Creation vs. Evolution

[Slartibartfast]

A question important to this thread is what can and cannot be established as being fact. To go back to Descartes who really thought about this for a long time. His famous answer was "cogito ergo sum" I think therefore I am.

If you want to get down to the only thing you cannot deny as being true is the fact that you are a thinking being. everything that your senses tell you could be a lie. The only thing that is absolutely true is the fact that one's own thoughts exist.

Descartes postulated as his worst case scenario the very cool concept of the 'evil genius' who is somehow feeding all false information into your senses (yes Virginia, the idea of the Matrix is from the seventeeth century) The only thing the evil genius cannot falsify is the fact that there is a thinking being that is experincing these thoughts.

As an aside, Descartes goes on to 'prove' using only what he can believe as being undeniably true (no external evidence, only thought), and using logic, the existence of a God.

one good website about Descartes is
uhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm

What all I'm saying boils down to is that next to nothing in this world is absolutely provably 100% ipso facto true to a bazillion decimal points.

The question is how much certainty do you want to accept.

With that being said, evolution has been proven to the limit of certainty. Is it 100% undeniably true? No, nothing is, and scientist are aware of that fact, but its as close as you can get.

[juju]

Originally posted by dar512

You'll have to be a bit more explicit here. What are you stating is a fact?

I am saying that evolution is a fact. That being, the descent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors. This includes one species evolving into another.

The theory of evolution can easily be proved to be false. One simply must make a prediction based on it, and then show that prediction to be false. Every prediction based on the theory of evolution so far has proven to be true. In contrast, creationism isn't falsifiable at all.

It's also important to remember that there's no such thing as a "species" in real life. It's just an artifical label that scientists made up to help them classify organisms. In reality, there is a very gradual range of differences between all organisms. Naturally, most of the common ancestors and transitional forms are now extinct, though.

[juju]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
Yes, but it's very crucial to my theory of evolution. Did we all descend from the same basic building blocks? If so what was it? I know that tends to be more astronomical in nature, but it's at that moment in time that evolution started right? What was there to evolve to where we are today? Nobody knows for sure, so we have to believe in something. Maybe we did start from absolute nothing, but that's as hard for me to believe as it is for some people to believe there was a higher power that had some hand in bringing about the big bang.

Sometime, somewhere something had to be in existence for us to be where we are today. What I want to know is where did that matter come from. How was it formed?

The theory of evolution assumes a self-replicating lifeform existed at the beginning of the process. It necessarily limits its scope because the phenomenon is provable without this information.

Personally, I think think that time is infinite, and extends forever into the past and future. So, in that model, then perhaps that matter has always existed? I guess that's hard for people to believe, since they like for things to have a "beginning" and an "end". But the more I think about it, I don't think time works that way.

Although like I said, that's not evolution. It's more like, "Origins of the Universe".

[OnyxCougar]

But the origins of the universe DO directly relate to evolution, as it pertains to that theory of how the planet, sun and solar system formed, how the first life sprung from absolutely nothing but energy and climate, and evolved into every single thing on this planet. And it's something else I planned to explore. Simply saying, "Well, that's Astronomy" is very much like saying, "Fossil Record? Well that's Geology." Well, yes, it is, but that doesn't make the question less relevant.

See, Evolutionary theorists try to "prove" their idea by using science, as they should. They take observable phenomenon and then posit ideas using known science to explain that observation. The problem is, macro evolution (what we're talking about when we say ET) is not observable. We have fossils**, we have rocks, we havee animals that closely resemble each other, but we don't have irrefutable evidence that this is what happened.

Occam's Razor, according to Webster's online:
Date: circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Meaning, all things being equal, the simplest explanation us usually the right one. ****

Think about that.


**I will work on the fossil thing tomorrow and post on that.

****(See Contact, a movie based off the book by Carl Sagan, an evolutionist, starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughy.)

[juju]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
But the origins of the universe DO directly relate to evolution, as it pertains to that theory of how the planet, sun and solar system formed, how the first life sprung from absolutely nothing but energy and climate, and evolved into every single thing on this planet. And it's something else I planned to explore. Simply saying, "Well, that's Astronomy" is very much like saying, "Fossil Record? Well that's Geology." Well, yes, it is, but that doesn't make the question less relevant.

Evolution is "the descent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors". There is nothing in that definition about the origin of the universe.

The fossil record is directly relevant, because it gives us evidence of transitional forms -- something predicted by the Theory of Evolution.

[juju]

Originally posted by juju
No one believes that man evolved from apes. Evolution states that humans and apes have a <i>common ancestor</i>. That's a huge difference.

Syc just pointed out to me that I was wrong here. In fact, humans <i>are</i> apes, as are all of the common ancestors between them and the living apes. Doh!

I guess what would be more accurate is that the statement, "We evolved from apes" is a little deceptive. It implies that we evolved from the apes that are alive today, which isn't true at all.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

Occam's Razor, according to Webster's online:
Date: circa 1837
: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Meaning, all things being equal, the simplest explanation us usually the right one.

Or: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

Here's a history of Occam's razor. It was originally used to suggest that one cannot use reason alone to deduce God's existence.

Anyway, the simplest explanation is not always the one that is easiest to write. If it were, then Occam's razor would always provide the same answer: Magic! Why does the sun come up? Magic! Why is grass green? Magic! Why is the sky blue? Magic! How did my prize sheep end up in my neighbor's flock? Magic!

The entities Occam wants to slice away are theoretical constructs that must be taken on faith. One way to apply it to evolution is as follows: microevolution is obvious, known, demonstrated, and generally accepted. It explains how one species can change over time, and gain and lose traits. We have fossil evidence that many years ago there were animals that no longer exist, and there are many animals that exist now that have no evidence of existing earlier than a certain point many years ago. But there are structural similarities between some of the extinct animals and some of the current animals.

I'll use the non-scientific version of the word 'theory' here: We have two theories:
A) Microevolution happens as observed, but God does the big changes.
B) Micro- and macro- evolution are the same process in different timeframes and environmental pressures.

Theory B is the one with fewer entities, and therefore the one Occam points to.

[JeepNGeorge]

My brother began to dictate in his best oratorical style, the one which has the tribes hanging on his words.
“In the beginning,” he said, “exactly fifteen point two billion years ago, there was a big bang and the Universe—”
But I had stopped writing. “Fifteen billion years ago?” I said incredulously.
“Absolutely,” he said. “I’m inspired.”
“I do not question your inspiration,” I said. (I had better not. He’s three years younger than I am, but I don’t try questioning his inspiration. Neither does anyone else or there’s hell to pay.) “But are you going to tell the story of the Creation over a period of fifteen billion years?”
“I have to,” said my brother. “That’s how long it took. I have it all in here,” he tapped his forehead, “and it’s on the very highest authority.”
By now I had put down my stylus. “Do you know the price of papyrus?” I said.
“What?” (He may be inspired but I frequently noticed that the inspiration didn’t include such sordid matters ad the price of papyrus.)
I said, “Suppose you describe one million years of events to each roll of papyrus. That means you’ll have to fill fifteen thousand rolls. You’ll have to talk long enough to fill them and you know that you begin to stammer after a while. I’ll have to write enough to fill them and my fingers will fall off and even if we can afford all that papyrus and you have the voice and I have the strength, who’s going to copy it? We’ve got to have a guarantee of a hundred copies before we can publish and without that where will we get royalties from?”
My brother thought awhile. He said, “You think I ought to cut it down?”
“Way down,” I said, “if you expect to reach the public.”
“How about a hundred years?” he said.
“How about six days?” I said.
He said, horrified, “You can’t squeeze Creation into six days.”
I said, “This is all the papyrus I have. What do you think?”
“Oh, well,” he said, and began to dictate again. “In the beginning—Does it have to be six days, Aaron?”
I said, firmly, “Six days, Moses.”

-- Isaac Asimov

[Torrere]

Taking the Bible literally, I used the story which includes "Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's and give unto God what is God's" to mean that Jesus began the separation of Church and State.

[Lady Sidhe]

I think that if God/dess wants to create the world through evolution, who are we to say S/He can't? Things seem too perfect for them to be mere chance...it seems logical that there is some kind of intelligence behind it. There is no reason that science and religion have to be at odds. If one is true, it doesn't necessarily make the other false, and just because we can't prove that something is there doesn't mean it isn't. It just means we can't measure it YET.

To paraphrase MIB...five thousand years ago, everyone KNEW the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everyone KNEW the earth was flat, and five minutes ago, you KNEW you were alone in the universe....Imagine what you'll KNOW tomorrow.

Sidhe

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Things seem too perfect for them to be mere chance...it seems logical that there is some kind of intelligence behind it.

I saw an interesting analogy for this reasoning. I think it was in Last Chance to See by Douglas Adams. Imagine a puddle of water in the ground wakes up and contemplates its environment. It notices that the hole it is in is the perfect shape to contain it. That hardly seems to be likely enough to have happened by chance, so the puddle concludes that the hole was dug especially for it.

Evolution is the process by which life adapts to fill its environment. Life that more perfectly meshes with its environment (including other life) is more successful. So intricate, perfectly balanced dependencies end up appearing.

This isn't to deny that it is possible that evolution is directed, but the intricate dependencies don't imply it.

[OnyxCougar]

Snips from an essay on the AiG website.
Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years.

I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day).

Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context, the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies, etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.

And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense either.

It comes down to this. Either you believe that the bible is the infallible word of God, or you don't.

If you do, then you can't be an evolutionist, because you believe that yom means 1 plain old regular 24 hour day, that God created the whole kit and caboodle.

If you don't, and you want it proved to you, well, that's a bit harder. And what this thread is about.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Snips from an essay on the AiG website.
And the fact is, every single dating method (outside of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions.

Why make this exception? Even the most faithful person has to realize that assuming the accuracy of scripture is fallible. One can have faith that it is true, but humans are fallible, so faith can be fallible.

It's a bit hypocritical to criticize science for relying on assumptions when ALL of religion is an assumption.

[OnyxCougar]

The point of the essay is that the writer believes the scripture is infallible. That is why the assumption is made.

The writer states that the bible was divinely inspired, and therefore infallible.

The writer believes man IS fallible, God is not. Man's ideas are fallible, God's are not.

That's not hypocrisy.

[Happy Monkey]

The idea that scripture is God's word is fallible. It is a human idea.