Evolution vs. Creationism

[Novotov]

I really don't think creationists want creationist 'theory' taught as science. Forming a hypothesis around 'god' means there hypothesis must by falsifyable. And proving god doesn't exist (while it really can't be done) isn't something most creationists want to do;)

I think you're taking the wrong approach. Creationism is largely about the disproving of evolution, one of the reasons why Creationism and ID work so well together. Creationism also makes mention of a possible world scenario that fits the Biblical scriptures, but it's important to see that Creationism is more of a refutation than a theory in its own right.

EDITED ADDITION:

Also, it's perfectly reasonable to form a hypothesis with God at its center. The hypothesis of gravity has the fact that objects fall as its center - if the hypothesis were to be proven false, it wouldn't mean that things never fall. Likewise, any amount of theorizing and guessing about the Biblical creation may be right or wrong - but either way, it has no impact on the presence of God.

 

Evolution did not happen by the miraculous assembly of huge proteins and enzymes, but by fiddling little changes in existing precursor molecules. Even if zillion to one odds WERE involved, there were TWO zillion precursors floating around--so the total odds were damn near 100%. Evolution was possible, indeed, was inevitable, because there were zillions and humptillions of parallel chemical experiments going on every microsecond of every day of every eon.

Yes, but again, there are chemical reasons why amino acids can not form in such a way. Remember how amino acids break back down after their creation?

 

Not knowing the specific details of one evolutionary step does NOT constitute a "HOLE" in our knowledge

A hole is an chasm, a gap. Not knowing at one point is... a gap?

 

carbon based life is tough durable and strong.

When compared to what?

 

I find you quite scary Novotov as I think you actually believe what you are saying and you know enough science to twist science in a way that could be confusing to others or attractive to others.

I've gotten that before, though not from you. If you'd like to talk with a bunch of evolutionists, I've been sparring with Maliaki and Captain C on BlahBlah for almost a year now.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not twisting science in any way. Perhaps the evolutionists who (even today) tout embryology as proof for our evolution from fish, continue to ignore the gravitical implications of the Big Bang (see White Holes), and yet teach these things to our first and second grade children fall into the 'manipulator' category?

 

You also say the defintion of `an organic compound` is that it oxidizes. This is not true the defintion of an organic compound is one that contains both hydrogen and carbon within its molecules.

 

A polymer is an organic compound. Polymers do not oxidize.

Plastic does not rust.

Ahh, my mistake. It was last year I took Chemistry, so apparently I'm not as fresh on it as I thought. However, note that both your examples are not the compounds that were originally in question. Amino acids do readily break down under the effects of brownian motion - IE, suspension in liquid.

 

You say many other things in your post but I am not going battle you on every point. I dont see the point in doing that. I wish you well and most of all I wish you better reading material.

Thanks much - I've learned from many many keystrokes on BlahBlah that quoting and discussing every point in a post quickly makes a large, chopped-up post of your own with about twenty quote bars in it.

Peace be with you as well, and as far as reading material goes, I've read many articles on both sides of this argument. I stand with creationism not because my religion dictates, but because I have yet to find sufficient proof for evolution. Have any links?

EDITATION BELOW

I realize I came off a little conceited in that last paragraph. What I meant was that I've already kicked this subject around for about 11 months now on BlahBlah, and Maliaki is a great fan of science - I've read plenty of linked articles. Especially LiveScience.

...but anyway. Creationism is largely a grassroots phenomenon, where 90% scientifically ignorant people (not being self-important here, I see at school firsthand the idiots that corrupt Creationist ideas. They have the best intentions, but that doesn't make them any smarter.) are armed with facts to combat teachers, professors, scientists - people in a higher position of authority. So it's easy to generalize and say "Oh Creationists are all stupid religious cavemen who can't stop paying homage to an old idol" or "Oh evolutionists are all ivory-towered academics with no connection to reality and choose to reject God and his evidence for psychological reasons" but that gets the argument nowhere. All it shall serve to do is create even more resentment between the two groups until we start blowing each other up and turn the colleges of America into the new Israel or Ireland.

So, to conclude. I'll gladly read and comment on any article you'll link up for me, but don't accuse me of ignorance and ignoring facts - I've accepted and incorporated every fact I've learned into my worldview, it's just that I still haven't seen evidence for evolution in the fields that most need it.

(Although I've heard the smaller-organs-join-to-make-cells theory. There were chemical problems with it, but it was a good way around the complexity of an original cell. However, many of the organs inside a cell are intensely specialized and show no evidence of vestiges, much less of any prior capability to reproduce. And if these organs cannot reproduce, it's a twisted kind of evolution indeed that drove them to join together. Most of the people I've spoken with, though, choose to shunt away from discussing either this theory or the original cell-falls-together one.)

[REASON]

I stand with creationism not because my religion dictates, but because I have yet to find sufficient proof for evolution. Have any links?

 

Hi Novatov,

 

This statement of yours implies that you form your beliefs around proof, and you say you have yet to find any sufficient enough to believe evolution.

 

Maybe you would be willing to offer your proof of Creationism so that I can also have a more balance perspective on the issue. Have any links?

[Novotov]

Greetings to you as well, REASON.

 

I'm yet one post under the linking ability. Even if I could link, however, I can only point you toward early influences on my opinion, like The Evolution Cruncher. It's quite outdated by now, but the condensed version is a 2,000-page monster that addresses almost every aspect of evolution I can think of. It obviously has a goal to disprove evolution, but I don't think it does a bad job.

 

The truth of the matter is, most of my opinions came piecemeal through constant bantering with Maliaki on BlahBlah. He links to a LiveScience article, we argue about it for a week until someone finds another article.

 

If you're looking for a balanced opinion, the Evolution Cruncher is not a place to look. It was quite obviously written by Christians to Christians, as you can see with the heavy use of bold, italics, and underlining. If you don't mind slogging through antagonistic literature, though, every chapter is a science lesson in itself and catapulted me to 'egghead' status when I read it in 9th grade.

[Pyrotex]

I... I stand with creationism not because my religion dictates, but because I have yet to find sufficient proof for evolution. Have any links?...

I suggest you read the original "argument" for evolution: Charles Darwin, himself, The Origin of Species.

 

No, I don't want to hear what you've been told about his book or about him. You asked for a "proof"--I take that to mean a really convincing argument--and there is no better argument than the one Charles wrote.

 

There it is. You can read the paper book, or you can read it online here. But if you deign to read it at all--and give us reasons, excuses, whatever, than I will conclude that your request for links was facetious.

 

And no, reading the "Cliff Notes" version does not count. B)

[ughaibu]

Here you go: The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online

[Novotov]

Granted. I've got the book around my house somewhere, and attempted once, but time constraints dragged me back to academics. I'll try it again, and this time make note of objections or agreements with Mr. Darwin.

I don't have anything up now, but stand by for a blog to come up within a few days - I'll put everything there to save space here.

[C1ay]

I think you're taking the wrong approach. Creationism is largely about the disproving of evolution, one of the reasons why Creationism and ID work so well together. Creationism also makes mention of a possible world scenario that fits the Biblical scriptures, but it's important to see that Creationism is more of a refutation than a theory in its own right.

 

Yet another creationist that somehow thinks that creation and/or ID excludes evolution. Did you ever think that maybe evolution is the result of any supposed creation or ID? Then again you might reconsider your own approach entirely because even if you could disprove evolution it would not prove creation or ID either one. Try coming up with some proof for creation or ID if you want to argue those because disproving evolution would not be proof of either.

[REASON]

I'm yet one post under the linking ability. Even if I could link, however, I can only point you toward early influences on my opinion, like The Evolution Cruncher. It's quite outdated by now, but the condensed version is a 2,000-page monster that addresses almost every aspect of evolution I can think of. It obviously has a goal to disprove evolution, but I don't think it does a bad job.

 

The truth of the matter is, most of my opinions came piecemeal through constant bantering with Maliaki on BlahBlah. He links to a LiveScience article, we argue about it for a week until someone finds another article.

 

If you're looking for a balanced opinion, the Evolution Cruncher is not a place to look. It was quite obviously written by Christians to Christians, as you can see with the heavy use of bold, italics, and underlining. If you don't mind slogging through antagonistic literature, though, every chapter is a science lesson in itself and catapulted me to 'egghead' status when I read it in 9th grade.

 

As you might have guessed, I'm not at all surprised you can't provide proof of Creationism. If you could, trust me, you wouldn't have time to be posting blogs. But pointing me to a document, which you describe as a blatant Christian attack on Evolution, doesn't bolster your claim that you form your beliefs around proof or evidence. At least you would be consistant if you stated that you didn't belive in Creationism or Intelligent Design either because those belief systems are driven by faith, not proof.

 

If proof or evidence has any direct influence on your beliefs at all, than to deny the mountain of evidence supporting the evolutionary process would suggest that you truly have other motivating influences. And you know what? That's fine. I don't condemn people for their beliefs, but I will be critical when they appear to be disingenuous about them.

 

So you've stated that you have not read The Origin Of Species, but you have had other influences and read books such as The Evolution Cruncher. If this is your background of information, it's only as plain as the light of day why you would find Evolution to be suspect if not dismissible. And if it is your intention to educate yourself more thoroughly about speciation, natural selection, competition, genetics, mutation, environmental conditions, or any of the other heavily researched and documented principles and processes of Evolution, I hope you will do so with an open and interested mind.

[Pyrotex]

As you might have guessed, I'm not at all surprised you can't provide proof of Creationism....If proof or evidence has any direct influence on your beliefs at all, than to deny the mountain of evidence supporting the evolutionary process would suggest that you truly have other motivating influences. ....

Nicely put.

 

If we go to the bottom line of both arguments, we find the assumptions on each side. Darwin assumed the world as he found it. How it got here, he did not speculate. He assumed some form of inheritance (set of genetic "rules") that did not blend inherited traits so much as selected among them. In this, he turned out to be spectacularly correct! :eek2: :hyper:

 

Creationism assumes the existence of an "object" that is invisible, intelligent, eternal, all-powerful, able to manipulate the Laws of Physics (or create new ones as needed), and either the ability to travel through time or at least to perform infinitely detailed "simulations" in his mind so that he can know the consequences of this Law or that configuration of matter at some indefinate point in the far, far future.

 

Creationism assumes from the get-go an "object" that is indescribably more complex than the entire known Universe; containing more energy than we see bound in the entire Universe; that is itself NOT bound by the Universe.

 

This is a vastly unmerited assumption. :eek_big: :eek_big: :cup: :eek_big: ;) :eek_big:

 

And as Darwin demonstrated, it is also vastly unnecessary.

[Novotov]

Yet another creationist that somehow thinks that creation and/or ID excludes evolution. Did you ever think that maybe evolution is the result of any supposed creation or ID? Then again you might reconsider your own approach entirely because even if you could disprove evolution it would not prove creation or ID either one. Try coming up with some proof for creation or ID if you want to argue those because disproving evolution would not be proof of either.

Umm, did you even read the part you quoted? I just stated that ID and creationism focus heavily on disproving evolution - creationism has its own proof, but that is largely not what's discussed. Evolution has asserted itself as the One True Theory - and is defended with the scientific equivalent of zealots. Despite this, the burden of proof lies upon you, not me.

 

As you might have guessed, I'm not at all surprised you can't provide proof of Creationism. If you could, trust me, you wouldn't have time to be posting blogs.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Summary: :)

 

But pointing me to a document, which you describe as a blatant Christian attack on Evolution, doesn't bolster your claim that you form your beliefs around proof or evidence.

The book is obviously written to disprove evolution, to prove Creation. But does this suddenly make the 400+ facts and references cited less credible? It's not the book's bias that I'm trying to showcase, but the monstrous pile of evidence that doesn't easily fit into evolution.

Also, there are thousands of books out there glorifying evolution and claiming that Christianity is on its way out - do they fall under the same status?

 

At least you would be consistant if you stated that you didn't belive in Creationism or Intelligent Design either because those belief systems are driven by faith, not proof.

Faith is belief in something despite conclusive evidence. Evolution has, in many areas, far from conclusive evidence. Both of these theories rely on faith, I have chosen the one that requires less. (To believe that simple amino acids 'formed' in a chemically hostile environment and then somehow reproduced, sans organs or any way to do so, then somehow formed a cell wall, then overcame the immense problems of dividing into separate species and 'evolving' complex machinery like feathers, eyes, circulation and digestive systems, seems to require a lot of faith from me. Further, simply saying "God did it" is not my easy way out of thinking - there is geology all the way back to the Ice Age that concur with proposed Creationist models and even support them in ways not anticipated.)

 

If proof or evidence has any direct influence on your beliefs at all, than to deny the mountain of evidence supporting the evolutionary process would suggest that you truly have other motivating influences. And you know what? That's fine.

Evolution has mountains of evidence on both sides, and I've waded through the foothills of both before. I'm not some supergenius, but I'd consider myself well versed on evolution. I've stated this on BlahBlah many times before - I accept all evidence openly, but after yet incorporating all that I've seen, Creation makes more sense to me.

 

I don't condemn people for their beliefs, but I will be critical when they appear to be disingenuous about them.

You should. Nazism? Terrorism? Scientology?

 

So you've stated that you have not read The Origin Of Species, but you have had other influences and read books such as The Evolution Cruncher. If this is your background of information, it's only as plain as the light of day why you would find Evolution to be suspect if not dismissible. And if it is your intention to educate yourself more thoroughly about speciation, natural selection, competition, genetics, mutation, environmental conditions, or any of the other heavily researched and documented principles and processes of Evolution, I hope you will do so with an open and interested mind.

Granted, I've had more access to Creationist literature in past years, but I've also completed every science class my high school has to offer, including Evolutionary Biology. According to my science teacher, The Origin of Species was a foundation block of evolution, but not its keystone. So I let that be in favor of reading The Fountainhead. *shrug* Hey, it's a good book.

Anyway. I consider myself openminded, and I'll be reading TOoS as time permits, so you'll be able to see for yourself if I'm a religious nut or 'nut.' Hehe. He. Get it? That was a joke. A pun, actually. A funny pun.

 

Laugh or I'll hit you.

[Pyrotex]

...Also, there are thousands of books out there glorifying evolution and claiming that Christianity is on its way out - do they fall under the same status?....

Not true. This is literally a false statement.

 

True, there are thousands of books out there explaining and teaching evolution. But they do not "glory". Nor do they have anything... ANYTHING... to say about Christianity. Evolutionary theory (and Science as a whole) is not now, nor has it ever been, anti-Christian.

 

I know it will be difficult, but please try to refrain from garbling scientific positions with extreme fundementalist propaganda.

 

Specifically, do not put words in Science's mouth that it does not speak.

 

That's called "bearing false witness" and it is a sin.

[REASON]

Umm, did you even read the part you quoted? I just stated that ID and creationism focus heavily on disproving evolution

 

The origin and basis of Creationism is the Book of Genisis. It was compiled and inserted into the Christian Bible approximately 1,600 years prior to the introduction of the Theory of Evolution. Creationism makes no mention of evolution.

 

Creationists focus heavily on disproving evolution because they feel threatened by it. The focus of evolutionary scientists is to gain an understanding of natural biological processes.

 

creationism has its own proof......

 

Which is?

 

Evolution has asserted itself as the One True Theory - and is defended with the scientific equivalent of zealots. Despite this, the burden of proof lies upon you, not me.

 

Among the scientific community, evolution is fact, and is explained by experts in the field of study who consider zealotry inconsequential.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Summary: :eek2:

 

If you could provide proof of Creationism, you would be scheduled for every interview, talk show, scientific panel, and speaking engagement you could imagine.

 

The book is obviously written to disprove evolution, to prove Creation.

 

This is a false notion, illogical, and stated continually by creationists. As C1ay has already stated,

even if you could disprove evolution it would not prove creation or ID

 

 

Faith is belief in something despite conclusive evidence. Evolution has, in many areas, far from conclusive evidence. Both of these theories rely on faith, I have chosen the one that requires less. (To believe that simple amino acids 'formed' in a chemically hostile environment and then somehow reproduced, sans organs or any way to do so, then somehow formed a cell wall, then overcame the immense problems of dividing into separate species and 'evolving' complex machinery like feathers, eyes, circulation and digestive systems, seems to require a lot of faith from me. Further, simply saying "God did it" is not my easy way out of thinking - there is geology all the way back to the Ice Age that concur with proposed Creationist models and even support them in ways not anticipated.)

 

Let me make sure I'm clear. You don't believe that it is possible for a cell, for instance, to have developed on it's own, but you favor a concept where it was blinked into existance preprogrammed.....to do what? If moving from this point to develop into more complex species is too unlikely, then you're really stating that you believe all of the plants and animals were placed on Earth complete. You were not blinked into existance. You evolved from a single celled organism in your mother's womb.

 

The development of a single fertilized ovum into a human being in the womb of a woman is a microcosm of the entire human evolutionary process.

 

I require no more evidence than that.

[ughaibu]

The concept of evolution pre-dates christianity: Khan Amore's Highlights of Ancient Greek Philosophy: Anaxagoras

[C1ay]

creationism has its own proof, but that is largely not what's discussed. ...the burden of proof lies upon you, not me.

 

So what you're really saying here is that creationism is unquestionably the truth and no proof is necessary. Wrong answer! Please point out this self-evident proof and support your claim, that burden is yours. Read the rules here, particularly #5:

 

Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted.

 

FWIW, the ordinary flu is evidence of evolution. As it evolves from one year to the next, last years flu vaccine becomes ineffective. Evolution is a fact.

[ErlyRisa]

the virus... an omniescent being... is this the creator? -it has it's agenda on the species?

 

maybe less argument and waste of keystrokes...

 

postulates for both camps, in easy readable clarity may help either the darwinist, creationist, or matrixicist (no pun on marxism..unless one can be found?) find factual meaning to existance.

 

Maybe the omniescent being has directly made the 'Creationist' Theory so 'Religious' ... so that Darwinists don't lose sight of logic.

 

---Stop looking at the RED DRESS! ...veiw the matrix.