Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Evolution vs Creationism
the way esa is reasoning is why you can never disprove creationism, because they will go into denial and twist around words etc, and if you get them stuck they can always say "thats how god made it"
Mankind is figuring out more and more of natures mysteries each day, and we are getting closer to where it all began aswell, just think of CERN.
We can only hope that more and more ppl listen to reason rather than fairytales as time goes by 
Creationism is only acceptable when it claims cells wer created. When it makes claims beyond that, it's a pseudoscience, pretty much like astrology.
One of the major limitations is that the human mind always tries to see a cause when it's troubled with something it doesn't "understand", like the famous example with the turning mask..
@Rooster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
You might want to read it. It's true they never formed algae (yet?) out of inorganic compounds, but amino acids are quite a bit to start with.
And then something about chance in science.
I know the idea that nature works statistically must horrify you, as a creationist. After all, if nature works statistically, there could not have been a higher being that created us. For you nature works deterministic, when you now the starting parameters, you know the effect (am I right?).
Well alas for you, most of our modern theories are statistically and the more we learn about nature, the more chance pops up. Quantum mechanics and Evolution theory are both statistic in nature and although I will never say these two theories are verity, they are the theories we work with in science nowadays and if you ask me, they work pretty damn well.
Now you say evolutionists believe in chance, but that's not true. When we reason, we don't believe anything. Anything has to be falsificable in science. Everything needs to be proven.
Creationism is something completely different. It can't be proven, nor disproven. It just isn't science. And just as we, scientists, don't discuss religion, please, keep your hands of science. Most creationists know about as much about science as I do about religion and that's fine. But don't come telling us you have a better theory in science if you believe the Sun revolves the Earth, the Earth is only 7000 years old, the dinosaur fossils were put there by God, radioactive dating is a hoax, the dinosaurs were extinct by man, a higher being created the Earth or whatever.
We won't believe you.
Ok Red Rooster i will point out that all of your points are invalid.
point 1)
"According to this theory, a long long time ago some chemicals formed together and created life. This notion has been disproved time and time again. Meaning it is a mathematical impossibility."
When has this been disproved? Care to show a source? You can't, cause it has not been disproved. The chance of random molecules coming together and forming life is indeed very small, but not mathematical impossible. Many millions of years passed until that particular event occured. If you play the lottery for millions of years every week you'll eventually win too. It has not been proved that life was created this way either, that's true, i'll give you that. BUT every source and clue available points in that direction, so it's a safe "guess" to claim it indeed did happen that way until someone comes up with something better. (and no creationism isn't better cause there is not a single clue that points in that direction)
point 2)
"For the last 50 years chemists have been trying to turn ammonia into algae and have failed to do so every time. They did prove that it is not possible for life to form form a mix of chemicals."
Not true, they just haven't succeeded in creating life yet from scratch, which is pretty understandable considering we've only been at it for 50 years, while nature had millions upon millions of years + many more molecules that were interreacting with each other. Now they're doing it in a small lab with a limited amount of molecules. Nature had the whole sea and millions of years where it could do it's thing.
point 3)
"The idea that species can mutate into other species is based on a misunderstanding of the laws of genetics. You see, evolutionists beleive that matter + time + chance has created our brains. ( i got this from ravi zachariah, you should go watch him on youtube big_smile) If you beleive in evolution it means you beleive in chance in essense. You cannot say that you have lots of evidence because you beleive in chance, I beleive in a higher being. Your "chance" theory also has not been proved because it has not been done and I have not seen it nor has any human being seen it. So basically evolutionists create a theory saying "If something can happen, which Darwin said can happen, then it can happen because there is a chance it can happen because Darwin said so"
"
First off, the matter + time + chance = brains thing is ALOT too simplified. Brains evolved gradually and over a very very long period of time indeed. And again, no real proof has been made for the whole evolution theory but again all clues point at that there was and still is indeed evolution going on. How do you explain all the similar but not quite the same skeletons of animals and such being found? And with carbon dating they can tell how old they are, and when you put them in chronological order they just happen to naturally flow into eachother. There is no other way to explain this than evolution. If not evolution this all would be a coincidence, and (you spoke of evolution being a chance thing) that would be a very very very small chance.
Every research, every source, every fossil, everything they found, every clue points in the direction of evolution. Again, until someone comes with a better "theory" it is a safe bet to assume evolution did indeed occur while no real proof has been given.
Now if you need to make an objective decision between creationism and evolution what would you choose?
I'll add pro's and con's to both evolution and creationism.
Evolution
---------
Pro's
1) Every research points out there was indeed evolution
2) Most of the fossils they found etc points out there was indeed evolution
3) If you think it over with common sense it seems the most logical thing.
Con's
1) No real proof has been given that it actually occurs
Creationism
-------------
Pro's
1)Evolution hasn't been proved, so there is a chance creationism is right
Con's
1)No real proof has been given for creationism
Now for the verdict:
If you compare the two, everyone with some intelligence should choose evolution above creationism. It is more than obvious that most things are in favour of evolution.
Evolution wins, creationism is disregarded.
I rest my case.
*cough* still waiting on some fossils to prove evolution
*cough* still waiting on an explanation about how living things come from non-living substance that doesn't require *much more* faith than creationism
Micro evolution/adaptation? Sure
Macro? Never seen anything more foolish when one looks at the "proof"
Like i said, i never claimed there is proof, just all clues point at the direction of evolution, while none point at creationism.
"When has this been disproved? Care to show a source? You can't, cause it has not been disproved. The chance of random molecules coming together and forming life is indeed very small, but not mathematical impossible. Many millions of years passed until that particular event occured. If you play the lottery for millions of years every week you'll eventually win too. It has not been proved that life was created this way either, that's true, i'll give you that. BUT every source and clue available points in that direction, so it's a safe "guess" to claim it indeed did happen that way until someone comes up with something better. (and no creationism isn't better cause there is not a single clue that points in that direction)"
I see that evolutionists try to stay away from the facts. The facts about creationism is that there are no facts. Yet, evolutionists claim they are oh so intelligent. So please, let me know what FACTS you have about evolution. The chance of random molecules coming together to form life has never been done before. And i don't know what understanding you are using to say that it can happen. You have circular reasoning where, life is present ---> it wasn't god ---> molecules came together to form life ----> life is present ---> repeat
I beleive god created a world where the weaker species die out and the stronger survive. I do also beleive that god created the universe and he is letting all this come into play.
Nobody's answered my starting question.
Here's how I see it:
Creationists: God did it!
Evolutionists: It was done by putting amino acids together! (Or whatever was put together... I really don't know at this point)
Why doesn't this make sense:
God did it by putting amino acids together! (Or whatever was put together... I really don't know at this point)
"I see that evolutionists try to stay away from the facts. The facts about creationism is that there are no facts. Yet, evolutionists claim they are oh so intelligent. So please, let me know what FACTS you have about evolution. The chance of random molecules coming together to form life has never been done before. And i don't know what understanding you are using to say that it can happen. You have circular reasoning where, life is present ---> it wasn't god ---> molecules came together to form life ----> life is present ---> repeat"
We are not staying away from the facts, the facts are that every research on that area makes evolution the most plausible theory. Much more plausible than creationism.
"The chance of random molecules coming together to form life has never been done before. And i don't know what understanding you are using to say that it can happen."
Of course not, i'm not saying it's easy to do, it cost nature millions upon millions of years. And why can't it happen? It has not been disproven it can't happen. It's always mankind's behaviour to say God did it when they don't understand it. At first they thought lightning was god being mad at them, later on they learned it was just electrical discharge between clouds, and so scientific knowledge has grown and everytime it was not god who did it. What makes you think this time it is indeed god who did it?
God is just a creation of mankind to explain things they cannot understand, it has always been like this and probably always will be in some way.
@ zarf
Please restate your original question then, i don't think i fully understand where you are going.
Zarf, that is one of the things, i seem to like, or think makes sense
i think the evolution theory and the creationism can co-exist, 
evolution explains, how we came to be, creationism explains how we started? a little mix of both.. HOORRAAHH ]
EDIT: i just googled to see, if a religion does actually believe in creationism and evolution
and turn out that Islam and The Quran actually sates that man was not made instantly, as said in the bible and believed by christans
and Muslims actually believe that Man came to be in 7 stages, or something like that
although mordern Islam has percieved the theory of Man being made in heaven and then placed on earth
The Quran has verses where it points out the different stages of man coming to be where it is right now
the theory in The Quran, is although not perfectly inline with Darwins
here's the 7 stages that were listed on the site:
( 1 ) The material from which man has been created is not eternal. It was created by God.
(2) Man's creation involved an evolutionary process extending over a long period of time. He was not created in a moment.
(3) Man was created from an origin of his own species. It is not correct that he evolved from a species of monkeys or apes which is the theory advanced by Darwin.
(4) One of the evolutionary stages through which he passed was something akin to stone or rock.
(5) He next passed through a stage of animal life but intelligence had not yet developed in him although he moved about, ate and drank like other animals.
(6) He became an intelligent being able to speak and communicate.
(7) In his final stage he devised a system of life and started on the road to civilization and culture. Instead of each individual living for himself, as is the case with other and lower animals, he began to work in co-operation with others of his species evolving a system and law of life.
interesting-- seeing that offcourse The Quran was written way before any evolution theory was presented or recorded atleast
"*cough* still waiting on some fossils to prove evolution"
Homo Habilis - Homo Erectus
"Of course not, i'm not saying it's easy to do, it cost nature millions upon millions of years. And why can't it happen? It has not been disproven it can't happen. It's always mankind's behaviour to say God did it when they don't understand it. At first they thought lightning was god being mad at them, later on they learned it was just electrical discharge between clouds, and so scientific knowledge has grown and everytime it was not god who did it. What makes you think this time it is indeed god who did it?"
Then why cannot god happen? it has not been disproven... You are saying anything can happen as long as it is not disproven. You use this broken logic to justify evolution. And now you say that evolution is more plausible than creationism.
In your theory, over millions of years, some molecules suddenly came together and formed life. Your theory can never be disproven because we don't have millions of years to disprove it. And we also don't have the molecules which are needed because we don't know what they are.
Now explain to me how your theory of evolution is much more plausible than my creationism?
> [TI] The_Unknown wrote:
> @ zarf
Please restate your original question then, i don't think i fully understand where you are going.
Gladiator got it. Picture earth as if it was a chair.
"I built the chair!"
"The chair was built in a factory!"
One perscribes a creator to a creation, while the other describes the method.
Why, then, couldn't the following be true:
"I built the chair in a factory!"
If there's no conflict between evolution and creation, then you're both wasting time.
red rooster, what's your take on what i said?
i'm interested in knowing
I can't believe I'm going to say this... but Gladiator has a point...
better believe it,
for the record, i wanna hear what you guys think first, then i'll post all the stuff on this site, i was talking about before, it's really quite interesting
@ rooster
"Then why cannot god happen? it has not been disproven... You are saying anything can happen as long as it is not disproven. You use this broken logic to justify evolution. And now you say that evolution is more plausible than creationism."
I never said god can't happen. It's just not very plausible that it happens, all clues point to evolution not creationism. It's just a matter of finding the most plausible theory based on the facts, which is in this case evolution.
"Now explain to me how your theory of evolution is much more plausible than my creationism?"
I already did that partly in my first post.
All the fossils they found, all the carbon dating they did on it. The skeletons they found of all man-like creatures like homo habilis and the carbon dating on them shows that the skeletons evolved in chronological order. Darwin's natural selection, and countless other researchs all point towards evolution.
The simple example of breeding new dog sorts (granted it's not an entire new species but it's a change and that's what evolution is, a gradual change)
And the only thing creationism has is a book that was written a long time ago and rewritten so many times that probably very little of the original content remains.
@zarf
I don't believe god put those amino acids together to form life, if he created the universe, why would he care about such a small thing. It is arrogant and wrong for us to think we are oh so important.
The one way i can combine "evolution" or "science" with creationism is that some higher force (let's call that force god) created the big bang and then left it alone, and everything in the universe came from that big bang.
We know nothing at the point before the big bang so the statement that "god" made the big bang happen is a valid theory, though we still cannot know for sure.
where's the @gladiator part TU 
oh btw here's a little part of that whole article that i personally found a little interesting:
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
The Quran provides a clear cut answer to the question: At what point did life begin? In this section, I shall set forth the verses of the Quran in which it is stated that the origins of life are aquatic. The first verse also refers to the formation of the universe:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of water. [21:30]
The notion of 'getting something out of something else' does not give rise to any doubts. The phrase can equally mean that every living thing was made of water (as its essential compone- nt) or that every living thing originated in water. Life is in fact of aquatic origin and water is the living component of all living cells. Without water, life is not possible. When the possibility of life on another planet is discussed, the first question is:
Is there a sufficient quantity of water to support life?
Modern data leads us to think that the oldest living beings probably belonged from the vegetable kingdom: Algae have been found that date from the pre-Cambrian period, the time of the oldest known lands. Organisms belonging to the animal kingdom probably appeared slightly later: They too came from the sea.
The words translated here as 'water' is in fact 'ma', which means both water in the sky and water in the sea, or any kind of liquid. In the first meaning, water is the element necessary to all vegetable life:
[God is the One Who] sent water down from the sky and thereby We brought forth pairs of plants each separate from the other. [20:53]
This is the first reference to a 'pair' of vegetables; we shall cause to return to this notion later. In the second meaning, which refers to any kind of liquid, the words is used in its indeterminate form to designate the substance at the basis of the formation of all animal life.
God created every animal from water. [24:45]
Thus the statement in the Quran on the origins of life, whether referring to life in general, the element that gives to birth to the plants in the soil, or the seed of animals, are all strictly in accordance with modern scientific data. None of the myths on the origins of life that abounded at the time the Quran was communicated to man are mentioned in the text.
Reference: What is the Origin of man?; The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures, By Dr. Maurice Bucaille, Translated from the French by Alastair D. Pannell and the Author, Second Edition, Revised. Publisher: SEGHERS, 6 Place Saint-Sulpice, 75006 PARIS.
@Gladiator
"where's the @gladiator part TU"
Well obviously i did kind of agree with you that they can co-exist, but only in the way that a force ("god") made the big bang happen and then let it alone, and everything what is now comes from that 
well, i would say it goes beyong the big bang
but i guess the Islamic view of creationism is much more interesting, possible than the christianity view
correct me if i'm wrong, but from what i remember, the bible just says that on this day God created this, and on that day he did that,
but take a look at this TU:
http://ldolphin.org/islamcreat.html
it's the site i quoted my last post from, it's quite interesting, it provides darwins theory first and the overview of it and sorta compares it with Islamic views in The Quran
I will tomorrow, it's 4am here, going to bed now
Good night!
> [TI] The_Unknown wrote:
> @zarf
I don't believe god put those amino acids together to form life, if he created the universe, why would he care about such a small thing. It is arrogant and wrong for us to think we are oh so important.
The one way i can combine "evolution" or "science" with creationism is that some higher force (let's call that force god) created the big bang and then left it alone, and everything in the universe came from that big bang.
We know nothing at the point before the big bang so the statement that "god" made the big bang happen is a valid theory, though we still cannot know for sure.
And that's quite presumptuouos of you to assume a God that can't care about both large and small matters, especially considering that the natural universe as we know it is comprised both of large structures and small structures (atoms), regardless of life.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Evolution vs Creationism
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
