Creationist vs Evolutionist
-
how can an unguided process have a higher chance of happening than one that is guided?
it's like tying a kite to a tree and hope the wind makes it fly, as opposed to asking a boy to make it fly.. -
As mentioned many times before, Evolution and Abiogenesis suggests that it does not rely on probability, instead it is very possible that natural selection took place.Originally posted by sillyme:Then the human race must be suuuuuper lucky. The probability of us or anything else not existing is just toooooooo slim.
Go read the document lah... just for knowledge
Natural Selection is NOT probability. Natural Selection suggests that organisms retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself.
Many people cannot get away from the idea that probability has totally nothing to do with it!
Evolution and Life is NOT the result of probability!! -
But the very start of Big Bang, formation of stars, appearance of organism.. aren't all these by chance?
-
The problem with most people is the difficulty to detach the mind from thinking that probability is the cause of it all.Originally posted by sillyme:But the very start of Big Bang, formation of stars, appearance of organism.. aren't all these by chance?
If you think more on the subject, you will realise that many things are not results of probability.
By 'appearance of organism', i suspect you meant "start of life"? Remember the very first live organisms are not complex creatures like humans, rather it is most probably single cells or just some self-replicating object formed of molecules.
Remember that atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties.
As for formation of stars, they are also not random. Remember there are certain laws governing the universe, such as the law of physics, gravity, electromagnetism etc. All these laws make it that there are certain rules to follow, and suggests that even though chance might play a part, probability has got nothing to do with it. -
Then the intelligent designer must be
suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper
duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper
lucky to have been created. The probability of it is much much much much much lower to create tis ID isn't it ? If it is easy, then we can see multiple ID now.
And poopie head is right. Evolution is not random nor blind. By natural selection, living beings evolved to be more and more adapt to their environment.
Probability of forming life (first single cell) or forming human (from other living creatures) is low. However please take note tat there r infinitely many sites for reaction and given infinitely amount of time for such formation. Wat is the possibility of forming the straight flush given only 5 cards ? Pretty low too. However if a billion person was given 5 cards every seconds, pretty soon u will find someone with a straight flush soon. U r dealing extremely low odds with infinitely amount of time, sites and trials. In the end, it is possible. -
how can an unguided process have a higher chance of happening than one that is guided?
True, a guided process is faster. An unguided process is still nevertheless POSSIBLE. But then who is the guider ? Who to guide the process to make the guider ? Wat is more believable, chances of forming a stone which had a weight of 10 +- 0.001 gram or a stone which has the weight of 10+-0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 gram.
It is like telling me u do not believe tat nature can form such a precise stone (former) because the probability is low yet believe tat the more precise stone (latter) which has a much lower probability can be formed. DO u realise the flaws of your argument now ? -
but it's about timing. if certain event does not occur within a certain time frame, it will probably not happen at all.
-
So far, it seems the most active Creationists are Christians. ID opens more doubts such as who designs the designer, etc just like SIS said. It's very similar to Creationism in that there is no science to it - there are no evidence, no way to test it and no contribution to the scientific community. The theory also seems unfalsifiable - there's no way to say it is not true.Originally posted by sillyme:Not to worry, I posted the ID document for the reading pleasure of some. You may disagree with it, I'm fine with it. In fact, the document states that ID is open to the fact that the ID theory maybe disproved to be wrong too.
By the way, other religions also support the idea of the world is created. So, loosely speaking, not all creationist are christians.
I was suggesting why the debate started, not when.Originally posted by sillyme:Actually the debate between creationist and evolution goes all the way back before the US school cirruculum. I believe is started when Darwin came up with his notion of evolution.
Here's another article in Wired.com
The Crusade Against Evolution
Many people refuse to think rationally even when the facts and reasons are obvious; all these due to the fact that it might contradict their (religious) beliefs.
Please remember that untill now, Creationists are not able to provide any solid evidence in their favor.
About time frame - you are correct. However, you are still thinking of absolute probability. You have to consider the envoirnment and the laws of nature that actually ASSIST the formations (life) to happen. -
Consider this analogy which i had previously posted and you will see what is meant by natural selection.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE. " Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
Random or probability is totally without order.
However, remember that the world and its characteristics (the laws governing it) is not totally without order. -
Again, it's Catch-22 situation. Science supporters want concrete proof of a divine being before they can believe in the being. Hence, if they don't believe it's divinity, then they cannot believe that there's a possibility that he can make something that is 10.000000000000000001 grams. Or that this divine being is self-existing and is the start of everything and hence need not be created. It's beyond me to prove his existence. Yes, it's not science to make a choice to belief.
Oh ya.... so the big, dense of of material prior to the Big Bang is just there?
And as for laws of nature and environment assisting in evolution. When I mentioned about time frame, I was talking at events during the big bang, not bioliogical changes. Even laws of nature must have an opportunity to form by chance or by design. -
Originally posted by Poopie-Head:
Yes, to preserve what is "correctly placed". It's up to us to decide if the credit goes to natural selection for correctly placing it or it's the designer who decided it. The computer programme or computer programming cannot be taken seriously because randomness in computers is pseudo and not natural.
Consider this analogy which i had previously posted and you will see what is meant by natural selection.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE. " Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that [b]generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
Random or probability is totally without order.
However, remember that the world and its characteristics (the laws governing it) is not totally without order.
[/b]
To bring order to chaos. We need external forces. A body in motion will always remain in motion.. so what interuppted the big explosion? -
quote:
"Oh ya.... so the big, dense of of material prior to the Big Bang is just there?
And as for laws of nature and environment assisting in evolution. When I mentioned about time frame, I was talking at events during the big bang, not bioliogical changes. Even laws of nature must have an opportunity to form by chance or by design."
Dont understand what about time frame for events of the big bang? What is wrong with the time frame? If u are talking about cosmic time periods, they are incredibly long compared to any other we know today.
laws of nature - are they formed? or are they the natural characteristics of the universe? Is it possible that they are any different from the laws of today? They are CHARACTERISTICS, not some random happenings. (hypothesis) Even if they are any different from what we know today, then in that alternate universe, wouldnt any thing be brought about by its own laws? -
i'm not an expert. but i gathered that for stars to form, atoms to bond, etc.. in the split second starting from the big bang.. there's little time for these to happen.. if this window of opportunity is missed, then it might not happen afterall.
-
That is why Creationism is not falsifiable. There is NO WAY to prove them wrong, because ANY thing for no reason, no evidence, no logic, no laws - ALL ARE RESULTS of CREATION.Originally posted by sillyme:Yes, to preserve what is "correctly placed". It's up to us to decide if the credit goes to natural selection for correctly placing it or it's the designer who decided it. The computer programme or computer programming cannot be taken seriously because randomness in computers is pseudo and not natural.
To bring order to chaos. We need external forces. A body in motion will always remain in motion.. so what interuppted the big explosion?
Incredibly, the only thing that holds them to this theory is BELIEF. All rational thinking are thrown out.
As i mentioned, this world comes with certain characteristics and rules governing it. Since there is characteristic, it will rule out total randomness. For example, atoms and molecules have fixed physical structure and due to the laws governing it, it reacts in a fixed way. This already shows that reactions are NOT TOTAL RANDOMNESS. -
Originally posted by Poopie-Head:
It works the other way round too. Some scientist have ruled out completely that this lack of total randomness can be of design.
That is why Creationism is not falsifiable. There is NO WAY to prove them wrong, because ANY thing for no reason, no evidence, no logic, no laws - ALL ARE RESULTS of CREATION.
Incredibly, the only thing that holds them to this theory is BELIEF. All rational thinking are thrown out.
As i mentioned, this world comes with certain characteristics and rules governing it. Since there is characteristic, it will rule out total randomness. For example, atoms and molecules have fixed physical structure and due to the laws governing it, it reacts in a [b]fixed way. This already shows that reactions are NOT TOTAL RANDOMNESS.
[/b] -
LMAO...Originally posted by sillyme:It works the other way round too. Some scientist have ruled out completely that this lack of total randomness can be of design.
That is EXACTLY why Creationism and Intelligent Design are very similar. They provide no evidence, no tests for prove, etc... there is SIMPLY NO WAY!!!! that i can say it is false.
Keep in mind that the only thing needed is BELIEF.
-
hehe.. let them do the proving lah..Originally posted by Poopie-Head:LMAO...
That is EXACTLY why Creationism and Intelligent Design are very similar. They provide no evidence, no tests for prove, etc... there is SIMPLY NO WAY!!!! that i can say it is false.
Keep in mind that the only thing needed is BELIEF.
i am but a silly man.. -
In the end does it all matter? We split hairs over limited, failable finite knowledge missing the big picture that we will still all have to die in the end.
-
Originally posted by Poopie-Head:
Yes, a microevolution do occur. I agree with u that organism retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself. Then let me ask u a question. Do u think that always remain being stupid is something good? So u see, if chicken would realize about this situation, they wont be slaughter for man to eat them. Or birds get shoot down. The fact is, they couldnt do anything about it is due to their limited intellectual capability. Goats , cow have been always a source of food for mankind since prehistoric age. But until today..they have not even improve slightly in thier intelectual. So..nothing drastic had happen in any evolution. Hence..i could say no macroevolution actually happen.
As mentioned many times before, Evolution and Abiogenesis suggests that it does not rely on probability, instead it is very possible that natural selection took place.
Natural Selection is NOT probability. Natural Selection suggests that organisms retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself.
Many people cannot get away from the idea that probability has totally nothing to do with it!
[b]Evolution and Life is NOT the result of probability!! [/b]
I know it is difficult for u to accept or even TRY to understand that creation exist. And dont always say there are no scietific evidence or WE CREATIONIST have nothing to proof. To proof ur statement wrong is already a proof by using science. Science and maths are also extremely related.
I see that there is no point exchanging ur views here. If this goes on to even 14 pages...it wouldnt change a single thing. Even if there are a few more similar threads...i could also see no difference. It will not end. Simple..because u will not even accept my fact though it sounds logical, because ur mind and soul ( oops u dun believe in one) will not tolerate any facts that go against your stand on evolution.
No point quoting other scientists or proffesors who are on the same boat as u too, because the most important person, it is u urself. Even if majority of these intelectuall ppl are believers in God, u will still stick with the minority % of the other who oppose the existense of God.
so just be a happy man. For those who are non - believers..u have so much more freedom on earth; guiltiness is bliss. For the believers, our main focus is our life after death. U can call us stupid, no knowledge, no common sense or whatever, i would just smile to u and carry my own way. Dun try to "save" me as much as u dun wan others to "Save" you. -
Bible said God create the universe and man, but it didn't mention in detail how he created, it could be thru big bang and evolution, right?
Proven of big bang theory and evolution doesn't mean creation no happen. -
The first part of your posting is trying to be logic, but then the last part suddenly change to "belive it or not" and "I don't want to listen" attitude.Originally posted by AMD2004:Yes, a microevolution do occur. I agree with u that organism retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself. Then let me ask u a question. Do u think that always remain being stupid is something good? So u see, if chicken would realize about this situation, they wont be slaughter for man to eat them. Or birds get shoot down. The fact is, they couldnt do anything about it is due to their limited intellectual capability. Goats , cow have been always a source of food for mankind since prehistoric age. But until today..they have not even improve slightly in thier intelectual. So..nothing drastic had happen in any evolution. Hence..i could say no macroevolution actually happen.
I know it is difficult for u to accept or even TRY to understand that creation exist. And dont always say there are no scietific evidence or WE CREATIONIST have nothing to proof. To proof ur statement wrong is already a proof by using science. Science and maths are also extremely related.
I see that there is no point exchanging ur views here. If this goes on to even 14 pages...it wouldnt change a single thing. Even if there are a few more similar threads...i could also see no difference. It will not end. Simple..because u will not even accept my fact though it sounds logical, because ur mind and soul ( oops u dun believe in one) will not tolerate any facts that go against your stand on evolution.
No point quoting other scientists or proffesors who are on the same boat as u too, because the most important person, it is u urself. Even if majority of these intelectuall ppl are believers in God, u will still stick with the minority % of the other who oppose the existense of God.
so just be a happy man. For those who are non - believers..u have so much more freedom on earth; guiltiness is bliss. For the believers, our main focus is our life after death. U can call us stupid, no knowledge, no common sense or whatever, i would just smile to u and carry my own way. Dun try to "save" me as much as u dun wan others to "Save" you.
The reason why the chicken and cow didn't evolve is because that is best available life for them. Why they want to evolve to againt human while human helping them to survive? If you wish to see evolution on big animal, look at cats and dogs....can you imagine such a cute cat can survive in the wild wild jungle? They are wild cat before.... -
Yes, a microevolution do occur. I agree with u that organism retain what is good and rejects what is bad for improvement to itself. Then let me ask u a question. Do u think that always remain being stupid is something good? So u see, if chicken would realize about this situation, they wont be slaughter for man to eat them. Or birds get shoot down. The fact is, they couldnt do anything about it is due to their limited intellectual capability. Goats , cow have been always a source of food for mankind since prehistoric age. But until today..they have not even improve slightly in thier intelectual. So..nothing drastic had happen in any evolution. Hence..i could say no macroevolution actually happen.
Logic ? Sad to say, mentioning about domestic animals just prove evolution. Dogs r believed to be from wolves, cat believed from jungle cats, pigs boar etc. Now they have became the domesticated animals we see today. Can they survive when we place them in jungle ? No !
Secondly, evolution doesn't mean tat they have to be smarter. It can mean being able to fly longer, faster or being able to reproduce faster or get sick less easily. All these r potential areas where the animals become fitter. In the case of domestic animals, u can see them producing eggs more regularly, fatter and less ferocious. As said be poopie head before, the probability tat animals will evolved into becoming smarter is very low. And even if tis is so, we r not going to see the effects for millions of years.
Lastly, is natural selection in the case of domesticated animals ? No ! Tis is because they r not undergoing "natural selection" anymore. Who is to have offsprings who is to reproduce r controlled by human. Naturally, they choose the animals tat give eggs more regularly, or r born to be fatter so they can have a better yield. Sorry man, evolution to these animals had become more or benefits to man rather than to themselves.I know it is difficult for u to accept or even TRY to understand that creation exist. And dont always say there are no scietific evidence or WE CREATIONIST have nothing to proof. To proof ur statement wrong is already a proof by using science. Science and maths are also extremely related.
Wat r u talking about ? U can't prove it and wat excuse r u using ??I see that there is no point exchanging ur views here. If this goes on to even 14 pages...it wouldnt change a single thing. Even if there are a few more similar threads...i could also see no difference. It will not end. Simple..because u will not even accept my fact though it sounds logical, because ur mind and soul ( oops u dun believe in one) will not tolerate any facts that go against your stand on evolution.
Huh ?!?! Where got logical ?? I think evolutionist is the one who should say tat ! U do not accept the facts even though there r overwhelming evidences against u. Maybe it is already because ur mind will not tolerate any facts that go against your stand on creation.No point quoting other scientists or proffesors who are on the same boat as u too, because the most important person, it is u urself. Even if majority of these intelectuall ppl are believers in God, u will still stick with the minority % of the other who oppose the existense of God.
Sorry man, statistically speaking, most people do not believe in god. Secondly most reknowned scientist do not believe in god either. Thirdly a big majority of scientist believes in evolution more than creationist.so just be a happy man. For those who are non - believers..u have so much more freedom on earth; guiltiness is bliss. For the believers, our main focus is our life after death. U can call us stupid, no knowledge, no common sense or whatever, i would just smile to u and carry my own way. Dun try to "save" me as much as u dun wan others to "Save" you
The problem is u spend so much efoort on life after death when there r no life after death ! -
According to the CIA factbook (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html), here's the breakdown of religious beliefs.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Sorry man, statistically speaking, most people do not believe in god.
Christians 32.71% (of which Roman Catholics 17.28%, Protestants 5.61%, Orthodox 3.49%, Anglicans 1.31%), Muslims 19.67%, Hindus 13.28%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.38%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 13.05%, non-religious 12.43%, atheists 2.41% (2002 est.)
The general population do believe in a god one way or another. -
The whole debate is going in the wrong direction and many a times I think people are focusing on the wrong thing.
If you divide people into creationist and evolutionist camp, then it is hard to have any constructive argument, 'cos people just take this to be a God bashing topic. It is like if you disagree with evolution, then you must be a creationist. Is this the case? When one questions the strength of the evolutionist argument, SIS will rebuke "oh, you think God creating living thing is more probable?" and questions like that.
Why not throw away the grouping and ask better questions like
1. Is there anything wrong with the evolution model?
2. Do you think [the late] Stephen Jay Gould agrees with Darwin? Why or why not?
I remember one memorable point made during the Creation Seminar I attended. The speaker was commenting scientists use rocks to date the fossils (general knowledge). But when they want to date the rocks what do they use? Fossils! Can you believe that? Haha .. do they really do that sometimes?
PS: Neon is NUS Campus Crusade member? How was the Creation talk on thursday?
-
not bad....Originally posted by Icemoon:The whole debate is going in the wrong direction and many a times I think people are focusing on the wrong thing.
If you divide people into creationist and evolutionist camp, then it is hard to have any constructive argument, 'cos people just take this to be a God bashing topic. It is like if you disagree with evolution, then you must be a creationist. Is this the case? When one questions the strength of the evolutionist argument, SIS will rebuke "oh, you think God creating living thing is more probable?" and questions like that.
Why not throw away the grouping and ask better questions like
1. Is there anything wrong with the evolution model?
2. Do you think [the late] Stephen Jay Gould agrees with Darwin? Why or why not?
I remember one memorable point made during the Creation Seminar I attended. The speaker was commenting scientists use rocks to date the fossils (general knowledge). But when they want to date the rocks what do they use? Fossils! Can you believe that? Haha .. do they really do that sometimes?
PS: Neon is NUS Campus Crusade member? How was the Creation talk on thursday?