Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Sorry,Just realised they are on a mixture of different threads (it all seems to merge together every once in a while) anyway I'll collate them here for easiness:

As I said previously it is probably just me misunderstanding, but some clarification would be nice:)

---

I think I'm saying this:

1) Foundational presuppositions are the basis of our beliefs; these presuppositions act as "filters" through which we consider the nature of reality. Naturalism posits that only the material world and its measurable/observable phenomenon is the basis of reality; Christianity posits that God is the source of reality. These presuppositions mean that evidence that is convincing to one side of the fence will more than likely not convince the opponent on the other side of the fence - because the presuppositional foundations prescribe what is and is not credible evidence; hence, the Naturalist automatically dismisses all supernatural claims of evidence because God's nonexistence is a given, a requirement for Naturalism. Conversely, the Christian will automatically not consider valid any evidence that suggests that God is not who He says He is and that the Bible is not reliable - because the Christian foundation says that the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God.

2) Naturalists (and often atheists) will insist that they are objective, open-minded, individual thinkers (as opposed to us close-minded Christians who are brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves); I contend that real open-minded people would not dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces at work in our world. As such, I challenge the claimed "objectivity" of the atheist, the naturalist, the secular-humanist.

Let me know if I continue to be unclear (I'm prone to being such).

Ok, thats a lot clearer; it was mainly the phrase "embrace ALL explanatory possiblities." that was troubling me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok, thats a lot clearer; it was mainly the phrase "embrace ALL explanatory possiblities." that was troubling me.

---

I should have said "consider" all possibilities; those who claim open-minded must do so to carry that title (which means I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open-minded person - at least to certain possibilities).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The mathematical odds against evolution are astronomical. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.

---

The "facts" and "evidence" are not to be swept aside by probabilities. You can list off as many statistics as you can the fact is, is tht there is still a chance and the evidence seems to say that that chance happened. True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Naturalists (and often atheists) will insist that they are objective, open-minded, individual thinkers (as opposed to us close-minded Christians who are brainwashed and cannot think for ourselves); I contend that real open-minded people would not dismiss the possibility of supernatural forces at work in our world. As such, I challenge the claimed "objectivity" of the atheist, the naturalist, the secular-humanist.

---

It's not that scientific endeavor dismisses the possibility of supernatural entities, it simply requires evidence of their existence and/or influence in our world. It's easy to condemn naturalism as closed-minded if you forget that the burden of proof is on the believer to provide evidence of supernatural forces.

Methodological naturalism (the basis of empirical evidential inquiry) doesn't claim that natural forces are either a subset of all forces that exist or the only forces that exist. MN merely assumes the pragmatic stance that only verifiable entities should be considered as having relevance to scientific inquiry.

The reason why many people believe in evolution because it exists. We don't know for sure how life started, but evolution does exist. It's easier to tag initial creation with something we know exists than with something we made up.

Evolution is a mechanism for change. It is not the essence of life itself. It is growth like a root that finds it's way through a crack in the rock. In that sense it ties all life together. However, It pre-supposes the existence of something that will evolve. At the basic level change in based on genetics.. mutations...so... no genes, no mutation, no evolution. Pools of organic chemicals are not genes. You cannot use evolution to explain the start of life. The evidence only suggests that life did not appear suddenly.. it appeared to have come about slowly. Find the link between volition and matter and you will have indeed found something. As it is right now, like gravity, we can only describe the material mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The mathematical odds against evolution are astronomical. Regardless of the "facts" and "evidence" you keep trumpeting, the odds are against evolution. The formula at the base of your belief - lots of stuff + lots of time = life - is not tenable. There are too many weaknesses in the theory of evolution - holes that evolution cannot bridge and must be content to say "we think" "we suppose" "we're not totally sure" "it seems reasonable" et al.

---

Can I suggest that before you start with blatant lies about evolution that you actually learn something about it first.

You show with this post that you have no idea at all. It is wrong from start to finish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3kixintehead

The "facts" and "evidence" are not to be swept aside by probabilities. You can list off as many statistics as you can the fact is, is tht there is still a chance and the evidence seems to say that that chance happened. True, life evolving is beyond all odds. There shouldn't even be one planet in the whole universe that has life. But there is. And the evidence says that evolution is how we got to be where we are now. No one really knows how life began. So becuase of this you can decide that evolution is a creation of God "theistic evolution" or you can assume that evolution did it all and their is no God "naturalism".

---

Can I suggest that before you accept any of the lies about the odds for evolution that you check them with someone who actually understands them.

The algorithm for evolution shows evolution to be mathematically almost a certainty.

Comments from creationists that the odds are agaist evolution are nothing more than baseless lies. This just shows what a hopeless position they're in - they [B]never/B] present any evidence (because they don't have any) and they attack evolution with silly lies in the knowledge that most people don't understand calculus.

Unfortunately, lots still do understand it and those people also understand that the weight of mathematical probability is on Darwin's side. The odds of creationism being correct are so low that nobody's even bothered to work it out. Creationism is wilful ignorance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I should have said "consider" all possibilities; those who claim open-minded must do so to carry that title (which means I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an open-minded person - at least to certain possibilities).

---

See, this is the thing - I have considered all the possibilities, unlike you.

Evidence for ceationism: the bible says so.


Evidence for evolution: 4 billion years of fossils, genetic evidence, geological evidence, intemediate species, thousands of man-years of research proving the links and refining the theories and currently-living species add up to an astronomical amount of evidence.

If creationism ever presents one tiny iota of evidence in favour of it, I will certainly consider it. Feel free to bring one to the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Can I suggest that before you start with blatant lies about evolution that you actually learn something about it first.

You show with this post that you have no idea at all. It is wrong from start to finish.

---

No, you may not. May I suggest that you stop making suggestions?

Here:

Most evolutionists believe the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Some speculate that the earliest bacterium might have been able to survive with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA (unlike current bacterium cells which have about 128 million base pairs). Likewise, in the very first bacterium, there was a minimum limit to the number of amino acids for protein production. The accepted number is 10,000 amino acids with at least 100 functional protein chains - each holding a few hundred amino acids. These numbers matter because of chirality.

"Chirality" is the term given to the necessity that all nucleotides in a DNA or RNA chain be of a certain molecular orientation ("right-handed," technically dextroform) for the chain to work. The nucleotides are the "rungs" of the DNA ladder, composed of four ingredients: every single one must be right-handed. Likewise, nearly all 20 different amino acids used in cellular protein chains must also be of a specified orientation ("left-handed," technicaly levoform) for a protein to work. Not one can be defective. If the chirality requirements are not met, the entire process of manufacture from DNA to RNA to "working protein" fails. Hence, for the first bacterium, a perfect mix of both nucleotide orientation (right handed) and amino-acid orientation (left-handed) had to occur.

In nature we find that all amino acids occur randomly in equal proportions of right- and left-handed (a recemic mixture). After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of purifying the mixutre - that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed animo acids. To create the first cell, all of the thousands of amino acids in the hundred-plus functional proteins required for the first cell would have to suddenly show up - the right types at exactly the right place at exactly the right time - all left handed. This is the only way tehy would have been able to properly bond as instructed by the DNA. Likewise, all 100,000-plus nucleotides would have to show up at exactly the right time in exactly the right way - all right handed - to form a functioning DNA molecule.

In other words, to just get the 100,000 correctly oriented nucleotides together in the first place would be like flipping a coin and getting 100,000 heads in a row. To get the 10,000 correctly oriented amino acids together would be like flipping 10,000 tails in a row. To do both, which is necessary, would be like correctly getting 110,000 specified flips in a row.

Attempts to prove that chirality is not necessary have failed. Dr. Alan Schwartz of the Evolutionary Biology Research Group at the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands describes such an attempt:

"In an experiment designed to test the requirement for chiral purity, it was demonstrated that incorporation of even a single mononucleotide of opposite chirality into the end of a growing chain in template-directed oligomerization is sufficient to terminate the reaction" (Joyce et al, 1984).

Back to the coin flipping: The probablility of each flip being correct is 1 out of 2. One bad flip and the game is over. A direct calculation would simply be multiplying 1/2 X 1/2 110,000 times. What are the odds that result? 1/2 to the 110,000 power, or, in base-ten: 1 in 10 to the 33,133 power. This number is so large that it is the equivalent of winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket for each. Or, if we counted all the subatomic particles in the entire universe (10 to the 84 power) - in fact, in nearly 400 universes - it would be the same as the odds of selecting a single, predesignated particle from that number.

I contend, as I have more than once (and you have never responded to in any substantial way) that the odds that I would need to accept for the evolutionary beginning of life as suggested by the "primordial soup" model, are beyond fantasy - and that they are equally unbelievable and equally unprovable as God appears to you.

I await your response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

After years of study, scientists have not found a single means of purifying the mixutre - that is, increasing substantially the proportion of left-handed animo acids.

---

Actually, there are plenty of abiotic reactions that either produce or amplify chirality. A sample of the available research is here.

And incidentally, isn't it taking something away from the majesty of a Divine Creator to imagine Him sorting amino acids to produce ancient life forms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

Actually, there are plenty of abiotic reactions that either produce or amplify chirality. A sample of the available research is here.

And incidentally, isn't it taking something away from the majesty of a Divine Creator to imagine Him sorting amino acids to produce ancient life forms?

---

Sorry - I checked the link you provided: so what? That there are "plenty of abiotic reactions" doesn't negate what I posted. We need a particular reaction taking place at a particular time and in a particular way with just the right components and timing and without a sentient guiding force. The odds are there - deal with those.

Your 2nd question - what's it for?

edit: note that my post said "purify" and yours said "produce" or "amplify": they're not synonyms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Sorry - I checked the link you provided: so what? That there are "plenty of abiotic reactions" doesn't negate what I posted. We need a particular reaction taking place at a particular time and in a particular way with just the right components and timing and without a sentient guiding force. The odds are there - deal with those.

Your 2nd question - what's it for?

edit: note that my post said "purify" and yours said "produce" or "amplify": they're not synonyms.

---

Well, I guess short of replaying the course of history so you could witness the particular reaction taking place at a particular time, you'll deny that the ability of abiotic reactions to produce chirality is a scientifically valid avenue for origin-of-life investigations. Does anyone else see this as stacking the deck or is it just me?

And what specifically is the creationist alternative? And how does it serve as a framework for further scientific inquiry?

its not just you. the deck is being stacked.

no need for further scientific inquiry in the creationist's eyes. anything science can come up with is irrelevant because its founded by man and not directly revealed by god him/her self.