Evolution or Creation?

[Underscore]

I don't find it at all unreasonable to consider existence outside the known realm of the universe.

The trouble that occurs when you start talking about stuff outside the universe is that the universe is typically defined to be everything that exists, so if there was other stuff outside of it then that stuff would also be part of the universe. I'm probably wrong though, please correct me if I've misunderstood

 

[W0RF]

EXACTLY.

What's north of the north pole?

 

[Renegade Retard]

Dig this: NOBODY KNOWS!

Exactly my point all along. There is no definitive proof to any of the above stated theories outside of what we conclude based on our interpretation in light of a pre-established bias. Therefore, all studies of Origins (creation, evolution, et al) is a matter of faith and what you choose to believe.

And dare I say, in respect of the choice based on faith, that whatever viewpoint you choose to accept is treading closely to an act of religion.

 

[Metakill]

Exactly my point all along. There is no definitive proof to any of the above stated theories outside of what we conclude based on our interpretation in light of a pre-established bias. Therefore, all studies of Origins (creation, evolution, et al) is a matter of faith and what you choose to believe.

And dare I say, in respect of the choice based on faith, that whatever viewpoint you choose to accept is treading closely to an act of religion.

Now just a darn minute. You've "magically" blurred the line between the origin of the cosmos and the origin of species. I've already admitted that science is based on a faith that the world of external phenomenon is consistently real. Thats all. Even if you don't accept it as ultimately real, you can still discuss it as a construct that follows a specific behavior. That behavior, as described by science, is not based on faith, it is based on what evidence can be found.

Science is not based on any arbitrarily chosen belief.

You crazy screwballs.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Now just a darn minute. You've "magically" blurred the line between the origin of the cosmos and the origin of species. I've already admitted that science is based on a faith that the world of external phenomenon is consistently real. Thats all. Even if you don't accept it as ultimately real, you can still discuss it as a construct that follows a specific behavior. That behavior, as described by science, is not based on faith, it is based on what evidence can be found.

Science is not based on any arbitrarily chosen belief.

You crazy screwballs.

Of course, you assume that evolution = science. I contend that it does not. Science can be confirmed, where origins, be it the cosmos or species, cannot.

And a discussion on the origin of species cannot exist without a discussion on origins of the cosmos, for dismissing that there is a god that created the species can only conclude that the origin of the cosmos had to occur without the existence of a god, because the origin hypothesis of the "big bang" leads to the evolution of the species.

It's cause and effect, with evolution being the effect of the origin cause, just as the proponents of Creationism deny that creation is the effect and a Supreme Being is the cause.

And yes, I am a screwball!

 

[bobtheking]

Of course, you assume that evolution = science. I contend that it does not. Science can be confirmed, where origins, be it the cosmos or species, cannot.

i think we will eventually know the answer to this stuff. science has had plenty of theories that were not possible to prove (right or wrong) until other required things were developed. some of M theory is missing, it requires math that doesn't exist yet. does that mean it isn't science?

 

[MÆST]

Of course, you assume that evolution = science. I contend that it does not. Science can be confirmed, where origins, be it the cosmos or species, cannot.

It's science. It may be theoretical science. It may even turn out to be wrong. But it still is science.

 

[Metakill]

And a discussion on the origin of species cannot exist without a discussion on origins of the cosmos, for dismissing that there is a god that created the species can only conclude that the origin of the cosmos had to occur without the existence of a god, because the origin hypothesis of the "big bang" leads to the evolution of the species.

In what way does the origin hypothesis of the "big bang" lead to the evolution of the species? I doubt Darwin, a biologist (zoologist?), related his theory to astronomy or physics at all. Most science is not holistic, it does not try to relate all of its parts. It is reductionist, seeking to isolate aspects of reality into their most simple form for easy modeling and comprehension.

Secondly, how does evolution imply that the origin of the cosmos had to occur without the existence of a god? It was Francis Bacon who related that a superficial understanding of science will lead one away from a belief in God, but a deeper understanding will cement such a belief. All science really is doing is trying to better model the workings of existence, not explain what it has no evidence of to work with.

It is not God, but only the inflexibility of religion that is threatened by science, because it after all, "God's creation" that science is more accurately describing than the religions which oppose science. And come to think of it, only a few fundamentalist sects oppose scientific ideas, not religion in general.

 

[Aegeri]

Growler wrote

Can Evolution explain a caterpillar turning into a butterfly?

Holometabolos development has been explained fairly simply with modern genetics and the way in which DNA transcription is altered upon the reception of different signals. The selective benefits of holometabolic development should be fairly obvious, in that the adult insects do not have to compete with their larvae for food increasing the survival chances of both. It is not at all limited to just insects however, and in fact this evolved much earlier than you are attempting to make out. There are many organisms that have an entirely different larval form than they do an adult form, such as some sponges (porifera) that have a free living motile larvae that is completely unlike the adult animal (until it settles). The simple rearrangement and differential transcription of certain HOX (developmental hot box genes) genes is the reason for this.

No magic required.

Tool

I never thought about how a caterpillar could turn into a butterfly so i'm completely clueless on this subject. But now that you bring it up I would like to know.

The science of Entomology. Romoser and Stoffolano. WCB McGrawHill publishing, 1998. There is a more recent edition of this book out too.

Finally, www.nature.com has numerous papers describing the evolution and mechanisms involved in insect holometabolic development, although it is normally called complete metamorphosis.

Synastren

Intelligent Design is an intriguing theory and has several people rooting for it, and it has increasing support in the biology fields, especially in microbiology

Care to tell this microbiologist doing his doctorate where this evidence is? I will accept the PNAS, nature, science, microbiology or any other microbiology paper, because quite frankly this statement is utterly full of rubbish.

Next, name one, just one and ONLY one irreducibly complex system please. Or are we going to dig up the old show ponies, the flagellum which is actually a type III secretion system (hence isn't actually irreducibly complex); the blood clotting system which has now been found to have a simpler one in other mammals that works just as well (again, disproving it as being irreducibly complex); the type III secretion system has now been demonstrated to have a simpler component etc.

Of course, the beauty of using the unintelligent design argument is every time they are proven wrong (and they have on EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM THEY HAVE CLAIMED IS IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX TO DATE) they just go, oh well we REALLY meant the NEW thing you discovered is actually irreducibly complex. Works wonderfully for guarding their rears, but they clearly have no evidence, and I find it insulting that you would claim my field of science in any way supports these frauds, to support their theory at all.

So as I said, what systems ARE irreducibly complex? So far there hasn't been one and even Michael Behe has admitted things like the flagellum aren't IC, though he now claims the type III secretion system is (and he'd be wrong as has been recently demonstrated).

Creationism is usually looked on as a complete fallacy by the scientific community, if only because of it's "young Earth" component.

There are two kinds of creationism, progressive where God does a series of experiments (destroying a generation of 'failed' experiments on the way) which explains firstly the age of the earth and why there are fossils. Then there are the young earth fellows. Predictably, they don't like each other either.

 

[Hadmar]

EXACTLY.

What's north of the north pole?

Assuming this is supposed to make sense and with stuff like "You are on position x, move along to position x. Uh, I'm already there . I know, now do what I told you." not making sense the only logic answer is:
The north pole is north of the north pole. The other north pole, of course. There's more than just one of them.

 

[Euphoric Beaver]

What's north of the north pole?

If God created us, who created God?


omfloffle!

 

[Renegade Retard]

In what way does the origin hypothesis of the "big bang" lead to the evolution of the species? I doubt Darwin, a biologist (zoologist?), related his theory to astronomy or physics at all. Most science is not holistic, it does not try to relate all of its parts. It is reductionist, seeking to isolate aspects of reality into their most simple form for easy modeling and comprehension.

Secondly, how does evolution imply that the origin of the cosmos had to occur without the existence of a god? It was Francis Bacon who related that a superficial understanding of science will lead one away from a belief in God, but a deeper understanding will cement such a belief. All science really is doing is trying to better model the workings of existence, not explain what it has no evidence of to work with.

It is not God, but only the inflexibility of religion that is threatened by science, because it after all, "God's creation" that science is more accurately describing than the religions which oppose science. And come to think of it, only a few fundamentalist sects oppose scientific ideas, not religion in general.

I find it interesting that you bring Francis Bacon into the conversation to verify your argument, considering that Bacon was a Christian. As I've repeatedly stated, it depends on your pre-established conviction on what the evidence interprets. Bacon made his statements as a Christian. Therefore, any evidence he observed was evidence to him, in light of his beliefs, to be interpreted as a confirmation of the existence of God. Present the same exact evidence to someone who rejects the existence of God, and he can use his assumptions to interpret the evidence to explain why he doesn't exist and how it favors alternate views.

Christianity (which I use instead of "religion,") does not oppose or feel threated by science. In fact, it embrasses it, for as you pointed out, Christians see the magnificence of God displayed through science. Christianity does, however, believe that there are factions that misuse science to try to disprove and explain way the existence of the very One who created the scientific laws in the first place.

If I understand you correctly, you contend that Christians are threatened by science because they fear it will disprove their fundamental beliefs. I can tell you that Christians believe that non-Christians or evolutionsists are threatened by the Creationist viewpont They strive to disprove Creationism because they do not want to accept the fact that God really does exist, and if he is the very One who created the universe and them specifically, then they are then responsible to Him for their very existance. By acknowledging that God exists and that he gave them life, then they would be accountable to Him. These people do not want that responsibility, so they deny his existence and try to explain Him away and dismiss Him by formulating a school of though of random acts and change with no responsibility and no one to be accoutable to other than blind luck.

 

[Aegeri]

I can tell you that Christians believe that non-Christians or evolutionsists are threatened by the Creationist viewpont

The only threat creationism presents is in confusing people who are vulnerable enough, in other words do not know sufficient molecular biology/general science to see around their fraudulent arguments.

Of course, it should be noted that creationism is only really found in Australia and the US and is essentially regarded as insignificant everywhere else (Europe for example).

hey strive to disprove Creationism because they do not want to accept the fact that God really does exist, and if he is the very One who created the universe and them specifically, then they are then responsible to Him for their very existance

Nobody has to 'strive' to disprove creationism because it disproves itself on a continual basis. There are extremely few creationist arguments that actually stand to any scrutiny, but it depends on who they are talking to. Those of us who have done sufficient science, have gone to university and beyond, know pretty much how to poke holes in every ridiculous argument made. People like the Kansas board of education, the general public and the like can't see through the misapplied science and general rubbish. The only thing that still amazes me is that the American court system was still able to see through creationisms 'disguise' as a science and Judge Overton threw it out. From then on, nobody needed to 'disprove' creationism, it had failed miserably in the court system and was no longer a threat. This is where intelligent design comes from, and you shouldn't be fooled thinking it was a 'scientific theory'. It's merely creationism gone back to Paley and the drawing board to attempt to get around Judge Overtons decision. As has been mentioned, nobody takes ID seriously in the scientific community, only people who don't know any better (which is what exasperates many scientists).

In a lot of ways, I'm surprised that these sorts of threads with a poll end up with a high bias towards the evolution side, because it's a hell of a lot simpler and easier to just say 'God did it' than to understand the multitude of variables that evolution requires.

By acknowledging that God exists and that he gave them life, then they would be accountable to Him.

When you give me a reason why 'your god' created everything, I'll tell you why you're wrong and actually it's the work of the Invisible pink unicorn.

And neither of us will ever get anywhere.

These people do not want that responsibility, so they deny his existence and try to explain Him away and dismiss Him by formulating a school of though of random acts and change with no responsibility and no one to be accoutable to other than blind luck.

Ok then, ascribe to me Gods purpose in creating the Type III secretion system, which is a key pathogenicity factor for bacteria. When people die to things like superbugs, they are dying because of this kind of secretion system, which is exclusively used as a pathogenicity factor of bacteria. There are many ways these systems would have evolved by chance and for their specific selective (IE natural) purposes. If the world was 'directed' by God as you seem to be implying, could you establish why he would direct the evolution of systems entirely used to kill, maim (superantigens) and otherwise cause misery to human beings? Noting that being motile (flagellum) is itself a pathogenicity factor.

You see, by ascribing things like this to the way selection works out on the function of membrane components like porins, I avoid a God that created organisms for the express purpose of slaughtering and sickening billions of people he supposedly 'loves'. I simply do not see the logic in that.

 

[oosyxxx]

I'm by no means a biblical scholar but I'm wondering if the bible mentions other planets, and if it does, what purpose those planets serve in God's plan (the bible essentially outlines his singularly defined plan, right?). If they are not mentioned in the bible (according to this site they aren't), why do you think they exist? I can't see why God would bother creating them if, seemingly, the only important stuff for humans (who--I've been told by a Christian friend who's a deacon--were created only to worship God) in the universe happens on earth. Sure, you could say that he created the skies and stars for our visual enjoyment, but we can't, and for the longest time were completely unable to see the planets without the aid of man-made inventions.

 

[MÆST]

I'm by no means a biblical scholar but I'm wondering if the bible mentions other planets, and if it does, what purpose those planets serve in God's plan (the bible essentially outlines his singularly defined plan, right?). If they are not mentioned in the bible (according to this site they aren't), why do you think they exist? I can't see why God would bother creating them if, seemingly, the only important stuff for humans (who--I've been told by a Christian friend who's a deacon--were created only to worship God) in the universe happens on earth. Sure, you could say that he created the skies and stars for our visual enjoyment, but we can't, and for the longest time were completely unable to see the planets without the aid of man-made inventions.

To me it's obvious. So in the future we can send missionaries to the other planets and convert the heathen aliens to Christianity.

Oh, and I forgot the serious answer:

Psa 19:1 [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

 

[Renegade Retard]

Nobody has to 'strive' to disprove creationism because it disproves itself on a continual basis.

Please expound on this point. I'm curious what your logic would be on how creationism disproves itself.

 

[oosyxxx]

Oh, and I forgot the serious answer:

Psa 19:1 [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

I must say that kind of catch-all ambiguity leaves me less than satisfied.

 

[MÆST]

I must say that kind of catch-all ambiguity leaves me less than satisfied.

That's how the Bible works. The Bible is long enough as is. There's plenty of science books that describe why planets exist.

 

[Aegeri]

Please expound on this point. I'm curious what your logic would be on how creationism disproves itself.

For the short answer, the fact they blatantly lie and distort even simple facts. Without these little liberties of truth they don't get very far. If you have to rely on fraudulent means to establish your position, you haven't got much of a scientific position to begin with.

More generally, the lack of any modern scientific knowledge and updating they are able to produce. For example, they are forever trotting out the same ancient references and appear 'stuck' in the stone ages of science. For example, one gibberingingenesis article actually references a medical book from the 1800's as an 'authority' on human immunology. They are esentially self defeating, basically remaining several decades in places behind what modern science has actually found.

This is further amplified by the fact a lot of creationism is targeted at attacking outdated theories, for example the origin of species, rather than modern theories. This is again because they stick themselves in the dark ages and appear incapable of arguing against the more modern (and much better researched) theories that abound today. For two examples, carbon dating is still often attacked and creationists forever attempt to make it seem like the inaccuracies in C14 dating apply to ALL radiocarbon dating (if they acknowledge other forms of dating exist at all). Secondly they have very rarely tried to attack anything other than relatively outdated darwinian gradualism and typically fail to acknowledge the fossil record has been further filled out than it was (again, the arguing against things in the stone age problem).

Hence, creationism is self defeating to anyone who studies it seriously. By in some cases outright lying (the gibberingingenesis article on the appendix is a grade A case of this), employing misinformation (taking a true statement, but warping it just a little to say something different, such as the case with C14 dating) they essentially prove how invalid their own position is. Hence, creationism actually disproves itself as the only way it can 'prove' itself is to subtly, if even going as far as to blatantly lie about basic facts*.

*More examples abound, including claiming a flagellum is as efficient as a car engine, which it isn't. Baffling people with rubbish maths this little creationist video is just fantastically funny to those who know 'machines' on the nanoscale function extremely differently to a full sized car engine. In reality, the car engine is infinitely more efficient if you were to scale them the same way, just as an ATPase is infinitely less efficient than engineered power generators on the same scale.

 

[Ragna]

Evolution for me.

If God created us, who created God?

Exactly.