Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[xoxoxoBruce]

What was the statistic?

[Flint]

Bruce...you can't believe everything you read.

[Trilby]

Ya know what? it's all a mystery.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Ya know what? it's all a mystery.

If you mean unprovable, I totally agree with you!

[Shawnee123]

I always read this thread title as 'science-y'...like, "dude, you're bein' all science-y and stuff."

[OnyxCougar]

I propose we take it one step at a time, if we want to get into serious discussion about it. Let's start with Cosmic Evolution.

As a Harvard trained astrophysicist who currently directs the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University, Eric Chaisson presented on evolutionary theory writ-large, aka cosmic evolution. Combining a spirited lecture with stunning visual presentations, Chaisson condensed the grand sweep of our cosmic heritage into a gripping 55-minute tour of the history of the entire universe from big bang to humankind.
Starting off with definitions, Chaisson defined cosmic evolution as "the study of the many varied developmental and generative changes among all radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe." Although the rate of change varies throughout the history of the universe, the fact of change is constant.

For purposes of this discussion I would restate Cosmic Evolution is the theory regarding the origins and subsequent progression of the Universe.

Summarizing the many years of work by observational physicists, Chaisson showed that sequentially there were particles first, then galaxies, then stars, then planets, then life. There is a continuous and irreversible thread of change in the universe. For example, so far as we can tell from our observations using the Hubble telescope, no more galaxies are forming today. There was a time in the universe’s early age when the seeds of galaxies, called quasars, were "planted" and none is observable in the present epoch. This indicates a clear trend over time. At one stage in the universe galaxy formation was possible, and then eventually, that window of opportunity closed.

There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.

[Beest]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.

So if I don't beleive in God then the answer is the Big Bang (which also not a cast iron fact but still the subjection of considerbale argument, refinment and debate)

also Creationism, I don't beleive in God so it can't work, end of discussion.

Whew, problem solved, time for another cup of tea.




Unless you're trying to emphatically prove the existence of God.

[tw]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

There are two schools of thought here: one is that there was a big bang, and the other is that God created the Universe (heavens and earth) on day 1.

The first is a theory. The second is nothing more than wild speculation.

[Undertoad]

Natural selection happens, but it does *not* explain how one kind becomes another kind, IE a bird becomes a reptile, or a monkey becomes a man.

Actually it's thought that birds evolved from dinosaur-era reptiles, and that man did not evolve from monkey but they had a common ancestor.

It's not hard to believe that (for example) once one species took to the skies, that they had a huge and immediate advantage and could branch off separately from that point forward. The basic timeline from Wikipedia:

The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:

• 3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),
• 3 billion years of photosynthesis,
• 2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
• 1 billion years of multicellular life,
• 600 million years of simple animals,
• 570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
• 550 million years of complex animals
• 500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
• 475 million years of land plants,
• 400 million years of insects and seeds,
• 360 million years of amphibians,
• 300 million years of reptiles
• 200 million years of mammals,
• 150 million years of birds,
• 130 million years of flowers,
• 65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
• 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,
• 200,000 years since humans started looking like they do today,
• 25,000 years since Neanderthals died out.

[HungLikeJesus]

The Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points.

The Creation/Evolution Debate: Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate.

Study the details of the controversy in our Reference Library.
Debate the issues in our Discussion Forums.
See a list of topics currently under discussion in the Recent Topics List

[toranokaze]

<complaining>
There are problems with evolution that is why it is a theory not a law.

It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.

If one believes God created everything believe, if one does not believe, don't believe.

And if one believes the former than the latter then science says is what God did.

Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.

</complaining>

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by toranokaze

There are problems with evolution that is why it is a theory not a law.

The reason evolution is a theory instead of a law is that it can't be described in the form of a mathematical equation. The science behind all scientific laws is just as much theory as is evolution.

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

The Evolution v Creation Forum claims to be neutral, but I haven't looked at it enough to figure out if that's true. They do seem to have some smart people involved in the discussions, and some interesting points.

From looking at the forum they do have a lot of smart people involved, and because of that they are not very neutral. It looks like they have been around for a while, so how could they?

Originally Posted by toranokaze

It is hard to question evolution and be religious without being dismissed.

And yet if you have a valid line of questioning scientists are required to consider it. You get dismissed because so many people have tried, and failed so badly that most consider it a waste of time to hear the same tired arguments over and over.

Besides, religion questioning science is dismissed with logical reasoning and empirical evidence. Science questioning religion is dismissed with hearsay from an unreliable source, and faulty reasoning. Is it really fair to complain about science?

Originally Posted by toranokaze

Creationism ( as I understand it) isn't science, isn't religion and creationism is barely a philosophy additionally it hurts all three.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but there are downsides to letting your fellow man believe falsehoods. From a macro view think of all the time and resources that are wasted on religion. No longer would people have to deal with the Sunday restrictions, wasting time and resources on religious observances or posturing. More importantly though, believing religion makes you make different choices. Skipping the whole holy war diatribe, a religious person often comes off as an extremely odd customer to a logical person.

For instance, if a scientist sees a pretty woman's face they might consider complimenting her, maybe even asking her out if they are not in a relationship. A religious person may well stone her to death in the street for not covering it. Oh sure, not every religious person does that, and certainly not the flavor we have over here. The problem is that each little sect has their own crazy quirks that you have to find out for yourself. Southern Baptists have roughly 80% (around here) believing that drinking alcohol is somehow sinful. Why would they think such a thing given that Jesus supposedly gave wine to his followers? Well, the story is this: Deacons were responsible for representing the faith to potential converts, and there was a widely held but false belief that drinking was a sin. Deacons were therefore sworn to not drink so that they could appear a better example to those new converts. The main body of followers didn't follow this line of thought, and eventually concluded that since Deacons were not allowed to drink it must be because it is sinful! I suppose you could make something of a theory of religious evolution from that example.

The point being, if a religious person makes decisions based on faulty premises then all else being equal they will make incorrect decisions more often than a logical, science-based person.

[HungLikeJesus]

Wow! He's got me convinced. Where do I send the money?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Roy Comfort
"I simply expose atheistic evolution for the unscientific fairy tale that it is, and I do it with common logic. I ask questions about where the female came from for each species. Every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. Evolution has no explanation for the female for every species in creation,"

Shit, even I can answer that one.

Evolution, being a slow progressive process, means that changes that appear in a critter don't make it completely different from it's type. It can still mate with it's type and produce offspring of both sexes, and some of them will carry the change.

Are people really stumped by that question?