umm... it does. both creationism and evolution cannot be true.[b said:Quote[/b] ]they feel like Creationism threatens the existance of evolution
I don't know exactly how darwin put it... but it doesn't really matter. If you think about it, if there are more oportunities (ie... when plants first began growing on land... and when animals first began living on land too...) evolution will occur faster because any given mutation has a greater chance of being good.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Darwin's theories on evolution describe the process as continuous. However, the fossil record and observed phenomenon show 'real-world' evolution to be something happening in fits and starts, punctuated by long periods of stablity, which calls the mechanics of evolution - as described by Darwin -
yes, because evolution is not concerned with the beginnings of life. It's concerned about how life became what it is today.[b said:Quote[/b] ]As we know it, evolution is a fairly sturdy theory of how things change and differentiate in estabilished systems of biology, but it becomes weaker and weaker as we approach the question, "what is the origin of life on Earth?" At this time, that question is one for organic chemists and statisticians, not evolutionary biologists.
Hop in finch, waters fine[b said:Quote[/b] ]but really im thinking of avoiding further conflicts (elsewhere) by just staying out out of the discussion because "No one cares what you think" is coming up far too frequently in them.
lol[b said:Quote[/b] ]Comment:someday pretty soon (ok, not really, but lots of people wish it was)next to the Smithsonian Museum of natural history there will be a bigger building titled Creationist Fact Center
Why? If God is as omnipotent as the Bible would have us believe, why couldn't the story of Genesis happened and then God turns things over to good-old evolution?[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 27 2004,6:32)]umm... it does. both creationism and evolution cannot be true.[b said:Quote[/b] ]they feel like Creationism threatens the existance of evolution
No, not quite - when there's a longer period of time in which mutation can occur, there are more opportunities for beneficial change, but this does not effect the probability of a beneficial change. It doesn't matter how many times you flip a coin; you've always got the same chances (unless you change the coin.) Nor will things occur faster, because giving more opportunity means giving more time. The only bearing that time could have on beneficial mutations would be if the earliest mutations made future beneficial mutations more likely. In such a case, it would be those catalyzing mutations - and not the elapsed time - which led to a higher ratio of beneficial mutation.[b said:Quote[/b] ]I don't know exactly how darwin put it... but it doesn't really matter. If you think about it, if there are more oportunities (ie... when plants first began growing on land... and when animals first began living on land too...) evolution will occur faster because any given mutation has a greater chance of being good.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Darwin's theories on evolution describe the process as continuous. However, the fossil record and observed phenomenon show 'real-world' evolution to be something happening in fits and starts, punctuated by long periods of stablity, which calls the mechanics of evolution - as described by Darwin -
To this I would say, "Proof is required for evolution, and not for creationism." An important detail to appreciate is that the only proof we could ask of Creationism is here; the planet Earth exists. There's no reset button that we can press, wait ten seconds, and then say, "Hey, there's God arranging flowers in Eden," or, "Hey, it's just a bunch of plasma and undifferentiated particles." Take a look at Hume's Enquiry Regarding Human Understanding for a good treatment of this. Evolution requires conventional causality (being able to rely on past experience to predict the future) which has been known to be illusory at best for the past 300 years. I'm a scientist at heart and I'd love to have some proof to sweep religion out of the mix, but the fact is that religion is outside science. There's nothing in the definition of religion or faith which neccessitates truth or proof or anything of the sort. To believe in science, one must have faith in consistency, and to believe in religion, one must have faith in God or higher powers or whatever it is that particular religion entails. But still, no one seems to be able to explain to me why they're mutually exclusive.[b said:Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Dec. 27 2004,6:53)]In laymans terms - theres proof for evolution, unlike creationism.
you're making me go dig up my bible...[b said:Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,10:15)]Why? If God is as omnipotent as the Bible would have us believe, why couldn't the story of Genesis happened and then God turns things over to good-old evolution?
no because (the branch we're talking about... we're not talking about the big bang or anything... we're talking about the branch concerning evolution) creationism says all species were created as they are now. Evolution says other species became these species. Both cannot be true.[b said:Quote[/b] ]Why? If God is as omnipotent as the Bible would have us believe, why couldn't the story of Genesis happened and then God turns things over to good-old evolution?
well... since there's no natural way we know of that could have produced fossils. We don't see any evidence of anything besides organisms that could have made anything like fossils.... and what a coincidence they have the same bones as present organisms, (tibia, radius, skulls, teeth -which are not bones-, carpals, metacarpals, etc) and look ridiculously alike to organisms.[b said:Quote[/b] ]after all, we have no evidence to assure us that fossils are the remains of living things and not just geological oddities
I wasn't talking about giving them more time. I was talking about giving them more habitats to which they can adapt to. Mutations occur. It depends on the environment if they're good mutations or bad mutations. Let's say you're the first animal to live on land. If you have a mutation that makes you slower but allows you to eat a certain plant it's going to be very good because nothing is going to eat you and yet you have a whole other food source and no competition for it. If you WEREN'T the very first animal on land and you had that mutation, since you were slower you would get eaten, AND you would still have competition from the other animals that were already eating that food source...[b said:Quote[/b] ]No, not quite - when there's a longer period of time in which mutation can occur, there are more opportunities for beneficial change, but this does not effect the probability of a beneficial change. It doesn't matter how many times you flip a coin; you've always got the same chances (unless you change the coin.)
as for that... it is the fossil record that supports evolution... not evolution explaining the fossil record.[b said:Quote[/b] ]We're getting ahead of ourselves to believe that the fossil record is explained by our present understanding of evolution.
Exactly, which is why both definitions cannot be accepted[b said:Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,10:24)]I'm a scientist at heart and I'd love to have some proof to sweep religion out of the mix, but the fact is that religion is outside science.
So i'm just going to "belive" something... with no proof? If that was a valid way of thinking, we'd all be dead by now.[b said:Quote[/b] ]There's nothing in the definition of religion or faith which neccessitates truth or proof or anything of the sort.
You don't have to have "faith" in consistency. Actually you don't have to have "faith" in anything. Science isn't about faith (thats a new one..) it's about proof - evidence, logical, factual evidence. "consistency" isn't random.[b said:Quote[/b] ]To believe in science, one must have faith in consistency, and to believe in religion, one must have faith in God or higher powers or whatever it is that particular religion entails.
we're talking about the branch of creationism involving evoluton. You're talking about the beginning of the solaar system which has nothing to do with evolution. Even if we WERE talking about that, there's more proof that the solar system was formed by nebulae because we can actually see nebulae in space and we can see different steps on how stars form (we can't see planets because by the time planets form the star is already too bright for our instruments to see the planets)[b said:Quote[/b] ]the only proof we could ask of Creationism is here; the planet Earth exists. There's no reset button that we can press, wait ten seconds, and then say, "Hey, there's God arranging flowers in Eden," or, "Hey, it's just a bunch of plasma and undifferentiated particles."
Please, read some philosophy. I don't want to explain why causality is not to be trusted, because the Greeks and Kant and Hume and Descartes and a whole lot of other dead guys have done it already. The only thing that leads us to believe that causality is consistent is that it's been consistent before, and thus it's a totally circular argument. There's no proof that what we observe really happens, and thusly there's no solid proof of anything, because it all depends on our observations being correct (which, by the Heisenberg principle, never are, even if they are close sometimes.) Anything that you might call proof can be called into question by asking for proof of it's accuracy. If you intend to prove that gravity exists by showing that masses attract one another, then you must go on to prove that your test actually happened. To prove the test happened, you would probably want an eyewitness account of it happening. You would then need proof of that account. The proofs go on ad nauseum, and there is no end to them.[b said:Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Dec. 27 2004,7:35)]Exactly, which is why both definitions cannot be accepted[b said:Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Dec. 27 2004,10:24)]I'm a scientist at heart and I'd love to have some proof to sweep religion out of the mix, but the fact is that religion is outside science.
So i'm just going to "belive" something... with no proof? If that was a valid way of thinking, we'd all be dead by now.[b said:Quote[/b] ]There's nothing in the definition of religion or faith which neccessitates truth or proof or anything of the sort.
You don't have to have "faith" in consistency. Actually you don't have to have "faith" in anything. Science isn't about faith (thats a new one..) it's about proof - evidence, logical, factual evidence. "consistency" isn't random.[b said:Quote[/b] ]To believe in science, one must have faith in consistency, and to believe in religion, one must have faith in God or higher powers or whatever it is that particular religion entails.
That's saying that domestic animals and others were put here already as domestic animals (etc).[b said:Quote[/b] ]let the earth put forth living souls according their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the eart accoring to its kind.
ok?.... I really don't know what to say about that... Then should we just give up and do nothing? the fact that there's no solid proof of anything isn't relevant when debating about evolution/creationism because ... well... how can it be?[b said:Quote[/b] ]thusly there's no solid proof of anything.
I definitely agree, but the thing about the way that God is supposed to work is that God is responsible for everything, so if evolution exists and God exists, it's not like God passing the torch off to Darwin - God is still doing the evolution, making things happen. As for God making everything as it is today; certainly this "today" we speak of is the "today" of the Bible's original author. So if the animals (lets be flexible and assume that the passages about plants and animals were including protists and other life-forms that people didn't know about back then) were created by God then, by whatever means, that would satisfy the basic requirements for Creationism. Evolution could still happen - after all, at the time of the writing, when somebody said that God created things as they are "today," things were evolving, changing, etc., or at least that's our best bet. That's evolution, right there next door to Creationism. This is all why I prefaced my initial comment with the qualifier that a literal, overzealous interpretation of either school of thought makes the other difficult to accept.[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Dec. 27 2004,7:49)]If you make a sculpture of a cow and then something else makes it a fish, you don't say you made a fish.