Creationism Vs. Evolution & Big Bang

[swansont]

greg1917 said in post #21 :

There is strong evidence for design in looking at the universe as a whole - Robert Collins wrote some interesting stuff we use in our theology class.

 

I just glossed over it - I didn't see where he drefines what unintelligent design would look like. Until you define that properly, how can you differentiate it from intelligent design?

[Skye]

Unintelligent design would be the standard model.

 

I can just imagine a paternal God telling off his son, "Jesus Christ! Quit meddling with my universe."

[swansont]

Skye said in post #52 :

Unintelligent design would be the standard model.

What, pray tell, is the "standard model?"

[aman]

Since we first evolved the ability to predict next week, design tools, and also understand that in the world there are things greater than us, we have had the potential to expect the same in others around us. As soon as we had this understanding we had the ability to anthropomorphize.

Anything we have seen in existance that is more usefull assembled than its parts alone shows intelligent design.

It's no great leap to see the correlation between the thinking usefull human and a bag of blood and bones. The human had to be built by design and for more than just locomotion and survival but to actually function beyond its parts.

Its a good argument for intelligent design.

Just aman

[NavajoEverclear]

Rad Ed--- fafalone clarified he did not mean what i interpreted so what you are replying to is out of effect, but i still don't agree with you.

 

I'm tired of arguing, it acomplishes nothing. What we should explore is WHY you believe like you do. I refuse to say it has much to do with the evidence that leans one way or another, there are other reasons. Maybe not faulted reasons ( i tend to may be faulted in some way, but we'll ignore that since its clear i have bias), but ones i do not understand. What would be the experiment would be look at two people who start from a common place, and discover where they diverge and why. Because of my belief that nothing can be proven, psychology is about the most important field of science to me.

[Guest lunaeus]

Those familiar with the Quantum fact called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, understand that observing an experiment is an action upon such. This shows the external power of observation (which is thought blended with sight) at the quantum level. So we can argue that thought creates an external influence.

 

So, here we are in a Universe that is basically shaped like a

dodecahedron (so there is a limit to this universe). Time, space, and the vibratory nature of matter within the 3D realm of our 5 sided sensory nervous system, are suggestively guided by something Unknown.

 

Energy within the human body, within the cerebral cortex, demonstrates scientifically measurable data. So what happens to that energy, when we die? Energy, of course, is not destroyed it just changes form.

 

In the Hindu belief, it is taught that Human consciousness, exists at an atomic level, and dwells within the region of the heart.

Upon death, this atom, can pass freely through the body, due to the change in the vibratory nature of matter within that cadaver.

 

Could our reality be like a layer in the onion? Our Universe, being just one of those layers...String theory seems to approach this arena.

 

Our Cosmos could possibly be a "Dreamtime Bubble" within the essence of the Supreme Being. The Universe within an eternal dream. Maybe the Australian Aborigines had some foothold on

the Mystery.

[Muffin]

The way I see it, the question of whether or not free will exists, is pretty much irrelevant, except for scientific advances and such. Because, for all intensive purposes, free will does exist. Go ahead, try turning around in your chair, or look up at the ceiling. Those are things that you decided to do, whether or not it was bound to happen is irrelevant. I see this as perhaps an excuse people might start to use for their behavior, which would not be taken seriously by anyone, regardless of the truthfullness. And then in turn, the police officer would just say, "well then I was destined to take you to jail."

 

It really just doesn't matter. If no one controls anything, it is pretty much the same as everyone controling everything with free will. We will never be able to change the circumstances.

 

As for God, well, as some famoush Enlightenment scientist said, believing in God is a sort of a risk, but only if you don't. If he exists, you die and go to heaven, and if not, you just die. Of course, I'm paraphrasing... but I remember reading about it in my History book. Personally, sure, I'll prey to God sometimes, but i never go to church, and if asked what my religion is, I just say I dont have one. So I sorta believe in God, like my mindset is that perhaps he exists, and perhaps he doesn't. This subject alot of times scares me to talk or think about, so I try to avoid it.

[Atlantic]

I dont' have a side, i am in between. Although i shall take the creationist side just for the heck of it:

 

here is a question Mr. Evolutionist........

 

How do you know the earth is 4billion years old?

[VendingMenace]

well first off...an evolutionist does not need to belive that the earth is 4 billion years old. He only needs to belive that evolution happens -- which it certainly does.

 

Now as far as knowing that the earth is 4 billion years old, people meausred stuff and made informed guesses, there are many many ways to arive at the age of the earth being as old as science says it is. SO many that i will not even really cover them. Of course all of them rely on the assumption of uniformatarinism, wich is the idea that things in teh past pretty much happend as they do today. SO perhaps a more poinant question would be "HOw do we know that things happened in the past as they do today?" The answer is, of course, we do not, but that makes the most sense to assume. But perhaps that is just me

[swansont]

Atlantic said in post #58 :

I dont' have a side, i am in between. Although i shall take the creationist side just for the heck of it:

 

here is a question Mr. Evolutionist........

 

How do you know the earth is 4billion years old?

 

A number of reasons, including radiometric dating. I suggest reading The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple.

[Atlantic]

DId you know they dated a penguin 3,000 years old using this method.

 

VendingMenace : believing that the earth is 4billion years old is a branch of evolutionists. If you'd like to assume that, lets assume that the sun's internal structure is made of cheese.

[VendingMenace]

Atlantic, i do not understand why you have responed in such a way to my post. I did not mean to appear argumentative or agressive. I was merely stating what i thought. YOur reply on the other hand seems to add quite little to the discussion. I will however try to respond to what you have written. I can only hope that your next reaponse will be somewhat more informative.

 

believing that the earth is 4billion years old is a branch of evolutionists.

 

There are also branches of creationists that belive that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. Thus, believing that the earth is 4 billion years old does not make one an evolutionist. Though i feel that most people must admit that elvolution does happen,as it does. The evidence for evolution must be accepted, except by the most closed-minded persons. (remembering of course that evolution is merely a change in genotypes within a population over time.) Now going from accepting that evolution occurs to accepting that man evolved from basic chemicals -- that is a different story all together. However, an evolutionis does not need to belive this either.

 

If you'd like to assume that, lets assume that the sun's internal structure is made of cheese.

 

Sure, lets. Then lets try to figure out if any cheese that we know of could sustain the temperatures found in the inside of the sun. Also we fail to see any spectroscopic eveidence for cheese in the sun. Oh yeah, the strength of the gravitational feild of the sun also does not really lend one to conclude that the sun is made of cheese. Of course, there is also the fact that cheese, cosmically speaking, seems to be a fairly rare occurace, requiring the precence of both a mammal and bacteria, of wich we find little evideence for on the sun.

 

What i am trying to say here is, I fail to see your point. I see no connection whatsoever between believing that the earth is 4 billion years old and that the sun is made of cheese on the inside. One one side we have some evidence that the earth is quite old, on the other, we find that there is little evidence that the sun is made of cheese. It seems to me a poor analogy.

 

Frankly, i am quite disspointed by your response. I had merely tried to state the problem as i see it. Wich is science relies heavily on uniformatarianism (old earth's weakness) while at the same time there seems to be little make us belive that uniformatariasm is incorrect (young earth's weakness).

 

It seems to me that perhaps you belive in a young earth? That is fine. However, if you would like to take part in a discussion about old earth, then it would be appreciated if you would acutally supply reasons that we should belive in a young earth (or at least reject an old earth). Please do not take this as an attack (perhaps i too belive in a young earth, i have not stated my position on this) i really do just wish to discuss this. But to have a discussion we must have participation from both sides, not just crazy analogies that really don't make a whole lot of sense and really add nothing.

 

 

 

in the sprit of discussion, i will now move on to talk about the only evidence that you seem to have offered against old earth....

 

DId you know they dated a penguin 3,000 years old using this method.

 

WEll then, was this a live penguin? IN which this would certainly offer at least a small problem. Or perhaps it was a penguin that had been dead for 3,000 years? IN wich case there is no conflict.

 

Of course carbon dating is not the only way we arrive at dates of things, so even were we forced to reject carbon dating (which we woundn't be on only one case) there would still be many many things that would allow us to conclude that teh earth must be quite old.

 

WEll, i truly do hope that you will choose to reply to this thread and that your next reply will contain something that contributes to the discussion. Truly, i do not wish this to be a hostile environment. You must have some reason for believing in a young earth and would enjoy hearing it. There is no need to go on the defensive right away, i am just trying to discuss what we both may or may not belive. That is all

[swansont]

Atlantic said in post #61 :

DId you know they dated a penguin 3,000 years old using this method.

 

And since the carbon source must be terrestrial (exchanged with atmosphere), and fish do not fill this requirement, it is extremely likely that whomever did the testing knew it would be invalid.

 

Similar to the dating of inclusions (xenoliths) in a recent lava flow not giving the age of the eruption - you didn't fulfill the requirement if the rock being molten in order for it to work.

 

You might want to give scientists the benefit of the doubt that they aren't terminally stupid.

[Sayonara]

When the great "They" rears its ugly head, someone who hasn't done their research is never far behind.

[DeoxyriboNucleicAcid]

Back to evolution...

I am a great supporter of evolution, but I also accept creation. Many people that I know think that there was creation of the universe, and all galaxies. There for, from the creation of all of this "dust" planets, stars, etc. evolved. After this, On our little "home" earth, people could have evolved (yes, from chemicles. If you beleive that you came from a fertilized egg, than you can most certainly beleive that the first human like organisms started off as chemicals, and than became microorganisms, than people.). What I am trying to say is that the two theories can be combined, and that the big bang may have been started by a creator and that evolution is still correct, and maybe Adam and Eve were apes. Who knows? But anyway, the two theories can be equally respected, and marged.

 

I hope someone is patient enough to read the last comment.

[Atlantic]

awww please.......throw this guy a towel

 

I, somehow thought you wanted it to be a discussion.

If you don't, thats fine.

 

BTW: cheese was just a humorous metaphor, i am not actually trying to prove the point

 

As far as i know, there was a scientific debate recently ( dont' know how recent), where they proved evolutionism wrong.

Purchase a tape a listen to the 25-hour-long debate.

 

Once again, i appologize to work this thread against your intent, i shall put an end to this "debate"

[VendingMenace]

I, somehow thought you wanted it to be a discussion.

If you don't, thats fine.

 

Did you not read my above post? I do want a discussion. Most assuradly.

 

cheese was just a humorous metaphor, i am not actually trying to prove the point

 

if you are not trying to prove a point, then how could you claim that you were trying to have a discussion?

 

As far as i know, there was a scientific debate recently ( dont' know how recent), where they proved evolutionism wrong.

Purchase a tape a listen to the 25-hour-long debate.

 

How am i supposed to purchase a tape when i don't know what the name of it is??? If you give me the name, perhaps i will listen to it.

 

Once again, i appologize to work this thread against your intent, i shall put an end to this "debate"

 

THere is no need to end the debate. However, if you wish to continue it, it would be nice if you would present us with arguments for your position. Otherwise, there is no debate. I assume that you are in possesion of arguments for you position as in another thread you claimed that you had a long debate on this subject when you were in 11th grade. It would be nice to see some of these arguments. I really would be interested in it.

[VendingMenace]

Now in response to DeoxyriboNucleicAcid...
Yeah, their are many people that have the same belife. That is that the universe was created, but it just evolved to where it is now. Kinda like a watch is wound up and then set into motion. It is an interesting idea. Although i take it one step farther. That is, there is one statement in your post that i take issue with. It is;

 

you beleive that you came from a fertilized egg, than you can most certainly beleive that the first human like organisms started off as chemicals, and than became microorganisms, than people

I personally find this hard to accept. It seems that as far as fertilization goes, the egg and sperm carry all the complex machinery needed for life already. All that is required is for them to unite. Thus, there is no need for them in reinvint the wheel, so to speak, and come up with all the chemicals all on their own, from scratch.

Perhaps it is my inability to grasp the probabliities involved properly, but i feel that it is exceedingly imprabable (not impossible) that life just arose from chemicals. It seems that there are way to many things that needed to happen in order for the most basic life form to arise just by change. I am not saying that you are wrong, just that personally, i find it difficult to accept life arising from non-living chemicals. that is all.

Now i am not saying that evolution (in the proper sense of the word) does not happen. It most certainly does. But in this sense it requires pre-existing populations of organisms. I find it hard that life could "evolve" from chemicals. As such, i find the idea of a creator quite appealing.

Of course with this idea there are problems as well. For instance, where did this creator come from? We can keep asking this question as long as we allow for a natural creator. Becuase of this, eventually we are forced to look for a creator that is not bound by the laws of nature, as we know them, and must find designate one that is outside of nature, or supernatural. This, i think is how one arrise at the conclusion that life either arose ultimately from chemicals or from supernatural causes.

WEll then, that was quite a rambling post, wasn't it? For those of you that took the time to read it. Thank you. I look forward to your comments, if any.

[swansont]

 

 

DeoxyriboNucleicAcid said in post #65:
Back to evolution...
I am a great supporter of evolution, but I also accept creation.
...
But anyway, the two theories can be equally respected, and marged.

Except that creation isn't a scientific theory.

[lnblackard]

I have trouble teaching this subject because I am Catholic and I am a science major. I know according to my religon I am not supposed to believe in big bang and evolution, but I have seen to much scientific evidence to not believe.

[IMI]

Why cannot the big bang, evolution, and god all co-exist? Who is to say that the big bang and evolution are not the methods by which god created and continues to fine tune the universe?

 

I personally don't believe this though. Whereas science and religion are comparable, with regards to the level of faith that is generally required, at least science consistently and constantly tries to prove itself. Religion is the opposite in that it tries to quell further investigation which would only uncover inconsistencies and promote doubt.

[VendingMenace]

i would agree with you IMI. Religion and science both have equal claim as to what caused the universe to come into existance. Science can point to evidence that would lead us to the big bang, but then what caused this? Since by definition, the big bang created both time and space as we know them anything that lies beyond this is not in the relm of true science. By this we see that science doesn't even really have a claim to the beggining of the universe, that is the prime cause of it. This is truely the relm of philosophy, or wich religion could be considered a branch.

 

A question for inblackard...

 

I have trouble teaching this subject because I am Catholic and I am a science major. I know according to my religon I am not supposed to believe in big bang and evolution, but I have seen to much scientific evidence to not believe.

 

What specifics do you have issues with? The age of the earth? The big bang? The mechanism of evolution? I am just curious. I am not Catholic and, as such, i have not kept up on Catholic doctrine. I am unsure as to what sciencetific theories the pope is in disagreement with.

 

Also, do you find that your religious belifes tend to cause you to emphasize that the idea that life sprang from chemicals or that evolution is only a theory? That is, do you not present it as a fact, as most high school, and sadly, college classes do? Just curious. thanks

[swansont]

VendingMenace said in post #72 :

Also, do you find that your religious belifes tend to cause you to emphasize that the idea that life sprang from chemicals or that evolution is only a theory? That is, do you not present it as a fact, as most high school, and sadly, college classes do?

 

Evolution is both fact and theory. The phrase "only a theory," in science terms, is an oxymoron, since theory is the pinnacle (vice hypothesis or conjecture) and requires a large amount of supporting evidence.

[VendingMenace]

Evolution is both fact and theory.

 

I suppose that all hinges on what you take the definition of fact to be. I belive that most people would hold that if something is a fact, then it is objectively true. Does this seem reasonable? In such a case, we find that evolution cannot be fact. It can never be proven objectively true. In science, we cannot prove things true, we can only prove them false. What we do then is advance theories that will survive as long as they are not disproven. Thus, evolution is only a theory. And it will only be accepted as a thoery until it is proven inccorect.

 

I say until it is proven incorrect becuase surely it will be. how do i know? Becuase historically everything in the relm of science has been proven incorrect. Consider this; a long time ago, people thought that their were four elements, earth air fire and water. We know suppose this to be false. People also thought that atoms were indivisable. They thought that energy was continous. People even thought (get this!) that time and length and mass were constants! All these things have been shown to be wrong and other theories have taken their place. By induction, we find that all the theories that we now have will too be proven incorrect.

 

As such, evolution is not a fact. What is more, a good scientist must treat the theory with a health dose of skeptisism. It as Feyman said (i am paraphrasing) science without doubt is dead.

 

Now i hope that you do not feel that i think that evolution is a poor theory. Actually, i happen to think that it is a good theory. It explains many things around us. Furthermore, i think that it is obvious that evolution (as described by the theory) does appear to occur. We definately see that gene frequencies change in a population over time. Thus, evolution occurs.

 

Now, saying that i think that evolution is a good theory, i also want to stress that i think it is wrong and will be shown to be so eventually. But this is only a healthy scientific view. The view that a theory is unquestionably true is not a healthy view and lead to stagnation of science as well as an almost religious fervor towards a theory -- something that is not really suited to science.

 

The phrase "only a theory," in science terms, is an oxymoron, since theory is the pinnacle (vice hypothesis or conjecture) and requires a large amount of supporting evidence.

 

The pinnacle? WHat about scientific law? As in the LAW of gravity? Would that be held higher than a theory?

 

Whatever. This is just semantics. It does not matter what you use to prefix your idea with (thoery, law, conjecture, ect.) the fact remains that you cannot prove anything to be obejectively true in science. Science does not pretend to do this. It does not intend to do this. And a good scientist will always remember to maintain a sense of doubt and not ascribe to a theory truth that is not there.

 

 

 

Well, i hope i made my point. Perhaps you did not mean objective truth? But i had to address this point as i feel it is quite common (especially among the young person intersted in science -- though i don't pretend to know your age). I hope i did not come across as offensive. I mearly wish to stress in the strongest possible language that science is a method of continuous discovery -- not a way to arrive at ultimate truth. That is all.

[Sayonara]

lnblackard said in post #70 :

I have trouble teaching this subject because I am Catholic and I am a science major. I know according to my religon I am not supposed to believe in big bang and evolution, but I have seen to much scientific evidence to not believe.

Personally I have serious issues with the major organised religions, however I am not about to draw conclusions about their validity and I certainly wouldn't question your right to believe whatever you wish to believe.

 

I have to say I too don't see any reason why evolution, the big bang and god's creation of the world have to be mutually exclusive. Creationism deals only with the formation of this planet and the beginnings of life - evolution and the big bang are not descriptions of either of these things.

 

Like IMI said, the big bang and evolution could well be the tools of another agent, be it the universe, God, or great A'Tuin.

 

If I were a god (not that I wish to offend anyone with my blasphemy) and I was planning to create life, I would build in some sort of evolutionary processes. It makes sense.

After all, it's no good creating life if the whole bloody lot dies off the second its environment changes. Evolution is a good idea and the suggestion that the Ultimate Intelligence in the universe wouldn't have thought of it is a bit silly.