The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[zk655]

"I asked you some simple questions in response to your claim that a hypothetical intelligent enforcer was nothing more than speculation, as if abiogenesis had any merit. All I recieved was dodging and hedging by way of answering with non-questions".................................

First it is important for you to realize that abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a study related to the precursors of genetic material. Whether or not abiogenesis is true is irrelevant to evolution, as natural selection operates on existing genetic material, within populations. What abiogenesis has done, is shown through experimentation, that the precursors to DNA could have been produced within earth's early history. Does it mean that this was the case? NO!!!! But it has been shown through scientific experimentation that it was possible. Regardless this has little to do with the theory of natural selection in particular and evolution in general. I do not know whether or not a "hypothetical intelligent enforcer" is responsible for this "creation" but as far as natural selection is concerned, it doesn't matter.

"I percieve you have no answers. However, I ask the fundamental question once more. How is your claim (materialism) any thing other than philosophy?"...............................

Because the theory of natural selection can and has been observed through experimentation conducted within the scientific method. Intelligent design, Creation Science, Creationism, or whatever the term of the week is, has not.

 

[steen]

Why is it that materialists always feel the need to avoid and evade questions by claiming someone whom they know nothing about is ignorant.

Hmm, your statements still don't make sense. For one, what do you mean with "materialists"? Somebody who accepts the material world?

That aside, my points were very valid, so instead of evading them, could you go back and this time actually deal with them?

You did not address the issue regarding your claims of randomness or chance. You did not address the issue of your non-biological example as a demonstration against the Scientific Theory of Evolution (or, it seems, more against abiogenesis). And you completely ignored the issue of DNA in your post and how it seemed contradictory to actual science.

Now, are you going to continue evading those points, or are we going to discuss actual issues?

I asked you some simple questions in response to your claim that a hypothetical intelligent enforcer was nothing more than speculation, as if abiogenesis had any merit.

Not really, as that was not in your post; the above points were.

All I recieved was dodging and hedging by way of answering with non-questions.

[Hmm, NOW I understand your dilemma. You thought you asked something other than what was actually in your post, and therefore you didn't see my answer as relating to your non-existing question. Yes, I can see how that would be confusing for you. Sorry that I couldn't mind-read and discern what you meant rather than what was actually in your post. But I don't think you should expect me to develop mind-reading skills in the near future, so please realize that I deal with what you write, nothing else. Thanks for your consideration.

I percieve you have no answers. However, I ask the fundamental question once more. How is your claim (materialism) any thing other than philosophy?

First of all, I don't recognize the meaning of "materialism" in this context, so please elaborate and clarify. Thanks.

 

[MrFungus420]

Since when does random causes produce specified complexity?

Suppose you get up to have breakfast and the alphabet cereal has spilled on the table spelling out you name and address. What would you assume? The cat knocked it over? The fan blew on it? Of course not. Why then do you assume DNA is a product of time/chance/matter? How is that anything other than philosophy?

That is something that I would accept as a miracle. I've never had alphabet cereal in my house!

 

[nkgupta80]

Why then do you assume DNA is a product of time/chance/matter?

the same way any molecule is a product of time-chance-matter, but chance is too strong a word. As to the origin of life, this is still a debated question in science, but like all things in science, a higher power cannot be attributed as a factor. The process of evolution itself has very little if anything at all going against it.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Well, let's say that we were wiped out, or taken over by computers. Is this the next step in evolution? The evoltionary process of apes to man takes a long sucession of mutations and natural selections. In the case of man to computer, there is no mutations or natural selections, but actually an act of creation by the human brain. IMO, this doesn't fit into the evolutionary framework, actually, I think it supports the creationist theory?

There is no "evolutionary process from apes to man". Apes are one tine of a fork and humans are another. There was a common ancestor. Creationism wouldn't exist if it didn't have evolution to kvetch about.

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, let's say that we were wiped out, or taken over by computers. Is this the next step in evolution?

No, it isn't evolution in any way, shape or form. Evolution is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." (partial definition taken from thefreedictionary.com)

The evoltionary process of apes to man takes a long sucession of mutations and natural selections. In the case of man to computer, there is no mutations or natural selections, but actually an act of creation by the human brain. IMO, this doesn't fit into the evolutionary framework, actually, I think it supports the creationist theory?

You are right, it doesn't fit into the evolutionary framework. Because it isn't evolution.

But, for the sake of argument, let's look at what would happen to computers if all humans were eliminated tomorrow. The computers that were off would never do anything again. The computers that are already on would continue doing whatever they were doing at the time everyone vanished. At least until they broke down, or something happened to interrupt their power, even if it was just the power plants running out of fuel. Then the computers would be nothing more than inert lumps.

 

[steen]

No, it isn't evolution in any way, shape or form. Evolution is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." (partial definition taken from thefreedictionary.com)

ALMOST. No new species are ever needed for Evolution to have taken plase. The brief and accurate definition is that it is the changes in alleles in a population over time. Now, I like to add that it is GENERATIONAL TIME, and that it is the changes in response to environmental changes. But some will argue about that.

Otherwise, great post.

 

[clone]

i think we need to take intelligent design into consideration as well.

My opinion(i encourage you to strike it down):

God guided the creation of the universe, but he had no hand to play in it, save creating it and giving it a start. evolution and science took over from there. as for adam and eve, yes i do believe they existed, but i do not believe they were the first humans, rather they were the first intelligent humans. the story about the tree is too vague fro me, so i will not discuss it, although i do have many different theories about it myself.

 

[Snoozin]

i think we need to take intelligent design into consideration as well.

My opinion(i encourage you to strike it down):

God guided the creation of the universe, but he had no hand to play in it, save creating it and giving it a start. evolution and science took over from there. as for adam and eve, yes i do believe they existed, but i do not believe they were the first humans, rather they were the first intelligent humans. the story about the tree is too vague fro me, so i will not discuss it, although i do have many different theories about it myself.

What if evolution was God's plan all along? If you don't take the Bible literally, evolution doesn't contradict any of the story of Creation. I don't know about the Qur'an.

 

[nkgupta80]

i think we need to take intelligent design into consideration as well.

sure in philosophy class do whatver, in science it just doesnt work.... intelligent design in science is no different from saying there is a big intelligent elf somewhere in the universe creating black holes and guiding the force of gravity or some ****. Again the factor of intelligent design can never be introduced into science, and with that said, the only theory left for life is evolution.

 

[steen]

i think we need to take intelligent design into consideration as well.

But what you describe below is NOT what is known as "Intelligent Design." What you describe is some version of "Theistic Evolution."

My opinion(i encourage you to strike it down):

God guided the creation of the universe, but he had no hand to play in it, save creating it and giving it a start.

That's Theistic Evolution. There is no evidence for or against it, but it is a form of reconciling Science and Christianity.

evolution and science took over from there. as for adam and eve, yes i do believe they existed, but i do not believe they were the first humans, rather they were the first intelligent humans.

Well, if you look at it as an allegory, then you are probably not to much in disagreement with those who have studied the origin of hominids.

the story about the tree is too vague fro me, so i will not discuss it, although i do have many different theories about it myself.

Yes, the interpretations are multiple.

 

[steen]

Time for a terminology session (hopefully, that will clarify the debate):

Creation To some extend, the Biblical description of creation is a blueprint for how the current world came to be. Not necessarily in conflict with Evolution or with The Scientific Theory of Evolution depending on how much you read it as an allegory.

Literal Creation Every single word in Genesis (and the whole Bible) is accurate and specific. The Bible is essentially a science text book. 7 days is specific and accurate etc

Creationism The belief in Literal Creation. Generally argued mainly as a claim that Evolutionary Science is wrong.

Evolution The specific processes and events recorded in research regarding changes from generation to generation in a process. These are factual observations. They occured as recorded.

The Scientific Theory of Evolution The scientific explanation that best fits and accounts for how the different recorded examples of Evolution all fit together as a process.

Theistic Evolution The process of Evolution occurs, But "God" did to some extend or another start, influence or remotely/lightly guide the process.

(Editorial note: The more you see Genesis as an allegory, the more Theistic Evolution becomes convincing. In my opinion, the processes that Science later have determined as the biological and sociological development of the Hominids into the H. sapiens society of today can actually all, in hindsight been found in some allegorical interpretation written way back then, long before modern science confirmed the pattern. Yes, it is post-hoc, but still gives me a bit of pause.)

Abiogenesis The origin of live cells from non-live material. Abiogenesis is NOT evolution.

Intelligent Design Biological structures are often to complex to have evolved through the process of Evolution, and hence somebody or something must have designed them, making evolution impossible. Whether the "designer" is God, space aliens or whatnot can not be determined. Currently, there is no actual scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, it is based on "I can't believe it evolved" as the main "evidence.

 

[clone]

thanks steen.
im only a kid after all.

 

[Dezaad]

Abiogenesis is, or rather, is considered by scientists to be under the purview of evolutionary theory. It is considered by science to be the natural evolution of chemicals into life forms.

It is thought that abiogenisis is common and rapid under the right conditions. It is thought that abiogenisis may just be the way a certain set of chemicals under certain conditions behave together.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Abiogenesis is, or rather, is considered by scientists to be under the purview of evolutionary theory. It is considered by science to be the natural evolution of chemicals into life forms.

It is thought that abiogenisis is common and rapid under the right conditions. It is thought that abiogenisis may just be the way a certain set of chemicals under certain conditions behave together.

As far as I know abiogenisis has not yet been demonstrated and is simply pure speculation. Precursors to life have been found, but life itself, no. Come to think of it, there would be no way of certifying spontaneously generated life unless it were made from scratch.

 

[theheartbreakkid13]

I am not sure, I think that evolution and creation could be a mix.

A day to God is as a thousand years. Litterally, or figurtively?
Could the people back in the time fathom what one thousand was?

Alas, that is part of the argument for evolution. Darwin never said we came from an ape - but an "ape like creature". It is truely speculative, hence it is an argument.

Here is a scenerio, I have heard that women on the average are going through menopause at a much later age now than 100 years ago. Better medicine? Or, could it be that our lifetime spans are longer and naturally the womans cycles in ages have increased (evolution)? Could it just be that women just didn't live that long back in the day?

"Ape Like Creature", huh? Well, let me see apes walk slouched, right? well then it would be nearly impossible for us to create the Pyramids wouldn't it? and God created us in his own image, now I am pretty sure God doesn't look like an orangutan.

 

[nkgupta80]

that was 3000 years ago, we had already evolved into human beings, we were ape-like creatures millioins of years ago...

 

[steen]

"Ape Like Creature", huh? Well, let me see apes walk slouched, right? well then it would be nearly impossible for us to create the Pyramids wouldn't it?

That is a very odd claim. Apart from the current apes incl. the orangutangs not being around particularly at the time of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, I haven't seen anybody claiming that the pyramids were built by them, 6-7 mill years ago either. So could you please explain, as your remark frankly doesn't make sense.

 

[MrFungus420]

"Ape Like Creature", huh? Well, let me see apes walk slouched, right? well then it would be nearly impossible for us to create the Pyramids wouldn't it? and God created us in his own image, now I am pretty sure God doesn't look like an orangutan.

Well, let's see. Homo sapiens sapiens came into being as a species about 130,000 years ago, and the pyramids were built aobut 5000 years ago (the Pyramid of Khufu was estimated as being built about 3200bce).

I would ask if you had any more nonsensical questions or statements, but I'm sure you do.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

"Ape Like Creature", huh? Well, let me see apes walk slouched, right? well then it would be nearly impossible for us to create the Pyramids wouldn't it? and God created us in his own image, now I am pretty sure God doesn't look like an orangutan.

You should get your time line straightened out a bit. The "ape-like" creature would have lived a million or so years before the pyramids were ever built.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I am not doubting evolution at all, but, like I said earlier, I believe another intelligence initiated it.

So you do beleive thers a God of somesort. Yes He initiated it alright. "Let there be light." And it was there. :lol: :2wave:

 

[SKILMATIC]

Again I think both should be taught in schools. Thats the only fair way to do it. Let the students decide.

 

[MrFungus420]

Again I think both should be taught in schools. Thats the only fair way to do it. Let the students decide.

What would be the basis for teaching crationism in public school? It's not a theory, there is no evidence to back it up, it is just a religious teaching.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Again as I have said this before. You teach kids all religions and theories. This way they can decide for themselves which one is more applicable to them. Theres plenty o evidnce to back up creationism vice evolutionism. One, the population rate even if it was doubled every thousand yrs the population would be enormous that this earth would be crawling with peopel and animals. Where would we stick all the bodies or ashes? We would casue global warming by burning all the bodies tryung to consolodate room on this earth. :lol:

Also where are the transitional fossils? Man started as a fish right? Well wheres the human fish heads? Yeah evolution is supported real well. You forget that is just a theory too.

 

[kal-el]

So you do beleive thers a God of somesort. Yes He initiated it alright. "Let there be light." And it was there. :lol: :2wave:

Correct, I believe in a higher power, a supreme being, but not a "supernatural" one.