Creation vs. Evolution

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


I don't particularly like this statement, as it seems to imply that religion is based on ignorance.

Your perception deceives you, lad.
I am merely stating a fact, as you cannot deny that the ancients
used the gods as an explanation why certain things happened.
Because that was all the data they had at the time.

Until we knew why a volcano erupted, we were ignorant.

And that, is a truth you cannot deny!

I didn't say anything about religion being based on ignorance, you said that.

Kindly do not put words into my mouth.

PS
I think you are just too ready for an argument, matey.
You ain't getting one from me, not on this topic.

 

[amadeus]

I'm not trying to incite an argument here...it just sounded a bit insulting to theology, because "ignorance" is usually considered an insult versus the actual lack of knowledge itself.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'm not trying to incite an argument here...it just sounded a bit insulting to theology, because "ignorance" is usually considered an insult versus the actual lack of knowledge itself.

Lack of knowledge is the very definition of ignorance.

 

[amadeus]

I stated that myself, but the term "ignorance" is frequently interpreted as an insult. I was looking for a better level of clarification.

 

[Dralix]

You could say that people who interpret "ignorance" as an insult are ignorant to the definition of ignorance ...

 

[Beam]

I see Evolution as a better and later explanation of the why-are-we-here question that mankind has as opposed to the Creation explanation. Mankind have produced many explanations of phenomena that later proved to be wrong. Take the earth as center of the universe issue. Heavily promoted by the church, it is now commonly accepted that this is not the case.

Many passages in the Bible are pretty obscure when it comes to dating issues. Who does really believe that Methusalem died at the age of 969 years? If years is replaced by months it is much more acceptable and it can be placed in the context of the way time was measured at the dawn of civilization.

The same might apply to the 7 days of Creation in Genesis (OK, 6 days of creation and 1 day to rest). Replace days by phases and most of the issues are gone.

Biggest issue for the church as an organization IMHO is that this way of reasoning takes away arguments why there is (a) god and therefore their raison d'être as a representative.

Some of my background, grown up in a strong Christian environment I became a total non-believer in any form of upperbeing at the age of 14 or so and never felth any reason to change minds after that. And I respect all believers who do more with their faith than just following the dogma's.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I stated that myself, but the term "ignorance" is frequently interpreted as an insult. I was looking for a better level of clarification.

What better clarification do you need than people thinking a god is responsible for a volcanic eruption, for example?

And now you start talking about insults?

You could start a fight in an empty house, rmsharpe.

I put it down to youthful hormones.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Dralix
You could say that people who interpret "ignorance" as an insult are ignorant to the definition of ignorance ...

Or you could say that people who have used the word "ignorance" as an insult are ignorant themselves.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Becka


Or you could say that people who have used the word "ignorance" as an insult are ignorant themselves.

OK, this is going around in circles...

The point is, no-one insulted anyone.

I think rmsharpe was unclear on what I was saying.
But I assume he gets the picture now, so let's move on.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
What better clarification do you need than people thinking a god is responsible for a volcanic eruption, for example?

A question, Curt? What if God did make a volcano erupt? What if He picked one, and snapped His fingers, or whatever He does to make a natural disaster happen, and poof, it erupted. Would a person who thought that He did it still be ignorant, or would that siesmologist scratching his head trying to figure out why that particular volcano blew its top be?

I'll grant you that vulcanologists have done some very thourough research, and that they understand the mechanics of volcanoes very well, and how lava and magma work, and all that jazz. But they're still working on being able to predict eruptions, and only a great fool would claim that they know all there is to know about it.

Anyhow, I guess what I'm saying is, if there is a God, He can do pretty much whatever He wants to. I mean, that's why we call Him God, right?

Accordingly, if there is a God, and He did create the heavens and the earth, like it says in His Word, He certainly could have created the necessary mutations in the DNA of obsolete species so they could birth their replacements, right? I mean, it's not beyond His power, is it?

So once again, Creation has God. Evolution has a god (Gaia the Pruner aka Natural Selection) AND random mutation. So if the second theory has more moving parts (IE greater complexity), why is it a better theory?

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

A question, Curt? What if God did make a volcano erupt? What if He picked one, and snapped His fingers, or whatever He does to make a natural disaster happen, and poof, it erupted. Would a person who thought that He did it still be ignorant, or would that siesmologist scratching his head trying to figure out why that particular volcano blew its top be?

Interesting, but a bit fantastic.

I think your reasoning is of the same line as;
"What if a god made my tooth fall out?"
"What if a god made my cat get run over with a truck?"
"what if a god made a tidal wave flatten my city?"
You are putting natural or explainable events in to the hands of the cosmic.
How intelliegent that is, would be up for discussion.

On earth things don't just 'happen'.
There is a law called cause and effect.

In this day and age siesmologists can gauge when a volcano is going to 'blow it's top'.
If a person thinks a god made the volcano explode when they have heard data from the siesmologist why it is occurring,
then they are in my view, not ignorant, but denying a truth in favour of something they believe.

Which is up to them.

I know what I and the greater majority believe...

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
A question, Curt? What if God did make a volcano erupt? What if He picked one, and snapped His fingers, or whatever He does to make a natural disaster happen, and poof, it erupted. Would a person who thought that He did it still be ignorant, or would that siesmologist scratching his head trying to figure out why that particular volcano blew its top be?

I'll grant you that vulcanologists have done some very thourough research, and that they understand the mechanics of volcanoes very well, and how lava and magma work, and all that jazz. But they're still working on being able to predict eruptions, and only a great fool would claim that they know all there is to know about it.

Anyhow, I guess what I'm saying is, if there is a God, He can do pretty much whatever He wants to. I mean, that's why we call Him God, right?

Accordingly, if there is a God, and He did create the heavens and the earth, like it says in His Word, He certainly could have created the necessary mutations in the DNA of obsolete species so they could birth their replacements, right? I mean, it's not beyond His power, is it?

So once again, Creation has God. Evolution has a god (Gaia the Pruner aka Natural Selection) AND random mutation. So if the second theory has more moving parts (IE greater complexity), why is it a better theory?

You can always believe there is a god behind things that happen and the way this planet and life on it has evolved. Yet there is no proof for the existence of god and him interfering with stuff here. In the mean time scientists are gaining more and more knowledge and if all that knowledge is stringed up in the end I'm sure the creation of the universe and life on earth (an maybe elsewhere) can be explained with plain logic.
But anyone who believes god did create earth and life is in my opinion free to do so, if it makes you feel better, why not? Just don't think I'll ever believe in god.....

 

[Homie]

Evolution doesn't make sense without a god. However, the theory of revolution COULD be tolerable.

If you look at pictures of how evolution is suppose to work.
E.g. a creature growing wings. You will see there are many stages
from the wingless creature to the later evolved creature with fully working wings.

Now, when I have this discussion with people I ask them
- How is it that the creature can change it's own DNA. Does it think that it would have a stronger chance of surviving and then simply alters the DNA of its offspring?
- Eh...uhm..NO, it is because of mutations.

This is the "answear" I am given. A mutation is when something goes wrong with the DNA, usually it results in death or deformation of the creature. But it can become an advantage (although not likely). Now I don't see how this could happen in stages (like in the example with the wingless creature getting wings). If it does, it seems like it is something planned, something NOT random, and if you believe this you believe there is a god interfering with life on this planet.

Because if it was just random mutations than certainly the wingless creature could have an offspring mutant with fully working wings. Why would it have stubs and then some longer stubs etc...when it is just a random mutation, and not a planned process.

So either you believe in evolution where an intelligent being (God) plays a part in modifying DNA so that life can proceed.

Or you believe in revolution where random mutation gives birth to creatures without the planned stages. (if you believe this then all the pictures they showed you in school of the creatures evolving gradually over time is wrong. And btw, if you believe this than you believe Darwin was wrong. Note: Darwin left his theory late in his life time and supported creationism. Also Einstein believed that there must have been a god (divine force he called it) for how could you else explain everything about the physic laws of the universe.)

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Homie
So either you believe in evolution where an intelligent being (God) plays a part in modifying DNA so that life can proceed.

Or you believe in revolution where random mutation gives birth to creatures without the planned stages. (if you believe this then all the pictures they showed you in school of the creatures evolving gradually over time is wrong. And btw, if you believe this than you believe Darwin was wrong. Note: Darwin left his theory late in his life time and supported creationism. Also Einstein believed that there must have been a god (divine force he called it) for how could you else explain everything about the physic laws of the universe.)

Interesting ideas...But!

I believe in my own interpretation, just like you.
You can't dictate to everyone what they should think.
People will always let their emotions rule this debate, anyway.

As I have said over 2 million times now,
The real answer is unknown to us at this time.

We are lacking in data.

But I have every confidence that our questing human minds will find out the answers in the future...

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Interesting ideas...But!

I believe in my own interpretation, just like you.
You can't dictate to everyone what they should think.
People will always let their emotions rule this debate, anyway.

As I have said over 2 million times now,
The real answer is unknown to us at this time.

We are lacking in data.

But I have every confidence that our questing human minds will find out the answers in the future...

Very true Curt!
To Homie: proving the theory of evolution is very hard as changes happen so slowly. You point out that evolution goes in steps, very untrue and I'll explain why. Evolution is studied upon fossils and if not all fossils of the proces from developing wings out of legs are being found it may seem that evolution goes in steps. In truth it doesn't but the fossils in between those steps just haven't been found.
Now mutations, an animal doesn't think oh now I will mutate. Mutations occur in cells and if a mutation occurs in a cell of which a new individual will arise this new individual will have other characteristics than the original animal. These new characteristics will become extinct when the new characteristics are disadvantageous but will become dominant when the new characteristics have more advantages than disadvantages.
Example: humans have the same ancestor as apes. Now this ancestor had hair all over the body but the vast majority of humans don't. Still there are individuals who have hair all over their body. Hving hair all over the body was an advantage hundreds of thousands of years ago when it was cold and humans didn't have houses or extensive clothes like now, individuals without hair would die of cold. Later on people started to wear clothes and live in caves and later houses and the need for hair on the body wasn't there anymore. Individuals with no hair would remain alive as body hair wasn't necessary for survival. This mutation (the no-hair mutation) was no longer a disadvantage and individuals with no hair persisted in the population. Now there is a mix between individuals with and without hair and there is no doubt in my mind that if there are still humans alive in a few hundredthousand of years almost all human will be entirely hairless.
That's the way evolution works, there is no god involved. It's just a matter of mutations that are an advantage for individuals and that will therefore persist in the population. That is what I believe in. But again everybody is free to disagree and believe in god but I'm not gonna agree with you.

 

[Homie]

civ1-addict, obviously you did not understand my post and the pure simple logic of it. What you explained in your post is just the survival of the fittest which we have all heard a million times, and some technical stuff about cells which is not really relevant.

You say that I say evolution happens in steps. I didn't say that, what I said is that we are taught that it happens in steps.

proving the theory of evolution is very hard as changes happen so slowly. You point out that evolution goes in steps, very untrue and I'll explain why. Evolution is studied upon fossils and if not all fossils of the proces from developing wings out of legs are being found it may seem that evolution goes in steps. In truth it doesn't but the fossils in between those steps just haven't been found.

Now what you said here doesn't make sense at all. You say that evolution happens slowly (many offspring between the original e.g. wingless creature to the complete winged creature). At the same time you say that it doesn't happen in steps, this is completely contradictory, it doesn't make sense.

And when you try to explain why it doesn't go in steps there is no logic at all. Let me break it down to you.

Evolution is studied upon fossils and if not all fossils of the proces from developing wings out of legs are being found it may seem that evolution goes in steps

No, then it would seem like evolution does NOT go in steps, since no links are found. Maybe this is a misprint on your account.

Now the rest of your post is the survival of the fittest theory, which does make sense. But it should not be called evolution, because as you said yourself it does not happen in steps, it is just a random mutation which has advantages and therefore survives, so it should be called revolution. But Darwin's theory suggests it happened in steps, you are disagreeing with him.

Please read my first post again, and note that I never mentioned my opinion, I just stated 2 theories: Evolution(involves God) and Revolution.

 

[Zwelgje]

English is not my native language so it's quite hard to put my thoughts on the issue into words that everybody on this forum can understand. Anyway after rereading your previous post I do think I misunderstood what you were saying there. Apperently I read too fast and drew conclusions too fast, sorry for that.

It is quite an interesting thought that through some revolution legs change into wings, however legs and wings are so different that one simple mutation won't do the trick.

The wings of birds are different in many aspects, the bones are much lighter, there is more tissue between the bones for extra surface under the wings, the feathers in stead of hair.

After all I say that in this case there are so many things that changed I don't believe it's the work of a revolution process but more evolution.
-Animals start living in trees.
-Some animals develop lighter bones as they don't have to run over the ground anymore.
-Some of those animals start developing tissue between their digits (there are even apes that have this) so that they can "float"from tree to tree.
-Some of these animals develop other types of hair that give them more surface on their limbs
-First bird like creatures are there that start flying.

However in more simple creatures (like insects, bacteria or viruses) the idea of revolution would be a very tempting one as these creatures very often only need minor changes to be a completely different individual and then can survive in an entirely different environment.

So in some cases I support you in the revolution theory in other more complicated issues I don't as I don't think that one mutation can change a complex individual into another complex individual.

 

[Homie]

It is quite an interesting thought that through some revolution legs change into wings, however legs and wings are so different that one simple mutation won't do the trick.

Yes, the chance of a leg turning into a fully working wing is quite small, that is why I believe the theory of revolution is wrong.

So you believe in the standard school-thaught evolution, which is a gradual process over time.

Some animals develop lighter bones as they don't have to run over the ground anymore

You say that the animal develops. How does this animal develop? What makes it produce offspring with a slight modification in DNA, and then the offspring of that offspring is modified a bit more.....and more.....and more....until it is a different creature able of survivng better than its ancestors. Now to me this sounds like a plan, a process, A NUMBER OF MUTATIONS WHICH ARE NOT RANDOM. So who made the mutations, God! Many people say nature made it so, are they claiming that nature is an intelligent being able of altering DNA in any creature in the world at any time, in that case they are inadvertentley saying that they believe in GOD! Do you catch my drift Friend, please consider the existence of God. God and science is not necessarily contradictory, you don't have to choose.

 

[Zwelgje]

I have already chosen Homie. I believe in science. I don't believe in the existence of god. The reason I don't believe in god is not because I have so much confidence in science. I have other reasons to not believe in god but I'm not willing to tell about them on a forum like this.

Anyway back to the mutations as it is my favourite subject, I've even made it into my job.

I was talking about mutations that taken together can result in a completely different animal. If you look again at that example of a land animal turning into a bird. The mutation of developing lighter bones will not interfere with the function of the animal living in the tree (but the animal is still not a bird) so this mutation will be kept within the population. The mutation of more tissue between digits also will not interfere with normal function so such a mutation can also be kept within the population.
Over the course of many years these accumulating mutations can form individuals withing the population that are completely different from the initial individuals.

 

[FredLC]

Agreed, Civ1-addict.

The mutations are random, and many of them, simply, are bad. those are relentless extinct by natural selection.

The mutations (tiny, close to unnoticeable) that happens to be good, will create animals with higher probability of surviving in good healthy. This will increase the probability of them reproducing, and passing those genes ahead.

As those better adapted animals grows in number, the inferior class will disappear, and the new variation becomes species standard... and the process start to repeat itself.

Sooner or later, the variations will accumulate so much that the species will be something totally different than it was when the process begun.

See, unlike some here have claimed, there's no "conscience" behind this. It's just a natural process that works based on trial and error.

If it were planned, the process would be much cleaner and free from the variations that goes wrong... specially if the one calling the shots were God, someone beyond the vulnerability of committing errors.