The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Shadylookin]

for those christians who pick which parts of the bible they like and only listen to those parts there are still plenty of bible literalists out there who still believe in 7 days literal creation.

My first arguement for evolution is credibility(a credibule source has always been the key to argument here at cfc and I think that carries over in real life) So lets look at the bible. The book of genesis's author is not known, it is believed to have been Moses. Now I don't know if any of you have read some of Moses antics in his supposedly self written book but he is a murderer. Now I have a choice of which is more credible well respected scientists who are using up to date technology and has evidence to back it up, or do I trust a book with no known author and the supposed one was a murderer using no techology and lying solely on hearsay whose source is a deity that is not proven. As for the proof of evolution it is highly observable(well micro-evolution which after many micro-evolutions will give you full blown different spieces) just take a look at humans. Now homo sapiens sapiens probably originated in the middle east or africa, and it was probably just a small group at first that continued to grown and spread. Now after around 30,000 years we have different races of people(white, black, asian, middle eastern, and so forth) Now there is no possible way that the first group of humans were all of those races therefore there had to be some kind of evolution that made them do that. As for the other evidences I think they have been taken care of.

 

[Perfection]

First I'm believe in creation but trying to put all evolutionists and creationist is a black and white groups won't work. I don't trust and believe everything a creationists say yet I find myself agreeing and learning from evolutionists also. This wrong to say just because someone believes in creation that person is againest science or is ignorant of science since I like the subject myself. In the end I have different interpretion of the evidense just like christians interpretion the scriptures differently. I watch programs on TV and read books & articles that it very obvious these scientist gives the credit to Evolution while I look at the same evidense and Praise My God and amazed at His wonderful creation. I know my interpretion of the Bible and science can be wrong (even though I feel very strongly about my views) since I'm not perfect nor have perfect knowledge and wisdom.

The personal liking or affinity to a sbject does not give scientific credibility to their claims. If you recognize that creationism (in an antievolutionary stance) exists than you are placing religion over science, that doesn't make you inherently incorrect, but it does make your claim non-scientific. What irritates me is not those who do not believe evolution occurs but those who allege evolution is nonscientific or "bad science".

 

[Smidlee]

I don't see why it's so foolish to question evolution (man came from a ape ancestor) when those who spends their whole life in the field even question it.

here a quote from Richard Leakey in 1990 :
"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."

Of course this is one scientist opinion but yet maybe being a creationist isn't so foolish as many is let to believe.

 

[cgannon64]

I still like the "The world was created a moment ago and all of human history and memory is a myth we subconciously created to explain why we are where we are" theory.

 

[Perfection]

I don't see why it's so foolish to question evolution (man came from a ape ancestor) when those who spends their whole life in the field even question it.

Woah woah, let's back up the train. First off I never said it wasn't foolish to question it. I'm peeved by those who are ignorant to it dismissing it as unsubstantiatied because they haven't heard the evidence or when they screw up the concepts behind evolution or the scientific method. I'm also slightly irked by your parentetical definition of evolution as "man came from a ape ancestor" because that is but a crumb of evolution! It's like calling physics "the study of lasers".

here a quote from Richard Leakey in 1990 :
"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."

Of course this is one scientist opinion but yet maybe being a creationist isn't so foolish as many is let to believe.

Oh please, let's not misquote evolutionists. Leakey was not expressing doubts about the evolution of man, He was expressing doubts on how it evolved not weather it ivolved. This is during the time when evolutionists realised that instead of a gradualistic decent of man there were numerous hominid species coming in and out of existance much more in accordance to Gould-Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium. It is also where they discover that there were lots of dead ends down the path to man. Lucy was one such dead end. Current work in the field of human evolution is allowing us to get a better view of human evolution, the doubt was not on weather humans evolved but how!

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Until you can physically observe evolution over millions of years, it cannot be proven, period. Any evidence you can find on the Earth right now is merely circumstantial.

 

[Perfection]

Until you can physically observe evolution over millions of years, it cannot be proven, period. Any evidence you can find on the Earth right now is merely circumstantial.

This is simply wrong.

1. Science can't "prove" anything. It only provides evidence that support or detract from the validity of a scientific hypothesis. Remember even though Newton's theories worked flawlessly in observation, it was later shown to be incomplete!
2. Direct observation is not a requirement of science, one cannot physically observe nuetrinos but we can detect their presence by the impact they have on other things, providing a means for observation. Same with evolution we can indirectly observe it by its effects!
3. Small scale evolution has been directly observed
4. Consider this when someone is killed and a guy has hid fingerprints all over the knife. His DNA from blood on the victim and a big scar that matches that of the knife. Even though there was noeyewitnesses your not going to dismiss the case as it wasn't directly observed!

 

[Mise]

1. Science can't "prove" anything. It only provides evidence that support or detract from the validity of a scientific hypothesis. Remember even though Newton's theories worked flawlessly in observation, it was later shown to be incomplete!

Science proves a lot of things. F does equal mass times the second differential of displacement wrt time. That's never ever wrong ever. The Earth DOES revolve around the sun. It can be explained through Newtonian mechanics. The reason why gravity exists is another question, which, again, will be proven. Just because some of Newton's implications were false doesn't mean some of them aren't fact.

2. Direct observation is not a requirement of science, one cannot physically observe nuetrinos but we can detect their presence by the impact they have on other things, providing a means for observation. Same with evolution we can indirectly observe it by its effects!

Measurements of momenta before and after collision IS a direct observation. The theory of evolution explains changes in the past. Observation tests those explanations for future events. Admittedly, the discovery of transitional species is a prediction that has come true. But until it is possible to predict what will happen in a laboratory test (if one can be constructed for macroevolution), I don't think creationism can ever be dismissed.

3. Small scale evolution has been directly observed

There are some things about macro- evolution that micro- can't explain.

Your fourth point was trivial.

(incidentally, I may well have slept through 8th grade science class, but that doesn't seem to hamper my ability to study Physics at university)

 

[carlosMM]

Science proves a lot of things. F does equal mass times the second differential of displacement wrt time. That's never ever wrong ever. The Earth DOES revolve around the sun. It can be explained through Newtonian mechanics. The reason why gravity exists is another question, which, again, will be proven. Just because some of Newton's implications were false doesn't mean some of them aren't fact.

wrong! none of these is proven! But if you personally define 'beyond all reasonable doubt' = 'proof', then evolution is also proven!

Measurements of momenta before and after collision IS a direct observation. The theory of evolution explains changes in the past. Observation tests those explanations for future events. Admittedly, the discovery of transitional species is a prediction that has come true. But until it is possible to predict what will happen in a laboratory test (if one can be constructed for macroevolution), I don't think creationism can ever be dismissed.

and all the other predictions have also been found to be correct - and this is ALSO true for lab tests. Especially population dynamics of predator-prey ratios leading to spceialization of both have found to work as expected in insects.
so what is your point?

There are some things about macro- evolution that micro- can't explain.

care to name them?

 

[CurtSibling]

Creationism, as in a God working through evolution, or taking the Bible literally.

If the latter: No one here beleives it, so why argue against it?

Don't be so sure - There are plenty of folk who cannot see
past the metaphors and think all the bible texts are 100% real.

Actually, there are people who think movies like U-571 are real!

Is there any hope for this species called humankind?

 

[Smidlee]

Woah woah, let's back up the train. First off I never said it wasn't foolish to question it. I'm peeved by those who are ignorant to it dismissing it as unsubstantiatied because they haven't heard the evidence or when they screw up the concepts behind evolution or the scientific method. I'm also slightly irked by your parentetical definition of evolution as "man came from a ape ancestor" because that is but a crumb of evolution! It's like calling physics "the study of lasers".

I referred to evolution as "man came from an ape ancestor" so you won't misunderstand which part of evolution I'm talking about.Ex: I know natural selection works but it seems to me that natural selection alone is very limited. Just because i disagree with TOE doesn't mean I disagree with everything they say or that I couldn't learn something from evolutionists

Oh please, let's not misquote evolutionists. Leakey was not expressing doubts about the evolution of man, He was expressing doubts on how it evolved not weather it ivolved. This is during the time when evolutionists realised that instead of a gradualistic decent of man there were numerous hominid species coming in and out of existance much more in accordance to Gould-Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium. It is also where they discover that there were lots of dead ends down the path to man. Lucy was one such dead end. Current work in the field of human evolution is allowing us to get a better view of human evolution, the doubt was not on weather humans evolved but how!

I haven't misquote Leakey which he said this at the end of his life on PBS. He was really questioning some of his own work. so Leakey was referring to the evidence not that he stop believing in evolution. ( I fail to see how Leakey quote could be interpreted any other way)

Mark leakey also still believe that man came from an ape ancestor yet had doubt on the evidence at the end of her life. I never implied that either of these ever became creationists since as far as I know both died as evolutionists.

 

[carlosMM]

I referred to evolution as "man came from an ape ancestor" so you won't misunderstand which part of evolution I'm talking about.Ex: I know natural selection works but it seems to me that natural selection alone is very limited. Just because i disagree with TOE doesn't mean I disagree with everything they say or that I couldn't learn something from evolutionists

Smidlee, I am always quite surprised by how easily you use logic and reason - then throw them out the window at some random point of the argument!

WHY should natural selection be so limited as you say?

basically - why do you DENY that an apelike ancestor has developed inot man? If the processes involve3d ar ethe only one that make sense and also are known to work - why do you want to invoke something supernatural?

I haven't misquote Leakey which he said this at the end of his life on PBS. He was really questioning some of his own work. so Leakey was referring to the evidence not that he stop believing in evolution. ( I fail to see how Leakey quote could be interpreted any other way)

Indeed he was questioning some of his early hypotheses - they were quite far from the mark! That is usually the case with first tries at explaining complex processes based on very little data! but in no means does he question the ape-like ancestors of man (who happen at the smae time to be the ancestors of modern apes).

Mark leakey also still believe that man came from an ape ancestor yet had doubt on the evidence at the end of her life. I never implied that either of these ever became creationists since as far as I know both died as evolutionists.[/QUOTE]

 

[test_specimen]

There is no possible way you could convince a Creationist of Evolution, because whenever you have a valid argument he plays the god card and you're where you started.

It's like a schoolkid explaining a mathematic equation with "this is where magic happens and that's the result"; you can't really disprove that the part in the middle isn't actually magic if the person believes in it.

If someone wants to believe, that the world was created by a super-saiyajin and his five voluptuous nymphos - let him live the dream. What harm does it do to believe in fairy tales?

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee, I am always quite surprised by how easily you use logic and reason - then throw them out the window at some random point of the argument!

WHY should natural selection be so limited as you say?

basically - why do you DENY that an apelike ancestor has developed inot man? If the processes involve3d ar ethe only one that make sense and also are known to work - why do you want to invoke something supernatural?

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject but from what I know and read even evolutionists are starting to see the limits of natural selection. So I haven't thrown reason and logic out the window.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Science proves a lot of things. F does equal mass times the second differential of displacement wrt time. That's never ever wrong ever. The Earth DOES revolve around the sun. It can be explained through Newtonian mechanics. The reason why gravity exists is another question, which, again, will be proven. Just because some of Newton's implications were false doesn't mean some of them aren't fact.

That F=ma is, however, one of the bits of Newtonian mechanics that is demonstrably wrong. It's an approximation that works well in certain circumstances, but it is not how the universe actually works.

 

[carlosMM]

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject but from what I know and read even evolutionists are starting to see the limits of natural selection. So I haven't thrown reason and logic out the window.

hu?

I'd like to see some sources for that claim! I know a LOT of researchers in the fields of molecular genetics, paleontology, ecology and biosystem interactions - they all agree natural selection is THE biggest factor in speciation.

 

[Mise]

That F=ma is, however, one of the bits of Newtonian mechanics that is demonstrably wrong. It's an approximation that works well in certain circumstances, but it is not how the universe actually works.

When is F=ma wrong?

 

[The Last Conformist]

When is F=ma wrong?

In a variety of circumstances, including when velocities are non-zero.

 

[Falcon02]

I'm not gonna argue Creationism vs. Evolutionism (kinda been all argued out over the years).

However, I will touch on the whole "theory of Gravity" thing. And before I continue.... I wish I knew how to get sub-, superscripts on this thing


Anyway, the reason the "Theory of Gravity" is concidered a theory isn't because there's that tiny question "does gravity actually exist" but more so the accuracy of the equation.

Fg = G*m1*m2/(r^2)

G - of course being the Universal Gravitational Constant of 6.673 X 10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2

the acceleration due to gravity does not equal 9.81 m/s^2 or 32.2 ft/s^2 unless you're
a.) not earth itself
b.) on earth
c.) at sea-lvl

We also do not know if our understanding of gravity due to that equation is 100% accurate for all situations. Does gravity work exactly the same for antimatter? Is there a missing element to the equation which has not significantly effected our operations thus far?


on to F=ma...

F=ma is an approximation, it is not 100% exact, and only works at relativistically low speeds (ie. before Einstienian Physics are neccisary). I wouldn't go so far to say it's wrong "when velocities are non-zero." But the faster you go the less accurate its approximation is.

Relativistically
F = ma*γ^3
γ (gamma) = (1- (v^2)/(c^2))^-1/2

In the Non-Relativistic range gamma is not required at all, however once you reach relativistic speeds it's required, and once again it is still just an approximation it is not 100% accurate and we do not know it with 100% certainty. Though, pratically all you think you KNOW about physics is altered by gamma once you reach the relativistic range.


Even E=mc^2 ain't the whole picture. That m = γ*(Mo), where Mo = rest mass. Also written another way (keeping the mass the rest mass in the equation) there is another portion which varies by momentum, not mass (light has momentum not mass).

E = sqrt(p^2*c^2+Mo^2*c^4)

Also, Both Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics fall apart on the atomic scale, else electrons would spiral into protons. This is what created Quantum Physics.

In the end my Physics Professor said this to my college Physics III lecture
"There are only two 'TRUE' laws in physics, the Uncertainty Principle and the second law of thermodynamics."
Everything else is still up for scrutiny and is only "so" accurate.

 

[Mise]

Also, Both Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics fall apart on the atomic scale, else electrons would spiral into protons. This is what created Quantum Physics.

Quantum Physics merely places limits on the seemingly infinite number of E and L the electron can have. Once in an energy level, F=ma still applies. Really, Quantum physics dispels Electromagnetism, rather than Newton's laws.

Relativistically
F = ma*γ^3

The gamma factor, in my view, is just there for relativistic book-keeping, like centrifugal/inertial forces when dealing with non-inertial reference frames. Indeed, I originally said that F = m * (the second differential of displacement wrt time). At relativistic speeds, the lorentz factor takes care of this, and hence, the 'a' term you mention is not really the acceleration Newton was talking about.