Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[WidowMakers]

Aww man, just when I'm about to go out, you pull me back in.

I'll try to read it tomorrow!

Sorry. I really did not mean to wait this long. I hope I did not lose anyone from the initial discussions.

Again I apologize for the delay.

WM

[suggs]

Its made my night that this thread is still going.
There is hope for mankind yet.
Who knows, maybe we will invent the light bulb one day?

[comic boy]

WM

Whilst I applaud the time and effort you are putting in to refute aspects of the evolution process,you have said nothing to promote the concept of creationism. This thread is supposed to be comparing 2 views and not simply discussing one of them, apart from some passages in Genesis where is the evidence for Creationism?

Evidence for Evolution - Overwhelming Support from the Scientific community.

Evidence for Creationism - The bible says so.

Why do we need 200 pages when that sums up the comparison in a nutshell. You can spend the rest of your life picking holes in evolution but that will not forward the cause of creationism one jot .

[suggs]

wot that bloke sez

[Bavarian Raven]

....another step up for evolution...

[Neoteny]

Here is another response-

This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule. Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

Not random. Natural selection.

No it is random. Anytime a random variable is put into a system and the system depends on that variable to produce an outcome, the outcome is random.

Lets look at a general example of natural selection. Let's say set of genetic code undergoes a random mutation. A new variable is now in the information system. If that genetic code is propagated through to the next generation (natural selection) the random information will be preserved. But it is still random. If it was not random then we should be able to predict the evolutionary paths of organisms before it takes place.
Can we predict the genetic paths of organisms? Can we show how an organism will look (genetically) in 20 years, 200 years, 2000 years? Why not? Again because it is random.

Mutations are random and those random variables go into the natural selection process.

It’s important to understand that when I say the mutational process is random, I mean that it is not directed. There is nothing determining where or what type of a mutation will occur. Mutations provide the new raw material on which natural selection acts (the pre-existing raw material, or original genetic code, is also used in natural selection).

We have no way of saying for sure whether or not a particular nucleotide will mutate because mutation is a random process.

Thus the outcome of the natural selection process produces a non predictable set of information and is thus random (cannot be predicted).

First, natural selection is not random. This point cannot be stressed enough. Just because mutation is random, does not mean natural selection is random. What is random about a lion picking a sickly gazelle out of a herd to eat? Very little. The reason for the gazelle's sickliness might be random, but the actual selection process is not, and that is what guides the processes that we see today. Natural selection, by definition, is not random. If a cricket receives a mutation that prevents it from withstanding cold temperatures as well for some reason, the process through which it is weeded out of the population is not random. When cold temperatures happen, a definite chemical chain from gene expression onward occurs that somehow limits the cricket's tolerance to cold. This is not random. The mutation is random. The selection is not. Again, the idea that one part of a process is random, does not mean the entire process is. The process is based on that initial randomness, but whether the random change is kept or discarded is not random. It is a very subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

Second, trying to poke holes in various areas of the theory is not a very effective method of invalidating it. You can poke at it all you want, but unless you can come up with a competitive scientific theory, it will do you no good.

To address your points: nowhere do I imply that the entropy of the universe is decreasing, I'm just pointing out that it is possible for the entropy of a particular area of the universe to go down as long as it is countered by a corresponding increase in energy elsewhere in the universe. The obvious explanation for our decrease in entropy is the infusion of massive amounts of entropy by the sun. Again, this does not mean that universal entropy is decreasing, just that entropy in our particularly isolated system is not increasing as quickly.

Your (superficial) argument against cosmic and stellar levels of evolution can be turned around and posited toward the creation hypothesis. If a god created energy, that's violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Your chemical and planetary arguments are out of my field, but reading over them gives me the distinct impression that you are inserting uncertainty where there might not be any.

Your summary of abiogenesis indicates that you lack a very basic understanding of how evolution works. To answer your question, it's a matter of timescale. Yes, it is a very unlikely event, but it only had to happen once. Over a scale of billions of years, the odds of it happening are not as small as many people realize.

Microevolution, noone ever has a problem with that...

Macroevolution. The thing that macroevolution has that creationism does not, is that it has made predictions that have turned out to be accurate. That's pretty close to being "proven" as far as science goes. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't true. You can't see the reactions occurring between hydrogen atoms in a star, but you have no problem throwing them around at your leisure. Why such hostility to evolution?

In response to your conclusion: you can poke holes in all of the steps leading up to evolution, but it does not change the simple fact that we have evidence of biological macroevolution. That is much more than we can say for creationism. Additionally, biological evolution is much easier to study than cosmic evolution just by the nature of the topics. It is much easier to start at the level of biology and work back than it is to start at the beginning and work up. If there is something wrong with the theory of abiogenesis, that does not mean that we throw out the theory of evolution. It means we adjust or find a new theory of abiogenesis that fits the observations of cosmic and biological schemes. Evolutionary theory would need to be fine-tuned to adjust for the change in origin, but the basis of the theory would stand unharmed.

Each theory stands alone in its own right, and the wonder of it is that they support each other. There are flaws in each theory, but each time we resolve a flaw, the theory gets stronger. Biological evolution is one of the strongest theories we have in science. The furor associated with its subject matter has led to intense scrutiny that rivals no other theory. And it is still accepted by the huge majority of scientists, and it is the foundation for the entire field of biology, despite the attempts of untold numbers of individuals to derail it. There is no other theory that comes close to explaining why we are what we are. And I will add that none does it as beautifully.

Adding god to the equation is three things:

(1) A cop-out
(2) Unnecessary
(3) Disrespectful

[Bavarian Raven]

and to add to the evolution point, in labs it is easy to take abundant elements and compounds found on numerous planets, add a bit of electricity (ie, lighting or another energy source ALSO found on other planets as well as our own) to create complex organic compounds such as proteins...and even create simple cell like chemical reactions... so is this life, no. but it's building one damn bit pyre and if some unknown spark hits...

[Neutrino]

Since I have clearly taken leave of my senses, I am actually going to try to respond to parts of this tl;dr text wall.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1)Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.


And what about the laws of nature? Where did gravity come from? What about the laws of Thermodynamics? Why do atoms bond the way they do? Why is the speed of light what it is? Did these laws and principles exist before the Big Bang? And if they did why were they there when nothing was around to obey them? Plus matter and energy were created. That is a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Weak Anthropic Principle.

============================================
2)Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.

Stars are not complex. It's a large ball of hydrogen with some convection currents. There are bacteria more compex than stars.

After the Big Bang the particles fly out in frictionless space at crazy speeds. Once these particles blew outward after an explosion in outer space, there would be no way to slow it. This is a key point. An explosion of matter would cause an outward spray of gas and energy. It would continue to move outward in space forever. Space is frictionless. There would be no way to slow the gas, nothing to stop it.

Currently that seems to be OK. No violation of the 2nd law here. Entropy is increasing as the universe becomes more disordered (expanding outward with no particular purpose or direction).

But wait.

Stellar evolution requires the super fast, straight moving gas to slow down and clump together to for clouds of gas and eventually stars. On earth, gas never clumps into a solid. Out in space, where everything is a near-vacuum, it would be totally impossible—impossible in the extreme——for this to occur.

You're treating the Big Bang as an explosion. It was not. The Big Bang was (and is) the point in time when the universe began to expand. None of the universe's constituent particles gained kinetic energy because of that event (they already had a lot of heat energy, but that's a whole different story). The space-time between particles is streaching, leading to the illusion of motion, but the particles themselves aren't moving because of the universe's expantion.

Throughout the voids of space between the stars is to be found various gases, the primary one of which is hydrogen. These gaseous compounds never move away from an area of vacuum into an area of congestion or density. Never, never, never. It just does not happen.

In fact, they do. It's an effect known locally as gravitational attraction

The hydrogen gas observed by astronomers through telescopes is gradually expanding. None of it is packing together. There are no exceptions! Slow expansion of gaseous matter in outer space is normal, and in accordance with physical laws. Gas floating in the vacuum of outer space cannot form itself into stars. Once a star is formed, it can hold itself together by gravity, but there is no way that gas in outer space can get the operation started. (All gas clouds in outer space are more rarified than that found in the most rarified vacuum-bottle pressures that man is able to produce on earth.)

It can and will. Once a gas cloud is destabalised (nearby supernova, neutron star colision, colision between two clouds...) outlying material will be attracted to the core of the gas cloud (basically whereever the density is highest). Although it will take quite a while (by human standards), the outlying material will fall in, increacing the pressure (and therefore the temperature - Gas Laws) and also the mass of the protostar. The extra gravitational attraction allows it to combat the effects of the extra pressure and temperature and draw still more material in until it reaches fusion temperatures. The rest is history

==========================================
3)Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.

Actually, all elements would have been present, just not in very large amounts.


Now that the stars have been formed the process of chemical element evolution can begin. Basically this is a process in which Hydrogen and Helium (the two elements from after the Big Bang) form to make larger elements from within stars.

Theoretically heavy elements can be produced
Only at extremely high temperatures, of order 100 million K, can this bottleneck be circumvented by a highly improbable reaction. At those temperatures, the fusion of two He-4 nuclei forms highly unstable Beryllium-8 at a fast enough rate that there is always a very small equilibrium concentration of Be-8 at any one instant.
The situation is somewhat like running water through a sieve. Normally the sieve holds no water because it drains out as fast as it is added. However, if the flow of water into the sieve is made fast enough, a small equilibrium amount of water will be in the sieve at any instant because even the sieve cannot empty the water fast enough to keep up with the incoming water.
This small concentration of Be-8 can begin to undergo reactions with other He-4 nuclei to produce an excited state of the mass-12 isotope of Carbon. This excited state is unstable, but a few of these excited Carbon nuclei emit a gamma-ray quickly enough to become stable before they disintegrate. This extremely improbable sequence is called the triple-alpha process because the net effect is to combine 3 alpha particles (that is, 3 He-4 nuclei) to form a C-12 nucleus.

While still a Main Sequence star, Sol will produce very little heavy elements, this much I admit. When it slides off the Main Sequence into Red Gianthood, however, Helium fusion will occur. Helium fusion requires much higher temperatures than Hydrogen fusion, simply because the reactions are much less likely. With more heat energy the particles will move faster and collide more often, thereby increacing the probability of the formation of a Carbon atom.
Once all the Helium is gone, progressively higher temperatures will allow Carbon to fuse, and, since surface gravity is lower (the star is much larger) large percentages of this can escape in solar winds to enrich nearby gas clouds.

==========================================
4)Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.

B) What stopped the entire process? If it were not stopped, the entire mass of material would form one large body—without any planets and moons.

When fusion began, the initial solar winds would have blown any light material not already part of the star away. That's why gaseous planets formed far from the sun.

C) Since the sun has 99.5 percent of the mass in the solar system, and all the planets and moons only have 0.5 percent of it, what would have kept these small bodies from falling into the main body?

Vee-lo-cee-tee.

D) There is much interstellar material in the vicinity of our sun, but it is not condensing.

That's 'cause they established stable orbits.

E) Our sun has an extremely small rotational motion—that is, it is turning slowly. This "angular momentum" is far too small to have evolved from a gas cloud. If our sun came from a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to have been a billion times as much as it is now, in order for our planets to be flung out and orbit it as fast as they do. How could it have lost all of its rotational motion?

Conservation of Angular Momentum.
As material rained onto the protostar, it's size increaced. The conservation of Angular Momentum states that a larger object must spin slower than a smaller one with the same amount of angular momentum.

With all of these theories, there are plenty of ways to show how the planetary evolution ignores the laws of nature. These things are just assumed to have accidentally happened and are justified by billions of years of chance. Does that really make sense?

You're attacking theories no-one has taken seriously for decades at the very least. You certainly won't see me defending them.

Our sun is rotating rather slowly, but the planets are rotating far too fast in comparison with the sun. In addition, they are orbiting the sun far faster than the sun is itself turning. But if the planets did not orbit so fast, they would hurtle into the sun; and if the sun did not rotate slowly, it would fling its mass outward into space.

Again, Conservation of Angular Momentum. The planets retained a high velocity from the initial angular momentum of the cloud, since they did not increace in mass to such a large degree.

In order for the sun to originally have been part of the same mass as the planets and moons, it would have to rotate ten-million times faster. So if the sun did throw the planets out, why did it lose all of its angular momentum? Where did it go? And why have the planets not slowed down?

Conservation. Of. Angular. Momentum.
You certainly enjoy asking the same question many times over

B) The ratio of elements in the earth is far too different from those found in the sun, and the same holds true for the other planets in comparison with the sun. How then could the earth and other planets be torn out of the sun (planetesimal theory) or come from the same gas cloud that produced the sun (nebular hypothesis)?

But the Sun does contain the same materials as the earth. Admittedly hydrogen does play a much larger part (the initial cloud would have been composed largely of hydrogen, but Earth was never large enough to keep all it's hydrogen) in the Sun, but I have no doubt that heavier materials also play a part. They would form a tiny percentage of the whole compared to Hydrogen and Helium, but they would still exist.

C) Both Uranus and Venus rotate backward, compared to all the other planets

Only Venus has a retrograde orbit and calculations suggest that it initially had a prograde orbit whih was gradually altered by tidal effects.

D) Saturn has 17 major moons, yet none of them ever collide with the rings. The farthest one out is Phoebe, which revolves in a motion opposite to Saturn and its rings. How could that happen?[/list]

Why should they collide with the rings? The major moons and the rings share completely different orbits. Hell, the rings are not a single continous object; it is impossible for a moon to collide with them.

[Neoteny]

Thanks for filling in my gaps, Neutrino.

[unriggable]

FYI, just to make sure you all get this, there is no 'before' the big bang. Time is a dimension. Under extreme gravity, time slows down relative to no gravity (we know this because clocks in satellites are set to slower paces to account for the slower time on earth); therefore an infinitely small space, like that of the big bang, would be infinitely slow.

As for 'nothing can slow it', gravity can. The 23% of the universe that is dark matter can. The particles are attracted to each other and therefore start moving to a center point.

Your third point, about dust clouds being unable to form, we know that's untrue because an astronaut took some grinded-up coffee beans and put it in a clear plastic bag, then rubbed it to create a small electric current (in the same way that if you rub your feet on a rug, you have static) and lo and behold, the particles began attaching to one another. This can be elevated to a planetary scale.

[Neutrino]

As for 'nothing can slow it', gravity can. The 23% of the universe that is dark matter can. The particles are attracted to each other and therefore start moving to a center point.

Just for clarification, baryons (visible matter) form a mere 4% of the universe's total energy density, making dark matter almost 600% more prevalent throughout the universe.

[Snorri1234]

Well...I'm done.

[unriggable]

As for 'nothing can slow it', gravity can. The 23% of the universe that is dark matter can. The particles are attracted to each other and therefore start moving to a center point.

Just for clarification, baryons (visible matter) form a mere 4% of the universe's total energy density, making dark matter almost 600% more prevalent throughout the universe.

Right. When it was discovered in the early 20th century that a galaxy was unable to make a complete turn without untying itself, those running the simulation had to up the amount of matter inside the galaxy by about 19 times (making 96% of the galaxy nonexistent, this became dark matter). Then when they found out, through big bang mathematics, that this actual stuff was only 23% of the galaxy, they called the rest dark energy. We know dark matter is there - the same reason we know black holes exist. They deflect light like a magnifying glass, distorting the images we see on earth.

[Bavarian Raven]

did anyone ever think of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the church already knows the truth and that is why they are so secretive, for if the truth that the bible was just ancient propoganda for them to stay in power ever came out, everything involving the church would crumble? sort of like an ancient version of "Mein Kamf"

[unriggable]

did anyone ever think of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the church already knows the truth and that is why they are so secretive, for if the truth that the bible was just ancient propoganda for them to stay in power ever came out, everything involving the church would crumble? sort of like an ancient version of "Mein Kamf"

Shut up. You're wrong. No. Stop it. No. System Error. Shutdown. Shutdown. Beeeeooooooo

[Grooveman2007]

I belive that God created the world 4.5 billion years ago. He created it with the intention of having humanity be the end result. All of the stories in the Bible about Adam and Eve were just made up by people too ignorant and primitive to have discovered something like evolution.

[Backglass]

did anyone ever think of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the church already knows the truth and that is why they are so secretive, for if the truth that the bible was just ancient propoganda for them to stay in power ever came out, everything involving the church would crumble? sort of like an ancient version of "Mein Kamf"

I believe that even the most devout, deep down, know it's all a bunch of crap. But the deep seated rituals and superstitions that have been handed down for generations are very strong and when they have these doubts...instead of exploring it for the truth they deny it and pray/study harder until the feelings pass and the warmth of delusion washes over them again. "It is the way of our people" right or wrong...most people don't like to buck the system.

I also believe that there is a part of the human brain that is still very primitive and these rituals & superstitions satisfy a deep need in some. Others, just don't need the security blanket of an invisible sky-daddy.

[bradleybadly]

I believe that even the most devout, deep down, know it's all a bunch of crap. But the deep seated rituals and superstitions that have been handed down for generations are very strong and when they have these doubts...instead of exploring it for the truth they deny it and pray/study harder until the feelings pass and the warmth of delusion washes over them again. "It is the way of our people" right or wrong...most people don't like to buck the system.

I also believe that there is a part of the human brain that is still very primitive and these rituals & superstitions satisfy a deep need in some. Others, just don't need the security blanket of an invisible sky-daddy.

I wouldn't go as far as you as saying they are superstitions, but I do think they're very stubborn in admitting that their way isn't the right one. They're always trying to convert me at work so maybe I'll show them some of your posts if time permits. It should make for an interesting lunch break.

[Snorri1234]

I belive that God created the world 4.5 billion years ago. He created it with the intention of having humanity be the end result. All of the stories in the Bible about Adam and Eve were just made up by people too ignorant and primitive to have discovered something like evolution.

This at least is respectable. If there was a god, he has done that.

[Backglass]

I wouldn't go as far as you as saying they are superstitions, but I do think they're very stubborn in admitting that their way isn't the right one.

Thats because they can't. No adult would want to admit that their entire life was spent believing in legend & lore. It's much easier to just continue along and wish & hope that the fairy tales are true than face the cold reality that we are all alone on this planet for a short time. To the deeply religious, this is a very depressing thought (ask them!). I have even heard the devout say things like "I wouldn't want to live in a world without my god(s)". I believe them.

They're always trying to convert me at work so maybe I'll show them some of your posts if time permits. It should make for an interesting lunch break.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Seriously, you should be careful discussing things like this at work. "Love your enemy" and "Turn the other cheek" are myths in 2008. In some parts of the country, if you are the lone dissenter they could vary easily arrange for your job to end...after all, "you don't think like normal people".

[john9blue]

Looks like this has turned into a God argument. Nice.

In the interest of keeping it simple, I believe that God created the world billions of years ago, with humans in mind.

I wouldn't go as far as you as saying they are superstitions, but I do think they're very stubborn in admitting that their way isn't the right one.

Thats because they can't. No adult would want to admit that their entire life was spent believing in legend & lore. It's much easier to just continue along and wish & hope that the fairy tales are true than face the cold reality that we are all alone on this planet for a short time. To the deeply religious, this is a very depressing thought (ask them!). I have even heard the devout say things like "I wouldn't want to live in a world without my god(s)". I believe them.

Backglass accuses others of being closed-minded, yet he is shutting himself off from all that he doesn't know. He claims to know a higher truth that others won't accept, yet he rejects truth and creates negative stereotypes of believers in God. From what I have read, he is a selfish hypocrite. Don't listen to him.

[Neoteny]

Looks like this has turned into a God argument. Nice.

In the interest of keeping it simple, I believe that God created the world billions of years ago, with humans in mind.

I wouldn't go as far as you as saying they are superstitions, but I do think they're very stubborn in admitting that their way isn't the right one.

Thats because they can't. No adult would want to admit that their entire life was spent believing in legend & lore. It's much easier to just continue along and wish & hope that the fairy tales are true than face the cold reality that we are all alone on this planet for a short time. To the deeply religious, this is a very depressing thought (ask them!). I have even heard the devout say things like "I wouldn't want to live in a world without my god(s)". I believe them.

Backglass accuses others of being closed-minded, yet he is shutting himself off from all that he doesn't know. He claims to know a higher truth that others won't accept, yet he rejects truth and creates negative stereotypes of believers in God. From what I have read, he is a selfish hypocrite. Don't listen to him.

Truth can only be revealed via the scribblings of stone-age philosophers!

[Neoteny]

It's pretty much been a god argument throughout the entirety of the thread. It's just veiled with attacks on evolution.

[Backglass]

Backglass accuses others of being closed-minded, yet he is shutting himself off from all that he doesn't know.

Such as? I am open to any and all ideas presented with proof and common sense. Got any?

He claims to know a higher truth that others won't accept, yet he rejects truth and creates negative stereotypes of believers in God. From what I have read, he is a selfish hypocrite. Don't listen to him.

Ahhh yes...I "reject truth". Heard that line before. Exactly what "truth" am I rejecting? The truth that there is a magical man in the sky who nobody has ever seen, watching over us? Or that a women was impregnated by this magic man and gave birth to a half human?

You call it what you want...I just choose to live my life with eyes open. You call this selfish (a typical theists jab) as you assume that without magical gods a person can't give or help his fellow man. Next you will claim that I am deeply unhappy. Been there...heard that.

I haven't "created" any stereotypes...they live among us. You probably know a few.

[comic boy]

Looks like this has turned into a God argument. Nice.

In the interest of keeping it simple, I believe that God created the world billions of years ago, with humans in mind.

I wouldn't go as far as you as saying they are superstitions, but I do think they're very stubborn in admitting that their way isn't the right one.

Thats because they can't. No adult would want to admit that their entire life was spent believing in legend & lore. It's much easier to just continue along and wish & hope that the fairy tales are true than face the cold reality that we are all alone on this planet for a short time. To the deeply religious, this is a very depressing thought (ask them!). I have even heard the devout say things like "I wouldn't want to live in a world without my god(s)". I believe them.

Backglass accuses others of being closed-minded, yet he is shutting himself off from all that he doesn't know. He claims to know a higher truth that others won't accept, yet he rejects truth and creates negative stereotypes of believers in God. From what I have read, he is a selfish hypocrite. Don't listen to him.

Of course its a God argument,please supply any evidence to support creationism without God What you people dont seem to be able to grasp is that we dont care a jot about your beliefs,worship God,hamburgers or pixies and we couldnt care less. What we do object to is trying to promote an article of your faith in opposition to a sound scientific theory. If evolution poses difficult questions then that is for you to resolve, dogma has no right to limit human knowledge and progress.