Creationism (or religion's love/hate relationship with science) (Abiogenesis, soul)

[Willamena]

My question (re pmerkt's response) is why do all Creationist sing the same tune? Do they, like, go to Creationist School and all learn from the same curriculum?

[Bennu]

Originally Posted by pmerkt

(notice it is a theory, not a fact).

Talking of bad science...

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Enjoy!

[Booko]

Originally Posted by pmerkt

Thats simple, evolution is just bad science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does Christianity. Even Darwin himself has said that evolution relies heavily on the "simple" cell. He admitted if it were complex there is no basis for his theory (notice it is a theory, not a fact).

Well we now know the "simple" cell is anything but simple. Millions of components zagging around performing jobs all in one cell. The cell is more complex than anything man has ever made or dreamed of ever making.

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal? We have fossils that are "millions " of years old according to scientists, don't you think there would be at least one found?

What is your biggest reason for believing in this theory? I would love to hear what makes you so sure about it.

The thing about these kinds of discussions that always intrigues me is that someone with very little background in biology will make pronouncements on the subject, but then ask for an explanation short enough that it can be offered on a forum.

One of the things about evolutionary theory is, in order to have enough background to really understand the theory, you'd need to know some biology. OK...so you start reading up on biology. You study biology to the point where you are really in a position to judge whether any evolutionary theory holds water or not.

And when you're in that position, you find....you've become a biologist.

Well, I'm not a biologist, and my knowledge of that science is pretty brief compared to what I'd need to know. I'm a chemist. If you want to do a coumarin synthesis -- call me. I have some knowledge from chemistry that relates to the subject of evolutionary theory, though mostly it would relate to paleontology and spectrographic dating methods. But it ain't nearly enough for me to claim that I can judge the worth of any biologists work on the subject. I just don't have the background.

But what I do know very well from the work I've done in chemistry is how science is done. I know what peer review is and how credible journal articles get published. I know how they are held up to scrutiny by others in the field who actually know enough to poke holes in those papers, and I know what repeatable results are.

And what I really know is, I've yet to see any creationist papers accepted by any peer review journal. Conclusion? They are just not up to snuff, scientifically speaking. Sorry.

And the other thing I know is, among biologists, there is not a debate over whether evolution actually occurs. There is a debate on mechanisms, of course. Science, unlike some anti-evolutionists would have us believe, is not such a cut-and-dried field, and debates are hardly unusual. I would be more worried if there weren't debates going on.

If you are truly interested in evolutionary theory and why anyone would believe in it, I would not suggest you start here. It would be better to pick up a biology book, so at some point you will have enough background to even understand the explanation.

I don't think "millions of components zagging around" is quite specific enough when it comes to putting yourself in a position that gives you the ability to judge whether evolutionary theory is good science or just hokum.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Willamena

My question (re pmerkt's response) is why do all Creationist sing the same tune? Do they, like, go to Creationist School and all learn from the same curriculum?

They all read the same websites.

I just about choked from a fit of laughter when I read the bit about the cell. It reminds me so much of that argument: Oh, the eye is so very complex, it can't have happen through evolution!

Uh, yeah, because we can't understand a thing (yet) it couldn't *possibly* have happened.

I used to get real entertainment in turning the tables around and making the same argument vis a vis religious beliefs.

Sometimes, if I'm in an odd enough mood, I still do.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by pmerkt

Thats simple, evolution is just bad science. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does Christianity. Even Darwin himself has said that evolution relies heavily on the "simple" cell. He admitted if it were complex there is no basis for his theory (notice it is a theory, not a fact).

I don't understand your reasoning here, pmerkt. Why is evolution theory bad science? Is relativity or molecular theory bad science? Evolution theory is based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence. It's a synthesis of observed facts (a theory) and is strongly enough supported to be considered fact as well. Note that theory and fact are not mutually exclusive categories.
Christianity is not a synthesis of observed facts. It is not based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence, thus it is properly defined as myth.
I think it's Christianity that takes more faith to believe in.

Well we now know the "simple" cell is anything but simple. Millions of components zagging around performing jobs all in one cell. The cell is more complex than anything man has ever made or dreamed of ever making.

I'm not sure I get your point here. Complexity = magic (miracle)? >complexity = < mechanism?
The Mandelbrot equation is simple, yet it generates infinite complexity.

Also where are the inbetween forms of man/animal? We have fossils that are "millions " of years old according to scientists, don't you think there would be at least one found?

Man is animal -- how can there be intermediate forms?
Actually I think I know what you're getting at this time. You're saying that if there isn't a perfectly smooth, observable gradation in morphology between all forms of life, evolution theory is falsified.
May I respectfully recommend you read up a bit on biology and evolution before you form a hard opinion on it?

What is your biggest reason for believing in this theory? I would love to hear what makes you so sure about it.

[Snowbear]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

...Evolution theory is based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence.

I agree the "evidence" is observable. But other than people repeatedly observing and testing the same "evidence" repeatedly, how is evolution theory repeatable and testable? Has someone actually seen (or caused) even a simple species undergo a morphological change into a completely different, reproductively viable species?

[JerryL]

I agree the "evidence" is observable. But other than people repeatedly observing and testing the same "evidence" repeatedly, how is evolution theory repeatable and testable? Has someone actually seen (or caused) even a simple species undergo a morphological change into a completely different, reproductively viable species?

Yep. Ameican Goatsbeard for example.

[Snowbear]

Cool! So a couple of varieties of flowers interbred until an eventual mutation allowed the offspring to breed. Though now classified as a new species that can't interbreed with the original varieties, it is still a variety of the goatsbeard flower. That's even been done in more complex species..... some mules (the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey that is usually sterile) have actually been fertile and able to breed with other mules! I suppose if someone kept at it long enough, breeding the fertile mules until their offspring was consistently fertile, they could develop a new species.... but they would still be equines... The result of interbreeding and occasional mutation. It does not in any way 'prove' how mammals with lungs and hair and octopus with gills and suction cups evolved from the same source.

I guess I should have asked more specifically.... has anyone ever observed even simple life forms changing significantly into something completely different... morphologically and functionally and reproductively? How about just an observation of.... say.... something like a jellyfish that develops bony fins?

You said evolution is repeatable and testable. Even in the labratory, can evolution be repeatable in simple life forms mutating into more complex ones? Can scientists watch enough amoebas in enough pitri dishes to eventually see some of them develop into something more complex like a hydroid? or how about a single-celled bacteria (some of them mutate and adapt quite readily, but they're still bacteria) that mutates into something more complex like maybe a worm?

So far, the theory of evolution has in no way been repeatable and testable scientific process that 'proves' all current life forms like humans, insects, sharks, trees, bacteria, starfish, elephants and flowers all evolved from the same single, simple cell. It is an attempt to explain a part of the natural world. Even though some people try to say it is a full explanation, it's NOT. It's so controversial, especially with the "creationist crowd" because it does NOT fully explain how the huge variety of life forms came from a single simple source. The incredibly huge amount and variety of mutations that would have to occur is just as mind-boggling as attempting to understand the nature of God. Millions of years for all of this to happen just doesn't seem long enough.... quadrillions, maybe?

[JerryL]

Cool! So a couple of varieties of flowers interbred until an eventual mutation allowed the offspring to breed. Though now classified as a new species that can't interbreed with the original varieties, it is still a variety of the goatsbeard flower.

Your question was answered accurately and in the affirmative. Are you now asserting that you asked a stupid question?

The result of interbreeding and occasional mutation. It does not in any way 'prove' how mammals with lungs and hair and octopus with gills and suction cups evolved from the same source.

That isn't what you asked now is it? One easy way to prove that would be to look at the junk DNA in the midocondria of mammals and octopi.

I guess I should have asked more specifically.... has anyone ever observed even simple life forms changing significantly into something completely different... morphologically and functionally and reproductively? How about just an observation of.... say.... something like a jellyfish that develops bony fins?

I've seen a plant glow in the dark, a fly devlop legs on its head, and a person with three arms.

Bones appear to have developed twice in 4.5 billion years (one development resulting in exoskeletons and the other in endoskeletions). If I were seeing them develop at a rapid enough pace to observe them form from a complete lack now then I would have to declare palentology false.

Has anyone observed God make an animal from nothing?

You said evolution is repeatable and testable.

Actually, someone else said that.

So far, the theory of evolution has in no way been repeatable and testable scientific process that 'proves' all current life forms like humans, insects, sharks, trees, bacteria, starfish, elephants and flowers all evolved from the same single, simple cell. It is an attempt to explain a part of the natural world. Even though some people try to say it is a full explanation, it's NOT. It's so controversial, especially with the "creationist crowd" because it does NOT fully explain how the huge variety of life forms came from a single simple source.

It's only contentious in the creationist crowd.

Let me repeat that because it's pretty signifigant: THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DISPUTE EVOLUTION ARE THOSE WITH A RELIGIOUS MANDATE TO. NO NON-RELIGIOUS GROUP DISPUTES EVOLUTION.

Here's another interesting statistic (since you brought up dissent) less than 1% of scientists in appropriate fields (biology, palentology, etc) dispute evolution.

Evolution is, within its field, universally accepted. It is proven theory (like bouyancy or gravity)... in fact, gravity is more disputed.