Evolution vs. Creation

[cuppajoe_9]

What about the eye

We've done this before, Dante.

, or even cilia?

Cilia are incredibly simple.

[atiguhya padma]

RedZeppelin,

I would have thought that the evidence relies upon a measurable rate of change in the construction of a species genetic makeup. Measure the average rate of change in genetic makeup of a species over x amount of generations, then work out the percentage difference in genes from any given species to the earliest life forms and calculate the total duration of time elapsed. If this vastly exceeds our dating of life on earth, using other independent techniques, then we can say that evolution theory requires a worrying amount of faith (although it will never require as much as creationism). So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it?

You say that evolution requires 'the tacit acceptance of numbers beyond reason, beyond belief'. What are those then? What numbers do you find unbelievable, unreasonable? Life has been here a long time. Long enough for us to have evolved.

[Redzeppelin]

So you say that you cannot calculate the odds of there being a god, but the chances of evolution occurring and being a driving force in the continuation of life on earth, can be calculated. That in itself speak volumes against creationism doesn't it?

I will deal with the rest of your post later. For now - I said what I said because I'm not sure how you calculate the probability of a supernatural being. I do know that we can calculate things like the probability of evolution because the theory requires that we use evidence that is readily available here on earth (to an extent). Simply because I'm not sure how you calculate the odds of a supernatural being doesn't mean the odds are against it - it just means I'm not sure how to go about it.

[DRK3RD]

Evolution is just a theory! But, then, again, so is Creationism!! So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to.
Thanks for letting me spout off!!!!

[Dante Wodehouse]

Evolution is just a theory! But, then, again, so is Creationism!! So it comes down to which thoery do you subscribe to. I prefer to think that there is more than just this life to look forward to.
Thanks for letting me spout off!!!!

It is possible to believe that God created the world, but the world has evolved. It isn't a True/False answer.

[cuppajoe_9]

Evolution is just a theory! But, then, again, so is Creationism!!

In scientific terms, creationism is a hypothesis.

[The Atheist]

The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.

Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.

To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.

As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.

Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.

[Redzeppelin]

The attempt by creationists to insist that both "theories" should stand side by side as equals is one of the more laughable aspects of the debate.

Creationists constantly state that evolution "is only theorised", it's not scientific fact.

To a degree, that's a valid point, but when the theory is backed by enormous amounts of undeniable scientific fact and becomes accepted science, it is a lot more than just another theory.

As Joe points out, creationism is not, scientifically-speaking, a theory's backside. It is at best a very weak hypothesis. Certainly, it can be classed quite correctly as a "theory" in English as the language has that ability. Just as I can hold a theory that the moon is made of cheese.

Creationism has not one fact which backs it up. I long for the day when a creationist will actually attempt to use a fact to suggest that there's any merit in the idea. Scientifically-speaking, it isn't even really a hypothesis, as hypotheses in science should have at least some chance of being proven correct. Unfortunately, creationism can't do that and the idea counts as no more than lunatic ranting.

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.

[andave_ya]

Simply false. Neanderthals are classified as Homo neanderthalensis. Full taxonomy of Homo neaderthalensis here.


Edit: a Google revealed that the species was originally clasified Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, but DNA evidence shows otherwise. Sorry about that.

I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source. And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as homo sapiens but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as homo sapiens? or that it looks like homo neanderthalensis? I'll research it and get back to you.

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm sorry, cuppajoe, but that's wikipedia. Anyone trained and untrained can edit it to say what they please, making it unacceptable as a source.

It's cited, I believe, and you can follow it up if you'd like.

And in your edit, you say that it was originally classified as homo sapiens but DNA shows otherwise? Meaning that it's still classified as homo sapiens? or that it looks like homo neanderthalensis? I'll research it and get back to you.

The species was originally classified as a sub-species of homo sapiens, but it is now generally accepted that it could not or did not interbreed with other homo sapiens, and therefore qualifies as its own species.

[kilted exile]

Red, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?

[Redzeppelin]

Red, Ok I may not be following this correctly (mainly skimmed the last 2 pages) but I dont really understand your position here: you seem to be complaining that scientists dont examine the creation perspective, but also suggest that is untestable scientifically. If it is untestable scientifically why would scientists attempt to test it? Can you clarify this?

Which post are you referring to?

[kilted exile]

Which post are you referring to?

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:

"Testable predictions" are very dependent upon 1) the nature of your measuring devices, and 2) the nature of that which you are measuring. Your statements reveal quite clearly your suppositional basis: it's naturalism all the way with you; I don't fault you for that, but understand that - from the Christian POV, your assertion that God can be "tested" like any other hypothesis is nothing short of absurd.

&

Naturalism has been the basis of scientific inquiry. Therefore, that means that any discussion of a spiritual component to the world, or the existence of a Divine Being is automatically ruled out, based on the presuppositions of Naturalism. So - if all scientists are publishing upon the same foundation, then it won't be seen as a "coloring filter." Total objectivity would require science to adjure Naturalism and embrace ALL explanatory possiblities.

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

[Redzeppelin]

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).

[kilted exile]

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