Does this website prove Creationism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2011, 12:04 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
I haven't looked at it yet though I'll make sure that I will have Yakety Sax playing when I do to set the mood. It really helps.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2011, 06:54 PM
 
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(11-07-2011 07:40 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  To be honest, until someone puts forth a better scientific model, then why should they try to disprove evolution? Numbers can easily be manipulated as well, but I'll wait for a biologist on this one.

To be honest, until someone puts forth a better scientific model, then why do we accept evolution to be 100% true.

Looking at it and hearing a lot of talks from both sides it seems that Creationist wave "and then God did this" over hard issues while evolutionists explain things through "enough time and random chance."

Does anybody know how current evolutionists explain the universes movement towards chaos with the amount of coincidences that needed happen to bring evolution about to it's current state?

Legitimately curious. I'm not sold either way on this debate.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Kanvas's post
13-07-2011, 07:10 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
Yes, actually, but I am not qualified enough to give you a complete and 100% correct answer you deserve. If you are really curious about evolution, and abiogenesis (life from non-life), you should look it up online, there are many resources that explain evolution in a non-biased form.

You could also write an e-mail to a biology professor or teacher.

I would provide you with links, but I am very tired right now, if no one comes up with good links, I'll look for some when I wake up.

Note-
Not believing in evolution does not mean you have to believe in creationism.
Not believing in creation does not mean you have to believe in evolution.

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2011, 09:38 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(13-07-2011 06:54 PM)Kanvas Wrote:  
(11-07-2011 07:40 PM)monkeyshine89 Wrote:  To be honest, until someone puts forth a better scientific model, then why should they try to disprove evolution? Numbers can easily be manipulated as well, but I'll wait for a biologist on this one.

To be honest, until someone puts forth a better scientific model, then why do we accept evolution to be 100% true.

We don't. We just acknowledge that evolution is observable and backed by mountains of evidence. If the scientific community had a breakthrough discovery that explained how humans got to this point and was completely contradicting of evolution, then we would have to discard evolution (given the appropriate evidence). We're not extremists in our beliefs, we're realists.


Quote:Does anybody know how current evolutionists explain the universes movement towards chaos with the amount of coincidences that needed happen to bring evolution about to it's current state?

They don't. Evolutionists explain evolution; not abiogenesis, not astronomy, and not thermodynamics. What makes you think the universe is becoming more chaotic? And what coincidences? 99.999% of this universe developed in such a way that human life was impossible. Considering the sheer size of the universe, it would seem more unlikely to me if the possibility of life was impossible in 100% of the space.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2011, 10:06 PM
 
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(13-07-2011 06:54 PM)Kanvas Wrote:  Does anybody know how current evolutionists explain the universes movement towards chaos with the amount of coincidences that needed happen to bring evolution about to it's current state?

Chaos is a somewhat subjective word there. It isn't all coincidence and random chance; simple natural laws can create "order" out of "chaos", and that's what evolution does. Take various crystals, the interactions of their molecules somehow force them into various geometric shapes.

Another interesting example is called Conway's Game of Life. There are patterns that consistently emerge from most random starting scenarios. These things aren't that random because of the rules that govern interactions within these systems. If you want to argue about the rules themselves being random, I doubt anyone has the first clue about how these rules were formed. The only people likely to make claims about it are desperate apologists looking for another "proof" of God's existence. To begin to make claims about the probabilities of the natural laws we observe is to assume knowledge that might not even be possible for us to attain.
Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2011, 09:40 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(13-07-2011 06:54 PM)Kanvas Wrote:  Does anybody know how current evolutionists explain the universes movement towards chaos with the amount of coincidences that needed happen to bring evolution about to it's current state?

Legitimately curious. I'm not sold either way on this debate.

I believe you are asking about the second law of thermaldynamics and why evolution doesn't interfere with it. The second law says that every leans towards chaos over order. Entropy is the measure of disorder, and a closed system always gains more entropy(disorder) over time. The key word there is closed. Earth is not a closed system due to the sun giving us fresh, usable energy, as opposed to free energy, often in the form of heat, that is given off when we use energy. I'll spare you the extremely long lecture on thermaldynamics, but yes our entire universe is heading towards disarray, but there can be pockets of order and disorder. We are in a pocket of order, thanks to the sun, giving us energy.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2011, 10:14 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
@Kanvas
You are kind of mixing apples and Dinosaurs here by asking for evolutionary biology to explain physics/astronomy. Ashley's explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a good quick summary of what I think you are asking. It is also important to note that the Universe itself is an open system (it will continue to expand forever) and not a closed system. If we were in a closed universe then eventually everything would stop expanding and gravity would bring everything back to some central location...this does not appear to be the case and instead the universe will continue to expand...forever.

As for the "enough time and random chance" argument given by proponents of evolution you must not have seen/read to much on it. Yes time is a key factor. Time is essential in any and every chemical/biological/physical process. With evolution the biggest obstacle is overcoming the sheer amount of time. It is very difficult to imagine truly deep geologic time...I have a hard time comprehending how much time a few hundred years is, much less a few hundred million. Understanding that when evolutionists talk about time they are talking about a lot of time, even when they say that something occurs quickly they often still mean a few million years.

The random chance part is also a necessary component but is not the sole driver of evolution and diversity. Things occur randomly everyday and in the realm of evolution random occurrences could be a predator killing its prey and that prey organism not reproducing. In this scenario it could be random because the prey animal may have actually been well suited to its environment but was killed anyway because of not paying attention, injury or any other number of possibilities. Even this average everyday event can change evolutionary trajectories. If we rewind the evolutionary clock and replay it all, the odds of anything working out the same way as before is slim to none. Different evolutionary trends and new lineages would rise and fall...all because of random chance causing different outcomes. These different outcomes could be our prey animal above surviving or a genetic defect that occurred may be detrimental instead of beneficial. Other random events include impacts by bolides (the finishing blow to the dinosaurs), volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and the impact these events have on plate tectonics.

Random chance is not the only driver of evolution though. My above example of the predator and prey is an example of what is known as the "Red Queen Hypothesis" or the "Evolutionary Arms Race." In this case both predator and prey drive the other to change. Prey become better adapted and equipped to avoid predators and predators become better adapted to catch prey. This leads to coevolution of these organisms and is not random. Another example is sexual selection. In most cases females choose males (in some birds it is the opposite). Selection of a mate is dependent on certain characteristics deemed important to the female. In peacocks for example, the most desirable males are the ones with the brightest feathers and plumage. Being the brightest and most colorful is an advantage for the males to mate but a BIG disadvantage towards evading predators (this is why the female peacock is small and brown). In this case females continue to select for the biggest and brightest males causing the male population to shift towards that end of the spectrum. (Side note: a potential reason that females select the brightest, biggest and most colorful males is likely because they are the ones with fewer parasites. The males who have a larger parasite load are often not as colorful or big).

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2011, 10:52 AM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
It is also worth remembering that even in the evolution of living things it's not like you put the pieces in a bag, shake it a while, and out comes a horse or a redwood tree. Parts are formed and added incrementally, and only the ones that pass the natural selection test get to go on. The analogy of the shaken bag is entirely inapplicable to the evolutionary process.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2011, 12:51 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two? As I understand it, evolution is evolution. Creationists claim that one species can't turn into another but that changes within a species can obviously occur because we can see it. But, isn't this just really an issue of timing? Obviously a tree is not turning into a dog but no one has ever claimed that to be the case. The claim is that there is a common ancestor between the tree and the dog and, at some point, there was a divergence. The divergence at the time was a micro-evolution within a species. Over millions of years as the now two species continued to evolve on separate paths did one turn into a tree and one turn into a dog. But, they did this through the same process that creationists, and I guess Buddy Christ, call "micro evolution".

Maybe I'm wrong here but I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of degrees of natural selection. As I see it, the difference between macro and micro evolution is just the amount of time you've got to stand around and watch it happen.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2011, 02:25 PM
RE: Does this website prove Creationism?
(19-07-2011 12:51 PM)BnW Wrote:  I noted BC used the terms "macro evolution" and "micro evolution". I've heard these phrases used a lot, usually by creationists who accept one and deny the other. That got me thinking: is there any real difference between the two? As I understand it, evolution is evolution. Creationists claim that one species can't turn into another but that changes within a species can obviously occur because we can see it. But, isn't this just really an issue of timing? Obviously a tree is not turning into a dog but no one has ever claimed that to be the case. The claim is that there is a common ancestor between the tree and the dog and, at some point, there was a divergence. The divergence at the time was a micro-evolution within a species. Over millions of years as the now two species continued to evolve on separate paths did one turn into a tree and one turn into a dog. But, they did this through the same process that creationists, and I guess Buddy Christ, call "micro evolution".

Maybe I'm wrong here but I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea of degrees of natural selection. As I see it, the difference between macro and micro evolution is just the amount of time you've got to stand around and watch it happen.

I think most paleontologists and evolutionary biologists would agree. It is microevolutionary processes that lead to macroevolution. To accept microevolution is to accept macroevolution. The reason they reject macroevolution is that they claim it has never been observed but since microevolution leads to speciation (i.e. macroevolution) then their argument is invalid. I am sure the real reason is that they can fit microevolutionary processes in an Earth <10,000 years old but cannot account for speciation in that time frame.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: