Evolution or Creationism, Where does the evidence lead?

[cyborg]

Because of the shear odds that evolution would continue let alone get started by itself are astronomical.

They are? Since when? Who presented these odds? Based on what?

And since it's already happened it hardly seems to make sense to talk about the odds of it not happening.

 

[dahduh]

I am begining to think the argument is flawed and not the two theories.
It should be about the way it begins not the way it changed. While one theory is based on evidence and follows a logical train of thought, the other is based on what is observed but not tested. The argument has over the years turned into destructive attacks from both sides trying to defend themselves. When it should be used to ensure the betterment of our society and ensure our survival. Creationists seem to be upset more because they think it destroys God, when it should increase their faith in him. Because of the shear odds that evolution would continue let alone get started by itself are astronomical. So I guess that maybe I'm not an evoluton disbeliever totally, I wouldnt say I am a creationist either. I must be a ID'er, but I still subscribe to events in the bible. Some as they are stated, some not. Some are a little far fetched. Some absolutely make sense to me. Some will probably say that I am trying to ride the fence on this, some may say I am afraid too choose a side. But I honestly dont care. I know there is a god, the evidence for that is overwhelming, none of it testable....yet.

I must say this is one of the most honest and thoughtful comments I've encountered for a while. But if the OP will permit a slight philosophical digression, it seems to me your main point of difficulty is deciding what is 'truth'. Science relies upon evidence that is readily accessible to physical inquiry. Gold-plated evidence is repeatable, the same no matter who looks at it, and no matter when someone looks at it.

On the subject of evolution, evidence is often fragmentary and controversial. We are like detectives going in after murder and trying to piece together what actually happened. There may be dozens of hypotheses that fit the evidence, and if there is not enough evidence if may never be possible to eliminate all but one.

Here we have two hypotheses: one, life evolves by a process of natural selection, and two, life was created by an act of God.

Good hypotheses are economical and restrictive, and the theory of evolution is a good example. In the case of evolution, the idea is very simple and can easily be simulated in the laboratory or even a computer. And it is very restrictive: for example in biological systems, statistical probability demands that evolution occur by a very gradual process, and that (unless there were do distinct acts of abiogenesis) all living things must be related and organized into an evolutionary tree. This means if we find a single example of a 'jump' in evolution, or a tree that folds back on itself (like a bunny in the Precambrian), then evolution is disproved. Conversely, if we do find evidence for a 'tree of life' and that over time organisms have only changed slowly, then this is good evidence that evolution is a good hypothesis (although it is not positive proof). Here are some examples of observations that are very suggestive indeed:

1. Morphologically dinosaurs appear to have evolved into birds. So there _has_ to be a series of links somewhere, from creatures that don't have feathers, to creatures that do; and they must be found in geological strata of a very specific age. As indeed they are.

2. Bats have a unique echolocation feature, so there must be intermediate forms from something that doesn't have this ability, to something that does. Indeed, there are.

3. We now understand how DNA works, and that copies of the genome get passed down from generation to generation. So if something 'scars' that DNA in some way, then if it is not harmful and not subject to evolutionary pressures (like in an area of 'junk' DNA), then copies of that scar will be visible thousands of generations later. Indeed, we do find such evidence in quite distinct organism like gorillas and man, indicating that there was a common ancestor to each. It's always very satisfying when a theory predicts something about which nothing was known at the time the theory was postulated.

This is just a tiny sample of examples; there are thousands more. And while no single example is absolute proof that the evolution hypothesis is correct, taken together they are pretty damn convincing. For further information you can't do better than the talkorigins faq page (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html).

Now look at the alternative hypothesis: we are a product of divine creation. Unfortunately this is not a restrictive hypothesis, because no matter what we observe you can always say "well, God made it that way". So God could have created the world 6,000 years ago and planted all the evidence of evolution just to make it look like evolution occurred. Possible, but why would God do that? From there you have to delve into the mind of God, and always the answer is "The mind of God is inscrutable". Because the hypothesis is totally unrestrictive, it also has zero predictive power, and is therefore not useful. But in addition, the God hypothesis is also very uneconomical. It posits the existence of a highly intelligent being to explain our existence; but it provides no explanation for the origins of God. So in the end it doesn't really explain anything at all.

You do mention that "the evidence for that [God] is overwhelming", and if this is true then that might be one avenue of supporting the God hypothesis. It would be very interesting to hear what evidence you have to offer, but I think for that you would have to start another thread.

I do know that there is only one thing left for me to ask..........

are we able to change our board name without joining again?

Don't; you already have a reputation to keep! Rather try think of a really clever avatar that will make it all look intelligently designed!

 

[Wowbagger]

To Anyone Who Does Not Believe in Evolution:

It seems to me, that most of the time, when one does not believe in evolution, it stems from a distorted understanding of the process. As a result, they tend to ask naive questions.

There is no shame in that. Evolution is not intuitive. But, understanding the basics is something everyone can do, without too much effort.

Before fighting against the theory, I suggest you read up on a good introductory course on it. The following site should suffice for now:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Be sure to read through all the pages. Most of them are not terribly long.

I will talk more specifically about the lines of evidence, later.

 

[evolution disbeliver]

Cyborg

They are? Since when? Who presented these odds? Based on what?

And since it's already happened it hardly seems to make sense to talk about the odds of it not happening.

Can you show me anywhere else in the universe that the same process has repeated?
I just presented them into the argument, but they have been presented to everybody by the creationist for what they say is roughly 6000 years.
For the creationists it is a big part of their argument.
And NO, I havent got the slightest idea of where to find any "scientific evidence for it. Other than simple observation.
dah duh

Quote:
I do know that there is only one thing left for me to ask..........

are we able to change our board name without joining again?
Don't; you already have a reputation to keep! Rather try think of a really clever avatar that will make it all look intelligently designed!

I was actually trying to make light of my situation. I already stated that I am not a bible thumping creationist, I just tended to agree with them. I'm not an intellectual by any means. Which leads to
wowbagger

It seems to me, that most of the time, when one does not believe in evolution, it stems from a distorted understanding of the process. As a result, they tend to ask naive questions.

I think I might be coming out of the closet so to speak.

 

[cyborg]

Can you show me anywhere else in the universe that the same process has repeated?

Until fairly recently we couldn't even detect extra-solar systems. I think that may be setting the bar a little high yes?

I just presented them into the argument, but they have been presented to everybody by the creationist for what they say is roughly 6000 years.

Based on what though?

Anyone can present any argument with any premises they want. That doesn't mean that the argument's premises aren't just pulled out of thin air.

For the creationists it is a big part of their argument.

The Modus Operandi of the creationist is to use as many arguments as possible and hope some stick. Whether or not they are valid is neither here nor there from their perspective.

And NO, I havent got the slightest idea of where to find any "scientific evidence for it. Other than simple observation.

So you do or you don't?

What is this "simple observation" of which you speak?

 

[evolution disbeliver]

The simple observation I speak of is looking at our planet, ecosystem as a whole from an un-scientific eye. The big part of their argument is the begining of life. Since evolution is not found in the bible and it has a different start that doesnt include a diety, it leans towards the destruction of their theory.

Can you show me anywhere else in the universe that the same process has repeated?
Until fairly recently we couldn't even detect extra-solar systems. I think that may be setting the bar a little high yes?

Not necessarily, since we can only show that the theory works on earth, we can only assume it would be the same on other planets. Would it not be arrogant of us as a species to think that is the definitive way it works every where? There may be other variables to consider in other places in the universe that are not known by us. But I do agree that we can say it would be similar to what we have here. There may or may not be some other way it gets started. I know that dips into philosophy but to be scentific we must still diligent in observation.

Anyone can present any argument with any premises they want. That doesn't mean that the argument's premises aren't just pulled out of thin air.

Creationists say that this is precisely what evolution does. By saying that there must be a "missing link" between A & C, we havent found a B but we know it is there. I (myself) agree after looking at the evidence that there must be a B somewhere. But the hard core creationist doesnt think it will ever be found because they take the bible literally. Which is where they get their theory from. That is why I cannot provide you with scientific evidence of their theory. There is a plethura of philoshophical evidence, but nothing scientific.

 

[cyborg]

Not necessarily, since we can only show that the theory works on earth, we can only assume it would be the same on other planets. Would it not be arrogant of us as a species to think that is the definitive way it works every where?

I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything.

There is a plethura of philoshophical evidence, but nothing scientific.

So, in other words, just pulling stuff out of thin air?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

RY About the flood, I did say purposely say that I didnt note when it occured. According to evolution and carbon dating the earth is very, very old. Which means that it's surface did not always look the same. With tectonic plates sliding all over the place and smashing and bumping around creating the mountains and valleys would you not think that maybe the earth was a lot flatter at some point in time? And the earth is constantly replenishing itself which is why it is able to maintain life, so would one not theorize that there is just as much water on the earth, in the earth & above the earth as there was so many millions of years ago when the earth was flatter? Would there not be sufficient water to flood the earth then? But if that is accepted then it could lend a certain realization that Noah's ark might actually be true, but in order for that to fit it would mean that man was around longer than we think. If the Gap Theory is true that could be possible.

At what point would the Earth have been flatter? The Flinders Ranges is 540 million years old. The Appalachian's are 300 million years old. The Himalayas are 50 million years old and still growing. The geological evidence does not show a time frame when the Earth was flatter. An ad hoc "what if" suggestion doesn't jive with the evidence as much as the Flood narrative, was a moral metaphor about obeying God - just as much of Genesis is from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, to Lot's wife looking back at Sodom.
If you want one of the best resources on plate tectonics and the geological history of the world, check out Your tax dollars at work.

For all the evolutionists please dont forget that the earth was very, very different than what we have today, so therefore many todays rules do not apply to millions & millions of years ago.

Which ones? Chemistry and physics certainly haven't changed. Geology wasn't any different back then. There were periods and locations of increased activity such as the Siberian and Deccan Traps. There were periods and locations of decreased activity. Probably the only two major changes between the Earth we know now and what it was like before was plants and animals colonizing the land in the Ordovician and Devonian respectively.

It was a totally different environment than what it is today. Just look at your own evidence. The anatomy of a dino is a great example. Just about all of them had comparatively small nostrils when compared to the size of their bodies. Which is proof of a very different environment than todays. Even their sheer size lends one to thing something was goin on with the gravity as well. They should have been crushed under their own weight.

Do you have citations for these?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That makes sense. But what of the findings that Dinos may have been warm blooded? And what about their enviroment? So from the constuction of their nostrils the climate was warmer? And inherrently wetter? & finally could a warmer wetter climate lead to an increased abundance of plant life leading to a higher content in the O2 of the atmosphere leading to an increase in the barometric pressure?
Wow that question is worded like a question at a Presidential press conference!
Sorry guys & girls.

It's possible that saurian dinosaurs were cold blooded and theropod dinosaurs were warm blooded. I'm not sure and a Google search for dinosaur+nostrils only brings up hits of stories about how paleontologists had misplaced them in earlier recreations. Did you have a specific source to which you're referring?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

US Yes I knew about the Iridium layer. But my question is could there not have been a world wide flood before that. I do think that a flood would be able to cause mass extinction as much as an object impacting the earth.

Again, we can't look at things in a vacuum. There wasn't just a mass extinction, there were geological events going on in some periods (the Siberian Traps I linked to above are the most likely smoking gun for the Permian extinction), impacts like the K-T extinctions (iridium layer and Chicxulub crator, along with the Deccan Traps) and climatalogical events like the extinction of late-Pleistocene (along with human hunting and disease). And as you see by my parenthetical comments, even when there's one primary factor, there often were a number of others. Add to that the lack of evidence for a single world-wide flood in the geological record and there just isn't any support for The Flood.

I just think it's odd that it is so quickly thrown out as false when it seems entirely plausible. I'm not saying that it occurred during the time of humans. Why could it not have happened before or even very close to early humans?

Possible is not the same as plausible and neither means likely. Also see my comment about things occuring in a vacuum again. We have no evidence of a Flood being the cause of the major extinctions, but we do have a number of other evidences I just listed. Also rejecting the Flood isn't something done recently or willy nilly. Two centuries ago, there were people who advocated the Flood called Neptunists. Pioneering geologist James Hutton argued against this by advocating Uniformitarianism and his view won out.

I

 

[MG1962]

Possible is not the same as plausible and neither means likely. Also see my comment about things occuring in a vacuum again. We have no evidence of a Flood being the cause of the major extinctions, but we do have a number of other evidences I just listed. Also rejecting the Flood isn't something done recently or willy nilly. Two centuries ago, there were people who advocated the Flood called Neptunists. Pioneering geologist James Hutton argued against this by advocating Uniformitarianism and his view won out.I

The thing is flood events are very heavily studied. The nature and rates of sedimentation are extremely important to paleontologist and geologist because they are one of the few time measures we have of geologic events. So any catacysmic event is well studied.

Below is an image of North Head, at the entrance to Sydney Harbour. Over half this formation was formed in one gigantic flood. The effects of this flood covered the area from Sydney to Newcastle, over 200 miles. But the boundry edge and timing of this flood is very precisely known. If a world wide connected flood had occured on this planet. We would see something similar on a world wide basis. Simply we dont

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

ed, I might actually finally get caught up today.

The thing is flood events are very heavily studied. The nature and rates of sedimentation are extremely important to paleontologist and geologist because they are one of the few time measures we have of geologic events. So any catacysmic event is well studied.

Below is an image of North Head, at the entrance to Sydney Harbour. Over half this formation was formed in one gigantic flood. The effects of this flood covered the area from Sydney to Newcastle, over 200 miles. But the boundry edge and timing of this flood is very precisely known. If a world wide connected flood had occured on this planet. We would see something similar on a world wide basis. Simply we dont.

That superfluous I above should have been a continuation differentiating between Unformitarianism and the Creationist straw man which says it means there are never any catastrophic events. Of course there are and I listed a couple, but I you're right, none of them were floods.

An historic example here in North America is the Missoula Floods which were glacial lake outburst floods that lasted for 2000 years. These were massive catastrophic floods, but they weren't global. So, ed, yes we do have evidence of huge, regional, highly destructive floods... but we simply don't have any evidence of a world-wide one.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

US I understand your schedule totally, my days start at 10pm.

Then I hope you'll accept my apology for replying to posts you have made that others have because I want to put my own spin on it and between work duties and bandwidth, I'm not sure I'll ever catch up.

Not necessarily, what one culture derives about something another could get something entirely different. I was meaning them as a whole.

This is more ad hoc argumentation. We still don't have any of the normal archeological or even paleontoligical evidence that humans and dinosaurs - which might or might not be the inspiration for dragon tales - living contemporaneously. We don't find dragon middens where the remains of consumed modern humans exist. We don't find any trophy remains of dragons or dinosaurs in human archeological sites. We don't find any dragon or dinosaur bones in human trash middens. We also don't find any minotaurs, shedu, centaurs, harpies, nagas, pegasi, unicorns, etc. etc. What is the more likely conclusion then - that dragons were dinosaurs and existed until the 14th Century or that they, like the other fantastic beings existed only in the minds of the people who wrote about them?

In other words T might give birth to an U while it is not another T it is still closer to a T than a D, but it is still related to the D & T
Right? I am still looking at that site, alot of work has gone into that.

Exactly. Keep digging around the TOL site.

Boobies are the greatest feature in nature. lol

They make me happy I was born a mammal!

Exactly why I was said philosphy, I was implying all dating methods. Giving that we really only know the tip of the ice burgh about the universe.

I think at this point I've given you enough links to show you that geology isn't based on philosophy, but on science and in almost every case very hard sciences like physics and chemistry and even the areas where geology and paleontology overlaps into the "merely" hard sciences, the conclusions geologists have made about index fossils, microfossils, sedimentary layers like chalk, salt and limestone aren't ad hoc rationializations, but are based on solid scientific observations, theories and conclusions.

NO it doesnt and it wouldnt take 10 mile deep water to flood the earth. If evolution is corroborated by other sciences then wouldnt Pangaea be rather flat considering it is the only continent on the planet at the time? The highest point being volcanoes? The lower elevations created by erosion? There could technically be no mountain ranges because there is no tectonic plates.
or am I wrong?

I hate to reply to your question with a question, but why would Pangea be rather flat? If it was the result of plate tectonics, wouldn't it inherently have high mountains just as we see today? Also, as I noted above, both the Flinders Ranges and Appalacians predate Pangea and the Himalayas started forming shortly after it broke up. And no, volcanos don't tend to be the highest mountains, those are created by the tectonic plates crashing into each other (see the Rockies, Andes and Himalayas {which continue to grow as we speak}) are. Erosion is why the Appalachians are lower than the Rockies/Andes and Himalayas, but that has occured over the 100 million years since they stopped "growing". As far as Pangea goes, check it this Wiki page along with that USGS publication I recommended, see especially the animation of how Pangea broke apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea

 

[godless dave]

And yes I would like a little more clarification of how we get from a dino to a walrus to a tree to man. I can follow it backwards to a point, but then I when it becomes an entirely different organism I get lost. I can understand the human ape concept and the fish to shark, even dino to bird, but a reptile to mammal, warm blooded to cold blooded? insect to human? How does it go from a to b to c to all of a sudden x?

It doesn't. It goes through d, e, f, g, etc. before it gets to x.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I am begining to think the argument is flawed and not the two theories.
It should be about the way it begins not the way it changed. While one theory is based on evidence and follows a logical train of thought, the other is based on what is observed but not tested. The argument has over the years turned into destructive attacks from both sides trying to defend themselves. When it should be used to ensure the betterment of our society and ensure our survival.

I hate to get all reductionist again, but the debate is about one thing on one side and one thing on the other. For evolution advocates, be they atheist or TE regardless of religion, it's about teaching science, and science where the evidence leads us regardless of how it might hurt peoples feelings. For Creationists, the teaching of science (and no, I'm not going to allow their propoganda to lead me to use "evolution" instead) is a direct assault on their faith and they will try any method honest or dishonest to hide reality from the propigation of their Ussherian/Morrisian dogma.

Creationists seem to be upset more because they think it destroys God, when it should increase their faith in him.

This is the thing that is most maddening to atheist evolution advocates like myself and TEs. Evolution is much more sophisticated method of Creation than simple fiat. Additionally, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that removes God apart from the methodological naturalism that is inherent in any science from chemistry to astronomy. Eliminating God's active hand from a process does not eliminate either God'd passive hand nor destroy God.

Because of the shear odds that evolution would continue let alone get started by itself are astronomical.

The atheist and the concessionist in me is torn over how to reply to this comment. Biogenesis, so far as we know, is a unique event in the Universe, but abiogenesis isn't "impossible" from a statistical standpoint, and unlike the straw man many Creationists posit, wasn't "goo to you". There are a number of well studied areas of chemistry and biochemistry where self-replicating chemicals could have eventually led to proto-life and to life itself eventually. Abiogenesis or Biogenesis has no effect on the probability calculations of evolution however, since once life "started" and went down the DNA path... evolution was inevitable.

So I guess that maybe I'm not an evoluton disbeliever totally, I wouldnt say I am a creationist either. I must be a ID'er, but I still subscribe to events in the bible. Some as they are stated, some not. Some are a little far fetched. Some absolutely make sense to me.

Some of us who have been involved in the political/culture war side of this debate for a while now (myself aobut 15 years) have no problem with you taking that position. My only advice is that you contact some of your fellow Christians who accept TE and talk with them about how they interpret/read Genesis. You can find a bunch of them on Christianforums.com and join the discussion in the "Origins theology" and "Theistic Evolutionist" subforums. There are plenty of people like you out there.

Some will probably say that I am trying to ride the fence on this, some may say I am afraid too choose a side. But I honestly dont care. I know there is a god, the evidence for that is overwhelming, none of it testable....yet.

In the Crevo debate, I generally avoid apologetics, but when it comes to the discussion of Crevo... no, you're not trying to ride the fence. You have religious beliefs and you're honestly trying to investigate how being a Creationist compares with the evidence for an old Earth and evolution stands up. If you come down on the side of being a TE, I will be happy and have nothing but esteem for you for making that decision.

I do know that there is only one thing left for me to ask..........

are we able to change our board name without joining again?

PM Darat or Lisa Simpson and explain your situation... you should have no trouble getting your user ID changed.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Has ed stopped posting here or did he change his user ID?

 

[smloeffelholz]

He didn't change his user ID, he just posted on another thread. From his last post it seems that everyone changed his views on evolution though. All with me barely having to lift a finger. The responses came so fast I could barely keep up. Nice work people.

 

[evolution disbeliver]

I'm still here, just finding time to post is getting hard lately. Between the day job and doing my first love & family stuff it's hard to be on different forums all the time.
I guess I wasnt a true creationist in the sense of the word. I will still believe there is a God and never will deny that. Because for us (humans) to continue to advance our civilization further we must have an underlying belief that there is something more than death at the end. Otherwise we will never achieve any more than we now know and more than likely revert back to a barbaric society.

 

[Wowbagger]

Because for us (humans) to continue to advance our civilization further we must have an underlying belief that there is something more than death at the end. Otherwise we will never achieve any more than we now know and more than likely revert back to a barbaric society.

That's a very nice way of thinking, I guess.

Though. secular humanists will disagree. Most of them are not prone to believe in anything beyond death, and they're not going to allow anyone to revert to barbaric society. But, that's just them.

And, that's no reason not to accept the scientific progress that theories such as Evolution bring to the world. Especially since that progress drives us ever further from our ancient barbaric roots.

 

[cyborg]

I guess I wasnt a true creationist in the sense of the word. I will still believe there is a God and never will deny that. Because for us (humans) to continue to advance our civilization further we must have an underlying belief that there is something more than death at the end. Otherwise we will never achieve any more than we now know and more than likely revert back to a barbaric society.

We will?

Alternatively we won't advance civilization at all. What's the point? We might as well all give up on this annoyingly problematic world and go enter the afterlife.

Doesn't your love for your family provide a better motivator since your children are going to have to live with the world you help to shape?