Creationism vs Evolution thread.

[Khadgar]

Here's a thought experiment for those who buy into YEC:

That is a picture of the far side of the Moon. Every crater was caused by a meteor impact. To fit into the 6000 year YEC timescale, you'd seen a major impact several times in any given human lifetime. How many times have you seen the Moon get slammed? The near side, that is relatively smoother, has 300,000 craters at or above 1KM wide. That's 50 impacts a year, just on the near side. The far side has even more craters.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... de_LRO.jpg

[Farnhamia]

Gravity is just a theory!

Gravity is an "idea" that explains the function of the interaction between masses. It is not "real" in any sense of the word. Yet it still affects us, and in a predictable manner, according to the inverse-square law.

The idea of a God is not that he is some dude up in the clouds making mutated creatures and striking people with lightning. Things like gravity and evolution are functions of (His) interaction with the universe. They are what naturally occurs due to the fact that they were "parameters" the universe took during it's beginning. Most modern Christians would agree that evolution occurs, and God created it all, as one would make a Random-number generator, in something similar to the "Big Bang".

Gravity is certainly "real." It's a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportionate to their masses. We just don't know what the underlying quantum physics are.

[Grasswalkia]

If anyone reading this has decent knowledge and an opinion (of this argument/thingie), I'd quite like most of this (argument) explained to me. My MSN and Email is

drgold@hotmail.co.uk

, I'd appreciate it. Ta.

--

[The Ancient and Orthodox Potato Church]

Just because a person doesn't believe in religion doesn't mean they don't know God is real

Just to clarify, you have relatives who hold that god (any god, doesn't matter which one) doesn't exist, but who also know that god does?

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn here, either your relatives are schizophrenic (in which case my sympathies to them, had an uncle with severe mental illnesses), or you're an absolute idiot who doesn't understand the language you speak (also, my sympathies to your relatives).

[Seangoli]

If anyone reading this has decent knowledge and an opinion, I'd quite like most of this explained to me. My MSN and Email is

drgold@hotmail.co.uk

, I'd appreciate it. Ta.

--

What exactly would you like explained? Your query is a bit to broad to really have any starting point. Also, I don't see why it necessarily needs to be in private communication, as public forums are a great place to share, expand, and alter viewpoints/information.

[Ski Apache Nation]

I'm not talking about dieting, specifically. I'm talking about the human tendancy to do things that are counterproductive to survival, and subsequently reproduction. High-risk activities, suicide, self-destruction, the list goes on. What benefit could such tendancies have had on the human race at any point, in order for them to have been passed along?

We find them fun. We are wired to do things which we find fun. Like eating, or women. Now that we don't spend our lives trying to survive to the next day, we can find other methods of having fun.

Your missing their argument. I don't think it's ultimately important, but what they mean is that such behaviors would have become trends through natural processes of evolution, which seems contrary to its nature. I think they're trying to relate it to original sin.

Yet, if you read my posts, this argument over whether or not humans came from anthropoid-things, which in turn came from feathered whales or somesuch way back when, 400 million years ago, is irrelevant, because existence of creatures that evolve does not disprove God.Try to tell me exactly how it does.

[Grasswalkia]

If anyone reading this has decent knowledge and an opinion, I'd quite like most of this explained to me. My MSN and Email is

drgold@hotmail.co.uk

, I'd appreciate it. Ta.

--

What exactly would you like explained? Your query is a bit to broad to really have any starting point. Also, I don't see why it necessarily needs to be in private communication, as public forums are a great place to share, expand, and alter viewpoints/information.

Becuase, Firstly, Public forums aren't a great place for me to publish my stupidity and be mocked by trolls.

Secondly, 'this' refers to this argument. Everyone here seems to have a strong opinion(s), and they all confuse me.

[Farnhamia]

We find them fun. We are wired to do things which we find fun. Like eating, or women. Now that we don't spend our lives trying to survive to the next day, we can find other methods of having fun.

Your missing their argument. I don't think it's ultimately important, but what they mean is that such behaviors would have become trends through natural processes of evolution, which seems contrary to its nature. I think they're trying to relate it to original sin.

Yet, if you read my posts, this argument over whether or not humans came from anthropoid-things, which in turn came from feathered whales or somesuch way back when, 400 million years ago, is irrelevant, because existence of creatures that evolve does not disprove God.Try to tell me exactly how it does.

The more we understand about the natural world, the less need there is to invoke "God" to explain things. That points to him not existing.

[Catan]

Abiogenisis has no proof, but evidence abounds for speciation. Evolution explains the orgin of species, not the orgin of life. That is not what the theory is designed to do.

[Seangoli]

What exactly would you like explained? Your query is a bit to broad to really have any starting point. Also, I don't see why it necessarily needs to be in private communication, as public forums are a great place to share, expand, and alter viewpoints/information.

Becuase, Firstly, Public forums aren't a great place for me to publish my stupidity and be mocked by trolls.

Secondly, 'this' refers to this argument. Everyone here seems to have a strong opinion(s), and they all confuse me.

Ask honestly and don't be an obvious troll and you should be fine. Regardless of what you may think, if you are polite enough about it and freely acknowledge that you something is confusing (While not making rather bold claims of demonstrably false concepts), you'll be fine.

Also, once again, could you be a tad more specific? I'm not at all certain what you are talking about really. It'd be good if you made a list of questions you have and would like answered as a good starting point.

For instance, do you want to know what evolution is as far as the current theory is concerned? Divergent/convergent evolution? Gene flow? It'd be good to have at least a starting point.

[Ski Apache Nation]

Disclaimer: Yes, I believe in God, just not Creationism in any form. I am normally a very open person when it comes to listening and understanding other's opinions. However, this (Creationism) is one of the only two things I will NOT accept without definitive prof (the other being the Ancient Alien theory). If you are a creationist, I do not hate your opinion, I just think its wrong.

No offense to creationists, but there are three reasons why modern science has proved you wrong:

1) The Fossil Record: We have confirmed thousands of animals who have lived and died thousands and millions of years in the past. Unless you expect me to believe all of that is ether animals who died thousands of years ago who's bones were turned to stone by God to "Test" us or that it is perfectly normal for animals to turn to stone when they die (Which has been proven not to happen, BTW) there is no argument you could use to sway me on this point. Also, we have found ancestors of modern animals and even humans.

2) Geologic record: We have animals, plants, and even types of stone appearing on different continents in the same forms. We also have stone dated to several billion years ago. And the fact that Again, unless you can definitively prove that God is "Testing our faith" with this, you cannot sway me on this.

3) Human Civilization: We have been WRITING longer than 6,000 years. More than twice that, actually. Not counting all of the settlements we have found that have dated to later. And the bones and mummified remains we have found that also date to much later.

Look, no one said the book of Genesis is supposed to be exact history. Moses wouldn't even have claimed such. Books like Jubilees used to be added all the time to the Genesis story, they were a form of fandom back in the day.

The people who claimed 4000 year old earth are completely baseless in their assumptions. There are gaps in lineage. Also, looking at the book of Genesis, after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Palm Tree Garden, where did they go? The answer: in to town. Other people existed outside the Garden in the Genesis story. This was the basis of the rights of Monarchs. They believed they came from Adam's family, and the other humans came from "lesser peoples".

[Leepaidamba]

Yet, if you read my posts, this argument over whether or not humans came from anthropoid-things, which in turn came from feathered whales or somesuch way back when, 400 million years ago, is irrelevant, because existence of creatures that evolve does not disprove God.Try to tell me exactly how it does.

Is that irrelevant to whether god exists or not? Well sure. Is it also irrelevant to, if he even exists, whether he created every species individually or just one or a couple primitive forms and let them evolve? Definitely not. Given that the second is the subject here, it is relevant.

[Ski Apache Nation]

Gravity is an "idea" that explains the function of the interaction between masses. It is not "real" in any sense of the word. Yet it still affects us, and in a predictable manner, according to the inverse-square law.

The idea of a God is not that he is some dude up in the clouds making mutated creatures and striking people with lightning. Things like gravity and evolution are functions of (His) interaction with the universe. They are what naturally occurs due to the fact that they were "parameters" the universe took during it's beginning. Most modern Christians would agree that evolution occurs, and God created it all, as one would make a Random-number generator, in something similar to the "Big Bang".

Gravity is certainly "real." It's a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportionate to their masses. We just don't know what the underlying quantum physics are.

O.k., I said that the function of the interaction between those masses exists. "Gravity" is just an abstraction, due to failures in human languages to accurately describe the phenomena. Show me exactly where the Gravity is, say, between the earth and the moon.

[Ski Apache Nation]

Your missing their argument. I don't think it's ultimately important, but what they mean is that such behaviors would have become trends through natural processes of evolution, which seems contrary to its nature. I think they're trying to relate it to original sin.

Yet, if you read my posts, this argument over whether or not humans came from anthropoid-things, which in turn came from feathered whales or somesuch way back when, 400 million years ago, is irrelevant, because existence of creatures that evolve does not disprove God.Try to tell me exactly how it does.

The more we understand about the natural world, the less need there is to invoke "God" to explain things. That points to him not existing.

Once again, show me how natural processes disprove God. Show me exactly. With proper logic. Can you?

[Farnhamia]

Gravity is certainly "real." It's a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportionate to their masses. We just don't know what the underlying quantum physics are.

O.k., I said that the function of the interaction between those masses exists. "Gravity" is just an abstraction, due to failures in human languages to accurately describe the phenomena. Show me exactly where the Gravity is, say, between the earth and the moon.

It's in the virtual gravitons exchanged between the two masses. Or something.

[Leepaidamba]

Gravity is certainly "real." It's a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportionate to their masses. We just don't know what the underlying quantum physics are.

O.k., I said that the function of the interaction between those masses exists. "Gravity" is just an abstraction, due to failures in human languages to accurately describe the phenomena. Show me exactly where the Gravity is, say, between the earth and the moon.

Gravity isn't a thing you can show independent of anything else. It is the interaction and the interaction alone.

[Ski Apache Nation]

Yet, if you read my posts, this argument over whether or not humans came from anthropoid-things, which in turn came from feathered whales or somesuch way back when, 400 million years ago, is irrelevant, because existence of creatures that evolve does not disprove God.Try to tell me exactly how it does.

Is that irrelevant to whether god exists or not? Well sure. Is it also irrelevant to, if he even exists, whether he created every species individually or just one or a couple primitive forms and let them evolve? Definitely not. Given that the second is the subject here, it is relevant.

Ask any Christian why He would make so many planets!

This obviously points to God using the universe as a sandbox. He would have known, by starting the Universe according to the parameters that we call "the laws of science/physics" that life would emerge on at least one. The argument then is when, whether or not, or its possible He revealed himself to those creatures.

If God's the best mathematician, then He would be able to easily compute where that was most likely.

[Leepaidamba]

The more we understand about the natural world, the less need there is to invoke "God" to explain things. That points to him not existing.

Once again, show me how natural processes disprove God. Show me exactly. With proper logic. Can you?

Not what we're discussing.

Anyways, to prove that something doesn't exist, you must first know what would be different if it does.

[Ski Apache Nation]

O.k., I said that the function of the interaction between those masses exists. "Gravity" is just an abstraction, due to failures in human languages to accurately describe the phenomena. Show me exactly where the Gravity is, say, between the earth and the moon.

It's in the virtual gravitons exchanged between the two masses. Or something.

Lies! Every respectable physics student knows that quantum physics becomes inconsistent with things like large masses and Gravity. Gravitons are considered foolishness by the majority of physicists today. We use the Theory of General and Special Relativity for now.

[Mavorpen]

It's in the virtual gravitons exchanged between the two masses. Or something.

Lies! Every respectable physics student knows that quantum physics becomes inconsistent with things like large masses and Gravity. Gravitons are considered foolishness by the majority of physicists today. We use the Theory of General and Special Relativity for now.

This is just bullshit. The prime goal today for theoretical physics is to greate a Theory of Everything. They are trying to create a Quantum Theory of Gravity. So no, it is not foolishness.

[Leepaidamba]

Is that irrelevant to whether god exists or not? Well sure. Is it also irrelevant to, if he even exists, whether he created every species individually or just one or a couple primitive forms and let them evolve? Definitely not. Given that the second is the subject here, it is relevant.

Ask any Christian why He would make so many planets!

You're a Christian right? Well, why?

This obviously points to God using the universe as a sandbox. He would have known, by starting the Universe according to the parameters that we call "the laws of science/physics" that life would emerge on at least one. The argument then is when, whether or not, or its possible He revealed himself to those creatures.

Whoa, I didn't actually want an answer. But anyway, if God doesn't exist it really doesn't matter.

If God's the best mathematician, then He would be able to easily compute where that was most likely.

Mind if I tell you to take this discussion elsewhere before you threadjack this thread even further.

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

Knock yourself out. Put something searchable in the post, so we can link him back to it.

OK then. Like the Bible, let's start with Adam and Eve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosomal_Adam

The Y chromosome does not recombine and is passed on unchanged (except for mutations) from fathers to sons. Estimates for the so-called "Y chromosomal Adam", that is, the one male from whose Y chromosome all other human Y chromosomes are descended, vary widely. However, even the relatively inaccurate method of the "molecular clock" places this person (who is by no means the ancestor of all humans, mind, just the male who carried the ancestor of all modern Y chromosomes) at least 60000 years in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

The mitochondria, being passed on through the oocyte exclusively, are only inherited from the mother. Mitochondrial Eve, the female whose mitochondria are the ancestors of all modern mitochondria in humans, lived about 200000 years in the past; this rate is much more precisely known because it is based on mitochondrial DNA, which has a lower rate of mutation than genomic DNA.

[Catan]

If god made the universe, who made god? Using this line of logic, there would have to be an endless line of creators for the universe. It is simpler to believe the basic law that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Also, the existence of a diety does not by any means disprove evolution. Nor does evolution disprove god, only a literal interpretation of the Genisis story, which is ridiculous anyway with talking snakes, magic fruit, and women being made from a ribs.

[Ski Apache Nation]

O.k., I said that the function of the interaction between those masses exists. "Gravity" is just an abstraction, due to failures in human languages to accurately describe the phenomena. Show me exactly where the Gravity is, say, between the earth and the moon.

Gravity isn't a thing you can show independent of anything else. It is the interaction and the interaction alone.

It is like this: A missile can be controlled by a micro-chip. All of its movements are based on the algorithms contained in that chip.

A man walks down the street, heading toward a rally about injustice. His girlfriend calls him and invites him to join her for lunch. He decides instead to go to the rally: he has a strong sense of justice that was imbued upon him by society.

Gravity, most would argue, is like the "justice" that "persuaded" the man. It is the way that multiple external objects interact. You can't find the source/exact location of the Gravity just like you couldn't find all of the justice that persuaded the man to go to the rally. There is a closed-door debate about this going on at UCI College in California currently. You may find neurons which weighed the options in the man's brain, or figures in his life that taught him about justice, but that doesn't mean that justice doesn't exist "as if it had its own life". Justice is a function of interactions between people, culture, "morals", and society. Gravity can be conceived in the same way.

[Ski Apache Nation]

Lies! Every respectable physics student knows that quantum physics becomes inconsistent with things like large masses and Gravity. Gravitons are considered foolishness by the majority of physicists today. We use the Theory of General and Special Relativity for now.

This is just bullshit. The prime goal today for theoretical physics is to greate a Theory of Everything. They are trying to create a Quantum Theory of Gravity. So no, it is not foolishness.

Undoubtedly they'll find anything they look for. Like neutrinos. And anomalons.