Author |
Topic: Creation vs Evolution (Read 24151 times) |
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender: 
Posts: 1105
|
 |
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #25 on: Oct 11th, 2007, 2:30am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I heard a quote today from a teacher, but I can't quite remember the exact wording, so my apologies. I thought it would be relevant.
"The Torah is correct in all places, except where science can find another answer." Rambam (Maimonides)
If someone could find the exact wording, I would really appreciate it. Hehe, this is also apprpriate for another forum.
|
|
 IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #26 on: Dec 11th, 2007, 9:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I watched a PBS special on intelligent design. What struck me is, that a theory, to qualify as a theory, must be testable! The theory of evolution is testable; the theory of intelligent design is decidedly untestable! How can one prove that a Rolex watch found on a desert island could not have evolved by natural selection? Obviously, one cannot. String theory in physics is sinking for the same reason; it is untestable.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #27 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 1:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 11th, 2007, 9:01pm, ecoist wrote:| How can one prove that a Rolex watch found on a desert island could not have evolved by natural selection? |
|
It's neither alive nor dead by any sensible criterion you could apply. So reproduction, and consequently natural selection seems unlikely to occur in the case of watches.
There is no means in evolutionary theory to propose how a watch could evolve, it is not consistent with the theory.
Testable intelligent design theory would have to depend on a psychology of the designer (god). You'd have to make predictions about what features of design you'd expect to find, and that depends on the designer not being an insane chaotic lunatic that just throws things together, sprinkles fairy dust over it and sets it free in the world.
If you can't fathom the mind of the designer (to a point), you can't have testable ID, because you'd find no consistency in behaviour. So I'd say the ID project is fairly detrimental to most ID-ers conception of god.
As far as watches go, though, you can use the serial number and bother the manufacturer about it's designer. That should be sufficient proof that no alternate theory of it's inception is valid.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #28 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 2:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
Still, the design of modern watches didn't appear overnight. Many designs for time-keeping devices have competed, many technologies have been tried and only the overall best designs have survived.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ghost Sniper
Senior Riddler
Do not hide. It is useless.
Gender:
Posts: 599
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #29 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 5:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
The problem is that both theories has holes in them. To believe in creation, you have to believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is just ridiculous. But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that life happened by accident in a small pond in the middle of nowhere. So, unless we can patch every single hole in either theory, both are wrong on my account.
|
|
IP Logged |
*sob* I miss my mommy... *blows nose* huh, I'm on? oh right.
(thinks to self) Time for my speech to these college kids.
"Reason is more important than all emotions..."
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #30 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 5:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 5:46am, Ghost Sniper wrote:| But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that life happened by accident in a small pond in the middle of nowhere. |
|
No you don't. Evolution has nothing to say on the matter of how life came to be, just on how it diversified.
Quote:| So, unless we can patch every single hole in either theory, both are wrong on my account. |
|
But are they equally wrong?
Besides, every theory known to man that is in any way meaningful has holes in it.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #31 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 7:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 5:46am, Ghost Sniper wrote:| To believe in creation, you have to believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is just ridiculous. |
|
First: no, you don't; second: no, it isn't.
In the fisrt place, there are a lot of people who believe God (or a god) created the universe and everything in it, but don't hold to the "young Earth" version of Creationism. I, myself, have no problem believing that God initially caused the big bang (or something like it) and had guided the formation of galaxies, life, and individuals ever since, perhaps by influencing some of those quantum-level uncertainties we keep hearing about. Tunnel an electron here, polarize a photon there, and pretty soon you've created the Heavens and the Earth.
In the second place, of all of the things religious people have believed over the years, young Earth Creationism is one of the less ridiculous theories. It would seem to me to be far, far more ridiculous to think that an all-powerful, all-knowing God -- maintainer of the entire universe -- would give a rat's ass how I live my one minuscule life. Yet nearly every major world religion teaches exactly that: that God (or a god) cares about you and what you do. Compared to that, believing that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is nothing.
--SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #32 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 10:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
It seems to me that for creationists, there is one truth that was given at some time and you don't question it.
For evolutionists, truth is something that is constantly being refined, theories can be proposed and with time only the better ones remain.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Ghost Sniper
Senior Riddler
Do not hide. It is useless.
Gender:
Posts: 599
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #33 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 10:07am » |
Quote Modify
|
wow... being scolded by 3 mods... 
I didn't quite mean it like that, but I couldn't think of any better examples at the time. 
|
|
IP Logged |
*sob* I miss my mommy... *blows nose* huh, I'm on? oh right.
(thinks to self) Time for my speech to these college kids.
"Reason is more important than all emotions..."
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #34 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 10:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| The problem is that both theories has holes in them. To believe in creation, you have to believe that the earth is about 6000 years old, and that is just ridiculous. But, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that life happened by accident in a small pond in the middle of nowhere. So, unless we can patch every single hole in either theory, both are wrong on my account. |
|
Pardon me, but I think you all are missing a crucial point! A scientific theory, by definition, is not fact; it is supposition! So, of course, "both theories have holes in them"! What supports evolution theory is that it is testable, and has, so far, survived all tests! What destroys creationism theory is that none of it can be tested! Creationism and intelligent design are inherently unscientific, and so must survive on faith alone!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #35 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 12:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
A point made in The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch is that people who take the Watchmaker argument seriously argue that finding a watch proves it was made, but never seem to contemplate the point that anyone other than an unworldly philosopher, upon finding a watch lying upon a heath would immediately deduce that someone owned it and had lost it, and never bother to consider its ultimate origin. If the evidence of a creator is so overwhelming, why not the evidence of an owner?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #36 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 2:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The modern creationists and ID'ers are more sophisticated today, rsmgrey. Just Google Behe. Behe argues that there are biological organisms so complex that, if any part is not present, the organism cannot function. Hence that organism could not have "evolved"; it had to arise suddenly. What is the anti-ID'ers response? I love what I saw on that PBS show! Someone removed parts of a standard mousetrap and, as Behe predicts, it could not function as a mousetrap. However, it made a perfectly good tie clip!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mikedagr8
Uberpuzzler
A rich man is one who is content; not wealthy.
Gender:
Posts: 1105
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #37 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 2:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I thought this was closely related, so I will post it,
A Treatise on Modelling
A scientific model is a concrete expression of an abstraction. It is an attempt to "translate" into everyday reality that which cannot be seen. A successful model allows for a simple explanation of observed phenomena and even for prediction, but by its very nature - since it is not, connot be, the "real thing" - it is bound to have limitation and must ultimately fail (to be replaced by an improved model). Foolish is the person who believes that a model provides an exact description of reality.
Atomic theory provides an illuminating history of the role of models in the world of science. From the Daltonian/Newtonian/"Boyle-ian" view of the atom as a true atom (a structureless entity), through Thomson's elecectric plum pudding construct, Rutherford's nuclear atom, Bohr's quantised atom, te wave of mechanical idea and on to Feynman's quantum electrodynamical views, atomic modelling has undergone frequent revision. Each modeal has its success and limitations (other than the QED view?) and may be continued to be used provided it works!
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 12th, 2007, 2:42pm by mikedagr8 » |
IP Logged |
"It's not that I'm correct, it's that you're just not correct, and so; I am right." - M.P.E.
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #38 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 3:07pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 2:39pm, ecoist wrote:| The modern creationists and ID'ers are more sophisticated today, rsmgrey. Just Google Behe. Behe argues that there are biological organisms so complex that, if any part is not present, the organism cannot function. Hence that organism could not have "evolved"; it had to arise suddenly. |
|
That is a really old argument.
Quote:| What is the anti-ID'ers response? |
|
Consider a stone arch, if you remove any stone, it would collapse. Obviously it could only have come to be if every stone were put in place at once.
That's the kind of argument the IDers' 'irreducible complexity' argument is. I'm sure you can imagine what to argue against it. Complexity doesn't only increase, if processes, scaffolding*), becomes obsolete, it should be eliminated.
*) note that this is hindview, it is interpreted as scaffolding now because it became obsolete.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #39 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 3:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Sorry, towr, the stone arch is a false analogy! ID'ers, though wrong, are not that stupid. The stone arch can arise by accident or by planning, so is a poor example. The ID'ers are distinguishing things that come into existence by evolution as opposed to design by an intelligent being. I don't know Behe's full argument. Even so, intelligent design fails as a scientific theory for the simple reason that it cannot be tested.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #40 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 6:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Very interesting discussion.
on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:44am, SMQ wrote:
First: no, you don't; second: no, it isn't. |
|
Yes, SMQ, I agree with you.
on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:44am, SMQ wrote:| Tunnel an electron here, polarize a photon there, and pretty soon you've created the Heavens and the Earth. |
|
Again, no argument here. It's just that I find it odd that you wrote 'the Heavens and the Earth. Any particular reason ?
on Dec 12th, 2007, 10:24am, ecoist wrote:| Pardon me, but I think you all are missing a crucial point! A scientific theory, by definition, is not fact; it is supposition! |
|
Creationism, when considered as part of a religious dogma, is not a scientific theory. As such, it is not a supposition. True, it is based solely on faith, but does that mean those who believed it are wrong ? I sometimes find it amusing that the so called scientific community could be so high and mighty at times, when most of the times, theories are being disapproved; i.e. what is true yesterday, may not be true tomorrow.
Of course, science does not always provide the answer, religion seldom encourage questions.
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #41 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 7:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 6:22pm, JiNbOtAk wrote:| Again, no argument here. It's just that I find it odd that you wrote 'the Heavens and the Earth. Any particular reason ? |
|
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." At least that's how I remember it ... checks an online Bible ... yep, "heavens" plural (but not capitalized).
And for the record, I agree with the others above that creationism is not a science -- no matter what the I.D.ers would have you think -- and has no business being presented as a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.
--SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #42 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 7:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| I sometimes find it amusing that the so called scientific community could be so high and mighty at times, when most of the times, theories are being disapproved; i.e. what is true yesterday, may not be true tomorrow. |
|
Theories are supposed to be examined critically! That's why they are only theories. Who is the real "high and mighty", JiNbOtAk? The scientist who routinely challenges his own assumptions, or the creationist who tries to morph faith into science? Although I am anti-religious (atheism is also faith-based), St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: faith seeks a "higher" truth!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #43 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 8:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:18pm, SMQ wrote:
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." At least that's how I remember it ... checks an online Bible ... yep, "heavens" plural (but not capitalized). |
|
Ahh yes, the verse I remembered was a singular heaven, maybe force of habit, I usually referred to the King James. Anyone know whether the original text state a singular or a plural heaven ?
on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:55pm, ecoist wrote:
..creationist who tries to morph faith into science? |
|
Really ? Who ?
on Dec 12th, 2007, 7:55pm, ecoist wrote:| Although I am anti-religious (atheism is also faith-based), St. Thomas Aquinas said it best: faith seeks a "higher" truth |
|
I guess I prefer the adage : "Science and religion is not incompatible, science is just too young to understand. " 
|
|
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #44 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 8:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:
Those who try to put creationism or intelligent design as theories equally valid as evolution!
Quote:| I guess I prefer the adage : "Science and religion is not incompatible, science is just too young to understand. " |
|
Who is older, Jesus or Euclid? Or, do you include among "religions" ancient superstitions and the many gods of greek mythology?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #45 on: Dec 12th, 2007, 11:52pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 3:31pm, ecoist wrote:| Sorry, towr, the stone arch is a false analogy! |
|
No it's not; it's an analogy, it's not a precise correspondence. It's a matter of extracting what the relevant point is. And the point is that the mechanisms that allowed an organism to arrive at a certain level of complexity may have disappeared without a trace along the way.
Quote:| ID'ers, though wrong, are not that stupid. The stone arch can arise by accident or by planning, so is a poor example. |
|
Well, an organism might also arise by planning, if biotechnology has anything to say about it. But that doesn't mean that it normally does happen that way.
I don't see arches happen by accident, unless by such a scaffolding mechanism though.
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
JiNbOtAk
Uberpuzzler
Hana Hana No Mi
Gender:
Posts: 1187
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #46 on: Dec 13th, 2007, 12:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:33pm, ecoist wrote:| Those who try to put creationism or intelligent design as theories equally valid as evolution! |
|
And I thought we agreed that those who have faith in creationism does not consider it as a theory, more of a fact.
on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:33pm, ecoist wrote:| Who is older, Jesus or Euclid? Or, do you include among "religions" ancient superstitions and the many gods of greek mythology? |
|
Hmm..who said anything about Jesus ? Not to belittle the man ( I think he's fabulous, by the way ), but when I say religion, it wasn't Jesus who popped into mind.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 13th, 2007, 12:33am by JiNbOtAk » |
IP Logged |
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #47 on: Dec 13th, 2007, 5:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 12th, 2007, 8:06pm, JiNbOtAk wrote:| Anyone know whether the original text state a singular or a plural heaven ? |
|
While my knowledge of biblical Hebrew is insufficient to answer that question, modern translations seem to split about evenly, which would lead me to suspect that the Hebrew either didn't distinguish (written languages have not always distinguished singular and plural forms) or is ambiguous (perhaps due to the implied vowels). I'll try to dig a bit deeper when I have the chance as I'm now intrigued as well.
--SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
ecoist
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 405
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #48 on: Dec 13th, 2007, 9:48am » |
Quote Modify
|
Although I still question your stone arch analogy, towr, you are right on everything else. Indeed, how some complex organisms evolved may be lost. And some organisms can have come into existence either by evolution or design. But, when Behe says something could not have arisen by evolution, neither he nor anyone else can ever provide any evidence for such a claim. Thus, design theory must ever remain a matter of faith beyond scientific inquiry.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7526
|
|
Re: Creation vs Evolution
« Reply #49 on: Dec 13th, 2007, 11:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
An organism can well evolve to a design where every single part is vital.
An organism can evolve in a favorable environment to some redundant complexity. Later, in order to survive in a scarce environment, it can evolve by optimizing down, loosing everything useless. I would expect that in an extremely scarce environment, only those organism that managed to strip to the bare minimum will survive. That is in fact a very good thing for them because it means they have no competition and no predators.
So the image of the arch is appropriate. You build a redundant structure (i.e. the arch with scaffolding), and then you remove the redundancy.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print