Creationism and Evolution Debate

posted on September 21st, 2010, 8:17 pm

Oh noes!  It happenz.  Not here please.  I have enough of this over on RatSkep.... i won't take part here.

its happened here before.

i love debate, but the arguments on religion/creationism usually end bad. and are pointless.

posted on September 21st, 2010, 8:34 pm

  I am just gonna stay out of this'un

posted on September 21st, 2010, 8:52 pm

We're debating science, not religion.  Which technically should be easier but never is when trying to debate Creation and evolution.  Creationists are trying to prove that the universe was created by a designer, and evolutionists are trying to prove that the universe was created by chance.

To start, evolution cannot account for any of the designs.  It tries, and fails every time.  But it inadvertently supports Creation science.  For example, on Nova, there was an episode on fractal geometry explaining what can be done using this mathematical design.  The attempted to explain it through evolution, but ended up personifying evolution and admitting blatantly that it was a design.  Although it's a simple design that creates complex items with extreme efficiency, it's still a design and random chance cannot create design.

This one I got from Star-Trek Voyager, although I forget which episode it was.  The EMH was explaining to Seven about how this single-celled organism would, over eons of time, become a "humanoid" life form and how it would ask so many questions about life, and at the end, he said "It's the miracle of creation."  Ironic, it's been proven that in the DNA are instructions to ask these questions:
"Who am I?"
"Where did I come from?"
"What's my purpose here?"
"Where am I going?"
Scientifically proven that everyone has DNA instructions to ask these questions.

DNA is a super-molecule that contains instructions on how to build a life form.  Whether it's a single-celled organism, or a human.  It contains all of the data necessary to build the life form.  But without a life from to read these instructions, they are useless and will not form any life.  It would be like asking a hard drive to access information instead of a computer reading the hard drive.  Even with everything necessary to read the instructions, it's still useless if the life form is dead.

In the fossil record, there are poly-straight fossils, or fossils that span multiple layers.  In some cases, tens, hundreds, or even thousands of layers at once.  Most of them are uprooted trees or even trees that are not uprooted.  Some of these trees are upside down and sticking almost straight up.  Those have been found just about everywhere on the planet.  And there are mud-flow patters around those trees too.

Carbon[sup]14[/sup], which evolutionists say they use to measure the age of a fossil in a given layer, will decay away over the course of about 70,000 years.  So after that, there should be no C[sup]14[/sup] left.  Yet, C[sup]14[/sup] has been found in diamonds dated by scientists millions and even billions of years old.  The fact that there is still C[sup]14[/sup] means that those diamonds are under 70,000 years old by a long-shot.  C[sup]14[/sup] dating uses a relative measurement between the C[sup]14[/sup] in a dead organism and the C[sup]14[/sup] in the atmosphere.  Yet the C[sup]14[/sup] in the atmosphere is always changing.  So you can date a two-year-old bone one month, and then the same bone the next month, and you'll get results up to thousands of years off.

For the start of the universe, if you have nothing, you can't create an explosion.  Because an explosion is caused by a chemical reaction.  You cannot create anything from nothing.  That's a scientific law.  The big-bang theory breaks that law.  The explosion never happened because there was nothing to cause it.  Much less to cause it to create all of this matter.

[Optec]

posted on September 21st, 2010, 9:25 pm

Last edited by Optec on September 21st, 2010, 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

well, I think you are putting a bit to much into our poor old DNA.

I don't see where DNA could be coded to ask questions. DNA does not even contain a blueprint. A lot that happens when proteins are synthesized is random and not influenced by the DNA itself.

Besides, it does not require a life form to read a DNA. One-Cell-Organisms for example are very closely linked to their DNA (who wonders) and they dont have much to "read" it, its all chemistry neither religion nor big science. Plain and simple chemistry. You don't put to much into your evening beer too, do you?

You might also want to check the deeper ideas and physical and chemical relations explained in the "big bang theory", as its not just "there is an explosion and then we are there"

actually the pure question to ask "what was before the big bang" is a bit chaotic, for both science and religion, as - given we follow a theory where the univers started - time started there too..

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on September 21st, 2010, 9:39 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on September 21st, 2010, 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think TCR is just going with the typical "consumer-level" 'science' .

However, it's not quite as simple as you are making it out to be either Optec. Transcription factors, upstream/downstream control etc - it's all a third level on top of the basic physics and chemistry of self binding, protein synthesis etc. RNA can be its own catalyst (solving its own requirement - hell, it could even be called its own life), but the more complex the molecule gets, the more you require interrelated processes of course  . They are all based on basic physics and chemistry as you said of course - same reason a valence of 4 is so damned important . To talk about evolvability constructs though - that's something for a group selection discussion. Just discussing the basics of evolutionary biology won't cut it though

Incidentally TCR, I'd suggest doing some research on the other forms of dating as well as on particle physics if you are truly interested in those subjects.

EDIT: clarified

Oh, and forgot to mention - it's not just what the arrangement of nucleotides is, but also the physical structure of DNA/RNA itself that can affect binding etc. And then we get into the discussion of virusses...

posted on September 21st, 2010, 9:46 pm

On the creation side of things on this end...

Just saying 

posted on September 21st, 2010, 9:53 pm

Must...resist....Input!!!!!  :alien:

I really can't help myself.  But I refuse to add more, as the outcome of these'debates' always seem to be the same

---

The cake is a lie...

posted on September 21st, 2010, 10:05 pm

I've heard of other dating methods.  Examples on a 200-year-old lava sample using 14 different methods made the lava's age read in a range of 300 million to 3.4 billion years old with the average age being about 1.4 billion years old.  Bottom line, the lava sample was only 200 years old, and if those 14 dating methods threw the calculations off by so many millions and billions of years, the only dating method I trust is if someone is there to record when it was formed.  Sorry, but I can't go with any other dating method because I don't know how far off they will be.

However, some things can be calculated by reversing a steady process.  For example, Earth's magnetic field.  I forget the name of the unit that it's measured with, but right now it's value is 0.5.  About every 1,400 years based on current decay rates, the field looses half of it's strength.  Reverse that, and after about 10,000 years, the field would be so strong that organic molecules couldn't bond together.  Go back about 20,000 years, and the field would be about the strength as a magnetic star.  Atoms couldn't stay together.  With that in mind, life had to have only existed for way less than 10,000 years.  Most creationists agree with a 6,000-year-old universe.

Oh, and if you ask what was before the big bang, you'll need to ask what was before that, then ask what was before that, etc.  The question repeats itself until you find something with an infinite age.

Yes, I was trying to go with "consumer-level" science.  Something that everyone can understand.

Adm.Zaxxon, why did you post that?  This topic is going smoothly so far and that post makes it look like you are trying to tear the thread up.  Please contribute to the thread instead of trying to cause trouble.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 12:50 am

[align=center][/align]


  And for good measure ....

[align=center][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6R58_iLdJA&feature=related[/youtube][/align]

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 1:05 am

However, some things can be calculated by reversing a steady process.  For example, Earth's magnetic field.  I forget the name of the unit that it's measured with, but right now it's value is 0.5.  About every 1,400 years based on current decay rates, the field looses half of it's strength.  Reverse that, and after about 10,000 years, the field would be so strong that organic molecules couldn't bond together.  Go back about 20,000 years, and the field would be about the strength as a magnetic star.  Atoms couldn't stay together.  With that in mind, life had to have only existed for way less than 10,000 years.  Most creationists agree with a 6,000-year-old universe.

Magnetic fields are not radioactive particles.  They do not have a half-life.  What they do is fluctuate, both up and down.  We've also had magnetic pole shifts in earth's past, where the poles used to be at what is now the equator rather than their current locations.  That'll throw readings off right there if you've working off the assumption that the magnetic field is inherently static and stable.

Simultaneously, the magnetic field is affected by the state of the ionosphere, which is in turn affected by solar flares, sunspots, solar wind, micrometeorites, meteor impacts, close passes by comets, and the orbit of the moon.  Just for basics.

This is reminding me far too much of the declaration that we couldn't have gone to the moon because of the radiation ring around the earth.  The 'science' behind that declaration ignores the speed of the rocket and the capsule shielding.  (Those two things combined meant that the astronauts were actually exposed to more radiation using a microwave back on earth than they got out of the 'deadly' rings.

And to be quite frank, dismissing the possibility of other life-sustaining planets based on them being long-odds (improbable is quite different from impossible) is about as scientifically sound as 'here there be dragons'.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 5:33 am

Well, i said I wouldn't get involved in the debate.  I note that several here all seem to be experts on Biology, i would have to drag my wife into the thread to stand a chance of discussing the specifics of DNA.

A couple of points though, first a question.

Are we discussing the origin of life or evolution?  They are two separate things although of course highly associated.  Creationism and Evolution can co-exist as compatible ideas if you state something like "God started the show and setup evolution, perhaps guiding it, so that humans would exist".  Where they are incompatible is if you try and state there is no evolution.  That god created humans in their form, no evolution involved. 

So is this a discussion really about Abiogenesis vs Creationism or Evolution vs Creationism?  Or both?

We're debating science, not religion.

Second point, and this one I cannot let pass.  Creationism is not science, or at the best it is very bad science.  Creationism uses science to try and prove its hypothesis and it uses it badly.  It discards anything that does not fit with its world view and accepts anything that does.  In real science to seek to find out the reason for something, consider possible hypothesis and try and find what does fit the facts, and most importantly you are willing to discard your hypothesis if you find conflicting evidence.

Creationism is defined by the fact that they are not willing to change their hypothesis, this is fixed, they only seek to find evidence that agrees with it.  They wave away or try to undermine any evidence that contradicts it.  This is bad science.

Consider everything we accept today as fact.  Things that have long since passed into being accepted as the truth.  If some new piece of evidence comes along or somebody comes up with a better hypothesis then we will (perhaps with some resistance) throw out the old theory and accept the new one.  Everything is up for grabs, including evolution... its just so far nobody has found a better explanation for the observed facts than evolution already provides.

Abiogenisis scientists happily admit that they don't have all the answers yet.  There are hints and clues that point to its possibility... or you can just sit back and say "God did it" and live happily with this position, and if humanity had done this for all out history we would still be sitting in caves and smashing each other over the heads with clubs... these days we have guns, isn't scientific progress great? 

Creationism "science" has already been debunked a million times over on just about every single point it tries to use as evidence for creation.  The only refuge it still has is the gaps where science still admits its ignorance (which the creationists love to point out - "ha, you don't know, we do, goddidit").  Fortunately as time passes the god of the gaps gets smaller and smaller with fewer places for him to hide.

I'll stop now but with one parting shot on the topic of alien life and Class-M planets, a quote from the book/film Contact.

Young Ellie: Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?
Ted Arroway: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:09 am

Why do you start a debate about creationism? Its an US phenomenon because some ppl in this large country live in areas where the concentration of retards and uneducated is very high. If you start a discussion with them you could give the impression that there is somthing to discuss about their theories which is not the case.

[loki_999]

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:23 am

Last edited by loki_999 on September 22nd, 2010, 6:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, TCR did ask for this thread to be created from his old thread, so its there for discussion.  I don't particularly like the idea of these discussions taking place on this forum but i enjoy the debates on other forums which are oriented towards these topics.  If nothing else it can be funny to hear some of the crap that Creationists spout in defense of their religion, erm, science.

If you start a discussion with them you could give the impression that there is somthing to discuss about their theories which is not the case.

That is one of the reason Dawkins gives for not getting involved in debates with creationists.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:27 am

First, where did this debate come from?  Nobody was even talking creation/evolution, they were talking about the number of planets in a sci-fi universe.

Second, now that it's here...

The argument that life-sustaining planets are rare IS valid in this context, because the theory of evolution uses probability and likelihood as a core part of its presentation.  We debate evidence because there is no proof, nor is there any proof possible due to the nature of origin science.

Now, as for your last post loki, you're simply wrong.  There is NOT more "conflicting" evidence for creation science than there is for evolution, that is a dodge used to avoid ACTUALLY debating in a fair arena.  The notion that Creationists ignore evidence that opposes their hypothesis is itself a trick, an argument that seeks to stereotype an entire group of people as immoral, foolish, and "un-scientific."  You just insulted us, you didn't actually make an argument against us.

Now, Creationist scientists who set out to find evidence that the world was created by an intelligent designer will often have to contend with the problem that they are usually biased toward thinking it is true, because their world view already accepts that it is true.

At the same time, Evolutionist scientists have to contend with the fact that if they were to be convinced that it is wrong, and present evidence that Creation is in fact more likely, they would be instantly stripped of their academic status, grants, and spend the rest of their non-career being told that "they are not willing to change their hypothesis, this is fixed, they only seek to find evidence that agrees with it." by people who have never met them or talked to them before.

Both sides are motivated to be right, I personally think that Evolutionists have much more incentive to stay Evolutionists than Creationists do to stay Creationists.

Now, for some actual debating:

My belief in Creation Science stems mostly from the Young Earth theory, which is equally maligned by people who have never studied or tried to study it.

First, the earth's magnetic field: while it is true that the magnetic field may have fluctuated significantly for several thousands, maybe millions of years, it is CAUSED by the earth's core cooling down.  "Small" numbers still allow for this (like, say, 3 million years) but the "Large" numbers quoted by Evolution Scientists (600 million years and up) do NOT WORK.  The core simply can't have been cooling off for that long and be the temperature it is today.

Second, the earth's speed of rotation is slowing.  Once again, if you're talking 60,000 years it's negligible, but if you try to extrapolate over millions of years, the earth would need have been making many revolutions every second in the beginning.

Third, the salinity of the Earth's oceans.  Sodium and Chloride naturally dissolve in water, heck we've got massive caves simply from water dissolving limestone.  We have never observed a mechanic by which salts and other minerals are separated from ocean water on a large scale.  A simple extrapolation of the increasing saltiness of the ocean shows that it was freshwater about 4500 years ago.  Once again, you can throw in a margin of error of 10x and that STILL doesn't allow for millions of years.

Fourth, the proliferation of disasters.  The Yellowstone volcano is predicted to erupt sometime in the next thousand years, scientists predict it will cover north america in about 6 inches of ash.  Mt. Saint Helens produced less than one inch of ash, but it was spread over a large area.  These events are not significant on their own, but if you extrapolate 1 eruption every 10,000 years (significantly LESS than we have observed) you still have hundreds of thousands of eruptions over the course of "evolutionary history."  This would render any ground record covering such a long period of time inaccurate for use as evidence for or against evolution, yet the scientific community attempts to use it on a regular basis.

I don't care if you believe all this or not, or if you even read it.  This is my rebuttal to the concept that "Creationism isn't science, it has no substance and those who subscribe to is are simple-minded and unwilling to face the evidence in front of them."

After physicists determined using mathematics that the sun's fission could not be older than 300 million years, they were told by geologists, who were told by evolutionary biologists, that it was older.  They revised their equation to include a hypothetical solid center inside the sun, where both fusion and fission occurs in sequence, so that the sun could be 600 billion years old.  Obviously, we can't observe the middle of the sun, but the government-funded public school system now teaches children that the sun is 600 billion years old.  But hey, evolution is just a theory, right?

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 7:06 am

Regarding the Earth's core?  I'm not a geologist, and we still have a horrible time getting any accurate information about the core itself thanks to the fact that it tends to crush and melt instruments.  However, we do know that it's a pressure and friction reaction that provides the heat.  We can also observe the effects of the tectonic plates moving around.

Due to this, I cannot accept a steady rate of cooling or heating of the core.  Based on how the plates are at any given point of time, the pressure beneath them can be different.  Higher the pressure, hotter the core, and more frequent the eruptions to try to relieve some of the pressure.  Lower the pressure, cooler the core.  Odds are fairly good that the core reached a seriously blazing temperature during the last ice age.