Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[conservative_crusader]

"B; What force? The false vacuum? Many, if not most cosmologists think that our universe is but a "brane" within in a higher dimesnional manifold."

A force is the compulsion to cause a reaction. In order for their to be a reaction, there must first be an action, or a "force" applied. Saying that most cosmologists accept it as truth is a fallacy. It is an appeal to prestige. Just because most scientists say the world must be flat does not make it so. By the same note, you could argue that just because most scientists say that for every action there must be a reaction does not make it so. So you don't have to agree to it, but this is something I can actually witness.

"B: I see, "I assert, therefore I'm right". Now try and write something that can at least pretend to be a logical argument. I suppose if one wants, they can view God as a collision between "branes". Not strictly orthodox, mind you."

No, this is not a "I assert therefore I'm right" argument, it is an argument based upon the process of elimination, because the Universe could not have existed forever, and because the universe could not have been created without some reaction beforehand, a reaction must have taken place to result in the universe. The only logical possible identity of that force is a deity of some sort. Had you bothered to read post #126, you would know that the argument is based in part on the process of elimination.

And of course, your "write something logical" statement, is an attempt to demean my right to debate the subject... I have one word for you : DENIED

" Like what?"

Newton's Laws of motion. The Law of conservation of mass/energy. et cetera. Not some argument that just "asserts" (i knew you liked that word, so i used it) that matter can be created.

"Ah yes, the old creationist chestnut "seeing is beleiving". "

Hardly, "seeing is believing" is an age old platform of the atheist and the agnostic. You're just upset that a creationist has turned your pet logic against you.

" One wonders what creationists said about atomic forces before the A-bomb?"

This is entirely non-sequiter to the subject.

"One doesn't have to witness events."

So from your obvious mastery of logic we can assume that God can exist. Not only can we assume that God exists, we can also assume that Unicorns, and the Bogey Man all exist.

Your intelligence is stunning.

"You are ig-no-rant. It remains to be seen as to whether or not you are inculcatable. "

Golly, that's rightly neighborly of you. The Intelligence of this argument staggers me. I have no response. This is just way to deep. You're far to smart for me.... [/sarcasm]

[balrog666]

Talk to your keepers about raising your dosage.

[balrog666]

No, this is not a "I assert therefore I'm right" argument, it is an argument based upon the process of elimination, because the Universe could not have existed forever, and because the universe could not have been created without some reaction beforehand, a reaction must have taken place to result in the universe. The only logical possible identity of that force is a deity of some sort. Had you bothered to read post #126, you would know that the argument is based in part on the process of elimination.

Are you still harping on that horsesh!t? Do you really think you have "proven" anything?

I gave you a couple of hints - do us all a favor and look them up.

[shubi]

Uh huh, could be. The Black Sea hypothesis has some merit, and would explain where the story derived. However, it still does not explain the need for preserving species or kinds.

[UCANSEE2]

What was the first life form on Earth?

What, today, is the most abundant life form on Earth?

What is the oldest living organism on Earth?

[shubi]

"Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes?"

Best hypothesis I have seen is an eaten form turning into the nucleus of the eater.

[UCANSEE2]

You mean in the case of the Eukaryotes?

Possibly.

What about the prokaryotes?

[UCANSEE2]

As always, the biggest problem with the Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument is that neither the Bible nor the current scientific explanation of the universe contain enough information.

God did not inspire the Bible as a means to explain the nature of the universe.

Scientists 'know' what currently is accepted as the makeup of the universe, and much of their 'understanding' is completely wrong. We can't even truly explain gravity, except by it's action.

[bigdakine]

As always, the biggest problem with the Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument is that neither the Bible nor the current scientific explanation of the universe contain enough information.

B: No the biggest problem is ignorance.

God did not inspire the Bible as a means to explain the nature of the universe.

B: I think any rational minded person can agree with that.


Scientists 'know' what currently is accepted as the makeup of the universe, and much of their 'understanding' is completely wrong.

B: What is wrong? And according to who? You?



We can't even truly explain gravity, except by it's action.

B: Well, your 90 years behind the times. Einstein explained gravity as result of the distortion of space-time by the presence of mass. As to how that works exactly, I'm not really qualified to say, but if you Google "Higgs Boson" you might realize that there are explanations for even that. But your statement, taken at face value is wrong and numerous studies have been performed which show that Einstein's view of how gravity works is correct.It is not something that is known through interaction, it is understood theoretical grounds as well as empirical ones.

And never ceases to amaze how people believe every fool thing they read in a newspaper or on a bumper sticker is gospel.

[bigdakine]

"Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes?"

Best hypothesis I have seen is an eaten form turning into the nucleus of the eater.

B: Basically the hypothesis proposed by Lynn Margulis. Certain cell structures like mitochodria, chloroplasts etc. started perhaps as captured single cell animals and togethar they and the host evolved into a symbiotic relationship.

[bigdakine]

What was the first life form on Earth?

B: Define life.

What, today, is the most abundant life form on Earth?

B: Protozoa.

What is the oldest living organism on Earth?

B: Google "Humungous Fungus"

And yes, I'm serious.

[shubi]

Yeah, well, if you look at Gen 1 and take it in a more flexible way than the literalists do, it generally follows a system of evolution. It provides a first cause, namely creation of primordial energy. It discusses the boundaries of the universe when it talks about firmament.

It mentions Jesus in the first sentence (not by name). And there are many other elements that are pretty close considering the primitive nature of the Hebrew language and the knowledge and culture of the time of writing.

[shubi]

Yeah, didn't remember the name of the guy.

[shubi]

I think bacteria are the most plentiful aren't they?

[UCANSEE2]

B: No the biggest problem is ignorance.

Ignorance of available data is a problem. But we do not know enough about the universe to describe it's makeup and creation accurately.

B: What is wrong? And according to who? You?

Stephen Hawking admitted that his concept about black holes, which was widely accepted by the scientific community, wasa entirely wrong, based on recent observations. Many of our theories currently accepted, will prove to be wrong. Just as many in the past were.

Einstein explained gravity as result of the distortion of space-time by the presence of mass.

Another theory. Represented by a three dimensional graph. Which is cool if the universe can be mapped as a flat plane, which it isn't. The term space-time is convenient, but used wrong. Ignoring the principle elements that are a part of 'empty' space, just what is being distorted, since space (in our concept) is the antithesis of matter? And distortion of time? Causing Gravity?

But your statement, taken at face value is wrong and numerous studies have been performed which show that Einstein's view of how gravity works is correct.

Perhaps INCOMPLETE is a better description than WRONG.

And never ceases to amaze how people believe every fool thing they read in a newspaper or on a bumper sticker is gospel.

Explain magnetism. Why does Earth have the Van Allen Radiation Belts? Why is the surface of the sun cooler than the photosphere? What is the core of the Earth made of? Why doesn't the moon rotate with respect to the Earth?

These questions and answers are not in newspapers or on bumper stickers, and not my source of information.

[UCANSEE2]

I know, but the subject and question really was, are Prokaryotes the first life on Earth, that we all evolved from, and if so, WHAT PUT THE PROKARYOTES here, and how?

[UCANSEE2]

Define life.

OK. Difficult question. A form capable of reproducing. (viruses cannot reproduce without using another living cell, and are not considered alive) How's that? What, today, is the most abundant life form on Earth?

B: Protozoa.

And they are just a specialized form of...? And they are not the most abundant life form on Earth.

What is the oldest living organism on Earth?

B: Google "Humungous Fungus"

And fungus is made of....? and eats .....? And it is not the oldest living organism on Earth.

[bigdakine]

I think bacteria are the most plentiful aren't they?

B: I think you're right. I was looking for a more technical word than "germs"

[bigdakine]

B: No the biggest problem is ignorance.
Ignorance of available data is a problem. But we do not know enough about the universe to describe it's makeup and creation accurately.

B: What is wrong? And according to who? You?

Stephen Hawking admitted that his concept about black holes, which was widely accepted by the scientific community, wasa entirely wrong, based on recent observations.

B: Lets be very clear, Steve Hawking admitted was that his claim regarding Naked singularities was wrong, not the concept of Black Holes. Also, it appears his so called "no-hair" conjecture may also have problems. However, these were for the most part esoteric theoretical issues, and considered controversial. Hawking lost a bet to Kip Thorne over it, as Thorne disagreed with him from the get-go.. Concepts such as event horizons and things of that nature are just fine, and form part of the mainstays of contemporary astrophysics.



To be clear, Black Holes are not Hawking's concept. Schwarzchild was the first. The term "Black Hole" was coined by John Archibald Wheeler in the late 60's.

Hawking is famous for the "Hawking Radiation"



Many of our theories currently accepted, will prove to be wrong. Just as many in the past were.

B: Science is by its nature provisional. Thats why it improves our knowledge through time. On the other hand, you still have your facts wrong. People seem to have this nonsensical idea that every time a scientific theory is shown to be wrong, science takes a step backwards. Actually, it is quite the opposite.



Einstein explained gravity as result of the distortion of space-time by the presence of mass.

Another theory. Represented by a three dimensional graph. Which is cool if the universe can be mapped as a flat plane, which it isn't.

B: OK, now I know you don't know anything. Einstein's point was, that in the vicinity of matter, space is not Euclidian, i.e., flat.

I'm sorry, but your pontificating from ignorance. My guess is, is that you've seen a Nova program or too, without really understanding it.

The term space-time is convenient, but used wrong. Ignoring the principle elements that are a part of 'empty' space, just what is being distorted,

B: THe very geometry of space itself.

since space (in our concept) is the antithesis of matter?

B: Excuse me? "In our concept" Who's *our*? Speak for yourself, not scientists.

And distortion of time? Causing Gravity?

B: Indeed. Incredible... ain't it?

But your statement, taken at face value is wrong and numerous studies have been performed which show that Einstein's view of how gravity works is correct.

B: I said Eisntein's result have been born out by many an experiment and observation. It only remains to be tested in the strong field limit. Google "LIGO".


Perhaps INCOMPLETE is a better description than WRONG.

B: You can say that about any theory. But so far we have no hard evidence that it is incomplete.


B: And never ceases to amaze how people believe every fool thing they read in a newspaper or on a bumper sticker is gospel.

Explain magnetism. Why does Earth have the Van Allen Radiation Belts?

B: Beacuse the Earth has a magnetic field, and that magnetic field interacts with the solar wind. That is what results in the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The magnetic field is generated by a *dynamo* process. Google "Geodynamo". I'm sure you'll find lots of stuff.


Why is the surface of the sun cooler than the photosphere?

B: Good question. Ask a heliologist. I'm a geophysicist, sorry. My guess is ohmic disspation of some sort.

What is the core of the Earth made of?

B: Mostly and Fe,Ni mixture with 15% S to boot, plus perhaps other minor constituents like K.


Why doesn't the moon rotate with respect to the Earth?

B: Tidal Locking

These questions and answers are not in newspapers or on bumper stickers, and not my source of information.

B: Well, you need a new source.

[bigdakine]

I know, but the subject and question really was, are Prokaryotes the first life on Earth, that we all evolved from, and if so, WHAT PUT THE PROKARYOTES here, and how?

B: What do you mean "what" ?