Evolution vs. Creationism

[infamous]

I get your point, but science does have absolutes, such as zero Kelvin and the speed of light. According to accepted physical theories a visit from extraterrestrials is, as far as I know, not a reasonable possibility.

But you have a point, I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my injudicious use of "0%" and hope that it was understood as intended ie 'infinitesimally small'.

No need to apologize ughaibu, just engaging in a friendly discussion. And yes, I do understand your position. No problem my friend................................Infy

[Fatstep]

There is no proof for a lot of scientific theories, but you have to start somewhere with a hypothesis in order to find proof, do you not?

[ughaibu]

No, one starts with an observation.

[Eclogite]

What makes you favor your view, and what led to you coming to this conclusion.

I believe in creationism with a mixture of science.

Evolutionary theory provides detailed explanations for a complex diversity of observed phenomena in a highly systematic way, including the mechanisms by which the process occurs. In contrast creationism is largely simplistic and lacking in any substantive foundation.

 

As to the issue of the existence of a God, that is supported, but not proven, by the such issues the fine tuning of the physical constants. Offering the Weak Anthropic Principle as an explanation for this is bad science. Please note that the term God need not refer to the Christian God, and almost certainly does not.

[Fatstep]

edit: misread

[HappytheStripper]

Well, since I apparently broke a rule in the evolution poll by answering someone's question I will post this here.

 

What makes you favor your view, and what led to you coming to this conclusion.

 

I believe in creationism with a mixture of science.

 

I was born into a Christian household, but that is not what led me in to believing in creationism. I have far different views on science than my mother and father, I am enthralled by knowledge and have just come to my own theories throughout my lifetime.

 

My first thought became a question.. Is determination a part of evolution and therefore creation.. and intertwined within this.. comes manifestation..??

 

What do you think..??

 

Ashley

[Pyrotex]

My first thought became a question.. Is determation a part of evolution and therefore creation.. and intertwined within this.. comes manifestation..??

 

What do you think..??

I think I'll have a glass of wine.

 

No, seriously, you have asked a good question. I sometimes define a "good" question as one that I have never heard before. :)

 

I would say, that first there comes creation, and then action. The latter is manifested by what we call the Laws of Nature. These Laws have a certain wonderfulness to them in that they are "locally" deterministic, but "globally" chaotic. For you math-fiends out there, the reason for this is that most of the interesting Laws of Nature are non-linear.

 

So, from one instance to the next, determinism rules. It may be a kind of determinism that depends on probability. But over sufficiently long sequences of instances, the manifest behavior of the universe is unpredictable.

 

As it turns out, it is just this chaotic unpredictability that makes evolution possible, indeed, makes it mandatory. Evolution itself, becomes just the word we use to describe the ever-changing manifestations of every aspect of a chaotic universe. Everything evolves. Nothing stays the same.

 

Chaos rules. Wonderfulness abounds.

[God's servant]

I understand belief, but I do not understand belief against clear evidence.

 

Ok, well what is the clear evidence here?

[Boerseun]

Ok, well what is the clear evidence here?

The verifiable, repeatable results of decades' worth of scientific inquiry into the matter. What evidence exist for the other side?

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the DNA in modern cells, when the DNA duplicates, an almost perfect copy is made of this huge double molecule. If one thinks in terms of random and chaos, the duplication of the DNA is an example of random/chaos being converted to almost complete order. In other words, the orderring principles within cellular evolution increasingly converted chaos into order.

 

I don't understand how selective advantage could lead to increased perfection at the chemical level. It makes more sense, that the increase perfection was driving mutations and selective advantage and not the other way around. Evolutionary theory places the cart (shell) before the horse (inner drive), inspite of this observation.

 

The DNA evolved from random atoms into a very structured and orderred process of almost perfect duplication. It one draws a line through this chaos starting to the perfection end point, perfection increased over time. If we superimpose mutant and selective advantage data, we have discontinuous data points that reflect various levels of perfection. If the disontinuous data, is an actual representation of the data, that would indicate a quantum progression affect, where perfection potential in life climbs a set of stairs (spiral stairs) leading to higher order. The mutants with selective advantage is the output of this climb.

[Buffy]

Evolution has nothing to do with perfection: doesn't mention it. Most Evolutionary Biologists point out that this fallacy of evolution as having a "goal" or "endpoint" as being one of the most disingenuous attacks upon evolutionary theory because there aren't any. Only a meddling deity cares about "creating perfection," so if the evidence indicates that that's not happening, then there's probably no meddling deity!

 

Successful adaptations are subject to environmental revocation without warning,

Buffy

[Lancaster]

The verifiable, repeatable results of decades' worth of scientific inquiry into the matter. What evidence exist for the other side?

 

Exactly. After all the attempts that theists make to disprove evolution, they rarely draw attention to their own side. Let's see some evidence for creationism, if you please.

[Tormod]

The DNA evolved from random atoms into a very structured and orderred process of almost perfect duplication.

 

Actually this should qualify as a strange claim. Atoms do not "evolve", and DNA does not really comprise a random set of atoms any more that my coffee cup does (that is, they both do).

 

DNA is a result of chemical bonding. And while DNA replication is a marvellous process, it is most likely a spontaneous reaction to the environment that was present when it first appeared. DNA has managed to evolve from a protostage to an extremely capable means of carrying genetic information.

 

Yet DNA is error prone. The replication is far from perfect. Errors in genetic expressions are sometimes fatal, and there is no self-correction on a genetic level - this is where evolution comes in. When a DNA leads to changed expressions of genes, the ability of an offspring to survive or not may be changed. And this ability might lead to a generation of different creatures, and eventually to new species.

[ErlyRisa]

what would happen if i told you of a theory which accounts for both...Darwinism and theology.

 

-you would kill yourself trying to ascend.

 

Einstein is probably looking down on us right now from his very own heaven. (probably playing ping pong with Jesus while King David is refereeing)

[maikeru]

I think I'll stick with Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, thanks. Creationism as currently proposed, debated, and analyzed defies common sense and logic.

[rocket art]

what would happen if i told you of a theory which accounts for both...Darwinism and theology.

 

-you would kill yourself trying to ascend.

 

Einstein is probably looking down on us right now from his very own heaven. (probably playing ping pong with Jesus while King David is refereeing)

 

You are putting words on other people's mouths with your subjective beliefs.

[Eclogite]

what would happen if i told you of a theory which accounts for both...Darwinism and theology.

I would say, "Why are you wasting time reinventing the wheel." Darwinism and theism have never been in conflict. The fact that some theists choose to switch of their critical faculties when considering origins is evidence of a localised pathology, not an inherent conflict.