Evolution vs creationism
 

I watched `by accident` a preacher on TV this morning, and I was flabergasted at how he was attempting to debunk the theory of evolution, and that man did not evolve from monkeys...To me this has always been common knowledge, and 14C datation can demonstrate without a doubt the age of human looking bones. But the preacher was ignoring the facts, and attemting to demonstrate that evolution did not exists, because it goes against the Bible teachings. So how do you reconcile the Bible teachings and the findings of science without rejecting or ignoring science?

Aurel

Why did we stop evolving then? Or are we still evolving? Maybe the onset of cancer and aids is our way or eradicating a mistake?

Where is that "Awwww...geez...not this $hit again" picture...

The theory of evolution is a valid theory that explains the *fact* of evolution that has resulted in the observed diversity of life on Earth. Creationism is not a theory and really does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny. It's worthless.

And Jim, yes...we are still evolving.

Mike

Uh actually, that would be DE-evolving.:( yea, kinda like the fact that the earth is flat.:rolleyes:

How does one watch something by "accident"?

Here we go again. Let me tell you how this thread will go. A few people with scientific backgrounds will post how the theory is sound and how it in no way contradicts mainstream religions. A few people will chime in to agree. Then the folks on the religious right (you know who you are) will tell us its all crap and that a literal bible version is the only truth, so all of our data, observation etc. are meaningless. They will play word games saying that evolution is only a theory (twisting the common definition of the world theory to make it seem much less than they way it is understood in the scientific community) and isn't really widely accepted. We will be told that only traitors and liberal scum promote this flawed, godless view of the world.
A few religious folks will come back and say how there is no problem with evolution and their religious values, and that religion is in the real of phylosophy not scientific observation.

Then the whole thing will end up devolving into a name calling exercise.

For the record evolution has stood the test of time and keeps getting reinforced, not weakened by the relentless and mostly stupid attacks by the creationists. Intelligent design is not a pathetic attempt to dress up creationism in its many forms so that it looks scientific.

I will not sit on the sidelines and watch the fireworks.

We haven't. The process is SLOW. If you could look at your relatives 10,000 generations into the future you would likely be surprised.

Re: Evolution vs creationism
 

I'm stunned.

You are flipping through the channels, and you stumble on that. First, you are shocked, which triggers your curiosity and you keep watching. Pretty much like watching porn, or a car accident: you know you should not be doing this, but you keep doing it for a little while ;)

Aurel

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153663861.jpg http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153663873.jpg


ya, theres a big difference! :rolleyes:

Is she trying to check Darwin`s law on herself with that glove?

Aurel

Not to hijack this thread, but I reeaaallly hate when someone takes the words or actions from one person and generalizes everyone else that is somehow related in belief to that person.
Lets say you have an E.E.(Thats Electrical Engineer for your Liberal Arts grads) that graduated from Duke. The EE designs a system and due to his ignorance or carelessness an end user is electrocuted and dies. So then do we say that all EE.s from Duke are incompetent?
In the same light are preachers. In my opinion there are VERY few TV preachers that are "beyond reproach", but yet they seem to be the yard stick for those that are "un churched" that measure all those that are "churched". Lets be fare...

That would spell let`s be FAIR, but nevermind...

Aurel

There are good cops, and bad cops.
Good plumbers, and bad plumbers.
Good lawyers, and bad lawyers.
Good mechanics, and bad mechanics......

Most of the preachers that show up on TV are the power hungry, in it for the money types.

A pastor friend of mine actually had the religious channel blocked from his TV at home when his kids were young so they wouldn't get messed up with all the whacky stuff found there.

No, it was done to cock-block the competition.

So the onset of cancer and aids are possibly a evolutiobary process. The fact that typical men lived 100's of years 4000 years ago and now are lucky to reach 100 today is proof we are de-evolving?

Not quite. I never heard that typical men lived 100`s of years 4000 years ago. Where did you get that information? I heard of tibetan monks who have been reported to live several hundred years, but it has always been the exception, not the norm. Regarding aids an cancer, its occurence has more to do with environmental factors and life habits, and despite their occurence, life expectancy has been increasing, not decreasing. However, if the exposure to human made chemicals or radiations results in transmissible genetic changes, there could be evolution caused by man on himself...

So not only your suggestion that we are de-evolving is wrong, but it is also based on the premise that evolution means increase of life expectancy, which is not what it is. Evolution means change that is transmitted to the next generations, like evolving from a fish to a monkey and to you (or me). The fact that a human happens to live longer than a fish is just a byproduct of evolution. There is no such thing as de-evolution. Even if we became dumber, smaller and lived shorter lives, it would still be part of evolution. And actually, we became taller in the past 60 years, mostly due to better nutrition after WWII. And now, kids are born taller, which seems to be an example of recent evolution.

Aurel

Natural Selection does not care what happens to us after we have reproduced. If there were a disease that killed millions of women after menopause (breast cancer?) there would no way for natural selection to work to eliminate it.

Ancient longevity is anecdotal. In 1770, the average life expectancy was 36 years. It didn't reach age 50 until around 1900. By most estimations, we are living longer and healthier than ever, but this has very little to do with evolution or natural selection. Once you are through replicating your DNA, nature has no use for you!

its all crap and that a literal bible version is the only truth, so all of our data, observation etc. are meaningless. ;)

jim..i've never read or heard it said that men ever lived hundreds of years. seems our life span has been lengthening over time, not shortening. is yours a biblical reference or something scientific? curious..
ryan

Hope you can read this. Hard to copy.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1153674752.jpg

Was that TV preacher asking for you to send money to him?

What scares me is that I've heard that that George W. Bush actually believes the Adam and Eve thing and that the earth is only about 5,000 years old. This from the man with his hands on the nuclear (nuculear) football.

moses' data is along the lines of what i'd expect. come on, jim..work with me here, buddy! :D
ryan

telomerase is a b*tch...

Evolution relies on mistakes. Most mistakes are silent. Some are advantageous. Others are deleterious. Cancer is a mistake. Some of the people around here are a mistake, but that is an *entirely* different thread :p

You can't overcome the odds...

Creation is the only thing that actually makes sense.
Is it too simple for you?

See, everything else is just guessing and making things up to fill in the holes.


KT

Bull. Odds?, I’ll bet you can’t explain the concept of odds accurately. If you understood probability theory you would not bring this up all the time. Sense?, like common sense? Like the commonly "known" fact" that traveling faster than a horse could gallop would suck the wind out of your lungs and you would die" type of sense (believed for several thousand years)? Please, if you do not understand and have not studied physics, chemistry, biology, etc., do not pass judgment on what is a mystery to you. That would be like... really stupid. If you don't understand the science, that means it all sounds strange and you will rely on fairy tales and myth to explain reality.

Indeed. Evolution theory violates one of science's central immutable truths, the 2nd law of thermodynamics...foolish liberals and other suckers.

No missing link...If evolution were fact there would be a continuous presence of missing links.

Yep. What is great about being a faithful believer in evolution is that you can change your theory with every new-found flaw, and still be accepted and rigidly dogmatic.

With the recent history of god-mockers in high positions, you should wish for a deluded fundamentalist Christian...in fact your very prosperity was built on their deluded backs, the very foundation of this great country.

ah yes, the idiotic application of the 2nd law again...

please read and learn. If that is possible.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

The thrust of my point, albeit founded in the immutable (despite your misconstructions), was that it is the God rejectors that you should fear, them and Muslims (they joined forces in WWII and have rejoined forces today in the UN and liberalism).

Just in the last 100 years those of the secular humanistic faith have made significant inroads to being the greatest practitioners of human evil the world has seen...They sure did make up quickly for such a short time of earthly dominance...Their doctrine of choas and disorder is slowly taking its toll on humanity.

just admit you are wrong about your application of the 2nd law, and that you don't know jack about science. Then continue with your other rantings...

I admit nothing. Evolution contradicts the 2nd Law. I understand that your monkey descendents think so, but a lot of your brothers are still swinging through trees and throwing feces at each other in zoos.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

But your posts speak for themselves. As usual. The sad thing is that the 2nd law doesn't obviate a higher power so strict creationists don't need to use that specious argument. In other words, you don't need to close your mind quite so tight. But I understand that it is easier that way. Best of luck with that.

Evolution is a joke...Christianity's achievements far surpass anything any other ideology has ever offered.

I now have the final proof that you are a complete idiot, Mr. Mul. Not that I did not know it already, but here, it is absolutely undeniable. I`ll stil enjoy your posts though, just like I enjoy watching monkeys in the Zoo, or clowns at the circus.

Aurel

What is it about being closely genetically related with chimps that you Bible believers find so obnoxious ? Or perhaps that fact is OK, as long as the process involved creation as opposed to evolution ? Perhaps God just had a long day. Decided to make two species with almost identical genes, throwing in a bit of fur on one and a tad more versatile brain functions on the other. Pretty content with himself, tired after a long day of creations, he utters the legendary phrase: "Voila´! Monkey and Man! .....yawn..or was it the other way... yawn ...zzzz http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/munky2.gif

Regardless of one's beliefs on this subject it is very clear that Aurel is a very angry person. One that likes to put down others in a very bitter fashion. I wish you peace Aurel, its abundantly clear that you need it.

Everytime someone puts up their *absolute* scientific expertise and super-knowledge, I just laugh.

We can't even figure out what to do with our garbage as a people and I'm supposed to think you have the mysteries of the universe in the bag...Haaahaahhaaahha.

You have to laugh...

I think micro evolution is true, but as to macro evolution, like a fish becoming a man, or dog, whatever is total bunk. One very big hole in current theory is how to explain the continual loss of species. Why has no new species been shown to evolve from an old one (thats any macro evolution)? Certainly some species must evolve faster than others. THere must be at least ONE bit of evidence.

As to religion, the Pope and Catholic church, beleive in evolution, just how is that possible. Or is it the critics are actually ignorant about religion and are displaying that ignorance with their incredible statements. Their lack of knowledge is also displayed with their statements on evolution.

As to the second law of thermodynamics--wtf--?? Total lack of understanding and total misapplication of the law has been presented by all of the previous posts on this thread. Then again I only minored in physics so I might not understand the application of that law in ways that are totally inconsistant with its intended applications. Usually only uneducated people utilize something they do not understand and try to apply it to something it was never intended for, that is it just dosen't apply.

As to order, all things will go from less stable to more stable states. What that may have to do with order, I don't know. For example, a bunch of sand circulating in a bunch of mud looks pretty disorderly to me. But once it settles out in nice flat, uniform layers of sediment, it looks much more orderly. As to the total energy, its constant, as energy is never created or destroyed, only transformed.

In nature many things that look disorderly to many people are actually quite orderly. Many just cannot see the order. For example take a stone fire place. A lot of them look like a pile of rubble, why? Because the person building them cannot see the order in nature. A master stone fire place builder produces a work of art, something that almost everyone can recognize. They cannot define what it is that they like, but it is the natural order that has been preserved by the builder. That same order is displayed by mother nature in many ways, but many people only see disorder because they are blind. Arguements of things changing from a state of order to disorder is in the eye of the viewer, it is an artform, not a science and consequently cannot be used as the basis for an arguemnet to prove or disprove anythiing.

Just like the above statement, you either agree or disagree. My statement proves nothing. It is a basis for looking into mother nature closer and finding something you may be able to prove or disprove. Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Anyone making derogatory remarks about people or their religion is biased, uninformed, and very nervous. Nervous that one of the religious people might be right.