Creatonism vs. Evolution?

what would the world be with out religion. I think it keeps us intact having a sense of hope knowing that there is some sort of afterlife for some relgions who believe in such things. knowin that your life is not just something that was caused by a BANG and will end when u die nothing more to me thats boring to religion gives me a sense of calmness knowing my life means something:)

Sure, have your faith, but, keep it out of the classrooms.
 
Here's a small, but very significant example of predictions being made and fulfilled:

Scientists predicted that, due to chimpanzees having 48 chromosomes, and us only having 46, that one of the chromosomes must have been fused at some point. Before we even could tell, we made that prediction - if that prediction did not pan out, then evolution is false, and there is no common ancestor between the modern great apes and humans. You know what? We found EXACTLY that - two chromosomes are fused together, complete with trailing markers in the middle of the chromosome where they normally shouldn't be, unless a fusion took place. See the following presentation:

Achmed the Dead Terroist
 
lulz, evolution is just a theory! how can you believe that everything came from nothing and happened by chance?! evolution can't be observed and darwin said he was wrong before he died!

I just felt the debate is a bit too one-sided :LOS
 
lol how do genes contradict God creating the world? it just shows God uses science and not magic.

God doesn't use science. :sag Science is a human construct, which we use to gain knowledge and understanding through observation and experimentation. Science is empirical, meaning that things we cannot observe, falsify or even test do not belong in science.

Hence God, and the theory of an intelligent designer do not belong in science. Trying to push religious concepts out of church and into science classrooms where they do not belong destroys the definition of science and sabotages the education of a whole generation of people.
 
@Jnec- yes

God doesn't use science. :sag Science is a human construct, which we use to gain knowledge and understanding through observation and experimentation. Science is empirical, meaning that things we cannot observe, falsify or even test do not belong in science.

Hence God, and the theory of an intelligent designer do not belong in science. Trying to push religious concepts out of church and into science classrooms where they do not belong destroys the definition of science and sabotages the education of a whole generation of people.

ok then let me reword it. What we know as scienceis the analysis and observation of the work of God. and I do not mean an old man in the sky.

and where did I say anything about a science classroom, I just said they do no contradict
 
Has anyone thought of maybe its a mix of the two?

Yeah, that is what creationism has hailed itself as. Evidently, it was a bad idea, since the scientists lose interest when they hear that it contains an unsupported claim of spiritual content and still wants to be counted as a scientific theory. Religious people should be more sceptical about the idea of making faith a substantial theory of science, but so far the theory has actually got support.

Which is bad, seeing as a spiritual idea is not a realistic or corporeal thing. Hence the meaning of the statement "Jesus touched me" is certainly not one of physical interaction, but this must have gone passed some individuals.

creationism doesnt belong in any science class.... but perhaps a sociology or psychology class instead

is the study of why people behave in a certain way, and how the socially constructed image of society influences us. is the study of the human mind, why we have behaviour, and how our brain works.

is trying to explain the origin of the universe and life itself. It is an alternative to astronomy, like holisticisim, and not comparable to a science. People need to settle down with that thought and realise that we must phase out false assumptions from students' educational material.

We simply cannot afford to teach students things which we know isn't science in a science class. Creationism can be mentioned in its righteous home: Religion class. It is an idea promoted by religious people trying to unify scientific concepts selected to compose a unifiable theory. That is pseudo-science at best, and even then it is misleading to give it a name called science, since it is not based on empirical evidence. It just discredits another theory, which is criticism.

lol how do genes contradict God creating the world? it just shows God uses science and not magic.

How doesn't it contradict God? In every concept of a monotheistic God, the presence of magic is there. Science didn't exist back then when the Bible and the Qu'ran were written. In fact, philosophy was the domain of psychology, astrology contained astronomy and all other natural sciences, and there weren't any distinctions between magic and modern science at all.

That dichotomy is a point of view so outdated now that I find it hard to digest it is being used in this debate.

Again, evidence, people. Let's have it.

Plus, let me hear from those who believe in creationism explain to me how our solar system was created.
 
How doesn't it contradict God? In every concept of a monotheistic God, the presence of magic is there. Science didn't exist back then when the Bible and the Qu'ran were written. In fact, philosophy was the domain of psychology, astrology contained astronomy and all other natural sciences, and there weren't any distinctions between magic and modern science at all.

Not true, science has always existed, maybe as a lower level than today but the human mind has always been discovering, from fire, to the wheel, etc. Might not be particle physics but it still counts as science. And the Prphet Mohammed strongly emphasized the use of science to learn about the world. Same goes with Baha'u'llah. So there you have two monothiest religions, where "magic"(it's really science that couldn't be explained at the time) barely used in one of the religions(Islam), and one where it is never used(Baha'ism). Science was very prevelant during the Baha'i Faith and ws embraced fully. it was oly a couple of decades before the atom bomb affter all.
 
Not true, science has always existed, maybe as a lower level than today

Exactly. Actual experts didn't really come along until the Church finally loosened it's grip on the public. The Church didn't exactly say they were wrong or the Bible was wrong afterwards either. They said they interpreted it wrong. I fail to see the purpose of religion other then to give the weak minded something to believe in. =[
 
An interesting New York Times article I happened to bump into that deals with Evolution and Creationism.



?55 ?Origin of Life? Paper Is Retracted
By CORNELIA DEAN

In January 1955, Homer Jacobson, a chemistry professor at Brooklyn College, published a paper called ?Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life? in American Scientist, the journal of Sigma Xi, the scientific honor society.

In it, Dr. Jacobson speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, ?one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive.?

Nobody paid much attention to the paper at the time, he said in a telephone interview from his home in Tarrytown, N.Y. But today it is winning Dr. Jacobson acclaim that he does not want ? from creationists who cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention.

So after 52 years, he has retracted it.

The retraction came about when, on a whim, Dr. Jacobson ran a search for his name on Google. At age 84 and after 20 years of retirement, ?I wanted to see, what have I done in all these many years?? he said. ?It was vanity. What can I tell you??

He found many entries relating to his work on compounds called polymers; on information theory, a branch of mathematics involving statistics and probability; and other subjects. But others were for creationist sites that have taken up his 1955 paper as scientific support for their views.

Darwinismrefuted.com, for example, says Dr. Jacobson?s paper ?undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident.? Another creationist site, Evolution-facts.org, says his findings mean that ?within a few minutes, all the various parts of the living organism had to make themselves out of sloshing water,? an impossible feat without a supernatural hand.

?Ouch,? Dr. Jacobson said. ?It was hideous.?

That is not because he objects to religion, he said. Though he was raised in a secular household, he said, ?Religion is O.K. as long as you don?t fly in the face of facts.? After all, he said, no one can disprove the existence of God. But Dr. Jacobson said he was dismayed to think that people might use his work in what he called ?malignant? denunciations of Darwin.

Things grew worse when he reread his paper, he said, because he discovered errors. One related to what he called a ?conjecture? about whether amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein and a crucial component of living things, could form naturally.

?Under the circumstances I mention, just a bunch of chemicals sitting together, no,? he said. ?Because it takes energy to go from the things that make glycine to glycine, glycine being the simplest amino acid.?

There were potential sources of energy, he said. So to say that nothing much would happen in its absence ?is totally beside the point.? ?And that is a point I did not make,? he added.

Another assertion in the paper, about what would have had to occur simultaneously for living matter to arise, is just plain wrong, he said, adding, ?It was a dumb mistake, but nobody ever caught me on it.?

Vance Ferrell, who said he put together the material posted on Evolution-facts.org, said if the paper had been retracted he would remove the reference to it. Mr. Ferrell said he had no way of knowing what motivated Dr. Jacobson, but said that if scientists ?look like they are pro-creationist they can get into trouble.?

?There is an embarrassment,? Mr. Ferrell said.

Dr. Jacobson conceded that was the case. He wrote in his retraction letter, ?I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements.?

It is not unusual for scientists to publish papers and, if they discover evidence that challenges them, to announce they were wrong. The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith.

So Dr. Jacobson?s retraction is in ?the noblest tradition of science,? Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist, wrote in its November-December issue, which has Dr. Jacobson?s letter.

His letter shows, Ms. Reid wrote, ?the distinction between a scientist who cannot let error stand, no matter the embarrassment of public correction,? and people who ?cling to dogma.?
 
Creationism cannot be science since it's based on faith. There's a difference in the thought process between science and faith!!

Observe:



Nuff said! (Hopefully...)
 
lol how do genes contradict God creating the world?

I never said it did. I said genes supports micro-evolution, a tenant of the theory of evolution. It's not compatible with the literal creation story of any major religion.

But science doesn't have a goal of "disproving God". Science simply doesn't concern itself with what can't be objectively studied at all, which is why belief in evolution is not a polar opposite in theology. It's not related at all.
 
But science doesn't have a goal of "disproving God". Science simply doesn't concern itself with what can't be objectively studied at all, which is why belief in evolution is not a polar opposite in theology.

Er, I could have sworn biologists are attempting to create life in laboratories, ie cells. They are said to be closer every year too on succeeding. Wouldn't one of the reasons be a chance to disprove the idea that we need a higher divinity to create life? I remember reading some article a while ago about ideas about life being a form of energy and if that is true, then why couldn't we make life out of non-living material given the right circumstances? Why do we need a God to breathe in life into organisms?
 
Er, I could have sworn biologists are attempting to create life in laboratories, ie cells. They are said to be closer every year too on succeeding. Wouldn't one of the reasons be a chance to disprove the idea that we need a higher divinity to create life? I remember reading some article a while ago about ideas about life being a form of energy and if that is true, then why couldn't we make life out of non-living material given the right circumstances? Why do we need a God to breathe in life into organisms?

1. Aim of scientists =/= Aim of science
2. Disproving God is impossible. I could claim that there is a god who never shows himself. How would you disprove it?
3. The experiments you describe might have the side-effect of turning some people into atheists, but that's certainly not the aim.
4. The right cirumstances and especially the right non-living material, needed for producing life in a laboratory, are pretty damn hard to find.
5. Organisms have life, no need for a divine intervention there.
 
Not true, science has always existed, maybe as a lower level than today but the human mind has always been discovering, from fire, to the wheel, etc. Might not be particle physics but it still counts as science. And the Prphet Mohammed strongly emphasized the use of science to learn about the world. Same goes with Baha'u'llah. So there you have two monothiest religions, where "magic"(it's really science that couldn't be explained at the time) barely used in one of the religions(Islam), and one where it is never used(Baha'ism). Science was very prevelant during the Baha'i Faith and ws embraced fully. it was oly a couple of decades before the atom bomb affter all.

Ah, you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Modern science, or pure science, did not exist in the age when the Bible and the Qu'ran were written for the first time.

If they were, society would have had a long history of the intellectuals' accounts for trying to disprove what is not proveable but which was still the most commonly accepted belief amongst people of the ancient world: Religion.

In fact, that is exactly why the belief could go passed intellectuals. The construct of scientific thinking was extremely limited to the teachings of Plato's Academia and Aristotle's Lyceum. Plato's deductive methodology of deriving answers such as concepts of justice and the good, or a life of excellence (Aret?) - was one method of science, and Aristotle's, which was inductive, obviously reversed the process of the philosophical science.

But both were schools which did not substantially divide rationality of the time (validity) from truth (soundness of the statement).

This is completely different from modern science in which we distinguish clearly between a rational theory or statement, as not necessarily true, but rational in its solitude (like a hypothesis) - whereas something which is valid and sound in today's modern science can be proven as a scientific theory; the empirical derivative for truth: Which is to say, asymptotic to a concept line of truth.

But since some scientists observe that the universe has no universal truths, the scientific theory is the closest approximation to truth which can be reasoned, justified and proven. The latter was not employed to the same degree of modern science does today, and so the sciences are not comparable.

To make a super-effective argument (lol) in this context, let's look at the history of the structure of the atom:

Theoreticians:

Democritus - First theory of the atom which is recognisable to our own. He states that atoms have shapes which according to the essence they form (solid, fluid or gas), have distinct traits. So, for example, atoms in stones were jagged.

His theories were revoked by philosophers, and in the burning of the library of Alexandria most of his works were lost.

However, despite being ignored for over two thousand years, along comes a man called Newton who, in establishing the laws of gravity, physic's basic laws about energy conservation and the origin of matter; revives the man's theories because, and this is the awesome part: He can reason and justify his beliefs by proving them mathematically.

If you don't believe me, fine, but read the history of atomic theory before telling me that science has always existed, because it hasn't; and despite the possible event in which you could wing out that philosophy is a science, it is positively a moot point since this is a debate about creationism versus evolution: Of which one is based on criticism and the other on proving a theory.

So, what is the answer to my question about the origin of the universe?
 
If evolution really happened. Can someone explain this pic to me?



thanks
As a creationist (I am assuming you are), how would you explain this pic? Would it be something like God created it? Can you explain how God did so? Thanks.
 
Creationism cannot be science since it's based on faith. There's a difference in the thought process between science and faith!!

Observe:



Nuff said! (Hopefully...)

It is funny how you can post pics mocking creationists, but neglect the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is only a mere hypothesis, Mr. Charles Darwins' perspective. Even he had doubts regarding his theory which he explained in his book. It's just a hypothesis. If it had any concrete support to it, we would be saying its the facts of evolution, not theory lol
 
It is funny how you can post pics mocking creationists, but neglect the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is only a mere hypothesis, Mr. Charles Darwins' perspective. Even he had doubts regarding his theory which he explained in his book. It's just a hypothesis. If it had any concrete support to it, we would be saying its the facts of evolution, not theory lol

No, bad monkey! creationist! Bad!

The word theory has more than one definition. In the way that we usually use it, it is merely a guess.

However, when something is called a theory in science, it is:

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; An organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.
 
It is funny how you can post pics mocking creationists, but neglect the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is only a mere hypothesis, Mr. Charles Darwins' perspective. Even he had doubts regarding his theory which he explained in his book. It's just a hypothesis. If it had any concrete support to it, we would be saying its the facts of evolution, not theory lol
:facepalm

Just a theory? Funny, you don't seem to know what the scientific definition of theory is, despite using the word hypothesis:
www.dictionary.com said:
  1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

It's definitely not just a hypothesis. Not to mention, that there has been plenty of evidence found for it, since we have seen evolution in action (bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, ect.) and have evidence for evolution happening in the past (transition fossils). Yeah... it's definitely not "just a theory."
 
It is funny how you can post pics mocking creationists, but neglect the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is only a mere hypothesis, Mr. Charles Darwins' perspective. Even he had doubts regarding his theory which he explained in his book. It's just a hypothesis. If it had any concrete support to it, we would be saying its the facts of evolution, not theory lol

No... we wouldn't. Honestly, it's sickening how often creationists say 'lol, it's just a theory' and clearly have no idea exactly what a scientific theory entails. It makes me deeply ashamed to share a species with people so ignorant.

There is Gravitational theory. And there is Atomic theory. Are you going to tell me gravity and atoms are just 'theoretic'?

In science the word 'theory' has a complete different meaning than the normal meaning. It refers to the field of study, the field of rules that are congruent with the facts. Atomic theory is just a 'theory' right? No. It's the field of atomic knowledge, just as Evolutionary theory is the field of biological evolutionary knowledge.

Do me a favour and stop parroting creationism bullshit. You don't need a doctorate in Biology to figure out that theory takes on a new meaning in science.

If evolution really happened. Can someone explain this pic to me?



thanks

Evolution can actually slow and stop, you realise. Evolution only serves a purpose if an organism has room for improvement relative to its habitat, and if it's perfectly adapted then any further evolution would only hinder its survival, thus natural selection favours conservatism. Sea creatures who have very static habitats (the sea doesn't change nearly as much as land) may have already found their evolutionary niche a long time ago. For example, the Lamprey has remained unchanged for 360 million years simply because it doesn't need to change, as have some species of shark. It's so well adapted to survival that it has no need to change and is under no threat of dying out.


Also, why are you using hamoodi's photobucket account? :amuse
 
No, bad monkey! creationist! Bad!

The word theory has more than one definition. In the way that we usually use it, it is merely a guess.

However, when something is called a theory in science, it is:

I agree with you brother, that a theory is an educated guess. But guess what, it is STILL just a HYPOTHESIS, there is no rational explanation for theory of evolution. Tell me, have we seen a single organism naturally mutate into something completely different? Like how we were supposed to evolve from apes? How do you explain the existence of complex organs such as the eye? Darwin has a chapter regarding his inability to explain on complex organs such as eyes, which is why I am bringing it up. The absence of one tissue would make the entire organ dysfunctional.

Even if I were to agree with you that perhaps you are right, theory of evolution could be right, it STILL doesn't explain the origin of species, How did the first organism come about? How did the first cell come about? You know why they say RNA came before DNA did? Because RNA can self replicate, wow, makes a lot of sense, right? How did it come about? Of course they'd rather follow mere assumptions.

@Shiron: present me the evidence then, then we'll talk, till then its just a theory.
 
No... we wouldn't. Honestly, it's sickening how often creationists say 'lol, it's just a theory' and clearly have no idea exactly what a scientific theory entails. It makes me deeply ashamed to share a species with people so ignorant.

There is Gravitational theory. And there is Atomic theory. Are you going to tell me gravity and atoms are just 'theoretic'?

In science the word 'theory' has a complete different meaning than the normal meaning. It refers to the field of study, the field of rules that are congruent with the facts. Atomic theory is just a 'theory' right? No. It's the field of atomic knowledge, just as Evolutionary theory is the field of biological evolutionary knowledge.

Do me a favour and stop parroting creationism bullshit. You don't need a doctorate in Biology to figure out that theory takes on a new meaning in science.



Evolution can actually slow and stop, you realise. Evolution only serves a purpose if an organism has room for improvement relative to its habitat, and if it's perfectly adapted then any further evolution would only hinder its survival, thus natural selection favours conservatism. Sea creatures who have very static habitats (the sea doesn't change nearly as much as land) may have already found their evolutionary niche a long time ago. For example, the Lamprey has remained unchanged for 360 million years simply because it doesn't need to change, as have some species of shark. It's so well adapted to survival that it has no need to change and is under no threat of dying out.


Also, why are you using hamoodi's photobucket account? :amuse

Does me typing "lol" make you irk? I thought it was just an innnocent expression, oh well. When you show me the living proof of evolution in complex organs, I'll be happy to say you're right, till then you're wrong. Period.

I'm using whose account? I don't succumb to using lame aliases to argue with retarded teens, sorry.
 
OrOcHiMaRu SaMa [807];11474922 said:
As a creationist (I am assuming you are), how would you explain this pic? Would it be something like God created it? Can you explain how God did so? Thanks.

<sarcasm> well, God said "wingardium leviosa!" and waved his wand. Then flew down on his cloud and told his son Hercules that the little star thing would one day save the world. and so it has. so it has.
</sarcasm>
 
I agree with you brother, that a theory is an educated guess. But guess what, it is STILL just a HYPOTHESIS, there is no rational explanation for theory of evolution, tell me, have we seen a single organism naturally mutate into something completely different? Like how we were supposed to evolve from apes? How do you explain the existence of complex organs such as the eye? Darwin has a chapter regarding his inability to explain on complex organs such as eyes, which is why I am bringing it up. The absence of one tissue would make the entire organ dysfunctional.

@Shiron: present me the evidence then, then we'll talk, till then its just a theory.
Did you even read our posts. Theory does not mean a hypothesis in scientific use; it means something that has been tested time and time again and has been found to be generally true. That's why it has a different term and isn't just called a hypothesis in science; the two have different meanings, are used to describe different things, and thus them both existing.

And I gave you evidence...
-Bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics
-Transition fossils.

Not to mention we've done it ourselves, with the bredding of dogs to create new breeds.

There's tons of evidence for it; you're just not seeing it because you don't want to.

Oh, and we didn't evolve from apes. That's another misconeption. Both us and apes evolved from a common ancenstor. In other words, there was a species that existed before both apes and humans, which both us humans and apes evolved from.
 
Back
Top Bottom