Mister_Greeny
Offline
Morbid Toaster
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:31:54 +0000
A real ED thread. No kidding. I applaud you. This is a great thread, great information and work put into it, I think I might have to start checking your other threads.
CommandoDude
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:48:12 +0000
Too bad Evolution can't just phase out the religious. Life would be a lot better without them.
Zillion Seven
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:51:31 +0000
VoijaRisa
Many people are familiar with Occam’s razor. In short, it states that if there are two possible solutions to a problem, the one that is the simplest (see also: parsimonious) is the favored one.
Applying this principle to the possible solutions of evolution and Creationism, evolution instantly wins because it invokes fewer unseen agents. However, there is an even more subtle and important point I’d like to make in this thread about why the test of Occam’s razor declares evolution the true solution before even getting to that point.
What goes unstated with this is the unstated assumption that both possible solutions explain all of the same evidence. That means, that to even consider something as a possible alternative to evolution, Creationism must first also explain all of the same evidence.
In this thread, I will attempt to convince you that Creationism fails to even make it this far (Note: to see how I’m defining Creationism, please refer to this thread).
What I’m saying is that evolution and the rest of accepted science is able to neatly explain several observations while Creationism offers no explanation without inventing contrived answers that don’t really explain anything or untestable. In short, I will highlight several observations that Creationism fails to explain and leaves as “miracles”.
Plate Tectonics
For Young-Earth Creationists (who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old), the movement of plates poses a serious problem. We know that continents used to be connected because fossils of various fauna and animals found on the coast of one are found on the coast of the one it split off from. This is most apparent in eastern South America, which has the same fossils as western Africa.
If the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then the plates would not have had time to separate to their current distances and we should not expect to see these similar fossils. The observation that these separate continents have these fossils is left as a miracle.
Some attempts have been made to solve this by saying that Noah’s flood was triggered by the releasing of reservoirs of water from under the crust. As the water welled up from the deep, it broke apart the continents and pushed them apart at a much more rapid rate in the past. However, this still leaves no reason for why they slowed down to the rate we would expect for the chronologically accepted age of the Earth of 4.3 billion years. This too is left as a miracle.
Geological Strata
With geology, it is accepted that the stratification in rocks is due to sediment and minerals being deposited repeatedly over millions of years. The Creationist response to this is that these features too were created in Noah's flood in which different compositions of sediment settled out at different times.
However, this leaves two unanswered questions
The first is how they settled out so quickly, especially with the water rushing around as much as it must have been (and even moreso if the continental plates were zipping around).
The second is why there is no order to the densities and you get lower and lower. When settling occurs, the heavier (denser) material falls to the bottom. Thus, we should always expect sedimentary materials (especially in the ocean) to get less dense as you approach the surface. This is not the case.
Both of these observations are not explained by Creationism and are left as miracles.
Marine Fossils on Mountains
Many marine fossils are found at the tops of mountains. Through plate tectonics, there is a simple explanation of this: The uplift created by two plates colliding lifted the fossils as it formed the mountain.
Of course, Creationists have an explanation for this. Take a guess....
"The flood did it!"
Sounds good. If it were underwater, then why shouldn't there be fossils?
Three reasons:
1) Observations of floods have shown that quite often, plants stay still. They wouldn't be lifted and redeposited at the tops of mountains. Why they moved at all is a miracle.
2) Even if the flood did manage to move the plants and animals that far, then why wouldn't they settle out like everything else and sink to the bottom and into the valleys between mountains. If the flood happened, then we should expect to find all sorts of fossils in low areas and almost none at the tops of mountains. Why we don't see this and see what we do is a miracle.
3) Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
(thanks to Westenblum and talk origins for this one).
Chromosome #2
All great apes besides humans have 48 chromosomes. Humans only have 46. Since the loss of two whole chromosomes would have absolutely been fatal, this would imply that one set of our chromosomes came from a merger from the common ancestor. We can look for this by looking for the “stop” instructions in the DNA, known as telomeres.
It turns out that in the middle of chromosome #2, there is a deactivated telomere, which is the result of a gene fusion. If this were not observed, common descent from the great ape family would be falsified. No telomere; No common ancestor and a major component of evolutionary theory is falsified.
Creationism can offer no explanation for why we should have a chromosome with deactivated telomeres in the middle of a chromosome that, when separated, exactly matches that which evolution says should be our common ancestor. This is yet another miracle.
More coming as they come to mind. Feel free to add more.
Applying this principle to the possible solutions of evolution and Creationism, evolution instantly wins because it invokes fewer unseen agents. However, there is an even more subtle and important point I’d like to make in this thread about why the test of Occam’s razor declares evolution the true solution before even getting to that point.
What goes unstated with this is the unstated assumption that both possible solutions explain all of the same evidence. That means, that to even consider something as a possible alternative to evolution, Creationism must first also explain all of the same evidence.
In this thread, I will attempt to convince you that Creationism fails to even make it this far (Note: to see how I’m defining Creationism, please refer to this thread).
What I’m saying is that evolution and the rest of accepted science is able to neatly explain several observations while Creationism offers no explanation without inventing contrived answers that don’t really explain anything or untestable. In short, I will highlight several observations that Creationism fails to explain and leaves as “miracles”.
Plate Tectonics
For Young-Earth Creationists (who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old), the movement of plates poses a serious problem. We know that continents used to be connected because fossils of various fauna and animals found on the coast of one are found on the coast of the one it split off from. This is most apparent in eastern South America, which has the same fossils as western Africa.
If the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then the plates would not have had time to separate to their current distances and we should not expect to see these similar fossils. The observation that these separate continents have these fossils is left as a miracle.
Some attempts have been made to solve this by saying that Noah’s flood was triggered by the releasing of reservoirs of water from under the crust. As the water welled up from the deep, it broke apart the continents and pushed them apart at a much more rapid rate in the past. However, this still leaves no reason for why they slowed down to the rate we would expect for the chronologically accepted age of the Earth of 4.3 billion years. This too is left as a miracle.
Geological Strata
With geology, it is accepted that the stratification in rocks is due to sediment and minerals being deposited repeatedly over millions of years. The Creationist response to this is that these features too were created in Noah's flood in which different compositions of sediment settled out at different times.
However, this leaves two unanswered questions
The first is how they settled out so quickly, especially with the water rushing around as much as it must have been (and even moreso if the continental plates were zipping around).
The second is why there is no order to the densities and you get lower and lower. When settling occurs, the heavier (denser) material falls to the bottom. Thus, we should always expect sedimentary materials (especially in the ocean) to get less dense as you approach the surface. This is not the case.
Both of these observations are not explained by Creationism and are left as miracles.
Marine Fossils on Mountains
Many marine fossils are found at the tops of mountains. Through plate tectonics, there is a simple explanation of this: The uplift created by two plates colliding lifted the fossils as it formed the mountain.
Of course, Creationists have an explanation for this. Take a guess....
"The flood did it!"
Sounds good. If it were underwater, then why shouldn't there be fossils?
Three reasons:
1) Observations of floods have shown that quite often, plants stay still. They wouldn't be lifted and redeposited at the tops of mountains. Why they moved at all is a miracle.
2) Even if the flood did manage to move the plants and animals that far, then why wouldn't they settle out like everything else and sink to the bottom and into the valleys between mountains. If the flood happened, then we should expect to find all sorts of fossils in low areas and almost none at the tops of mountains. Why we don't see this and see what we do is a miracle.
3) Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
(thanks to Westenblum and talk origins for this one).
Chromosome #2
All great apes besides humans have 48 chromosomes. Humans only have 46. Since the loss of two whole chromosomes would have absolutely been fatal, this would imply that one set of our chromosomes came from a merger from the common ancestor. We can look for this by looking for the “stop” instructions in the DNA, known as telomeres.
It turns out that in the middle of chromosome #2, there is a deactivated telomere, which is the result of a gene fusion. If this were not observed, common descent from the great ape family would be falsified. No telomere; No common ancestor and a major component of evolutionary theory is falsified.
Creationism can offer no explanation for why we should have a chromosome with deactivated telomeres in the middle of a chromosome that, when separated, exactly matches that which evolution says should be our common ancestor. This is yet another miracle.
More coming as they come to mind. Feel free to add more.
Pointless quote of the first post, but meh its what i do.
Here is what i think, evolution is real but something that exists free from time and space (that being God) started these events in motion.
Zillion Seven
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:07:14 +0000
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.
synesthesia_death
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:19:53 +0000
Solar Phantom
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.
No one here generalized(or should have) christians as creationists...
The OP merely disproves various points creationists should take into consideration...
VoijaRisa
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:23:03 +0000
Solar Phantom
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word.
Solar Phantom
There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way.
Solar Phantom
In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real.
Zillion Seven
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:29:57 +0000
synesthesia_death
Solar Phantom
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.
No one here generalized(or should have) christians as creationists...
The OP merely disproves various points creationists should take into consideration...
Creation is from the old testament, with that being said if you believe in it the way the OP talks about it then you follow one of the religions that uses to old testament in their religion. So that means that is reasonable to say that the OP is including the Christian faith and would have to since like i said it came out of text that Christian faiths practice. I also said that most of us do not follow it word for word, but there are people who do. So "with that being said" you can assume that I am not generalizing either, but i am fully in the right to assume that he is including the "word for word" Christians out there.
Also Christian does not mean Catholic.
Zillion Seven
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:36:50 +0000
VoijaRisa
Solar Phantom
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word.
Solar Phantom
There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way.
Solar Phantom
In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real.
Ignorance is Blind
People are Ignorant.
Oh well i had better hopes for my fellow believers.
Westenblum
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:40:05 +0000
Solar Phantom
synesthesia_death
Solar Phantom
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.
No one here generalized(or should have) christians as creationists...
The OP merely disproves various points creationists should take into consideration...
Creation is from the old testament, with that being said if you believe in it the way the OP talks about it then you follow one of the religions that uses to old testament in their religion. So that means that is reasonable to say that the OP is including the Christian faith and would have to since like i said it came out of text that Christian faiths practice. I also said that most of us do not follow it word for word, but there are people who do. So "with that being said" you can assume that I am not generalizing either, but i am fully in the right to assume that he is including the "word for word" Christians out there.
Also Christian does not mean Catholic.
But if you're Catholic, you're Christian. I'm not sure why you added that last sentence. Anyway, this topic explicitly deals with creationist claims over science. We're not discussing Christianity in general, so there's no reason to bring up everything in Christianity.
Mister_Greeny
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:41:53 +0000
Solar, I like the way you think.
We are both are Theistic Evolutionist. Odd sounding, yes, but a good logical and faith based belief.
Commando on the other hand is an a**. Perhaps the part of humanity that should die out is the assholes. Yeah. That would be nice. Just a big a*****e plauge or something.
People need to be flexable with thier beliefs. I am starting to see more and more that people who follow old teachings (religions) believe these to be unchanged over time, and so are not to be changed further. That is obviously wrong. I mean, the bible. Was it all written at once or by God? No. Don't you think it might have been changed over time as well as by the people writing it? Eh... The same could be said for almost any set of teachings. Small changes over time can turn into big changes in the end. Heh, sounds like some other type of changes people argue about.
We are both are Theistic Evolutionist. Odd sounding, yes, but a good logical and faith based belief.
Commando on the other hand is an a**. Perhaps the part of humanity that should die out is the assholes. Yeah. That would be nice. Just a big a*****e plauge or something.
People need to be flexable with thier beliefs. I am starting to see more and more that people who follow old teachings (religions) believe these to be unchanged over time, and so are not to be changed further. That is obviously wrong. I mean, the bible. Was it all written at once or by God? No. Don't you think it might have been changed over time as well as by the people writing it? Eh... The same could be said for almost any set of teachings. Small changes over time can turn into big changes in the end. Heh, sounds like some other type of changes people argue about.
synesthesia_death
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:48:26 +0000
Solar Phantom
synesthesia_death
Solar Phantom
Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.
No one here generalized(or should have) christians as creationists...
The OP merely disproves various points creationists should take into consideration...
Creation is from the old testament, with that being said if you believe in it the way the OP talks about it then you follow one of the religions that uses to old testament in their religion. So that means that is reasonable to say that the OP is including the Christian faith and would have to since like i said it came out of text that Christian faiths practice. I also said that most of us do not follow it word for word, but there are people who do. So "with that being said" you can assume that I am not generalizing either, but i am fully in the right to assume that he is including the "word for word" Christians out there.
Also Christian does not mean Catholic.
Not at all. The creationist belief entitles even tribes from various countries, 'tis many of the judeo-christian believers that have decided to carry the flag of representation for it as a scientific fact. So you are generalizing.
Prince Velvetear
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:52:30 +0000
I love the fact that you only assume the view of western creationists.
Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.
Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.
VoijaRisa
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:57:18 +0000
Caput Mortum
The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex.
Wear Sunscreen
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:02:24 +0000
Caput Mortum
I love the fact that you only assume the view of western creationists.
Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.
Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.
Which is why there are theories as to where life came from.
One where RNA came first from random chemicals swirling in primordial ooze. (RNA World Hypothesis)
And one where Protein came first from the same place. (Iron-Sulfur World Theory)
As failed to mention, RNA can act as an enzyme and replicate on its own, which means that if RNA somehow formed without protein, then it doesn't actually need protein and can sustain independent life.
