View Full Version : [en] Evolution or Creationism
Punisher
30-11-2006, 00:22
Evolution of man or Creationism of life?
This is no challenge to faith or against the believing in god.
Im just raising this poll to ask if you believe we were retarded fish frog or we sprang from the earth.
Largefry07
30-11-2006, 01:24
I smell a movement into the DMZ about to come. (However, I don't have the best nose though)
Pretty good nose, Largefry! I am dragging it over there right now!
Just yesterday mine Biology class started studying Evolution and our teacher advised us to examine and make our own opinion of all the "theorys" of the origin of life (Evolution(science), Creationism(belief) and Intelligent Design(a mix of everything)) and then pick for ourself which theory sounds the most logical and so on. As it's quite obvious, noone can be positively sure how life started and/or evolved and our teacher didn't want us too throw away the different theorys, by either faith or "anti-faith".
Personally I 'support' the Evolution because it's very valid and been proved many times. (as all science-theorys must go through).
Who knows, maybe I'll change opinion later on...or maybe not :wink:
Hmmm, guess I lean toward Evolution tempered by Intelligent Design. I think that evolution alone can not explain Everything. But each one of us can only live by one's own "beliefs or thought"; trying to convince others of one's convictions is an exercise in futility.
:scratch:
I can't believe such a question is still asked today. I guess now you know where my statement is going, so if I am about to offend any of your beliefs disregard this post.
Evolution is not a *theory* in the common use of the word. A scientific theory is something that is proven. For example Einsteins theory of relativity is "just" a theory. Now I want to see people stand up and say "I don't believe in Einsteins theory, it does not fit my religion." Doesn't happen that often, does it? In fact we have millions (yes, literally millions) of proofs for evolution. It is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of ignoring or accepting facts. For example, we still don't know how gravity works. Why does nobody stand up and say "I don't believe in gravity"? Cause we can see it? Well, we can see evolution too. We even have more proofs for it than for gravity.
I don't see a point in this being discussed so often. It especially strikes me that it is such a common discussion in the USA while the rest of the world has basically gotten over it by now. When I was in high school, my biology teacher wouldn't even teach it (yeah, I lived in the Midwest). Almost nothing in Biology makes sense without seeing it in the light of evolution! It's the thing that brings it all together!
I don't have a problem with creationists. Everybody should be allowed to believe whatever they want. I do have a problem, however, with making a scientific discussion out of it, with deliberately ignoring facts, with withholding a modern education from children. Whatever you believe in is your personal business, it is not something that constantly has to be preached to the public. And creationism and intelligent design always contain a religious message. That's what really annoys me.
Just my two cents.
By the way: I really really hope that those three voters who clicked "creationism" did that for fun...
People's Republic of China
08-12-2006, 23:20
No, they didn't.
no wish to offend. But from my studies, it takes far more faith to believe in evolution than creationism. No theory has more holes or gapes in it, even Darwin retracted it on his deathbed as an impossibility.
I salute you evolutionists for your incredible faith.
PS: would write further, but my hand injury still is persistent.
I am very sorry but what you are saying is wrong. Darwin certainly did not retract it, that is just another urban legend.
Apart from that there are no "gaps" in evolution. Examples, please!
If you want me to discuss this with you, I insist I get sceitific facts along with quotes from where the facts were taken (webaddress, paper, whatnot).
How many people discussing evolution have throughly studied it? Have you ever read "The Origin of Species"? What are your scientific sources for claiming evolution is wrong?
You cannot discuss this on a personal level, everybody has their own beliefs and is certainly entitled to think what they want. A discussion, however is only possible on a scientific basis.
People's Republic of China
09-12-2006, 00:28
Scientific discussion is not a problem, just give me s ome time to hunt my sources down. (I'm bad with remembering books ands sites and such. So I have to look for them again).
PS Where is your proof that Darwin did not retract his statement. Cite please. Have you read the Bible, the works of Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, and Einstein?
PS2 As a scientific discussion, my first point is the geologic column has never been foung in the world. the layers are there, but frequently not in order or completely missing. If you wish to write au contriare, please give your reference.
--
Also, no one has ever actually observed change from one species to another, sure there is change within a species, but no amphibian becoming a lizard.
As well, there have been no "missing links found".
I will add more depending on when I'm online.
Punisher
09-12-2006, 01:28
PS Where is your proof that Darwin did not retract his statement. Cite please. Have you read the Bible, the works of Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, and Einstein?
how does The bible have anything to do with evolution and this discussion? or the works of those random people.
Where is your proof that Darwin *did* retract his statement? After all it seems much more likely he didn't. As far as I know Darwins daughter Henrietta has stated clearly that he did not retract anything or converse on his deathbed. Apart from this there will be no proof to find. It does not matter really either, Darwins work speaks for itself.
I do not know what the works if Isaac Newton, Farraday or Einstein have to do with evolution. As far as I know none of them have published anything of interest concerning evolution. My examples of the Theory of Relativity and gravitiy merely served as an example about the usage of the word "theory" in natural sciences.
However, I have studied physics throughly, including the Theory of Relativity and find nothing there to contradict evolution. I have to admit though that I have not studied the primary sources.
I have read parts of the Bible. I come from a partially very fundamental Christian background. I have to admit though, that I have left out chapters like Numbers and some other things. I have found the Bible very contradictory in itself (especially concerning the Old and New Testaments). Furthermore, the Bible is not a scientific source.
Concerning the geologic column: It is true, there is not one single geologic column. However, this does not mean that it does not exist. It would be virtually impossible to build up a single geological column, it would have to strech hundreds of kilometers into the sky. However, we *do* have a geological column. In many places on this world different section of earths history are preserved. We make one continuous column out of it by correlating these different section. Imagine a lake that is slowly filled up by sedimentation (all basins are sooner or later filled by sedimentation). Shortly before the lake is completely filled up, a volcanic eruption occurs in an area 1000 km away. The ash is thrust into the sky and some of it will deposit in our lake. However, the ash does also deposit in another lake that has just formed. This second lake will still have quite a bit of time to be filled up by sediments.
Because of the layer of ashes that is preserved in both lakes, we can correlate them. There is one certain horizon that shows us the surface at a certain time (the eruption). The sediments below the ashes in our first lake are older, the sediments that are accumulating in our second lake over the ashes are younger. But a small portion of both lakes will overlap.
Basically, this is how we get the geological column. Of course there are a LOT of other things that can be correlated with each other. So, we do have a complete geological column. There is even an International Commission of Stratigraphy. They have put out numerous publications. You can also consult the IUGS International Stratigraphic Chart. Basically, this represents the complete geological column.
Concerning the amphibian lizard transition: Actually, what you mean is the development of amniotes. Amniotes are animals that do not rely on water for reproduction. Generally, amphibians place their eggs into water to reproduce. For example the first stages of the development of frogs are inside water. Amniotes lay water-independent eggs or give birth. But this was not a sudden step. In the fossil record we can observe a gradual development, some amphibians for example lay eggs covered with a thin membrane but they place them in moist, protected places (otherwise the egg would dry out). Slowly animals develop whose eggs do have a harder and harder shell until the egg is safe from drying out and can be placed virtually anywhere on land. The animal is now independent from water for reproduction. Of course other features are needed: The egg must contain nourishment for the embryo and so on. Within the animals changes occur too (in tetrapods, meaning land-living animals usually changes in the skull-bones are very characteristical for each new species). So we do have animals in the fossil record that are neither complete amphibians nor complete reptiles but something in between. By the way: This transition happened in the Carboniferous, around 340 Million years ago. Two specimen I'd like to mention are Seymouria, an early reptile is Casineria kiddi; as far as I know the first reptile egg appears in the Lower Permian.
I took this information from Colberts "Evolution of the Vertebrates", it was the topmost book on my shelf and I was too lazy to dig through the whole pile. There are probably better books for this topic and there are certainly better papers. You can probably also find more information on this in Bentons "Vertebrate Palaeontology". I can look up some more stuff about this topic tomorrow if you want me to. I'd still like to point out that this information is extremely slimmed down scientifically speaking, I don't really want to bother you guys with anatomical details of the skeleton (which we will not get around though if we want to discuss this deeper).
People's Republic of China
09-12-2006, 03:02
:wink: Uh oh, this discussion my take a deeper twist. Yes, I unfortunately gave my copy of Colbert's book away. But yes I know who you are talking about.
My other big issue is the age of things: i.e. millions and billions of years.:eek:
I had a funny experience with carbon dating, a scientist crony of mine tested a piece of wood taken from a chair, that was made recently (from IKEA), and the test said it was around 800,000 yrs old. :eek: (This scientist is an evolutionist BTW).
Out of curiousity: how do you date the rocks in which fossils lie.
And how do you date the fossils themselves.
I have alot more to say on this subject, but I'm too lazy to put more.
Have you read any books from a scientific perspective that favour creationism. Not just from the religious background that you have (i.e. indoctrination)?
PS I was no less shocked than you were in your first post regarding why anyone bothered to discuss this anymore. Like you, I figured that creation (or in your case evolution) has been so conclusively proven, that I couldn't belive that anyone supports evolution wholeheartedly.
PS2 As you may be able to tell, I am a student more of political, military, and social theory, rather than religious and scientific theory. Though I frequently have to fight battles in the latter almost as frequently as the latter. I do a lot of debating and face to face discussion with people, and usually I win conclusively. So I am surprised by my lack of success on internet. I figure it's got something to do with my hatred of typing hastily. Usually I plan my writings. :biggrin:
That was WAY off topic, I know:wink: .
Now where were we?:scratch:
--
how does The bible have anything to do with evolution and this discussion? or the works of those random people.
I meant that to be two separate lines. And meant add more, which I too lazy to correct.
I want to post a few things rather concerning this discussion and some information on discussing something on a scientific level.
I will write something up about dating-methods later on today, I've got to go to university now to take care of some samples and it'll take me quite a while.
By the way: I am studying geology/palaeontology. So, if you really want to talk to me about this you'd better come up with some facts, not general assumptions ("There have been no missing links found" is such an assumption, it is *not* a fact). This is what I work with every day.
1. I am not trying to "win" a discussion. This can be no more than exchanging facts, but we can do it on a scientific basis instead of simply stating what we believe to be true.
I think it is pretty vain to imply already that you will "win" the discussion. Planning your writings has nothing to do with the facts you are stating, I'm just quicker to come up with facts since I don't need to search around for literature, all I need to do is pick up a random book from one of my many piles and it'll usually have to say something on this. This makes it a bit unfair of course but I am no friend of hurrying along a discussion, you are welcome to go back to something I said even if it's already a few days old. That'll give you time to "do your research".
2. I think it is a curious fact that so many creationists know somebody who know somebody who found out this or experienced that... In all those stories the people who found something against evolution are evolutionists themselves, and they've never published anything. If you talk to creationists you get the idea there has never been a single decent result with all the methods we've been using for quite a while now.
Another thing they always imply is that they've read all the evolutionist literature. Not even I own a copy of Colberts book, although I study this! The copy I have laying around here belongs to the library, as do most other books. Curious how you owned a copy and gave it away. If you had read and understood it, there wouldn't have been a need to say that there are no animals having both amphibian and reptile characteristics.
3. It does not matter what literature either of us has read. I just experienced that a lot of people discussing evolution have never read the Origin of Species. I find that very odd: Why do you want to talk about something you've never even taken time to study?
Apart from this I have read a bit creationist literature. A very good book is "Darvins Black Box". The author states some interesting facts, I just wish he'd had studied evolution before writing it, I could see some of his theories were wrong even with the bit of Biology I've had in school. I've also ready a lot of pseudo-scientific stuff on the internet.
But this is not about how much either of us has read, simply state your facts and I'll try to contradict them or I'll state mine and it's your turn to do so.
Saying that you gave away Colberts book does not contradict my point, it's upon you to show that Seymouria does not have amphibian as well as reptilian characteristics.
Anyways, I'll be off, I'll write some more stuff about dating tonight. In the meantime you should give me some facts really.
By the way: I don't mean to offend you, it's just that I have made the experience that these discussions always take the same direction because usually creationists are "fighting for a cause" while all I'm doing is throwing out some random facts.
So, to make sure we are talking about the same thing: I'd like to know (just write it in your own words) what evolution is. I don't mean for you to put all the scientific facts, I just want to know how you think it works, what principles it uses and so on.
People's Republic of China
09-12-2006, 16:54
What evolution is. Interesting.
Hmmm.
The evolution of all life from a single cell, no? Everything came into being from a big bang, where a cell was formed by some chance, several billion years ago. Then the cell formed early bacteria, which became more complex (I'm not a scientist, but a politico, so my biologic technicalities are not exactly correct). eventually, fish were created, from which amphibians sprung, then lizards, and birds. On to dinosaurs and reptiles, then small mammals, then onto large mammels. From the evoving creature came the ape series, which then supposedly come man. Am I right?
What is evolution?
How do you define a fact then?
PS I was an atheist, communist, evolutionist myself once. And then I foght for a cause too. I dumped it all when I started to read things from both sides. now I'm prety much the opposite.
Also, You have been indoctrinated well, I see. All textbook answers. Whoever trained you, did well. (this is from a psycological standpoint, as your word choices and certain references tell a lot about you)
PS2 This conversation is somewhat out of my league, (no offence, but this is what always happens when I withdraw froma discussion) which now you're going to use in your next post as "proof" that creation doesn't hold a candle, because the main proponent of creation on this forum (your truly) has more important things to do in real life than exchange facts via internet. Like researching history for my current novel project. I know that you would probably do the same thing if you have to research heavily. I don't have the time to dedicate to an in depth discussion.
PS3 Science is not my forte, I could probably do what you're doing to me right now, very easily in a political or history dicussion (as my room is pilled high with history and political thought in literary form). My high IQ notwithstanding, I never did enjoy science studies. My religious and personal convictions are enough for me.
Lastly. Define creation. As you know it.
I think you see this too much from a fighting point of view. I don't want to convince you of anything.
With evolution we only have one mayor problem: We have believes, that is the emotional side. And then we have facts, the scientific side. Both creationists as well as evolutionists have their own believes and both sides provided facts.
However, if we want to discuss this, we have to decide whether we want to talk about the emotional or the scientific side. We cant talk about both at once.
I also think that talking about beliefs will only end in offending people, that's why I try to avoid it here. In this aspect I also do not like the word indoctrination. How would you like me to tell you you've been indoctrined by church? I can assure you that I've lived with both sides rather closely, I chose the one that had the better facts.
Why do creationists always think that evolutionists must surely be atheists? I am Christian and I do not see any conflict in believing in god as well as evolution. I also do not see any connection between communism and evolution.
My answers come from books because it's the scientific side I am looking at (as I already stated above).
I also realize that this discussion is pretty unfair for you since we are talking about something I work with every day while you'd have to study this more before you can present me with some challenging problems. (I can assure you that there are indeed quite a few points we have not figured out yet. But then no natural science is ever complete, there always remains something new to be discovered.)
I only started this discussion because I have made the experience that many creationists do not really know what evolution is. They do not know the mechanisms it works with. In fact most people who have studied evolution and consider themselves evolutionists have never really understood it. The really annoying things with most creationists is, that they'll look up some random facts on the internet without really understanding the science behind them and then they'll throw them at you while they don't even know what they are talking about. I don't mean that this is true in your case (we have not really discussed yet after all). It's just from my experience.
That's why I asked you what evolution is. I don't mean the way things developed but what is evolution in itself. For example, modern fishes are just as modern as we are. It's not that fishes stopped developing a long, long time ago. Evolution does not form more complex animals. It also does not produce "higher" animals. Only new ones. Evolution has no aim, no direction. There is an endless number of possibilities. Some happen. Some don't.
A lot of times the discussions about evolution are not about the theory itself but rather about the religious and social impact of it. However, evolution is not a religion. Darwin never stood up and said "My theory of evolution proves that god does not exist." Evolution is merely a theory that explains a lot of things we can observe in organisms. It does not intend to do anything beyond that.
I would still like to point out that I do not mean you explicitly when I say creationists. I don't know you well enough to judge about you (I try to avoid judging people in general).
--
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question about creationism.
To me, creationism is the opinion that the world as we know it was created by some supernatural being. That's what I'd say if I had to put it in a nutshell. Personally, to me creationism is an attitude towards life. It provides an answer to many questions we are facing: Where do we come from? Is there any sense in life? Where is my place in nature?
These are all questions we have to solve for ourselves because humans are always trying to find some deeper meaning in what they do. In my opinion creationism is a social phenomenon, a way for people to look at their own life, to choose what is important to them.
By the way: I did write supernatural being on purpose. Every single people has had their own creationist theory. I don't see why we should disregard the gods of others and creationism is not something Christianity invented.
I don't want to get into the discussion but I do want to clarify something. Darwin Never retracted his theory. However, he did said that if anything better and more logical was found where all facts and scientific studies pointed to he would be the first one to take away his own theory because that's What science is, the best possible answer we have at the moment. So if creationism is ever proved right ( I doubt it) or another theory comes alone that explains everything much better(I doubt it too) evolution would imediatly be taken away.
As to proves about evolution, well one only needs to have eyes and not be blind to see the extensive collection of fossiles, archeological sites and todays animals.
There are still gaps, and so it is still a theory, but all other evidence strongly supports it.
So I don't see how can one compare faith to scientific finds (archeology, carbon dating,ect...) and facts (fossils) or How can a single book, which has been rewrited and chanded 100's of times be compared to all the studies and research completed in the last 200 years.
Angryminer
09-12-2006, 23:20
My personal opinion on evolution:
Evolution is a term that is often misunderstood. When a dog breeder breeds dogs to have certain attributes then that's evolution. One breed of dogs evolved from a different one.
It's certainly not 'natural' evolution, but it is evolution in the direct sense of the word. Because the term evolution derives from 'to evolve'.
This 'artificial' evolution is based on natural genetical mutation in the procreation process. The breeder now artificially chooses those animals he favors because he want's his new breed of dogs to be rather big, f.e..
This genetical mutation certainly also happens outside of the breeder's kennel. It's the reason why our kids don't look exactly like we do.
Certainly, if this genetical mutation happens, then this must also have a consequence on a life-form's ability to procreate. Like with the small dog that isn't allowed to procreate by the breeder, because the breeder wants big dogs. A bird with a slightly more usable shape of it's beak to eat some specific type of grain will have a higher chance of survival and procreating, if that type of grain is available well enough (*add a few thousand other "if"s here). Surely that increase is very small, but we can give it a few million years time to matter. If this new shape is 'superior' then the tendency in following generations will be similar. Due to genetical mutations all sorts of (very slightly) changed beaks will come up and over time those birds will procreate best if their beak is optimally shaped for their type of food. Assuming that the old type of bird didn't go extinct (f.e. because their former type of food, some other grain, is still available), then we have two types of birds with different shapes of their beaks.
I don't think I violated any law of logic here, but I'm under the impression that I just concluded this so called 'theory of evolution' from the mere basis of genetical mutation in the procreation process. A type of bird changed into a different type of bird with a different beak because the availability of a specific type of grain has changed, f.e. because of climatic changes.
I can see three ways to disagree with me. One could try to claim that:
1. No, there is no genetical mutation.
2. No, earth never changed, thus there is no change in the enviromental parameters and thus no reason to start this grain-beak-chain above.
3. The above points are correct, but the conclusions I'm drawing are wrong.
Choose your weapons. :wink:
Please note how I didn't look into the creation of life itself at all. You don't need that to talk about evolution. Before discussing things we don't agree on we have to find things that we do agree on.
Angryminer
there is a big problem with Evolution.
Though I don't share the opinion of those who think that the world, and everything what is there was created by some intelligent supernatural being, I can see a big hole in the theory of genetical mutations (well but still easily described by Angryminer).
The life can change through genetical changes and conditions that are around it. But how did the life emerge?
This is a question which is very hardly answered by science, because if it really happened, it was a process which happened in unique conditions and perhaps it lasted millions of years through evolution.
I think it is a question of belief.
Could life be created by an intelligent supernatural being? believe it or not
Could life evolve from non living mass/substance? believe it or not
In my personal view this is the only question where the creationists are right that the theory of Evolution is not based on science. It is not, in this point.
There are some things on earth that could never be answered by science and it is the biggest problem of science. I hope it will never happen, but maybe once there will be no questions to answer. But it's a little offtopic
I would still like to point out one thing:
A theory in science is not what we typically call a theory in everyday life.
I don't understand why people always call it "the theory of evolution". When talking about gravity nobody says "the theory of gravity" either. In science a theory is something that is based on several facts. It can be tested, results can be predicted etc.
This does not mean that every theory is right. Theories themself develop too or can be proven wrong. However, it is not something somebody just thought up cause he though it would be a nice idea.
I just used bad expression then. I understand what you mean.
Though, yet - there is no possibility to answer a question how could the life emerge in a non living world.
It had to had very unique conditions which are hard to be reproducted.. that's the only thing.
I just say that in this point "Evolution" has no better scientific fundations that "Creationism"
but maybe I am wrong about it all
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.