to the faith in something that cannot be proven to exist and never will be proven to exist and you use silly logic like "well it's okay because he says he's infinite and unknowable, etc.". If he's unknowable then you are just as incapable of knowing he exists. You used the word. I didn't. If you want to put humanistic limitations on God, that's your choice, and you have. No speculation necessary. The God you believe in doesn't exist simply because of the fact that you classify him as unknowable. If you know something it is no longer unknowable. If you know that God exists, how can he be unknowable? Exactly. Thanks for proving your God doesn't exist.

Speculation.

Umm, no. Actually it's pretty much right around the corner. The science is already there, it's just a matter of time before the nano-technology gives us the processing power and bam. Done. Not speculation, reality.

One scentence? Jumping to conclusions on one scentence?

I didn't jump to conclusions. He already doesn't know what he's talking about and I don't have any time to go through his long-winded idiocy to clear up all his obvious mistakes. This is the same reason I threw away some book a friend gave me about why evolution is wrong. I started reading it and realizing that the person has no idea what evolution is and neither did the person have any understanding of stratigraphy or a variety of other things. Raf, I just don't have time for this sort of stuff. If I want to read something that legitimately refutes something in evolution, I will read a scientific paper by a scientist published in a legit journal of science. Contrary to popular belief, these papers exist. There are also huge debates within the field of evolution about certain aspects of it. That's what makes science so great.

Anyways, if you want to prove that this guy is moron, why not scour everything there and disprove it? Anyways, that just proves again that evolution happened by chance: the fact that young animals have to be sent out en masse so that a few will PROBABLY survive. What if none of them survived? Even if some did, how would that help in aquiring changes in their genes?

Because the ones that survived would have genes that would help future generations survive, in an environment where such changes were necessary. And those future generations would get stronger and they do. Humans are a prime example of this very idea, as we develop new gene sequences frequently (on a universal scale of time). We evolved into highly social animals just like chimpanzees and orangutans, etc. to serve a very valuable purpose: we can have fewer young than a cat or a dog and in the process that allows us to be able to care for said young.
If none of them survive and the subsequent generations fail, then the species dies. If a species cannot reproduce, it goes extinct. Having multiple young is an evolutionary advantage for animals that are lower in the food chain. It's illogical for humans to have many young because we are larger than most animals, we are intelligent, and we are able to work in groups to defend ourselves, not to mention we tend to be destructive, as we can see. For mice, a whole different story. They are prey to owls, snakes, lizards, etc. They are very low in the food chain, so the result is that they have many young so that they can continue to exist.
There's also this other misconception that in nature, evolution has to move on a scale that we can manage to see. It never occurs to creationists that it's quite possible that there is little need for many species to really evolve, at least not in any exceedingly valuable way. Before humans grew beyond their means, there was a relatively stable ecosystem on the planet. Everything was kept in check and in such an environment there isn't much need for evolution to move forward for many species (small changes such as immunities, resistances to certain things, etc.). If the mouse survives too easily, some predators starve and the mice eat all the food that other animals eat. When such changes occur, if humans aren't involved in screwing up the balance, other species adapt and change to become better hunters or they grow smaller so they can conserve energy easier. Humans, however, are constantly evolving because we have to. We stir up too much crap to sit around not doing much. We are affected by diseases of all sorts, bacteria that we didn't use to become exposed to, etc. Some of our evolution is technological, but there are other bits that are actually biological. Sickle cell is a result of an evolutionary mutation to create resistance to malaria, and it does work. Those with the double recessive for sickle cell die out, as they should, those with the single dominant still get malaria, and those with the double dominant are immune to malaria (I might have those backwards). In a world where things were supposed to work properly, we would see that gene spread and eventually we would find that only those with the double dominant would survive. Unfortunately humans tend to meddle. There is also a new genetic resistance to the standard HIV strand, which has been recorded and is in the process of being examined even as HIV becomes more virulent. You see, evolution is all around us, happening right before our eyes.
Evolution works magnificently and there is always a purpose to it, even if we don't understand it and can never really predict how it will happen. You can't predict what changes will occur, only that changes will occur, as has been seen in scientific research already. We've seen evolutionary changes not only in insects and mammals, but in humans too. Small changes, but changes nonetheless.

There's a bug species that uses two fluids in separate compartments, combining them in a tough chamber iginte the fluids to singe potential predators. Try working back from there. Scientists can't. I don't think you will.

I can't until you give me the species name so I can research it. You can't just give me a vague reference that sounds like science fiction (actually sounds almost exactly like something from Starship Troopers) and expect me to magical roll the dice and know exactly how it came to be. I need more info. This is like you throwing a cat at me and going "I'm not going to tell you his name, I want you to guess".

[Rafael Domination]

The Big Bang is a separate theory, not a theory of evolution


Separate theory, same principles.


The body is made up on non-organic materials that come together to form organic materials.



But how they come together and the process of which is what I'm poking at.


You can't prove the existence of God, but I can disprove his existence since there is no physical evidence of a God.


Go on and try. You think you can disprove it, but as with all theories, they require a lot more than arguing on the internet and vague facts based on more speculation to 'prove' and existence or non-existence of such a being.


I already put God into a finite mind


You mean you tried. It's all too easy to come up with a vague description of infinity, but can you comprehend it fully? Don't boast. No one can.


The science is already there, it's just a matter of time before the nano-technology gives us the processing power and bam.


Again, speculation. You never know what tommorow might bring. Nuclear war, pandemic, we don't know.


Because the ones that survived would have genes that would help future generations survive, in an environment where such changes were necessary


So you mean to tell me that a micrometer difference can help an animal survive the harshest of conditions?


You can't just give me a vague reference that sounds like science fiction


I forgot the species name, sorry. It was in the Guiness World Book of Records 2002 (or was it 2003?) as one of the only bugs that can withstand the G-force enough to kill a human, or something like that.


little need for many species to really evolve


And that means the changes are too small to be of any significance to cause any majoy changes, right? So how long do you think it'll take sub-bacterial cells to transform into an elephant?

[Imelda]

High school science...which was meant to be simplified and 'true to the esscence' of what evolution is about. Seriously, me bio teacher isn't a religious nut, and yet even he doubts evolution.

It isn't 'true to the essence' at all. They don't just simplify, they cut chunks out. Please don't belittle my long-studied knowledge of science in the face of a few high school lessons. I spent 3 years on this. You probably spent 3 hours. It's not even the same principles. As a strongly-believing Christian I used to think that God created the beginnings of life--then let nature (evolution) take its course. Science and belief don't have to cancel each other out!



Erm...matter can come out of non-matter, life from non-living, space and time out of pure nothing, and that's believable? Beause evolution hinges on not invoking the supernatural...and if the above doesn't sound a little cuckoo then I don't know what is.

That's not evolution, that's the Big Bang Theory (which I don't know enough about to form an opinion on ... therefore I don't). Learn your facts before you make sarcastic comments in the future.

Anyways...if easy for you guys to counter what I've got right now (two 20-year-olds vs. one 17-year-old) but the thing is, there are a lot of people out there with minds bigger than mines that disagree with evolution. Darwin was under the illusion that the 'simple cell' is quite 'simple' when it isn't. And to think that it all happened by chance takes a lot more 'faith' in the unseen. That's billions of 'unseen' years vs. one 'unseen' Being.

It's not unseen at all. I've watched it myself--I've taken a tube of identical bacteria, all grown from the same colony (meaning they're mostly genetically identical), and the next morning they're all dead from the antibiotic ... except one colony which has formed a resistance to it. That's evolution. It's fast in bacteria, slower in humans due to the nature of our lifecycle--the point is that evolution can be observed overnight.

I can't say if Darwin thought a cell was simple, never having read any of his works, but Darwin only set forth a hypothesis--that has since been proven, and adjusted. That's the thing about science--we find evidence to refute previous knowledge and it gets changed, it moves on, we absorb the knowledge and learn from it.

Traditionally the church does the opposite, and enjoys denouncing people and burning them. Yeah ... that's progressive.

The thing is, there are a lot of things out there that will remain a secret. Humanity's finite brain can only handle so much at one time.

Which is what my entire previous post was about--it takes a massive collective effort to unravel the secrets of life--the most complex thing on earth, and probably the universe. Humanity can only handle so much, but it's also capable of breaking it down and saying 'hey, you figure out this bit while I work on this.' Because humans, for all their stupidity, are also pretty smart.

So you mean to tell me that a micrometer difference can help an animal survive the harshest of conditions?

I can tell you that a difference of one section of DNA can do that. If one half of a base-pair changes, it can change what amino acid goes into a protein, which can give it advantages, like the ability to keep functioning at higher temperatures. Or make it stay folded in high salt concentration. Or the reverse. Or any number of environments.

So how long do you think it'll take sub-bacterial cells to transform into an elephant?

Ok, firstly, don't make up terms. There are no 'sub-bacterial cells'. Bacteria are the lowest form of life, unless you count viruses as life, which most scientists don't.

And now I'm just randomly picking out quotes to whine about them. :p

The Big Bang happened out of nowhere and somehow complex organisms crawled out of some primordial sludge that somehow came from non-organic materials.

That just shows that you know NOTHING about evolution. Complex organisms didn't crawl out of a primordial soup (soup is the official term for it, not sludge, which sounds gross). The whole hypothesis behind how life was created from the hypothetical primordial soup is NOT part of evolution, just as the creation of the universe isn't.

The word inspiration used in the Bible means 'God Breathed' translated by some group of scholars. Those 'people' were the pen. God was the writer. As you said, God can do whatever he wants, and if he wants to use people to convey his word in a more understandable sense, than so be it.

Holy chocolate, you don't even know your own religion. The Bible was written by men. If you're Muslim, you believe the Qu'ran was written by God, told to Muhammad, and written down by whoever Muhammad got to write it. That has never changed. The Bible is just a collection of books and scrolls and things. God didn't write it.

I'm done with this 'debate'. You're saying completely inaccurate things, making foundationless statements, and worst of all you're talking CRAP ABOUT MY EVOLUTION. Learn what it is before you say another word about it. Please. I can diss Christianity because I've been there, done that, and learnt enough to decide that it wasn't for me to believe in.

[Shaun]

Separate theory, same principles.

Umm, no. Sorry. But not. I don't grow like a galaxy.

But how they come together and the process of which is what I'm poking at.

Yup, and that's not evolution. That's a separate theory. You need to get that into your head, Raf. You keep repeating yourself over and over and over on the same exact thing and I've had to repeat myself. Evolution is only about the adaptation and change of LIFE as it already exists.

Go on and try. You think you can disprove it, but as with all theories, they require a lot more than arguing on the internet and vague facts based on more speculation to 'prove' and existence or non-existence of such a being.

If there is a God, may he smite me now for all my blasphemies in this exact second.
...
I'm still here. There's no God. There is no evidence of a supernatural being whatsoever. None. In fact, the creation of Gods and supernatural entities are entirely a human endeavor. We create Gods. That's proven throughout history since civilizations thousands of years before those molded around Christianity have had their own beliefs in Gods...and yet miraculously there has never once been an instance where we have seen God or a god or anything else related. I don't have to PROVE that God exists. You do. That's how science works. Religious folks have created a n hypothesis that God exists, but you have yet to prove it. And you can't prove it because there is no evidence whatsoever. And since you can't provide any evidence at all, you can't test God, you can't do anything to even bring the hypothesis into the form of a theory you have nothing more than a very vague, illogical, and delusional obsession with something that, by any stretch of the matter, doesn't exist.

You mean you tried. It's all too easy to come up with a vague description of infinity, but can you comprehend it fully? Don't boast. No one can.

Umm, I already did. It's not that hard. You just place unnecessary limitations on yourself. Infinity ain't that long, especially since I'm only human and won't see infinity.

Again, speculation. You never know what tommorow might bring. Nuclear war, pandemic, we don't know.

Ah, but see, that's speculation because you're just basically guessing on that. I'm not guessing on computing power. Barring disaster, it's going to happen and it'll happen in the next year or so.

So you mean to tell me that a micrometer difference can help an animal survive the harshest of conditions?

Yes. It can. Just look at bacteria and viruses.

And that means the changes are too small to be of any significance to cause any majoy changes, right? So how long do you think it'll take sub-bacterial cells to transform into an elephant?

No, you misread. What I was talking about was the nature of current evolution. There isn't much need today for a lot of species to evolve into new species or to become drastically different, and so it doesn't happen. Evolutionary changes in massive scales like you're suggesting only happen when they are necessary. Single-celled organisms adapt and change to become bigger, more efficient things, and continue to adapt and change as they move around the Earth. An elephant has a purpose where it is born. It is built a specific way from millions of years of evolution to be entirely capable of surviving in Africa.
Small changes are how major changes happen, but because there isn't a need for many species to have major changes, it doesn't happen much. The most we see today are small changes in the creation of new genes, new resistances to things, etc. New species do pop up, from time to time, and we've documented those too.

[Rafael Domination]

Umm, no. Sorry. But not. I don't grow like a galaxy.


evolution and the big bang do not require the intervention of any beings, and rely mostly upon chance. Same foundation.

That's a separate theory

You just quoted me earlier saying that I know they were separate theories. :P


If there is a God, may he smite me now for all my blasphemies in this exact second.
...
I'm still here. There's no God. There is no evidence of a supernatural being whatsoever


Several logical conclusions to that:
a) he spared you.
b) you were too insignificant to squish
c) Why would he listen to that demand? You? A human trying to order him around. It made me laugh, and probably made God roll his eyes.
d) It wasn't your time to go.
e) you probably will pay for them, but when God chooses, not you.

Both our theories were speculation, but still...as my bio teacher said...you just can't 'PROVE' some things in black and white.


Infinity ain't that long, especially since I'm only human and won't see infinity.



Since you hinge yourself on that limitation, it's safe to say that you DID fail at completely figuring out God. You just countered your own boast ^^


Ah, but see, that's speculation because you're just basically guessing on that. I'm not guessing on computing power. Barring disaster, it's going to happen and it'll happen in the next year or so.


I guess we both speculate. Next year or so? How much are you willing to bet?


What I was talking about was the nature of current evolution


Yes, I've brushed up on that. Sometimes its 'fast' (meaning that the drastic changes will only appear over millions of years) or slow when species have no need to evolve. But the thing is since those changes will only happen over such long periods of time, those changes won't be so helpful halfway to the destination. So, let's put this logically: creatures moved gradually from sea to land...but all the equipment to do so (i.e. lungs, legs, bodies that could hold in more water) had to have come 'gradually' too? So halfway there there would be a bunch of creatures at the some beach with half a lung, half a leg, skin that wouldn't lose water and they'd still survive when they don't possess the proper gear anymore?


New species do pop up, from time to time, and we've documented those too.


New species that we haven't discovered yet. They could have been around for a long time, but we haven't encountered them yet as of late.

[Shaun]

evolution and the big bang do not require the intervention of any beings, and rely mostly upon chance. Same foundation.

Umm, actually no. Neither of them work on that principle at all. If you read Darwin or you read about the Big Bang, you'd know that.

Several logical conclusions to that:
a) he spared you.
b) you were too insignificant to squish
c) Why would he listen to that demand? You? A human trying to order him around. It made me laugh, and probably made God roll his eyes.
d) It wasn't your time to go.
e) you probably will pay for them, but when God chooses, not you.

Or, it's entirely possible that there isn't a God at all and your belief in one is founded on nothing more than an illogical assumption that life is too complex to not have a creator. Yes, that assumption is illogical, since clearly life isn't that complex at all. We're simply human and humans are simple.

Both our theories were speculation, but still...as my bio teacher said...you just can't 'PROVE' some things in black and white.

God isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis. A hypothesis doesn't become a theory until actual physical evidence that the hypothesis might be real is found. You should have learned this in science. Since no tangible evidence has been found for God, it's a hypothesis, and since you can't test God, you can't prove he exists, but you can prove he doesn't exist.

Since you hinge yourself on that limitation, it's safe to say that you DID fail at completely figuring out God. You just countered your own boast ^^

Nope, you just think I did. I fully understand the concept of God. I'm just not delusional enough to believe in it. Infinity is only a period of time that is beyond current human understanding. We've only been here around 100,000 years, depending on what you consider human. 1,000,000 years is like infinity, since none of us will live that long, and perhaps man won't either. Infinity is nothing more than a subjective placement of time on the constraints of human life.

I guess we both speculate. Next year or so? How much are you willing to bet?

$10. I bet you we'll have computers that can do complex mathematical and biological equations by the end of next year, if not sooner. And I will be right because by the time Intel is done with nano-processors, as in the next couple months or so, we'll have super computers that can do such calculations with less human intervention than is required now.

Yes, I've brushed up on that. Sometimes its 'fast' (meaning that the drastic changes will only appear over millions of years) or slow when species have no need to evolve. But the thing is since those changes will only happen over such long periods of time, those changes won't be so helpful halfway to the destination. So, let's put this logically: creatures moved gradually from sea to land...but all the equipment to do so (i.e. lungs, legs, bodies that could hold in more water) had to have come 'gradually' too? So halfway there there would be a bunch of creatures at the some beach with half a lung, half a leg, skin that wouldn't lose water and they'd still survive when they don't possess the proper gear anymore?

Actually, those midway changes are already helpful, if they are indeed changes meant for a larger evolutionary mutation. A minor change can very well be useful. Consider resistance to HIV. That's an extremely minor change in human evolution, but it is extremely helpful, even though it may or may not be a part of a larger evolutionary mutation.
And yes to the last part. There are fish that can come out of the water for extended periods of time. They exist to this day and it is from their ancestors that much of land-based life sprung up (or at least their ancestors' ancestors). You're grasping the concept from a far too humanistic perspective. You don't just sprout an extra lung overnight. It takes a long time and there has to be a purpose for it.

New species that we haven't discovered yet. They could have been around for a long time, but we haven't encountered them yet as of late.

Not necessarily. that does happen, but more often than not we discover new species that sprout up either through pairings of two related species, which from a biological standpoint is mostly impossible as such pairings produce sterile young (take mules for example). Not too long ago scientists discovered a new species of snake that was from such a pairing. The new species was better adapted to current changes in the environment as it could climb more efficiently and was better camouflaged. It was on the O'Shea show way back when. Interesting stuff actually. The great thing about that is you can actually trace evolutionary changes in DNA. We do it with humans all the time. How do you think we know where people come from?

[Rafael Domination]

Neither of them work on that principle at all


Yes they do. Natural selection. Universe forming out of nothing. Chance and No intervention. Same thing.


Or, it's entirely possible that there isn't a God at all and your belief in one is founded on nothing more than an illogical assumption that life is too complex to not have a creator.


Again, unless you can test it out both both your ground or mine, there's room to doubt for either side. That's the problem with theories.

I fully understand the concept of God.

Who're you trying to kid?

1,000,000 years is like infinity, since none of us will live that long, and perhaps man won't either. Infinity is nothing more than a subjective placement of time on the constraints of human life.

I didn't ask for 'like' or 'probably'. Either you can comprehend it fully or not. You can't, and hence, it's impossible to figure out God. But that's not what the topic is about. We've strayed.

And I will be right because by the time Intel is done with nano-processors, as in the next couple months or so, we'll have super computers that can do such calculations with less human intervention than is required now.


Computers that can figure out the universe? You put too much faith in humans.

You don't just sprout an extra lung overnight. It takes a long time and there has to be a purpose for it.


Ah, but the things is evolution never really offered a decent purpose as to why fish out crawl out of the water.

There are fish that can come out of the water for extended periods of time

But somewhere along the way you mean to say that they only stayed out of the water for a few seconds, since natural selection would benefit the fish who could stay out the longest, the guy who stayed out for 30 secs would outlive the one that stayed for 14? And that would help them steer clear from hungry predators who could wait a lot longer for them to come back in how exactly?

The great thing about that is you can actually trace evolutionary changes in DNA

Then try working back from human to fish to bacteria. I guarantee half the stuff you'll come up with are guesses, someone elses guessess or more speculation. "Maybe somewhere along the way this happened, or this happened, prompting a change that may have resulted in..."

[Shaun]

Yes they do. Natural selection. Universe forming out of nothing. Chance and No intervention. Same thing.

Because no creator of any sort can allow the universe to work on chance right? God couldn't possible say "yeah, everything works by chance and without my intervention, except on this instant where I'm setting things up". See, that's the problem with having a God that can do anything. You can sit there and tell me that evolution or the Big Bang go against God, but that's because you're placing humanistic values on a being that you say is all knowing and a God, as in outside the boundaries of humanity. So, God can technically do anything he or she or it wants to do, assuming there is a God. So, why not say evolution is real, but just say "I believe God made it work like the scientists said it does", and then you can actually learn about it and realize it's good stuff.

Again, unless you can test it out both both your ground or mine, there's room to doubt for either side. That's the problem with theories.

Actually, see, here's the thing. You can't prove God exists, so all you have is doubt. There is nothing you can actually point to and say it is evidence. Pointing at life and saying that's it doesn't work because there are entirely logical reasons for the existence of life beyond God and whether God or a god was behind our existence or not is completely irrelevant since you don't have to work in terms of God to have science...believing in God and believing in science can coexist, but they don't really go together. You can BELIEVE in God, but you can't prove him. That's the point.
You also don't understand the nature of a theory. Theories are not like an hypothesis. Not even close. Theories are rooted in established scientific facts. Meaning, someone actually sat down and proved that what they were saying was true. Imelda already stated this: we observe evolution at work ALL the time. The only part that isn't proven for it is how we evolved from little single-celled organisms, but we have a darn good idea that is able to be changed with new facts and evidence. God doesn't change because you can't apply the scientific method to the study of God, since there isn't anything to study but air.

Who're you trying to kid?

Nobody. God is a delusion that makes humans feel better about their place in the universe, since we seem almost completely alone and it is logical and in human nature to create and make up things about the creation of the universe without any sound basis in fact. Look it up, Raf. We've been making up gods for thousands of years, even before Christianity showed up or any form of monotheism for that matter. What makes your belief any more powerful than the folks who believed in multiple gods thousands of years before Christianity was even in existence? Nothing. We make up gods because humans need a reason for existence. Humans invented religion.

I didn't ask for 'like' or 'probably'. Either you can comprehend it fully or not. You can't, and hence, it's impossible to figure out God. But that's not what the topic is about. We've strayed.

I just did comprehend it. You're the one that isn't comprehending, because you don't want to. Infinity is only the farthest distance we can see, which is really really really far by the way.

Computers that can figure out the universe? You put too much faith in humans.

I never said they could figure out the universe. I said computers could be used to do complex mathematical and biological equations without significant intervention by human beings, which they are doing to some extent now. Computers that can automatically take your blood and in a few hours figure out your entire genetic structure, point out the problems, the good stuff, etc. Those are on the horizon.


Ah, but the things is evolution never really offered a decent purpose as to why fish out crawl out of the water.

Yes it did. Escaping from predators is a good one. Or perhaps the ocean was a bit crowded, or certain fish decided "hey, why don't I move to shallower water" and slowly evolved to become more efficient in the shallows. There are a myriad of reasons for it. There doesn't need to be one answer for it, since most species may not have had the same purpose for evolving appendages for walking and lungs that allowed them to live outside the water.

But somewhere along the way you mean to say that they only stayed out of the water for a few seconds, since natural selection would benefit the fish who could stay out the longest, the guy who stayed out for 30 secs would outlive the one that stayed for 14? And that would help them steer clear from hungry predators who could wait a lot longer for them to come back in how exactly?

Well here's a thought, Raf. Fish can't see outside the water in the same way that we can, so it's entirely possible a fish managed to grow little army like things, like the mud skipper, so it could go out of the water, run over to another area, and slip back in and away from said predator. The ones that could stay out longer had a higher likelihood to survive, since they could cross greater distances without dying. Remember too that those little arm-like fins are great for skipping along the bottom looking for food, so they may have existed before lungs that could survive outside. There are a lot of reasons for it, Raf. That's the whole point. Mud skippers "skip" across large distances to go to water holes, land-locked lakes/rivers, etc. They do it as part of their migration, which proves beneficial because it gets the majority of them away from predators and the better they can move across distances (the faster they can do it) the more likely that they will survive and breed.
It's all there, just look.

Then try working back from human to fish to bacteria. I guarantee half the stuff you'll come up with are guesses, someone elses guessess or more speculation. "Maybe somewhere along the way this happened, or this happened, prompting a change that may have resulted in..."

Because your hypothesis (not theory) isn't a guess right? See, the fundamental difference between your hypothesis and my theory is that my theory is based on established, tangible evidence that can be studied and inferred upon. The result is we have and entire catalogue of fossils in the record which show the major transitions from what may or may not have been fish to what we are today. You just have to look.
Besides, you're asking me to make an educated inference on an aspect of evolution that I'm not trained for. I can't tell you with absolute certainty where all the stages are. I haven't spent 40 years studying the evidence like some have. I just know the evidence is there and someone else did the studying for me, since they've been alive long enough to do that.

[Rafael Domination]

but that's because you're placing humanistic values on a being that you say is all knowing and a God

Actually, that's the reason why I believe God would go through the process. It becomes a more personal, parental relationship than some being planting a seed (i.e. the Big Bang) and letting it do whatever. But I see your point, and often some christians have argued that the 'days' mentioned in Genesis could be figurative, refering to that passage that says that a thousand years are but a 'day' to God. But I would also liek to point out to them that it also clearly says 'the evening and the morning were the first' day, and so on. Evolution destorys that kind of relationship.

The only part that isn't proven for it is how we evolved from little single-celled organisms

That's what I'm getting at. I don't care if evolution is happening right now. It's the start of everything that I believe evolution had no part of. Species naturally adapt, I can understand that. I do it too. But I seriously doubt 'mere' adaptation can turn a single cell into a blooming human.

Infinity is only the farthest distance we can see, which is really really really far by the way.

As I said. Try again. That has got to be the most vague defenition of Infinity I've ever heard.

I said computers could be used to do complex mathematical and biological equations without significant intervention by human beings, which they are doing to some extent now.

I wasn't refering to those computers.

so it's entirely possible a fish managed to grow little army like things, like the mud skipper, so it could go out of the water, run over to another area, and slip back in and away from said predator

And how long would that take? Several million years? So, you mean to say that halfway there, some fish has two centimeters of an arm, a little stump that could help it crawl out fast enough? Right...

tangible evidence that can be studied and inferred upon

You just said the word 'possibly' several times up there. 'Possible' isn't tangible.

[Imelda]

I'd just like to post and say:

SHAUN DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT REPLYING TO RAF TILL YOU'VE FINISHED YOUR ESSAY!

Thank you.

[Rafael Domination]

Erm...anyways...I've strayed off topic. The original debate: Is creationism a science? No.

I'm done! :D

[Alex]

Yea you guys really this debate has nothing to do with the teaching of creatonism. I believe it shouldn't be taught in schools, but evolution should not be taught as the end all of how life evolved.

You are justified to explain evolution because it is a legitamite science, whether anyone believes one way or the other. That being said, I feel that the mention of intelligent design as an alternative option needs to be expressed.

Before I left my old school to go to the school I go to now ((when I was 10)) I was taught about evolution and accepted it, but at 10 I was robbed of a true choice. Barely hearing of any mention of creationism. Now I can look back and say to myself I do believe a good part of the evolutionary theory, but thats not the point. The point is I feel now that I was deprived the ability to make a choice.

Thats why I belive it should not be taught, but mentioned alongside Evolution. Even subtly, the mention of it allows kids to make up their own mind.

I don't know enough about the topic to argue it well enough so I probably wont be posting here again, just stating my thoughts. That being said I had one more point I wanted to bring up.

I saw before a discussion about creation of life. I'm still very on the fence about this, but I lean towards acceptance of the idea of "primordial soup" because I know two scientists in the late 1940's early 1950's I believe ((sorry I forget their names)) recreated the known conditions and created unicellular organisms through the use of a certain device I also forget the name of. I realize that argument is very convincing but oh well =p

Thats my two cents...

[Rafael Domination]

but I lean towards acceptance of the idea of "primordial soup" because I know two scientists in the late 1940's early 1950's I believe


Yeah, I've heard of that experiment. They used certain chemicals and charged it with electricity to simulate lightning in the early earth, and lo and behold, they produced amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. Funny, because I believe those drifted apart a few seconds later...so the chances of them forming into a complex DNA strand, the most sophisticated molecule in existence...well...the odds are pretty slim. Again, I've heard of a couple of mathematicians who calculated the 'odds' of this happening, and the result was one in, I dunno the nuber but it was a 1 followed by several million zeros. And there's a scientific law that states that any odds with 1 followed by several thousand zeroes will simply never happen, or something like that. I'm not sure how it all works, I'm just repeating what other scientists have said about this whole theory of evolution.

[Dunnskee]

The theory of panspermia explains all.

[Shaun]

Haha, Panspermia! :P

[Rafael Domination]

Or humans evolved into supernentities transcending space-time and travelled back to start the universe, hereby creating a time loop and proving that time doesn't travel in a straight line


*Think 'Akira'*
:rolleyes:

[Shaun]

Pfft, that's just science fiction :P

[Rafael Domination]

Hey, it's better than Panspermia! :D

GO TETSUO! :crazy:

[Paradox]

Creationism doesn't belong in public schools, because it isn't science gained by research and evidence. It's religious people trying to bend science to their previous beliefs. Then they say actual science has no evidence to suport it (evolution)?!?!?! Hypocrites! :mad:

Have you ever heard of the Creation Museum? This is completely ridiculous. They spent millions of dollars making animatronic exhibits showing Adam and Eve with dinosaurs and say the earth is only a few thousand years old. Hmmm... what about the civilizations (Pre-dynastic Egypt? Mesopotamia?) that existed at their so-called beginning of the world and before then, huh?!?! They even go so far as to say that fossils were made during Noah's flood, completely ignoring the evidence against this from carbon dating. :mad:

[/rant]

*Paradox*

[Shaun]

The Creation Museum is sort of like the religious world attempting to make the biggest historical-sounding "man walks into a Bar" joke ever. And, if taken with two sugars and cream, it is quite hilarious to see. The sad part is people believe that stuff even though the rest of the world doesn't. And people who believe that are sort of like the Hale-Bopp folks who thought aliens were coming to Earth behind said comet and subsequently offed themselves...needless to say, just like the crazy "Earth is 4000 years old" religious folks, nothing real ever came of the "alien spaceship behind the comet" thing.

[Bowie20049]

old thread is very old, LP

[Shaun]

Yup, very old.

[Diocletian]

Why does it say that Shaun made a post here today, 8:45?

And no, the notion of a high power creating us isn't science, but its as valid as the scientific consensus so far.

[Jack]

Why has this really old thread been revived?

[Shaun]

It hasn't. People keep posting random posts in it.

[simcreatures]

I think people should be able to choose between learning classes with evolution or classes with C/ID.
I myself believe in Creation; and nothing will change that.


In fact; a while back I remember hearing that scientists found that due to the deterioration of the sun (process of creating black holes and whatnot), this solar system can be at most, 10 thousand years old. I'm not saying there aren't much older/younger galaxies and solar systems- but this particular one that we are on may or may not be within the ten thousand years.

A Bible teacher last year told us that there is a way to believe in both Creation and evolution. He said the first few 'days' of creation could have lasted years- not just the 'days' that we know in present times.

[Shaun]

There is no legitimate scientist saying that the solar system is 10,000 years old. None. Why? Because there is no evidence that supports such an absurd notion. Millions of years is a minimum.

But, since all of the stuff you're talking about have been said earlier in this thread, I'm going to close it out. I don't think we need to repeat stuff...