Creationism vs Evolution, Equal?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually, while I personally believe in Evolution, rather than Creationism, I find it interesting to ponder the following (for which, AFAIK, Science provides no answer).

How was Evolution created? How were the rules and mechanisms it uses defined or designed? After all, logic tells us that any system has to have rules (even systems in nature). How were those rules defined?

Evolution enables beings to change to fit their own needs and/or environment (for instance, humans walking around on two legs rather than 4 paws). How was the system that allows those changes implemented?

Isn't that a little 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'? You speak of the rules and mechanisms in what is essentially a noisy system, that is influenced by a changing environment. It is strange that some commonalities can be found in the resulting behaviour?

Also, have a look at emergent behaviour Behaviour doesn not have to planned to conform to certain rules.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Well as I pointed out I was taught incorrectly I was taught about a missing link that wasnt there. Maybe the whole "how we came to be" could just be dropped full stop cuz at the end of the day no one knows for sure what happened.Maybe schools should concentrate on the fact we are here and things relative to the here and now rather than the billions of years ago

How we got here is one of the driving forces behind a lot of modern science, whether through cosmology or biology.
If you had been taught properly, then you'd have learnt the tools of science used to investigate the possibilities of a missing link, sounds to me like you had a really bad teacher who used the parrot fashion technique of just giving facts without explaination.

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

People have said that belief in creation is a belief magic. Tell me please how the belief that a molten rock cooled and then life "magically" just started is any different at all?????

I can accept evolution happened after life begun on this planet. But I cant accept that life just happened

Sounds like you were taught some really basic form if you believe evolutionist claim life just started like that!

Tell me how life started please and give me definitive proof of it

---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

Ok simple googling makes it quite clear that there are only theories

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issue...rsity/life.asp

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Fi...01Overview.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

so a scientist can not tell me how life begun but he tells me how life developed into what we know now.
Creation is another theory as to how life started on this planet none of these have definitive proof to be called fact
So without these Facts how can someone dismiss my faith ?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Tell me how life started please and give me definitive proof of it

That's two requests, and requires a definition of life.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

So without these Facts how can someone dismiss my faith ?

Quite easily, the smugness is palpable in this thread at times

Originally Posted by Xaccers

That's two requests, and requires a definition of life.

your obviously wiser than me you define life then show me definitive proof of how it begun

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Ok simple googling makes it quite clear that there are only theories

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/issue...rsity/life.asp

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Fi...01Overview.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

so a scientist can not tell me how life begun but he tells me how life developed into what we know now.
Creation is another theory as to how life started on this planet none of these have definitive proof to be called fact
So without these Facts how can someone dismiss my faith ?

Simple is an understatment!
How about you actually google some research papers on the subject rather than just a creationist site, an enviromental research site, or a layman's interview?

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

your obviously wiser than me you define life then show me definitive proof of how it begun

No, you made the request, you make the definition, wouldn't want any wriggle room now?

Incidently, can the god you believe in make mistakes?

[Pierre]

What I want to know, and I hope the christians amongst us can answer this.

Why does the theory of evolution negate the prescence or work of your god???

Yes, the whole 7 day thing is in the bible, but surely those of you woith faith know that many, if nearly all things in the bible are open to many interpretations and are usually a way of producing thought about the way you live and are not to be taken literally.

I was listening to a guy on the radio, some kind of religious scholar, who advised that the actual miracle of turning water into wine, did not take place and that is only a story, a parable.

Why, can you not see your gods work in evolution?

God may have made us in his image, but he, or she, didn't set a time as to when we'd get there?

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually, while I personally believe in Evolution, rather than Creationism, I find it interesting to ponder the following (for which, AFAIK, Science provides no answer).

How was Evolution created? How were the rules and mechanisms it uses defined or designed? After all, logic tells us that any system has to have rules (even systems in nature). How were those rules defined?

Evolution enables beings to change to fit their own needs and/or environment (for instance, humans walking around on two legs rather than 4 paws). How was the system that allows those changes implemented?

Because thats not what evolution is. Nature doesnt change creatures to suit the enviroment. Instead, like viruses, there are random changes in animals. Sometimes a change will mean that version of the animal is more suited to the enviroment than the rest. The rest cannot compete as well, This means they become increasingly smaller while the success of the new version becomes bigger.

I.E early man did not have intellgence or the dexerity to create and use tools. At some point one of the many many verations created a more intellegent human they used this is hunt better and protect themselves better giving them an advantage over the previous men. This meant this version was better at competing for food and so on and this continues.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Why, can you not see your gods work in evolution?

I can.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ B

I can.

Except when it comes to humans

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Simple is an understatment!
How about you actually google some research papers on the subject rather than just a creationist site, an enviromental research site, or a layman's interview?

---------- Post added at 11:12 ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 ----------



No, you made the request, you make the definition, wouldn't want any wriggle room now?

Incidently, can the god you believe in make mistakes?

They were just top of the google list so your telling me research papers are telling us deffinately how life begun and not theories?

Just use dictionary.coms definitions http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

And ill ask him when I see him

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

They were just top of the google list so your telling me research papers are telling us deffinately how life begun and not theories?

Just use dictionary.coms definitions http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

Cool, I'll use point 18 from the definition you've chosen.
Life begins when the defendant has been found guilty of a crime and sentanced to life inprisonment.

Originally Posted by Zingle

And ill ask him when I see him

Do you believe the god you believe in is able to make mistakes?

[jem]

A student goes to see his tutor and says to him , "Professor, I'm confused as to what makes a good theory, we have learnt that theories and ideas have changed over time, so how are we to recognise a good theory when we hear one?" The Professor thinks for a few minutes and then says, "consider that I have two clocks, one is completely broken and the other works but gains a few minutes every day. Logically which one is the better timepiece?". "The working clock", says the student.

"Think again" says the professor, "the working clock will never show the right time but the broken clock will at least be accurate twice a day".

"But what use is that" says the student, "we don't know when the 'right' time is. At least with the working clock I'll have an approximation of the time".

"And now" says the professor, "you know what to look for in a good theory. It may not be perfect and is likely to need revision in the light of new discoveries, but it does allow us to make predictions which can be tested to check the validity of otherwise of the theory. This is always preferable to a theory which is given as the 'final answer' and permits no testing at all".

Does science understand everything about everything? No, certainly not and doesn't claim to. What is does offer is a framework by which we can learn more and hope to arrive at a fuller understanding of the universe. Science depends on what is refered to now as the scientific method'. Observations are made, theories are developed to explain these based on what is already 'known', and these theories should make predictions which can be tested. And evolution theory makes predictions about what should be observed every bit as much as quantum theory does.

Everything (and I do mean everything) in science is a theory. There are no absolute facts. Which is sometimes a bit confusing to a non-scientist who expect that science and scientists 'know' stuff. For those who claim that evolution is just a theory (true) and that other 'theories' should be given equal time in classes and children allowed to make their own mind up about what to believe should really consider this; just how many theories should be included? How about the ancient Egyptian theory which states that at the beginning of time the god Amon-Ra masturbated himself and the result was the creation of the universe. Surely just as valid as the Biblical version and with precisely the same level of evidence.

Aerodynamics is only a theory after all. So if a college decided to start teaching its students to design aircraft in the form of a cube with no engines because the teacher has a theory that invisible pixies are actually responsible for holding aircraft up-that would be acceptable would it? Anyone willing to risk flying in such a machine?

If there was the slightest evidence for creationism it would be shouted from the rooftops. There simply isn't any. What creationists do is point out weaknesses or gaps in standard evolutionary theory-all of which is quite normal in science. The other means of attack is try to show that the universe is far younger than evolutionary theory requires. Hence the 'speed of light might have changed' arguement which would throw all the calculations out. Yes it might have changed but there is simply no good reason to suspect it has. It all seems to be a bit straw-clutching to me. Or the other arguement which goes like 'I don't understand how the universe came to be like it is through natural forces-so I don't believe it did' Or my favourite, 'but surely it's better to believe in a all-loving creator god than things being essentially random' Well yes I see the point but I'd also like to believe that people wouldn't fly airliners into building or blow themselves up on the tube. Just wanting or needing something to be the case doesn't make it so.

Faith is faith, it doesn't need proof or evidence, Science does and science are faith are totally separate entities.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Except when it comes to humans

I see vast adaptability within type. God's genetic programming system is a masterpiece, lots of contingencies built in and ready to come to the fore when environmental changes favour, say, someone with a built in sun-tan (African) over someone who's as pale as the driven snow (some of my Pictish neighbours up here in Scotland).

What I do not observe is 'beneficial mutation', whether in humans or anywhere else.