Creationist vs Evolutionist
-
ummm not into definitions here, I dunno what the exact definition of a religion is, but it probably involves more than "a belief"Originally posted by fandango:i understand that in biology and medicine, evolution are taught as "foundation" in each of the respective sciences, example: Foundation of Medicine 101, Foundation of Biology 101. But the application is very minimal. (maybe mutation in microbiology, but dun think evolution). Any Doctors or Biologist to testify this?
My opinion is that maybe evolution can be classified as a religion as well because it involves beliefs. Just a thought.
the application of evolution is minimal, but a lot of sciences dont really have a lot of practical use, they are just there as theories to serve as foundations for other things. -
but its strange because sciences like physics and chemistry are sciences that you can see in everyday life. Just like having experiments being done every minute and the results can be seen. Same as biology, if you pop a hmmm...pen cap, you will definately see it in later in the toilet bowl. This is just shows your digestive system is working. (unless it doesn't come out and you have to see the doctor.)Originally posted by the.raven:ummm not into definitions here, I dunno what the exact definition of a religion is, but it probably involves more than "a belief"
the application of evolution is minimal, but a lot of sciences dont really have a lot of practical use, they are just there as theories to serve as foundations for other things.
at the other end of the spectrum, evolution is like...millions of years away, literally. Just another thought. Dun flame me.
-
I wont flame you(as long as you dont say retarded thingsOriginally posted by fandango:but its strange because sciences like physics and chemistry are sciences that you can see in everyday life. Just like having experiments being done every minute and the results can be seen. Same as biology, if you pop a hmmm...pen cap, you will definately see it in later in the toilet bowl. This is just shows your digestive system is working. (unless it doesn't come out and you have to see the doctor.)
at the other end of the spectrum, evolution is like...millions of years away, literally. Just another thought. Dun flame me.
). ya, and thats why evolution is called the Theory of evolution, same for things like theory of relativity.
however, everything about evolution makes sense to me.
For example, some microorganisms at first die to something, then later for some strange reason they no longer die to it because the same type of organism starts to produce resistance(or whatever). this also happens in some plants that dies due to pests eventually producing toxins to kill pests. and like pests having resistances against pesticides which previously worked against them. how do you explain that? the best explanation would be that the new generation is a more evolved form of the species. -
I agree what you said raven, but that is just mutation. the mircoorganism is still a kind of microorganism even though they get new resistance (or whatever). And the plant is still the plant, pointing to mutation. Ai ya, i think SIS will complain that i keep rattling about mutation because he thinks mutation is an evolution of a smaller scale.Originally posted by the.raven:I wont flame you(as long as you dont say retarded things ). ya, and thats why evolution is called the Theory of evolution, same for things like theory of relativity.
however, everything about evolution makes sense to me.
For example, some microorganisms at first die to something, then later for some strange reason they no longer die to it because the same type of organism starts to produce resistance(or whatever). this also happens in some plants that dies due to pests eventually producing toxins to kill pests. and like pests having resistances against pesticides which previously worked against them. how do you explain that? the best explanation would be that the new generation is a more evolved form of the species.
So we never can see or prove that the micro-organism somehow mutated...and mutated...and mutated...yadayadayada...through millions of years into a plant. And it's very hard to imagine that a potato evloved into a lettuce (or vice-versa).
I also agree with you that the Theory of Evolution should remain as a theory, not as a fact. -
Raven, you dun sleep issit? we are the only ones posting here since 4am.
-
Good morning folks, I just woke up....
At least the exchange between raven and fandango sounds friendly.... which is good.
the coffee smells good -
I think reading small/thin post are very friendly to the eyes, so make people less stressful and frustrated.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Good morning folks, I just woke up....
At least the exchange between raven and fandango sounds friendly.... which is good. the coffee smells good
yep, raven has been very nice, and i hoped i behaved myself. -
Kaoz... Evolution is not only theory.
I suggest reading more on the topic, or even the whole of this thread before making such comments. Also, i think it's basic courtesy to at least read once on what has been said in the previous posts. I feel like I'm repeating myself many times.
If you have read this thread esp the 2nd page, you would've read that Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
A fact - that micro evolution has been observed in both labs (closed-envoirnments) and in the wild. There is NO Question about this as a FACT.
Theory - The meaning of this word when used in scientific context is NOT the same as every day english. Scientific Theories are NOT baseless assumptions or random guesses. They must be backed by evidences! The only thing 'theoreotical' about Evolution is the mechanisms of evolution - i.e. the HOW and WHAT HAPPENS when evolution occurs. Scientists are not too sure on the mechanisms, but most of them agree that Darwin's mechanism of natural selection is the cause.
Hypothesis - this, in scientific context, is more of 'guess' or assumption, but of course they are not totally imaginary, just that there are insufficient or unconvincing evidences yet.
Evolution is not a hypothesis.
And regarding your post that mentioned Evolution as a belief, you are totally wrong here. The only 'belief' we have here is Creationism. They dont have any evidence at all. This is what should be called a 'religion', the only requirement is a belief in a superior being, no evidence is necessary. Evolution is science, it has evidence and documents observations. Please dont distort the facts from your imagination, at least read more about it before commenting. The last thing we need is Creationism (aka. religion / belief in superior being) to be taught as a science subject!
-
look, i am not advocating a religion to be taught as a subject. and i am not going to ask whatever that have been asked previously. i certainly do not wish to see this thread to become a big bish-bash session. so lets just confine it to a more intelligent question-and-answer manner. as for beliefs i have tried to keep it to a minimal, if you havn't noticed.
-
ya so far I havent use F word yetOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Good morning folks, I just woke up....
At least the exchange between raven and fandango sounds friendly.... which is good. the coffee smells good -
it's good IF you know what is classified as religion/beliefs and what is to be classified as science. However, your previous post suggesting Evolution is a religion in turn suggests that such a 'belief' is being taught in schools today as a science subject. If people are convinced to think likewise - that evolution is merely make-believe, they will get the thinking that creationism can (or should) be taught as a science subject too.Originally posted by fandango:look, i am not advocating a religion to be taught as a subject. and i am not going to ask whatever that have been asked previously. i certainly do not wish to see this thread to become a big bish-bash session. so lets just confine it to a more intelligent question-and-answer manner. as for beliefs i have tried to keep it to a minimal, if you havn't noticed.
U mentioned not asking what has been asked previously but then you still did not understand the meaning of 'Theory' in scientific context.
I too dont wish this to become a flaming thread, but I am very upset that people do not read previous posts, and repeat the same basic misunderstandings. -
eh, raven, if you are still awake, can you explain why the Theory of Evolution is still called the Theory of Evolution today.
and Poopiehead, i posted another question about civilization and aboriginals early this morning, hope you can provide some answer. thanks. -
its still called a theory cuz there is not a rigid proof of evolution. a scientific theory becomes a law when it can be shown that it is absolutely true.
so you dont head "law of relativity" etc -
I think evolution is still labelled as "theory" because the whole picutre of it is not complete. Parts of it are proven, parts of it is speculated (or derived or whatever you term it). The subject of evolution is too huge to call is a fact because everything in it is not fully explained. Only certain areas, such as micro-evolution, is observed to be true.
On the crap side, I think most students will be elated if both creation and evolution is not taight in school.. then they got one less subject to study
-
Originally posted by fandango:
It is believed that Modern Man first appeared over 100,000+ years ago, and recent findings strongly suggested that Modern Man first appeared in africa and spread out since then ('Out-of-Africa' hypothesis).
I also looked at the timeline and chronology of all the primates. We zoom in into the part about Homo sapiens and it did say that these modern man (and almost all its ancestors) lived among the middleast, western europe region. This would most likely to contradict the Historians research of placing the Chinese as an parallel, or even earlier, civilization than the Egpytian and Mesopotamia. Someone must be wrong between the Evolutionist and the Historians.
PoopieHead, the reason i stated the 1000 years was because historians state that between the Egyptian, Chinese, and Mesopotamia, the difference in the start of their civilization are no larger than 1000 years. You can google this too.
Why would you mention that there is something wrong between the Evolutionist and the Historians? What is the contradiction here?
The Chinese, Egpytian and Mesopotamia are known to be the "first civilizations ", and they are backed up by the drawings and writing left by them. I would say that it depends alot on how you define civilization. Is Agriculture considered a part of culture? What about pottery, tools making (and using), domestication of animals? Aren't these part of culture too? Or are you merely refering to writing? Drawing is considered different from writing. Do you think that the idea of writing needs to be passed on from person to person? Or the idea of communicating (language) and the recording of it (writing) cannot be established by the individual 'tribes' separately?
quote:
"Regarding the comparision between the Chinese, Egyptian and the Caucasian, I would agree that they are of the same species because the Bible says so too. But if you add the Aboriginal Australians into the equation, most evolution articles do state that they are very close to our primates ancestors rather than human today - most of the time, it does sound like a rasict remark. They never really explain why the Aboriginals didn't so-called "evloved" to the standard to what the rest of the human are in today.
If we put these two together, there are seems to be a lot of pot-holes because evidence is that the Aboriginals wall paintings were supposedly dated to the same time as the Caveman, StoneAge Man. Logically, they will also evloved in the same manner as the Chinese and Egyptian in parallel time. But why not? "
Regarding the comparision between the races - Please note that it's NOT because the Bible said so. Rather it is the conclusions resulting from scientific observations (as evidence) that the different races are not to be considered as different species. The differences between a Chinese or Malay or Caucasian are very very minor even though what we see visually suggests otherwise.
Regarding Aboriginal Australians - I did read about suggestions that they are closer to early prehistoric man than the rest of the world is today. This is in fact a very good evidence of evolution. I dont really think that this is a racist remark if we are approaching the subject without prejudice or an intention of degrading this race.
Why do you think that the Aboriginals should 'evolve' like the rest of the world too? Isolation is one of the factors that can cause a split from the parent or 'mainstream' species. If they remain to be isolated from the rest of the world as they did in the past, then according to evolution, I would expect that they would eventually break off from the rest of the human species, and perhaps continue in their own path of evolution in the future. Please note that this does not mean that any species would be inferior to the other. -
That's a mistake. Scientists can call it the Law of Relativity if they like. At least Special Relativity has been experimentally verified many times, enough for you to call it a Law.Originally posted by the.raven:a scientific theory becomes a law when it can be shown that it is absolutely true. so you dont head "law of relativity" etc
The trend from the last century is to call it a theory, like quantum theory. -
Originally posted by Poopie-Head:
Writing lor .. the best indicator and necessary condition.
[b]I would say that it depends alot on how you define civilization.
Civilization in chinese is .. wen2 ming2.
Wen2 = writing! -
Regarding scientific terms such as Laws, Theories, and Hypothesis
The claim that "Evolution is just a theory" is such a common misconception about evolution that it deserves a detailed rebuttal. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for.
This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
Is Evolution a fact or a theory? The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong. Why isn't evolution called a law? Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science. -
I think I am a bit late in reply
Nobody could ? Or it is just refusing to admit to it ? The above example of an Old Earth has shown tat the bible is wrong. Many others things r proven wrong too. Galaxu is created in billions of years, not days. Noah Ark is not possible physically, men is evolved not created from dust, population studies as shown tat 6000 below years from one family is not enough to make a civilisation of 6 billions now. 1000 years had passed and judgement day has not occurred. Bats r not birds. Not enough ? U still need more examples ?The Bible is written in thousands years ago and for us to read until the judgement day. Something can't be explain now doesn't mean that they can't be explain in the future or they are wrong. Less than 10 years ago, doctor still think that appendicitis is an organ of no uses, now only people know that it is an organ for our immunity system. Compare your knowledge to God, who is better?
U had just proven my point tat christian don't acccept the fact tat the bible is already proven wrong. I have given many examples of wat is wrong in the bible but u just reject it straight, telling me tat science is not develop yet. Appendictis is appendictis, the amount of animals needed to board Noah's Ark conpared with its dimensions r maths tat even a kid could calculate. Appendictis can be an organ for immunity, but people still survive when it was taken off isn't it ? Heck, I even remove my appendictis years before myself and now I am still typing. It is still maintained tat appendictis is not a critical organ. I am not comparing my knowledge to god, I am using the knowledge of science to prove there is no god. If there is no god, wat am I comparing with ?Well, this one I must agree with you. Even if you are a Buddhist, you won't 100% blindly listen to a monk isn't it? So, now can we agree that the Bible didn't said the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around the Earth?
Why it was said tat earth is flat and sun revolves around the earth is inspired from the bible.Since it is not wrong, then why it is consider lying? As long as we can understand what it trying to said, why so bother about bats is not bird? Like other forumers said, Bible is not a science journal.
It is wrong. The above many examples had already proved tat the bible is wrong. It is wrong, it propagate and therefore it had lied. It is not a science journal BUT it cannot anyhow publish wrong facts isn't it ? If god knows it is wrong, yet continue telloing people about it, doesn't it make it lying ?I also looked at the timeline and chronology of all the primates. We zoom in into the part about Homo sapiens and it did say that these modern man (and almost all its ancestors) lived among the middleast, western europe region. This would most likely to contradict the Historians research of placing the Chinese as an parallel, or even earlier, civilization than the Egpytian and Mesopotamia. Someone must be wrong between the Evolutionist and the Historians.
U r talking about different things. Civilisation is the culture, buildings, way if sustaining life, writing of the people. Evolution is talking about the people. It just meant tat chinese have evidence showing they have culture and writing before egytians according to u. But whether r they more evolved than other races, it is not necessary the case. -
PoopieHead, the reason i stated the 1000 years was because historians state that between the Egyptian, Chinese, and Mesopotamia, the difference in the start of their civilization are no larger than 1000 years. You can google this too.
It meant tat chinese can synchronise their writings earlier than the other races. Tat is it.Regarding the comparision between the Chinese, Egyptian and the Caucasian, I would agree that they are of the same species because the Bible says so too. But if you add the Aboriginal Australians into the equation, most evolution articles do state that they are very close to our primates ancestors rather than human today - most of the time, it does sound like a rasict remark. They never really explain why the Aboriginals didn't so-called "evloved" to the standard to what the rest of the human are in today.
There r a lot of animals tat were different in Australia compared with the mainland. They get seperated. It is not unusual to have the living species evolving differently in seperated environment. Tat is why u see so many stragne animals in australia isn't it ? Tat is because they have evolved differently after getting seperated from the other same speices of their kind. The kiwi cannot fly, the koala cannot leave the tree, the kangaroo look totally different. Tis is because they r seperated for millions of years.If we put these two together, there are seems to be a lot of pot-holes because evidence is that the Aboriginals wall paintings were supposedly dated to the same time as the Caveman, StoneAge Man. Logically, they will also evloved in the same manner as the Chinese and Egyptian in parallel time. But why not?
Wall painting remains as paintings, not writings. The painting only made sense to the painter and not to others. Wat I meant of writing is a group of people will get the same meaning when displayed with the same symbols. There is synchronisation and learning involved.But science still works without evolution right?
Evolution is science
Science still work if newton laws of motion is taken off too. It just meant tat u have made science more limited by taking it off.
Chemistry - dun need Newton laws of motion
Biology - dun need Newton laws of motion
Medicine - dun need Newton laws of motion
Maths - dun need Newton laws of motion
Pyschology - dun need Newton laws of motion
Computing - dun need Newton laws of motion
Veterinary - dun need Newton laws of motion
Edison - dun need Newton laws of motion to come out with the bulb
Face it man... biology and medicine need evolution. It is already part of their textbook contents.I understand that in biology and medicine, evolution are taught as "foundation" in each of the respective sciences, example: Foundation of Medicine 101, Foundation of Biology 101. But the application is very minimal. (maybe mutation in microbiology, but dun think evolution). Any Doctors or Biologist to testify this?
Viologists need to know evolution thoroughly. Microbiologist need to know about evolution too. It is not about mutations, but evolution. Biologists need to know evolution thoroughly too. It is so fundamental tat they teach it in foundations of medicine and biology. U study newton law of motion when u r secondary isn't it ?My opinion is that maybe evolution can be classified as a religion as well because it involves beliefs. Just a thought.
Wrong. It has evidences on its side. It is no longer a belief but a fact.at the other end of the spectrum, evolution is like...millions of years away, literally. Just another thought. Dun flame me
It is millions of years away. Then wat to do if tis is a fact ? There r many theories such as study of radiation where some element need millions of years to decay into half life. Does it meant tat if the time span is long, we throw it away ?I agree what you said raven, but that is just mutation. the mircoorganism is still a kind of microorganism even though they get new resistance (or whatever). And the plant is still the plant, pointing to mutation. Ai ya, i think SIS will complain that i keep rattling about mutation because he thinks mutation is an evolution of a smaller scale.
Funny, u believe in mutation why not evolution ? U believe tat there r massive changes to them, and they can pass down these traits to their decendents, then aren't u already accepting evolution ? These both r similar isn't it ?So we never can see or prove that the micro-organism somehow mutated...and mutated...and mutated...yadayadayada...through millions of years into a plant. And it's very hard to imagine that a potato evloved into a lettuce (or vice-versa).
It is harder to imagine they pop out suddenly everywhere instantly. A potato is not evolved from a lettuce. They may have the same ancestors though and gone through millions of years. There r different breeds of flowers tat look similar. Surely u will not find it difficult to imagine they come from the same ancestors. -
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
This is the reason why Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science.
-
Do you agree that certain areas of evolution cannot be "testable"?? Because too much information is lacking.
-
This sudden 'pop out' of a new and completely different species is actually the expected result of ideas such as Creationism. If Creationists wanted to prove themselves, they could show evidences of such phenomenon.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It is harder to imagine they pop out suddenly everywhere instantly. A potato is not evolved from a lettuce. They may have the same ancestors though and gone through millions of years. There r different breeds of flowers tat look similar. Surely u will not find it difficult to imagine they come from the same ancestors.
If they did in fact 'pop out' suddenly then we can throw those books on Evolution away. -
Do you agree that certain areas of evolution cannot be "testable"?? Because too much information is lacking
It is very testable. If there is a species tat does not follow evolution, then it can be thrown off.
U r talking about intelligent design, creationism and not god right ? Then if there is an intelligent designer, we should expect things to pop out suddenly at any time, not distant past isn't it ? One second before the field contains only wheat. Then suddenly 1 second after *Poof* a tree bearing ranbutan the size of watermelons will appear everywhere ! Why doesn't we see such phenomenons in written history ? In fact there should *Poof* suddenly come out with a fish tat look like a rabbit too. Why can't we see such creation in written history ? -
Please elaborateOriginally posted by stupidissmart:It is very testable. If there is a species tat does not follow evolution, then it can be thrown off.