Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Steam Log In with Google Sign In
  • Create Account
Photo

Evolution,Creationism, and ?

* * * * * 1 votes

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1
Methuselah

Methuselah

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 196 posts
7
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:8
This topic is very controversial. I am raising these issues in the desire to improve my knowledge of them. I am looking for a person of science if you will, to explain to me their take on the theory of evolution, creationism, and any other thoughts, ideas, and theories on the origins of life on earth, using their field of science. I am also looking for a person of theology to share the same. I hope for a scholarly attitude in all of the posts in response to this. Thank you for taking the time to read this and may we all gain something positive from this.


Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!

#2
aarop2

aarop2

    L6: Expert

  • Regular User
  • 967 posts
3
Unknown at this point
  • Admin:12
Contributor
there is a book on creationism called called intelligent design it is very bias but it should give you more info on creationism.
personally i think it is funny that people still believe creationism but that is just me.

#3
Desu

Desu

    L7: Teacher

  • Regular User
  • 1,383 posts
27
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:3
People make me when they talk of creationism.
Bible explains the earth was created few thousand years ago, yet we have clear proof we have rocks living longer than that.

One common thing that people misunderstood in Darwin's time, and even now, is that we came from monkeys.
no, we didnt come from monkeys, we didnt come from apes.

we had a similar ancestor, and we parted ways in the middle, becoming different.
evolution is the only way that makes sense to me.

though there is this one question that needs to be answered.
presence of life.

How did the first living organisms formed by the amino acids from the asteroid collisions just lump together, and become alive?
amino acid=non-living

What put life in it?

then maybe creationist can answer and say God put the life in there, but one day, we will find an answer

#4
Sfinxter

Sfinxter

    L4: Apprentice

  • Regular User
  • 502 posts
12
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:11
  • Server:None
I have been studying theology for 4 years and this question is unaswered to me as well.
Usually we (people) take these three theories 1.Darwin 2.Bible or any other religion 3. life from other planets.
1.Darwin-I have followed for reaserch of this theory and finally scientists made a point. It is not possible. Humans or any other life on earth can`t proceed step by step. And why nowadays we don`t see changes in monkeys? I mean if Darwin is right this "mutation" must be regular. Maby dogs should proggress in elephants atm.?etc.
2.Bible- Ye, its right that it says that earth is made 6000 years ago but the problem about this book is: THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN BY HUMANS NOT GOD! So maby we can say that we-"wise"human live here for last 6000 years.
3.Life from other planets-Like in religion theory we always are looking for a contact with our creator. Creator never talks to his creation in the same level, but it is still in contact. For example Pinocio, that wooden doll. Hes uncle never talked to him like 1on 1 but still was his uncle. This other planet theory doesnt contact with us.
I hope you understood smth of my english. :)

#5
Saizou

Saizou

    L7: Teacher

  • Leader
  • 1,445 posts
107
On the road to fame
  • Admin:20
  • Server:Jay1
  • Alias:Saizou, Boris
Contributor
Although not related to this topic I'd like to add a question (similar to Desu's question) that I also found unanswered: How come a heap of molecules (or taking it to the extremes, atoms or subatomic particles) can be aware of itself?

#6
Duckie

Duckie

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • Banned
  • 1,736 posts
58
Getting Better
  • Admin:0
  • Server:None
How come you would ask a person of science what creationism is? haha... here you go:

Creationism is a myth.

#7
milli vanilli

milli vanilli

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • Honored Veteran
  • 1,564 posts
116
On the road to fame
  • Admin:20
  • Server:None
Contributor

How come you would ask a person of science what creationism is? haha... here you go:

Creationism is a myth.



and not a science

#8
PHANTASM

PHANTASM

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • Regular User
  • 1,963 posts
90
On the road to fame
  • Admin:XIII
  • Server:Jay2
Contributor

This topic is very controversial. I am raising these issues in the desire to improve my knowledge of them. I am looking for a person of science if you will, to explain to me their take on the theory of evolution, creationism, and any other thoughts, ideas, and theories on the origins of life on earth, using their field of science. I am also looking for a person of theology to share the same. I hope for a scholarly attitude in all of the posts in response to this. Thank you for taking the time to read this and may we all gain something positive from this.


You should ask Rainier about this. He is our resident biology expert. He can tell you which RNA molecules combined with which proteins and how conserved regions of DNA trace back to the common ancestral cells of all life on earth. He can explain any of the questions you may have about evolution. No deity required.

God is important as a social concept because it inhibits human misbehavior. Without belief in a parental deity, this planet would go insane as everyone realizes there is not much purpose to life other than self-preservation and taking care of one's children/family/friends. Then again, looking at the Middle East, maybe we would all be better off without religion. I don't know.

Watching my little girls play, it's not hard to believe there is a God. I've had a few experiences that prevent me from accepting a purely mechanistic view of reality. But I have never grasped most religions, they just seem designed to keep people under control. For example, I have never understood how the political execution of a Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago has absolved me of the karma debt I owe to a Universal Being who would otherwise cast my immortal consciousness into a lake of fire because I act on my natural instincts. It sounds like a human sacrifice religion to me.

I was raised Catholic, at 13 I rebelled and became a Pentacostal, and by fifteen I made a difficult decision to get out of organized religion altogether. It didn't make me happier, I felt much better without the oppressive weight of Christianity hanging over me. Sad but true.

I can lose consciousness just by taking a pain pill or drinking too much. How can my consciousness survive the death of my brain?

#9
Methuselah

Methuselah

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 196 posts
7
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:8

You should ask Rainier about this. He is our resident biology expert. He can tell you which RNA molecules combined with which proteins and how conserved regions of DNA trace back to the common ancestral cells of all life on earth. He can explain any of the questions you may have about evolution. No deity required.

God is important as a social concept because it inhibits human misbehavior. Without belief in a parental deity, this planet would go insane as everyone realizes there is not much purpose to life other than self-preservation and taking care of one's children/family/friends. Then again, looking at the Middle East, maybe we would all be better off without religion. I don't know.

Watching my little girls play, it's not hard to believe there is a God. I've had a few experiences that prevent me from accepting a purely mechanistic view of reality. But I have never grasped most religions, they just seem designed to keep people under control. For example, I have never understood how the political execution of a Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago has absolved me of the karma debt I owe to a Universal Being who would otherwise cast my immortal consciousness into a lake of fire because I act on my natural instincts. It sounds like a human sacrifice religion to me.

I was raised Catholic, at 13 I rebelled and became a Pentacostal, and by fifteen I made a difficult decision to get out of organized religion altogether. It didn't make me happier, I felt much better without the oppressive weight of Christianity hanging over me. Sad but true.

I can lose consciousness just by taking a pain pill or drinking too much. How can my consciousness survive the death of my brain?


when you wrote "It didn't make me happier, I felt much better without the oppressive weight of Christianity hanging over me. " what did you mean, I think there is a typo as that is a contradiction however I may not be reading it correctly?

#10
krAzy :)

krAzy :)

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • ET Trial
  • 1,550 posts
70
On the road to fame
  • Admin:11
  • Server:Silent #1
  • Alias:krAzy:]
Contributor

One common thing that people misunderstood in Darwin's time, and even now, is that we came from monkeys.
no, we didnt come from monkeys, we didnt come from apes.

why do u think that?
i mean, human and monkey gene are quite the same (i think to 95%, or something like that)

#11
PHANTASM

PHANTASM

    L8: Grand Teacher

  • Regular User
  • 1,963 posts
90
On the road to fame
  • Admin:XIII
  • Server:Jay2
Contributor

when you wrote "It didn't make me happier, I felt much better without the oppressive weight of Christianity hanging over me. " what did you mean, I think there is a typo as that is a contradiction however I may not be reading it correctly?


Being a Christian didn't make me happier. It's like having someone point a gun at your head all the time. Then you are supposed to go out and convert other people so they can be saved too. Of course you have to give the church ten percent of your income. That's gross income, not net income.

I remember being told that salvation is eternal, so I guess I am always saved even if I don't actively do anything anymore. lol.

#12
Desu

Desu

    L7: Teacher

  • Regular User
  • 1,383 posts
27
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:3

why do u think that?
i mean, human and monkey gene are quite the same (i think to 95%, or something like that)


im not saying we are not related to monkeys.
we didnt come from monkeys thats what we are saying.

we share common evolutionary history until it monkey-like things went their own way, creating gorillas, chimpanzee, monkeys

and humans.....

but yes, RNA was the origin of life, so all organisms on this planet theoretically should have a common RNA strand somewhere.


seriously, religion was created to set a purpose, and goal in our life.
without religion, the world will be worse......maybe savages running all around the place.
Religion set rules on how to live properly, and to hope for a better life in afterlife...

but again, confucianism and taoism does the same job as well...
so maybe without religion, there would have been much more advances in philosophy

#13
Methuselah

Methuselah

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 196 posts
7
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:8

THIS IS JUST A RANT READ AT YOUR OWN RISK


[/quote]
seriously, religion was created to set a purpose, and goal in our life.
without religion, the world will be worse......maybe savages running all around the place.
Religion set rules on how to live properly, and to hope for a better life in afterlife...

but again, confucianism and taoism does the same job as well...
so maybe without religion, there would have been much more advances in philosophy
[/quote]

Philosophy ethics is the study of how to live the best life. This has been around since pre-Socratic times before 469 b.c, Thus earlier than all religions dating after that period. Yes religions existed before that, however I do believe that Christianity was the first one that included the things that Phantasm listed as things that made him unhappy about Christianity in the amount that they have been recorded in history. I do not mean to say that there have not been parts of other religions dating before 469 b.c. that had things about them that made believers/practitioners unhappy. However it seems that the rise of Christianity created an opening for many unhappy and uncivilized things to come which is a refute to your claim that .

"religion was created to set a purpose, and goal in our life. without religion, the world will be worse......maybe savages running all around the place.
Religion set rules on how to live properly, and to hope for a better life in afterlife."

I wouldn't imply the word ALL in your claim, If you had implied the word SOME the claim would be less untruthful, now if you actually used the word instead of implying we would have a premise. These are both weak claims though, mine and yours, philosophically, logically, and ethically speaking (When using symbolic logic to break them down, they are). So there will most likely be opposition to both our claims. The point however, is that there is a very large vagueness in what you mean by religion. I think that there are parts of religions that use virtues and the like, however it seems by pure historical fact that religion causes many of the things we define as bad things. I would replace the word religion in your claims with the word Philosophy, and then I would feel more at ease however I would not be satisfied with that even still.

#14
Kronos

Kronos

    L3: Novice

  • Clan Friend
  • 221 posts
14
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:10
I didn't think this topic would turn out like this. I figured it would be ranting and trashing others points of view like the rest of the internet is. But I forgot this place is different =)

Last year in high school biology our teacher devoted a huge portion of the year to evolution vs intelligent design. Now I goto a private christian school, but this teacher did a great job of having an unbiased approach to it. We did a book critique(advanced book report) on a book of our choosing from a list he provided. I read Darwin's Black Box by Behe. This talks about irreducibly complex systems, or systems that can not have possibly evolved through Darwins idea. They have a few examples in there. One I really liked was a mousetrap.

Darwins theory of evolution is that things kept improving slowly one piece at a time. So the system had to have functionality at all points or else it would be "discarded".
The mousetrap idea is that it has several parts. A base, a hammer, a trap bar, and a trigger. If there was no base, all the parts would just sit uselessly next to each other and you wouldn't catch the mouse. If you had to hammer then the trap would just be limp and useless, happy mouse. Without a trigger the mouse can come and go as he pleases taking all the cheese he wants. With no trap bar the trap would spring, but nothing would land on the mouse pinning it. So, by Darwin's theory of evolution, a mousetrap could not have evolved one step at a time. With just useless parts lying around the organism would stop making this as it is a waste of energy.

This relates to a few other examples in the book, and eyeball, blood clotting, flagellum, and I believe a few others that I can't remember.
I guess the easiest to quickly explain here is blood clotting. Now I'm not a pro-biologist/chemist, and I'm just giving a rough description of what I remember.
Blood clotting involves a bunch of chemicals or proteins, and not only can they just all be present, but they have to be activated in a certain order or else the blood doesn't clot, or it continues clotting until all your blood turns into jello. I believe they worked in a chain, protein a gets activated by protein b, then protein a activates protein c, which disactivates protein b and activates protein d. So on and so forth I think it works like that.

With this Darwinism couldn't have taken effect. Not all of the proteins would be made at the same time, and definitely not in the right order. They would have to be created one by one slowly over time. But what good is protein A if it just sits there and never gets activated because protein B doesn't exist in this organism? It's just a waste of energy creating it, so the organism stops producing it in further generations and they never get the right combination down.

Anyways the book is pretty boring for a high school student, but it really made me think.

As for the primordial soup hypothesis.
If I remember correctly my teacher talked about this for awhile. He said something about scientists discovered what proteins and elements were present at the "big bang".
They had these all mixed up in percentage compositions that they thought were correct, and they added electricity or something. Amino acids were made.
The main problem was that it was the wrong kind of amino acids. From what I understand there's two kinds, right hand acids and left hand acids. I don't remember which ones combine to make proteins, but my teacher said that the ones they got from the primordial soup model were the wrong ones. The amino acids that didn't form proteins, and as far as I know that are useless.

The rocks being older than 6000 years can be explained a few ways. These are the ones that I've heard that I don't see any flaws in.
1. The earth actually is older than 6000 years old.
2 and 3 involve God and the bible.
2. God created the earth with rocks that were older than the earth, I believe that it definitely isn't beyond him, as to why he would do this is another question.
3. God created the earth, then left it to be for 'millions/billions/trillions' of years. In the bible it says that he formed the earth, it never said that he went to work creating life right away. He could have just left it for awhile when he went to go make some other planets/stars/life.

Now I'd rather not go into discussing whether the bible is true, I believe it and that's enough for me. I'm not near an expert enough to convince someone. Hell, I can't look up a bible verse to save my life.

In the end it all comes down to how did it start.
Either where did the amino acids/proteins/bigbang/whatever else come from.
Or where did God come from.

So far the only answer I've got is that God has always been there and always existed.
Or that the amino acids/proteins/elements came from other particles of something, which came from something else, or that have also always existed.

Btw, I do believe in evolution, just not macro evolution like Darwinism. Micro evolution has been recorded, animals adapting to their environments. But as far as I know macro evolution(one species completely changing into another) has never been absolutely proven or witnessed.

#15
Methuselah

Methuselah

    L3: Novice

  • User
  • 196 posts
7
A step in the right direction
  • Admin:8

I didn't think this topic would turn out like this. I figured it would be ranting and trashing others points of view like the rest of the internet is. But I forgot this place is different =)

Last year in high school biology our teacher devoted a huge portion of the year to evolution vs intelligent design. Now I goto a private christian school, but this teacher did a great job of having an unbiased approach to it. We did a book critique(advanced book report) on a book of our choosing from a list he provided. I read Darwin's Black Box by Behe. This talks about irreducibly complex systems, or systems that can not have possibly evolved through Darwins idea. They have a few examples in there. One I really liked was a mousetrap.

Darwins theory of evolution is that things kept improving slowly one piece at a time. So the system had to have functionality at all points or else it would be "discarded".
The mousetrap idea is that it has several parts. A base, a hammer, a trap bar, and a trigger. If there was no base, all the parts would just sit uselessly next to each other and you wouldn't catch the mouse. If you had to hammer then the trap would just be limp and useless, happy mouse. Without a trigger the mouse can come and go as he pleases taking all the cheese he wants. With no trap bar the trap would spring, but nothing would land on the mouse pinning it. So, by Darwin's theory of evolution, a mousetrap could not have evolved one step at a time. With just useless parts lying around the organism would stop making this as it is a waste of energy.

This relates to a few other examples in the book, and eyeball, blood clotting, flagellum, and I believe a few others that I can't remember.
I guess the easiest to quickly explain here is blood clotting. Now I'm not a pro-biologist/chemist, and I'm just giving a rough description of what I remember.
Blood clotting involves a bunch of chemicals or proteins, and not only can they just all be present, but they have to be activated in a certain order or else the blood doesn't clot, or it continues clotting until all your blood turns into jello. I believe they worked in a chain, protein a gets activated by protein b, then protein a activates protein c, which disactivates protein b and activates protein d. So on and so forth I think it works like that.

With this Darwinism couldn't have taken effect. Not all of the proteins would be made at the same time, and definitely not in the right order. They would have to be created one by one slowly over time. But what good is protein A if it just sits there and never gets activated because protein B doesn't exist in this organism? It's just a waste of energy creating it, so the organism stops producing it in further generations and they never get the right combination down.

Anyways the book is pretty boring for a high school student, but it really made me think.

As for the primordial soup hypothesis.
If I remember correctly my teacher talked about this for awhile. He said something about scientists discovered what proteins and elements were present at the "big bang".
They had these all mixed up in percentage compositions that they thought were correct, and they added electricity or something. Amino acids were made.
The main problem was that it was the wrong kind of amino acids. From what I understand there's two kinds, right hand acids and left hand acids. I don't remember which ones combine to make proteins, but my teacher said that the ones they got from the primordial soup model were the wrong ones. The amino acids that didn't form proteins, and as far as I know that are useless.

The rocks being older than 6000 years can be explained a few ways. These are the ones that I've heard that I don't see any flaws in.
1. The earth actually is older than 6000 years old.
2 and 3 involve God and the bible.
2. God created the earth with rocks that were older than the earth, I believe that it definitely isn't beyond him, as to why he would do this is another question.
3. God created the earth, then left it to be for 'millions/billions/trillions' of years. In the bible it says that he formed the earth, it never said that he went to work creating life right away. He could have just left it for awhile when he went to go make some other planets/stars/life.

Now I'd rather not go into discussing whether the bible is true, I believe it and that's enough for me. I'm not near an expert enough to convince someone. Hell, I can't look up a bible verse to save my life.

In the end it all comes down to how did it start.
Either where did the amino acids/proteins/bigbang/whatever else come from.
Or where did God come from.

So far the only answer I've got is that God has always been there and always existed.
Or that the amino acids/proteins/elements came from other particles of something, which came from something else, or that have also always existed.

Btw, I do believe in evolution, just not macro evolution like Darwinism. Micro evolution has been recorded, animals adapting to their environments. But as far as I know macro evolution(one species completely changing into another) has never been absolutely proven or witnessed.


You made the claim “Darwin’s theory of evolution is that “things” kept “improving” slowly “one piece” at a time. So the system had to have functionality at all points or else it would be "discarded". I enlarged and thickened the text format of several words in that claim as you can see. I would be more able to make sense of your three arguments if you defined and explained those words which I have enlarged in your claim on Darwin’s theory of evolution. I believe that far too little detail and explanation has been provided. This ambiguity allows for any seemingly valid or invalid argument true or untrue to be made against it. I believe this is the case as I have similar worries about each of the three arguments you provided against your claim of what Darwin’s theory of evolution is. If I was to continue to analyze your three arguments, the Mousetrap, Blood Clotting, and the Primordial Soup Hypothesis while your claim about Darwin’s theory of evolution is without the requests I made previously in this post, I would be shooting in the dark so to speak, insofar as my eliciting a substantial response.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users