Why Creationism over Evolution? Bring on the arguments (Creator, Earth)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Evolution_Not

I am trying to understand how you are determinig evolution occured over millions
of years since it appears to be a totaly random process and we were not there to
make any observations. If there is no true limiting factors then what is the difference
of 1 year, 100, or 1 million.

First off, in evolutionary terms, mutation happens exactly once per generation. The time from when you're born until you have offspring is one "tick" of the evolutionary clock. You aren't going to see evolutionary changes in less than the lifespan of the organisms that are evolving.

Second, the random process is in the copying and combining of DNA. In simplistic terms, there's some very small but non-zero chance that a particular bit of DNA will be copied wrong. Small changes are quite likely; very large ones are much rarer. It's even less likely that a large change will be beneficial, and that it will be passed down to future generations.

Maybe a conceptual illustration will help: imagine your family has a tradition. On their 20th birthday, the eldest child goes out into a field where a huge bullseye with concentric rings around it is painted - the whole thing is a mile across. There's a marker on the field: the birthday boy or girl stands on the marker and throws a lawn dart straight up in the air. Where it lands is completely random; sometimes it'll be caught by the wind and blow off one direction or another, other times the wind will be completely still and it will fall straight down. In any case, when the dart lands, if it's closer to the centre than the marker was, then the marker is moved to where the dart landed. If the dart lands farther away, the marker doesn't move.

If your great-great-great grandfather started off on the edge of the mile-wide circle, how long do you think it'll take before your family's marker reaches the bullseye?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Evolution_Not

I am trying to understand how you are determinig evolution occured over millions
of years since it appears to be a totaly random process and we were not there to
make any observations. If there is no true limiting factors then what is the difference
of 1 year, 100, or 1 million.

Evolution is not a random process. If it were, it wouldn't work. I repeat: Do you know what the theory of evolution says?

The limiting factor, if I understand you, is the rate of mutations per generation.

[mingmty]

Originally Posted by Willamena

That's exactly why they can go together. They don't really conflict except when one or the other is taken for something it is not.

Sorry for the late reply...

That's exactly why the can't go together; science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions, and gives no chance to evolve knowledge, it IS incompatible with the scientific thought.

One can claim to believe in creationism while also being a scientist, but that really is not being a scientist, is just using science for those things that have so much proof that would be dumb to question while using a completely unscientific theory whenever there is a chance, trying to better fix unproven unscientific beliefs...

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by mingmty

Sorry for the late reply...

That's exactly why the can't go together; science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions, and gives no chance to evolve knowledge, it IS incompatible with the scientific thought.

One can claim to believe in creationism while also being a scientist, but that really is not being a scientist, is just using science for those things that have so much proof that would be dumb to question while using a completely unscientific theory whenever there is a chance, trying to better fix unproven unscientific beliefs...

I am not a creationist, however I think it is important to differentiate between conceptual questions and empirical ones. I think religion applies to the first and science to the second. To try and apply science to a conceptual problem posed by religion or philosophy is like trying to solve a math problem using physics. A valid concept (religious or philosophical) should be consistent with science but I disagree that "science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions"

[mingmty]

Originally Posted by stephenw

I am not a creationist, however I think it is important to differentiate between conceptual questions and empirical ones. I think religion applies to the first and science to the second. To try and apply science to a conceptual problem posed by religion or philosophy is like trying to solve a math problem using physics. A valid concept (religious or philosophical) should be consistent with science but I disagree that "science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions"

Science has its roots in philosophy, just as theology does, but those are completely different and incompatible. You seem to forget that religion was the science of the dark times, but our modern science has since long exceeded what we could understand by using religion, the only thing that keeps religion in the picture is culture and society.

A member of my family went to a seminar to become a reverend, so I could chat with theologists from time to time, and let me tell you this, when they speak about science it is severely flawed, and that's because the philosophical postulates that create theology and science are completely against each other, theologists have their own distorted notion of what science is.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by mingmty

Science has its roots in philosophy, just as theology does, but those are completely different and incompatible. You seem to forget that religion was the science of the dark times, but our modern science has since long exceeded what we could understand by using religion, the only thing that keeps religion in the picture is culture and society.

A member of my family went to a seminar to become a reverend, so I could chat with theologists from time to time, and let me tell you this, when they speak about science it is severely flawed, and that's because the philosophical postulates that create theology and science are completely against each other, theologists have their own distorted notion of what science is.

I am generally in agreement with you. My point is that modern science has produced empirical findings which show some religious beliefs/conceptions to be incorrect (eg. the basis of this thread. ) Religion/Philosophy needs to formulate theory which makes conceptual sense and can then be tested by science. I don't think they're incompatible. I think that religion like science must move forward with the times. It is my view that a dynamic religious/philosophical background should set the scene for science to test the answers it provides.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mingmty

That's exactly why the can't go together; science and religion are different explanations for the same phenomena, but science requires empirical evidence and the chance to evolve knowledge, and religion doesn't provide any evidence, just assumptions, and gives no chance to evolve knowledge, it IS incompatible with the scientific thought.

Yes, but only, as I indicated earlier, if "the creation" is taken for something it's not, which is (in my belief) the literal interpretation that the Creationism movement uses ("creation" IMO is the being of reality, and Genesis I is a myth depicting that); and/or if "science" is taken for what it's not, which is (in my belief) as a mechanism of explanation rather than of discovery and application of the natural world.

Originally Posted by mingmty

One can claim to believe in creationism while also being a scientist, but that really is not being a scientist, is just using science for those things that have so much proof that would be dumb to question while using a completely unscientific theory whenever there is a chance, trying to better fix unproven unscientific beliefs...

In order to compare science and the literal Creationism, we must of course find a common ground, and you've chosen "explanation" as that common ground of comparison. In order to do that, you bend both science and Creationism to be about explanation, but there are other more appropriate commond grounds by which to compare them, mainly in their underlying philosophies.

[Evolution_Not]

Thought I would work up a study outline-comments welcome
Decent with Modification- Slight changes passed by DNA to offspring (generational changes)
1) Cause for Change
2) Mechanism for changing DNA
3) Limitation of changes
4) Undesirable changes
5) Population growth and decline
A) Envionmental
B) Predatory
C) Age
6) Length of generation-not fixed?
7) Death before replication or extinction
8) Migration

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Evolution_Not