login
Evolution and Creationism (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-10-12 3:25 PM in reply to: #3148003 |
Champion  18680       Lost in the Luminiferous Aether |  Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationismscoobysdad - 2010-10-12 4:13 PM Evolution is hardly a well-proven "fact". Scientists can still not remotely explain the "divine spark" (i.e. the HUGE jump from inanimate chemicals and elements to animate life.) That said, I have no problem buying that constant, ongoing evolution is part of a Divine Creator's plan. Actually this is no wholly accurate. Additionally your large leap from inanimate chemicals to animate life leaves out things that you would not consider to be animate life but are well organized and replicate themselves so are considered by some definitions life, think viruses. Think also of the symbotic relationship that has now become an essential part of human life, your mitochondria. These are just some of the stepping stones in your hugh leap, however you are correct that we do not have all the steps yet. |
| 2010-10-12 3:28 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused primordial life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. ETA: now if you were to say are evolution and "Young-Earth Creationism" mutually exclusive then yes, I would agree. Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-12 3:31 PM |
| 2010-10-12 3:30 PM in reply to: #3147953 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true. Sorry friend, but it is a Scientific Theory, just like the theory of gravity. It is a theory in the scientific sense. Not a fact. |
| 2010-10-12 3:31 PM in reply to: #3148025 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:28 PM It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. Except that accident asteroid etc are all natural phenomena that have been proven to exist, ok not aliens. Creationism relys on a highly suspect supernatural phenomena whose existance can never be proven or disproven. |
| 2010-10-12 3:32 PM in reply to: #3147975 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism meherczeg - 2010-10-12 1:06 PM Goosedog - 2010-10-12 4:05 PM AcesFull - 2010-10-12 3:59 PM Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. I am not much of a creationist and certainly NOT a scientist, but I have a hard time agreeing with this statement unless it's followed by a qualifier such as "based on current information available." I would assume, but can't name, that there have been plenty of "well-proven facts" that later were shown to be incorrect. Pluto? His cartoons were the best... |
| 2010-10-12 3:33 PM in reply to: #3148038 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism trinnas - 2010-10-12 4:31 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:28 PM It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. Except that accident asteroid etc are all natural phenomena that have been proven to exist, ok not aliens. Creationism relys on a highly suspect supernatural phenomena whose existance can never be proven or disproven. But we are not arguing if creationism is factual or not. We are arguing if can the two theories co-exist. And I think I've laid out how they can. |
| 2010-10-12 3:34 PM in reply to: #3148040 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism "From goo to you". That's what I say... |
| 2010-10-12 3:37 PM in reply to: #3148046 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 3:33 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 4:31 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:28 PM It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. Except that accident asteroid etc are all natural phenomena that have been proven to exist, ok not aliens. Creationism relys on a highly suspect supernatural phenomena whose existance can never be proven or disproven. But we are not arguing if creationism is factual or not. We are arguing if can the two theories co-exist. And I think I've laid out how they can. You keep using Theory to talk about creationism when it is NOT a theory. At least not a Scientific Theory. Therefore, one is a belief and one is scientific theory. And to me, that means that they are mutually exclusive. Edited by crowny2 2010-10-12 3:43 PM |
| 2010-10-12 3:41 PM in reply to: #3147947 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Prince of Denmar - 2010-10-11 3:57 PM hmmmm. Are Evolution and Creationism mutually exclusive? yes they are. Only through the very narrow description of "Creationism" as: God created the world exactly as described in the Bible. for "Creationism" defined as: God create the world, somehow...... they are not. |
| 2010-10-12 3:46 PM in reply to: #3148046 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 2:33 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 4:31 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:28 PM It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. Except that accident asteroid etc are all natural phenomena that have been proven to exist, ok not aliens. Creationism relys on a highly suspect supernatural phenomena whose existance can never be proven or disproven. But we are not arguing if creationism is factual or not. We are arguing if can the two theories co-exist. And I think I've laid out how they can. I think it depends on your definition of creationism. If one defines creationism as the spontaneous creation of the world 8,000 years ago with everything essentially as we see it now, then yes, I'd say they are mutually exclusive. If creationism is God providing the divine "spark" that began life from say the single cell level (as opposed to life forming naturally from the combination of amino acids, etc), then no, I don't think they are mutually exclusive, no reason evolution can't work in that framework, how it started doesn't matter so much. |
| 2010-10-12 3:49 PM in reply to: #3148057 |
Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism crowny2 - 2010-10-12 4:37 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 3:33 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 4:31 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:28 PM It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. Except that accident asteroid etc are all natural phenomena that have been proven to exist, ok not aliens. Creationism relys on a highly suspect supernatural phenomena whose existance can never be proven or disproven. But we are not arguing if creationism is factual or not. We are arguing if can the two theories co-exist. And I think I've laid out how they can. You keep using Theory to talk about creationism when it is NOT a theory. At least not a Scientific Theory. Therefore, one is a belief and one is scientific theory. And to me, that means that they are mutually exclusive. No, I used theory once in my last post. Actually said "theories" to describe them both. Furthermore the word theory is perfectly acceptable to describe evolution. theory - n- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena But I'll rephrase. Is the theory of evolution and the belief in creationism mutually exclusive. No. As I've shown before. Show me 100% proof that life was NOT created by a higher power and I'll agree with you. Otherwise there is not logical reason why both cannot be true. |
| 2010-10-12 3:54 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
| Mountain View, CA | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism I think that one thing that's muddying the waters here is the (lack of) distinction between evolution and the origin of life (whatever it might be). I don't think it's impossible to believe that some divine force created the universe, and that evolution took over once the basic building blocks were there. I don't believe in such a divine force, and I think you'd have to be pretty careful in your creation story in order to account for what we think we know (about the age of the planet, how life seems to have evolved), but I think you could do it. (Of course, there are also people who believe that humans were plopped onto the planet looking as we do now, as were all the other animals. I think that belief is pretty obviously at odds with what the archaeological record indicates.) The question of how life began in the first place is distinct from whether or not species evolve with time. I have no problem believing that it arose spontaneously from the muck and sludge in some primitive form and, with a lot of time (a LOT of time), gradually evolved into bacteria and eventually multicellular organisms, etc. Science is, to put it mildly, pretty awesome like that. But I don't think you have to believe in that kind of a beginning in order to believe that life can evolve into different forms. So anyway, I think the question is sort of two-tiered: 1) Do you believe that the world was created as it is now, according to the Bible or whatever other holy book contains your creation story of choice? 2a) If so, do you also believe in evolution? 2b) If not, do you believe that the basic building blocks from which life on this planet evolved arose spontaneously, or were they created by some outside force? (To be clear, by "outside force" I mean some sort of divine/supernatural force, not a meteor.) |
| 2010-10-12 4:05 PM in reply to: #3148097 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism puellasolis - 1) Do you believe that the world was created as it is now, according to the Bible or whatever other holy book contains your creation story of choice? The creation story was never meant to be taken literally. At the same time, it is a myth in its deepest sense. A myth is truer than mere facts could explain. A myth is analogous to a poem. So in that sense, the creation story in Genesis is true. 2a) If so, do you also believe in evolution? Sure.
2b) If not, do you believe that the basic building blocks from which life on this planet evolved arose spontaneously, or were they created by some outside force? (To be clear, by "outside force" I mean some sort of divine/supernatural force, not a meteor.) As usual, I look at this through the lens of the teachings of the Church. At the same time to be clear, the Church teaches that we are not here by accident, As far as I know, there is nothing in the science of evolution that proves otherwise. This is a God who neither wound up a clock and then let it run willy nilly,
Edited by dontracy 2010-10-12 4:19 PM |
| 2010-10-12 4:11 PM in reply to: #3148084 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 3:49 PM crowny2 - 2010-10-12 4:37 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 3:33 PM trinnas - 2010-10-12 4:31 PM TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 4:28 PM It's fairly obvious that if you do not believe in creationism you will say that it and evolution are mutually exclusive. But I ask the question, what caused life to form on this planet? There can be multiple answers (accident, asteroid, aliens) but is not one of them that a higher power created it? Of course. It's as acceptable as the others as far as we know right now. So in this case, evolution and creationism are NOT mutually exclusive. Except that accident asteroid etc are all natural phenomena that have been proven to exist, ok not aliens. Creationism relys on a highly suspect supernatural phenomena whose existance can never be proven or disproven. But we are not arguing if creationism is factual or not. We are arguing if can the two theories co-exist. And I think I've laid out how they can. You keep using Theory to talk about creationism when it is NOT a theory. At least not a Scientific Theory. Therefore, one is a belief and one is scientific theory. And to me, that means that they are mutually exclusive. No, I used theory once in my last post. Actually said "theories" to describe them both. Furthermore the word theory is perfectly acceptable to describe evolution. theory - n- a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena But I'll rephrase. Is the theory of evolution and the belief in creationism mutually exclusive. No. As I've shown before. Show me 100% proof that life was NOT created by a higher power and I'll agree with you. Otherwise there is not logical reason why both cannot be true. Then you will never be satisfied because there is no such thing as 100% proof. NOTHING is 100%. |
| 2010-10-12 4:33 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Regular 525 | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism I think dontracy did an excellent job of describing my thoughts. Thank you. |
| 2010-10-12 4:34 PM in reply to: #3148183 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism I have to pee right now. I know that, 100%... |
| 2010-10-12 4:41 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Extreme Veteran 3177 | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism Whenever this debate popped up at college I always would ask one question: How long were the first 6 days of creation in the bible? The literal creationists would answer: 6 days of 24 hours just like they are now. The not so literal creationists would answer: 6 days of some number of hours. The evolution people would answer: 6 days? My point was always this, when talking to them: God (I am a Lutheran/Christian so that is my perspective and basis) is all powerful and all knowing. To him "a day" could 3 billion years or 3 seconds. It doesn't make a difference to him. Days was simply the vernacular the author of Genesis used to set a more "human time frame" of their divenly inspired information/visions. So to me God created everything. Maybe the creation of the stars and the sun took 2 billion years, creating the earth another half billion, and then several billion more for him to set the course for the development of multicellular life as we know it today including the evolution of Humans from our simian past to our current set. To me Creation as a Belief exists quite nicely with Evolution as a scientific Theory. However in the teaching of Creationism in schools is another matter. To me schools are for teaching "facts" (or research supported scientific theories") as well as critical thinking. It is not for teaching a belief system whether political, idealogical, or religious. That should be left to a students general family/community (church, friends, and whatever else might constitute someones community in this day and age). |
| 2010-10-12 4:50 PM in reply to: #3147953 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true. Evolution is Theory. the problem is that people who are not scientists do not understand the scientific meaning of a theory. They hear theory and think "Oh, it's just an idea, not something backed up with fact and evidence." Water boiling at 100 degrees c is an observable fact. In science, we distinguish between observable facts and theories which are generally excepted correlations of facts. As our life span is so short, we can not observe Evolution 1st had. As such we have to examine the facts that we can observe (like to fossil record, isolated populations, ect...) and the resulting correlation is the Theory of Evolution. Because creationists don't want to believe in evolution they use their ignorance of proper scientific process and use it for propaganda. There is always a chance that a theory could be disproven, but it needs to be disproven by observation of facts, not by irrational people with an agenda claiming the word "theory" means it's just a guess. Check out http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.htmlfor a better explanation. -- To answer the OP, I believe that Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. Their are plenty of people who beleive in evolution and also god, but I don't know that those people can be included in the Creationist group. Isn't there a different group that believes God was the spark for the big bang? I think there was a term for them that was different then Creationists. I.D. has no place in science class whatsoever. Edited by graceful_dave 2010-10-12 4:50 PM |
| 2010-10-12 4:55 PM in reply to: #3148203 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism bel83 - 2010-10-12 4:41 PM My point was always this, when talking to them: God (I am a Lutheran/Christian so that is my perspective and basis) is all powerful and all knowing. To him "a day" could 3 billion years or 3 seconds. It doesn't make a difference to him. Days was simply the vernacular the author of Genesis used to set a more "human time frame" of their divenly inspired information/visions. So to me God created everything. Maybe the creation of the stars and the sun took 2 billion years, creating the earth another half billion, and then several billion more for him to set the course for the development of multicellular life as we know it today including the evolution of Humans from our simian past to our current set. To me Creation as a Belief exists quite nicely with Evolution as a scientific Theory. However in the teaching of Creationism in schools is another matter. To me schools are for teaching "facts" (or research supported scientific theories") as well as critical thinking. It is not for teaching a belief system whether political, idealogical, or religious. That should be left to a students general family/community (church, friends, and whatever else might constitute someones community in this day and age). If more people were like you, the world would be a better place for everyone (religious and non-religious alike) This is a view that I can accept as a part time agnostic, part time atheist. And honestly, it's this argument that keeps the agnostic part in that equation. |
| 2010-10-12 5:01 PM in reply to: #3148203 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism bel83 - Whenever this debate popped up at college I always would ask one question: How long were the first 6 days of creation in the bible? The literal creationists would answer: 6 days of 24 hours just like they are now. The not so literal creationists would answer: 6 days of some number of hours. The evolution people would answer: 6 days? Another way to read it is that the writers of Genesis were conveying There is a clear liturgical rhythm to Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis. This is a lesson in how to live a liturgically oriented life, Living liturgically is part of human nature.
Edited by dontracy 2010-10-12 5:03 PM |
)| 2010-10-12 6:07 PM in reply to: #3148203 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism bel83 - 2010-10-12 5:41 PM Whenever this debate popped up at college I always would ask one question: How long were the first 6 days of creation in the bible? The literal creationists would answer: 6 days of 24 hours just like they are now. The not so literal creationists would answer: 6 days of some number of hours. The evolution people would answer: 6 days? My point was always this, when talking to them: God (I am a Lutheran/Christian so that is my perspective and basis) is all powerful and all knowing. To him "a day" could 3 billion years or 3 seconds. It doesn't make a difference to him. Days was simply the vernacular the author of Genesis used to set a more "human time frame" of their divenly inspired information/visions. So to me God created everything. Maybe the creation of the stars and the sun took 2 billion years, creating the earth another half billion, and then several billion more for him to set the course for the development of multicellular life as we know it today including the evolution of Humans from our simian past to our current set. To me Creation as a Belief exists quite nicely with Evolution as a scientific Theory. However in the teaching of Creationism in schools is another matter. To me schools are for teaching "facts" (or research supported scientific theories") as well as critical thinking. It is not for teaching a belief system whether political, idealogical, or religious. That should be left to a students general family/community (church, friends, and whatever else might constitute someones community in this day and age). You are talking about a creation myth made by a bronze-age society. The earth was still considered flat and the center of the universe. There was not even a precurser to anything we currently would recognize as a scientific method. I am currently reading Hawking's new book, and the chapter where he talks about the greek development of science (which was closely merged with philosophy) is fascinating. Even more to the point, though, is that when the greeks represented higher standards of scientific inquiry, it caused a tremendous division with the jewish world. "Hellenistic" jews were in ascendancy. The whole story behind the Macabees (the Chanukkah warriors) was essentially a civil war between more secular jews who were following greek trends, and the more orthodox religious groups (who eventually won). My point is that I find it VERY hard to believe that a religiously conservative people would have been using this kind of mental gymnastics. To them, a day was a day. A cycle of sunrise and sunset, not some span of eons or millenia. If you chose to read the bible as some sort of secret coded message to modern humans, that a day was meant metaphorically, then why do you assume that YOU are the humans it is meant for? OTOH, to read the bible as a history of a society - their creation stories, their kings and trials as a people, how they devised a system of governence, and a collection of the poems and literature they accumulated, followed by a few versions of what people remembered about a specific guy that had a really bad time with the Romans, have at it. Like any other great literature, it collects a human experience and holds up universal truths about humans. |
| 2010-10-12 6:16 PM in reply to: #3148034 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism crowny2 - 2010-10-12 4:30 PM AcesFull - 2010-10-12 2:59 PM The problem here is with the premise. Evolution is NOT a theory. It is well-proven fact. Referring to evolution as "theory" would be like referring to the "theory" of water boiling at 100C. The primary problem with Creationism being taught is that it is inherently anti-scientific, in that it starts with truth, and works backward to find "proof" of this "truth." Science operates in the opposite manner. It starts with not knowing and seeks, wherever possible, to disprove what is believed to be true. Sorry friend, but it is a Scientific Theory, just like the theory of gravity. It is a theory in the scientific sense. Not a fact. This is indeed a better example. The water boiling at 100 celsius is just a way of defining a measurement. But whenever I let go of something, it always goes to the ground. The theory of gravity is a theory to explain why this happens repeatedly. Maybe the earth just sucks, and that's why things go there. Maybe there is some sort of sympathetic attraction to the materials of the object to their sources in the ground. Maybe the object is just lazy, and seeks to rest on the ground. Hence, when you drop an object from a great height, it falls faster and faster, in excited anticipation of getting to rest. Sort of like when you are coming home from a big trip, and drive faster when you get closer to home, so you can finally lay down and take a nap. As for the predictive value of evolutionary theories, people saying "why don't monkeys turn into people now?" or "unless we can make something evolve, it isn't shown", these sorts of comments reflect the scientific illiteracy that plagues us. Evolution is a very slow process. I can't see the mountain grow, but it still does. Part of the predictive value is in anticipating how another fossil might fill in a gap between species. I used to know a lot more about the details, but like a lot of things that at one time were useful knowledge (calculus, anyone?), I have let a lot leave my brain. Partly because I know that whatever I may say, I will not really change anyone's mind that is made up about evolution, especially for religious reasons. |
| 2010-10-12 6:27 PM in reply to: #3148329 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism gearboy - followed by a few versions of what people remembered about a specific guy that had a really bad time with the Romans, have at it... whose followers then bridged the divide between faith and reason, between Jew and Greek. |
| 2010-10-12 6:29 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Expert 1146 Johns Creek, Georgia | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism From all this I have to re evaluate what I thought of BT'ers. Basically they are much more intelligent than I gave credit. I will have to brush up on my engineering, philosophy, and sientific skill set at some point tonight and come back to this thread. In the mean time I need to do about 4 miles tonight. But I have something to think about during my run. So my 4 miles and ~ 38 minutes may actually be really really slow or really really fast in some aspect of time. To make matters more interesting Im going to ask my 7 y/o son how he sees the Universe and how he thinks it was created. A simple anwser may be the most reasonable. But it's only a theory. |
| 2010-10-12 6:39 PM in reply to: #3147876 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism To the original question: 1. Absolutely not. No person on Earth can tell you a God or Gods didn't set the Universe in motion some 13 1/2 billion years ago. God and evolution can co-exist. Evolution is real. 2. Save the ridiculously named "Intelligent Design" nonsense for philosophy class. It has no place whatsoever in a science classroom. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK