Creation vs. Evolution: Comparing Apples to Orange Soda

#51

Ooops Type -- cant duplicate- hense it a theory and not proven

No religious anything should be taught in PUBLIC schools - as part of a debate maybe -- but no curriculum about religion or religious practice-- I have no problem if its included relevantly to discussion

Religion is taught at home, church, mosque, monestary, meadow or wherever someone practices their faith not school

#52

Evolution takes more faith than creationism. Creationism or the Intelligent Design theory, is not religious though. It is purely scientific

#53

TT, that's just BS. Creationism is *not* science since it does not meet scientific criteria. That is, it is not testable, etc. It is based on a faith statement. That has nothing to do with whether it is *true* or not. Simply that it is not science as defined by the people who do it. Science itself has axioms, that while based on some basic common sense principles, do require a modicum of belief. The two are completely separate issues.

Saying Creationism is science is like saying that chocolate is a fruit. It simply isn't - it doesn't meet the accepted definition of a fruit. You can make chocolate in the shape of an orange, but that doesn't make it an orange. That doesn't mean it isn't good to eat or it isn't food, but it isn't a fruit. Saying it loudly doesn't change the fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on observations and established data attempting to explain found phenomena. As new observations are made, the theory is tested and revised...potentially even thrown out. Such are the ways of science.

Creationism does not lend itself to such testing. Whether it is true or not, it can not be *tested*. As Thomas Paine stated "One man's revelation is another man's hearsay". What is obvious to you is not to your neighbor. Science deals with observations that can be repeated and understood. It works for many things, but it doesn't work for *everything*. God is one of those things (psychic phenomena may be another...).

But wrapping a faith statement in pseudo-scientific gibberish demeans both science and the truth presented in the story. It is an attempt to end-run around the basic principles are country is founded on. If you want religion taught in public schools, get a constitutional amendment passed. If you can't then maybe there is a reason not to do it.

But calling creationism science is simply lying. And that is wrong by any ethical, moral or biblical standards.

I repeat it does not make it *false*. It is simply not scientific and all the yelling and screaming won't make it so.

End of rant.

#54

You said that creationism is not testable, but is evolution? No, not at all. I'm pulling this up from an old thread but here is some evidence of creationism. Don't tell me that this isn't scientific:

The amount of info DNA includes is amazing: a single cell of the human body contains as much information as the Encyclopedia Britannica-all 30 volumes- three of four times over.

Being an evolutionist, you must say that the information found in DNA is a product of natural processes at work in the chemicals that comprise living things.

It's true that DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals that react according to ordinary laws. But what makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. THe chemicals in DNA are grouped together into molecules that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambles, the result is nonsense. SO the crucial question comes down to whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes of whether is required an intelligent source.

Evolutionists insists that the idea of an intelligent cause has no place in science when the truth is that many branches of science already use the concept of intelligence and have devised tests for detecting the work of an intelligent agent.

In everyday life, we weigh natural vs. intelligent causes all the time without thinking much about it. If we see ripples on a sandy beach, we assume they were formed by natural causes. BUt if we see words written in the sand, we immediately recognize a different kind of order, and we see someone else involved.

Natural forces are not capable of writing a book or programming a computer disk. THe discovery of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.

Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information os transmitted. THe evolutionist only has 2 possible ways to explain the origin of life- either chance or natural law. BUt information theory gives us a powerful tool for discounting both these explanations, for both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content.

A structure or message is said to have a high or low info content depending on the minimum number of instructions needed to tell you how to constuct it. A random sequence of letters has low information content b/c it requires only 2 instructions: selecta letter of the alphabet and write it down; and repeat. THe process of writing, let's say, the Night before Christmas requires high information b/c the process of writing down the poem requires a large number of instructions.

Similarly, in nature, both random patterns and regular patterns have low info content. By contrast, DNA has a very high info content. It would be impossible to produce a simple set of instructions telling a chemist how to synthesize the DNA of even the simplest bacterium. YOu would have to specify every chemical "letter", one by one and there are millions of them. So DNA has a completely different structure from the products of either chance of natural law, and information theory gives the conceptual tools to debunk any such attempts to explain the origin of life.

Many scientists today are looking for some kind of self-organizing force in matter itself to explain life's origin. Most treatments resort to analogies, pointing to spontaneous ordering in nonliving structures, such as crystals. You can find many books that try to explain life by the forming of crystals.

This analogy doesn't work and the information theory tells why. Whether they are ordinary (sugar and salt) or exquisite (rubies and diamonds), all crystals are examplews of repetitive order. The unique structure of any crystal is the result of what we might think of as the "shape" of its atoms, whcih causes them to slot into a particualr position and to layer themselves in a fixed, orderly pattern.

Another attempt to find an evolutionary answer comes from the new field of complexity theory. On their computer screens, researchers "grow" marvelous shapes that resemble ferns and forests and snowflakes. This is being touted as the answer to the spontaneous origin of order.

This new field of research isn't going to uncover a law that can account for the spontaneous origin of life. The truth is that the ferns and swirls constructed by complexity theorists on their computer screens represent the same kind of order as crystals. Crystals, like there structures, can be specified with just a few instructions, followed by "do it again."

The conclusion is that there is no known physical laws capable of creating a structure like DNA with high information content. Baed on both teh latest scientific knowledge and on ordinary experience, there is only one cause that is up to the task: an Intelligent Agent, or the Lord God. Only an Intelligent Cause could create the information contained in the DNA molecule.

#55

The conclusion is that there is no known physical laws capable of creating a structure like DNA with high information content. Baed on both teh latest scientific knowledge and on ordinary experience, there is only one cause that is up to the task: an Intelligent Agent, or the Lord God. Only an Intelligent Cause could create the information contained in the DNA molecule.

So since we havent found a cause with our limited technology and brians
its either something intelligent or God?? -- it couldnt just have happened by happenstance

Where's the proof??

#56

The proof is in the puddin.

#57

Where has you seen anything come from nothing? It doesn't happen! Everything has a cause.

As Descartes said, everything can come into existence by 4 different ways. 1) Nothing, 2) from itself, 3) from something less than itself, or 4) something greater than itself

1) is impossible since out of nothing, nothing comes
2) is impossible because something cannot be the cause of its own existence
3) is impossible because effects cannot be greater than their causes
4) is the only possible option

#58

Well, in classic theology, God is what is there before everything else - but where did He come from. The something from nothing argument, while interesting, begs the question.

In point of fact, the whole Encyclopedia Brittanica ignores the idea of randomness with a skew. In point of fact, evolutionary algorithms work in CS. That is, you start with random crap. Mix it together and then select the crap that works "the best". Continue doing so and you can end up with a powerful, if completely un-understandable algorithm.

Really evolution is not about beginnings - it really doesn't explain where life came from - simply how it changes as the earth around it changes. How the clock originally got wound is a bit beyond that theory.

The problem with Creationism as proposed is it is a specific instance of Intelligent Design (ID), not the general idea of ID. The specific instance of Earth being created within a roughly historical context has no more scientific basis than the Fly Spaghetti Monster theory of evolution. Both are ID. In point of fact, humanity has no scientific proof of God's existence. All we have are a bunch of questions that we don't know how to answer. Given the Judeo-Christian belief of an omni-X God, I don't think He could be subjected to such a proof. It is simply beyond what science is capable of dealing with.

So let me be clear here. When I say Creationism is not a scientific theory, I am, in fact, referring to the basic theory that says the planet was created by some being within a historical or near historical time frame. Whether it is true or not, is not the point. There preponderance of the evidence is against it and I can not think of a good test for it, as the theory requires assuming that much of the basis of science is flawed.

As far as an ID guiding evolution - that seems to me to be opinion. I've heard arguments on both sides. The information theory argument seems compelling until you start looking into non-linear spaces and the odd things that happen when you put a skew on things. As to the origin of life, I don't think we have more than guesses. However, all scientific facts, at the moment, point to an event that occurred on the order of 5 billion years ago , human time. To say things are *much* younger than that violates not only evolution, but biology, physics, astronomy, geology and many other scientific domains. To be able to overthrow that much science you would have to some seriously compelling data - rather than a set of problems with a theory that is a best incomplete.

#59

QUOTEWell, in classic theology, God is what is there before everything else - but where did He come from. The something from nothing argument, while interesting, begs the question.

Well then you misunderstand the definition of God. God is not a physical being who is subject to a physical nature. God never brought himself into existence though - he has always existed.

QUOTEIn point of fact, the whole Encyclopedia Brittanica ignores the idea of randomness with a skew. In point of fact, evolutionary algorithms work in CS. That is, you start with random crap. Mix it together and then select the crap that works "the best". Continue doing so and you can end up with a powerful, if completely un-understandable algorithm.

The randomness of it all huh? That's the whole point. If it is nonsense or randomness, then it won't continue, but humans have been around a long time which shows that our DNA isn't nonsense. You kind of proved my point.

QUOTEReally evolution is not about beginnings - it really doesn't explain where life came from - simply how it changes as the earth around it changes. How the clock originally got wound is a bit beyond that theory.

Well then we are talking about a different kind of evolution. There is microevolution in the world. That's also known as adaptation. Of course that's around. The evolution that this thread is talking about is Creationism vs. Evolution for the creation of the earth. That's what we're discussing.

QUOTEThe problem with Creationism as proposed is it is a specific instance of Intelligent Design (ID), not the general idea of ID. The specific instance of Earth being created within a roughly historical context has no more scientific basis than the Fly Spaghetti Monster theory of evolution.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. What do you mean within a historical context? Of course the world was created within a historical context. Everything is in a historical context.

QUOTEIn point of fact, humanity has no scientific proof of God's existence. All we have are a bunch of questions that we don't know how to answer. Given the Judeo-Christian belief of an omni-X God, I don't think He could be subjected to such a proof.

First of all, here you are begging the question. Creation is one of the many proofs of God's existence. You are already starting with the fact that there isn't a God who created the world to move science against his existence. That's begging the question.

There is plenty of scientific and logical proofs of God's existence. I can go through them if you want me to.

QUOTEWhen I say Creationism is not a scientific theory, I am, in fact, referring to the basic theory that says the planet was created by some being within a historical or near historical time frame.

I still dont' understand what you mean by a historical time frame. Creationism says that there is an Intelligent Designer who created the world and everything we see in it. What do you mean by historical time frame?

QUOTEThe information theory argument seems compelling until you start looking into non-linear spaces and the odd things that happen when you put a skew on things.

But nothing has brought itself into existence so the information theory is relevant.

QUOTEAs to the origin of life, I don't think we have more than guesses.

Really huh? Well didn't you start this discussion by saying that evolution is scientific (and not a guess) and Creationism is not? If all we have are guesses then why should we teach any of it in schools?

QUOTEHowever, all scientific facts, at the moment, point to an event that occurred on the order of 5 billion years ago , human time. To say things are *much* younger than that violates not only evolution, but biology, physics, astronomy, geology and many other scientific domains. To be able to overthrow that much science you would have to some seriously compelling data - rather than a set of problems with a theory that is a best incomplete.

I think most of the evidence leans towards a young earth and if you want, I'll grab some proof from scientists about that.

#60

ID gets my vote merely by inference to the best explanation. But it by no means satiates by hunger for an adequete theory. When it all comes down to it, evolution is bullshit, and ID is just a liiiiiittle bit better...