Evolution Vs Creationism

[Nightingale]

if your avatar looks like its been run over by a truck, yep, then that would be about how I feel.

I've dragged myself to work for the last four days, because I don't get sick pay, so I can't afford to be out, but since I should be at home resting, I'm not getting better!

sigh.

I need to go throw myself out of a plane. LOL.

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by michaeledward
Schoolbooks don't teach anything. Teachers ... People ... teach. Hopefully, our teachers are using all of the aids available to them to help our children think; to apply their ability to reason to a set of circumstances in front of them. Hopefully, one of the items our children will learn (and maybe some of their parents) is what is called the 'Scientific Method'.

Now, let's apply the scientific method to religion. Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again after two nights in the tomb. Let's see if we can construct a test to reproduce this ... who wants to volunteer to be crucified? anyone? I'm sure the two nights will pass real quickly ... and we can put aside all this science stuff... OK ..this last paragraph is a bit over the top. But, it is not possible to apply the self-correcting, peer-reviewed scientific method to religion. Religion by its very nature (and its very strength) is that it must be taken on Faith.

Right. Religion and science are two different things. But the science of studying our beginnings, as weak as it is, is conflicting with religion.

I suppose that people who have no faith also do not believe in Ki. It would have to follow suit. we've never bottled it, put it in a petri dish, or injected it into rats.

This is the main theme of this thread from what I can take away from it, other then arguing over the accelleration of gravity, which everyone should know, a bowling ball and a feather will fall and hit the ground at the same time in a vaccuum.

Anyways, I enjoyed this one as well. Talk to you all soon...

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm still waiting to read why a) the science of studying our beginnings," is weak, since it's as well-established as the Copernican theory, and b) why evolution conflicts with "religion"--for which word, again, read, fundamentalist Protestantism.

The Catholic church accepts evolution. Most Christian churches in this country do, apparently. Buddhists have no probs.

So what IS the prob? Only thing I can see is a literal reading of Scripture...in which case, you're stuck with that whole women-are-secondary-to-men claptrap, too.

Your brand of Christianity or your personal faith may conflict with evolution. That's your business, your prerogative, your absolute right. And who knows? maybe you're right. But it does not conflict with everybody's, and I have to say that it's a little presumptuous to claim that it does, or should.

My problem with the whole discussion is that I don't much care for seeing folks warp what science is and overlook the facts about reality, but wotthell. And I'll be damned if I see why viewing the complexity and beauty of the world and life as they really are takes a thing away from any Creator...personally, I would think that it would increase one's, "wow."

Oh, and Allen? Do me a personal and discuss the issues, please. I find it hard to keep my temper in a discussion where civility, common sense, and some ideas about good methods of argument make it impossible for me to respond in kind. They're just words. It's just an Internet argument. The future of Western Civ does not hinge on these discussions. And, I suspect, people on these forums can handle themselves in various ways.

 

[michaeledward]

Religion and science are two different things ..... I suppose that people who have no faith also do not believe in Ki. It would have to follow .... This is the main theme of this thread from what I can take away from it

:wink2: Very good. That is one hell of a good piece of reasoning. . . . Almost

If one lives according to the precepts of the scientific method, the existence Ki (or Chi) has not yet been rigourously tested, repeatably and verifiably, and therefore its existence should not be denied or confirmed.

Does Ki (or Chi) exist? Well, maybe yes, mabye no. A person living by the precepts of science would say that, so far, we do not have any evidence that such a thing exists.

Most of those who apply the scientific method would never be so bold as to say a thing doesn't exist. We remain open to the possibility of Ki (or Chi or God or Aliens), but we will remain skeptical until such evidence makes the existance of such more likely than unlikely.

Discussing Gravity is easy ... because we all understand how it works ... well sort of... But you can apply the techniques used to test gravity to many of the things we observe and infer in the universe ... but, it is not easy to apply these techniques to faith.

Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

Someone should start a thread about chi. Does it exist or is it just a myth? Good topic.

 

[Andi]

I always like this debate. My views on the subject are that I'm not sure! But I can't see how it is so easy for the "creationists" to dismiss the science behind evolution. Why hasn't a creationist paper ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Well I don't know that for certain but having studied the subject I came across none.

So to explain this I can only assume that if the creationists are right, and being thorough and fair with their treatment of the subject scientifically, then the "Scientists" must be part of a conspiracy to keep creationism out. I've heard this conspiracy theory alluded to a few times, but never expressed outrightly. I don't see how a conspiracy theory would stand up. None of the top professor blokes I've ever met would be able to be so cunning and deceptive. And not one involved has ever broken ranks? Maybe I'm following a false path of reasoning here, so if you spot a flaw, point it out.

Maybe students of the history of science will be able to lend a hand here. Is there a precedent of scientists holding out so long against a true theory?

No religion bashing from me, I'm a christian.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Andi
Why hasn't a creationist paper ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal?

This website is full of such papers and they are written by skilled scientists in various fields. They are all on the subject of "creation science." I will reserve my opinion as to not influence yours.

http://www.icr.org/

 

[michaeledward]

Mike,

No disrespect.
A or Acceleration is 9.8 Meters per second squared or
32 ft per second squared.

See ... Peer-Review in action :wink1: Thanks, Rich, I'm getting old, and the memory is the first thing to go :wink2:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by michaeledward
See ... Peer-Review in action :wink1: Thanks, Rich, I'm getting old, and the memory is the first thing to go :wink2:

I thought it (Memory) was the second to go. And, I just wish I could remember what the first thing to go was?
:rofl:

 

[arnisador]

I have no problem with creationism, understood as a religious belief.

I do have a problem with "creation science" as a science, since it is pseudo-scientific--I dare say, anti-scientific--nonsense.

There's only one scientific theory of speciation that's got any currency--evolution. It still has some things that need to be worked out, but so does the theory of gravity.

 

[Makalakumu]

This has been a great discussion. I liked the comparisons between the law of gravity and the theory of evolution. We examined the philosophical differences between the two and we were able to discern the nature of scientific thought from the discussion.

I agree with arnisador about creation science. It's psuedo-science, plain and simple. Experimental evidence is hard to come by in creation science and true experiments on sedimentation and genetics provide negative evidence for the "theory." There is no question which theory is more credible and there is no question which should be taught in a biology class.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The reason that "scientific creationist," or, "intelligent design," papers don't appear in peer-reviewed, professional journals is the same reason that your average story about Roswell doesn't appear in "Aviation Week and Space Technology," and papers about therapeutic touch don't appear in, "JAMA."

It may be decent theology, but it sure is lousy science.

As for the ICR website, well, these are the guys who have the painting of onee of Noah's kids feeding the stegosaur hanging in their foyer.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Evolution is most certainly a theory! Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibria have very distinct differences and are theories unto themselves. The biggest you notified as gradualism. The other differences are genetic. Natural selection relies on natural mutations. While Punctuated Equilibria relies on "switch" genes and junk DNA. For instance, if one of these "switch" genes is manipulated, entire sections of DNA can be activated or inactivated. In essence, DNA you carry that is inactive, such as the code for gills, could be activated under extreme environmental stress. This leads to quick punctuated changes in species. Those are large differences.

Ah, not quite. PE refers only to the rapid evolution of daughter species in an isolated population subjected to selection pressures. Could you provide a reference that characterizes PE as what you've described? I've never heard this before.

Here's a good article on the subject, though by no means is it definitive: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
Ah, not quite. PE refers only to the rapid evolution of daughter species in an isolated population subjected to selection pressures. Could you provide a reference that characterizes PE as what you've described? I've never heard this before.

Here's a good article on the subject, though by no means is it definitive: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors

What I said above is exactly the theory that Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed. Those population changes are the external environmental pressures. My description of the DNA is the internal mechanism for the morphologic change.

 

[qizmoduis]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
What I said above is exactly the theory that Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed. Those population changes are the external environmental pressures. My description of the DNA is the internal mechanism for the morphologic change.

But I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that Gould and Edredge pushed the idea of the "switching on" of junk DNA as the mechanism for PE. As far as I can tell, they only speak about isolated populations and selection pressures doing the job, and then the new species breaks out of its isolation and quickly (in geological terms) replaces the old one. In "geological" terms, rapid still means hundreds, or even thousands of generations. You're not talking about the sudden expression of gills on otherwise land-bound creatures because something got switched on.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, though. It's conceivable that there could exist, in a gill-less (to use the example above) species's junk DNA, a set of genes that originally coded for gills that was somehow left intact over the generations. And it could be conceivable that some kind of genetic mutation/copy error/duplication event etc. could cause those proteins to express again. I'm just saying that this possibility isn't suggested as the mechanism for PE. As an example of genetic modifcation in a population, it would fall under the many mechanisms of neo-darwinism in general.

Back to creationism: One thing that always amused me about "Creation Scientists" was their inability to actually provide scientific support for their own position. Look at their websites and the "papers". It's all attacks on evolution and science in general. In many cases, they attack the very process they would need in order to support their own theories. If they actually had any theories, they'd run into a problem.

 

[Ender]

What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Ender
What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error.

Time only gets goofy when you move near the speed of light and that is only in different frames of reference. For your frame of reference, it's always constant.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by qizmoduis
But I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that Gould and Edredge pushed the idea of the "switching on" of junk DNA as the mechanism for PE. As far as I can tell, they only speak about isolated populations and selection pressures doing the job, and then the new species breaks out of its isolation and quickly (in geological terms) replaces the old one. In "geological" terms, rapid still means hundreds, or even thousands of generations. You're not talking about the sudden expression of gills on otherwise land-bound creatures because something got switched on.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, though. It's conceivable that there could exist, in a gill-less (to use the example above) species's junk DNA, a set of genes that originally coded for gills that was somehow left intact over the generations. And it could be conceivable that some kind of genetic mutation/copy error/duplication event etc. could cause those proteins to express again. I'm just saying that this possibility isn't suggested as the mechanism for PE. As an example of genetic modifcation in a population, it would fall under the many mechanisms of neo-darwinism in general.

This is such a great aside. The actual paper doesnt' suggest the mechanism. The subsequent books by Gould do. Stephen Jay Gould is one of my favorite scientific authors - on the same level as Carl Sagan. I would recommend any of their books.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Ender
What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error.

Might I suggest you get a hold of the first 25 page of a book called "The Elegant Universe". It will help you understand more clearly what 'Relativity' is all about.

 

[Cruentus]

The Catholic church accepts evolution. Most Christian churches in this country do, apparently. Buddhists have no probs.

So what IS the prob? Only thing I can see is a literal reading of Scripture...in which case, you're stuck with that whole women-are-secondary-to-men claptrap, too.

I so agree. Literal reading of scripture...and also taking the scripture out of context and out of the realm of "why" and "to whom" the scripture was written is what causes such conflicts.

I have no probs. with Evolution as a theory.

PAUL