Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[Carebian Knight]

Global Warming is no longer believed by the majority of sceintists

What? WHAT?!

My dear deluded friend you have it 180 degrees backwards.

100% of Scientists...and in fact most rational people accept that Global Warming is real. There is NO doubt that the planet IS warming.

The ONLY debate lies in whether or not it is natural, cyclical warming or influenced by man.

Please...switch off the 700 club and watch some news once in a while.

Dipshit, when I said Global Warming, I was referring to the theory that was believed for the past years. Why would I say that the world isn't warming? Then say that the world is warming later in my post. Doing that would make me almost as stupid as you.

I don't watch the 700 Club, it's the gayest show I've ever seen. Don't even think for a second that all Catholics are like that.

[unriggable]

WM, read this about the big bang:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 595#914595

To summarize, pre-big bang there was no time since there were no dimensions (time is a dimension) so everything really started then. Everything didn't exist before, but it also existed forever. No human's mind can cope with that, we didn't evolve that way.

[Carebian Knight]

I don't know about Widow, but I don't say that evolution isn't true, only inter-species evolution. Saying evolution as a whole isn't true would be stupid. However, how can you say that inter-species evolution is true, for one it can't be proved 100%, anyone who says it can has an IQ near Backglass', but neither can creationism, so far every creationist in this thread has accepted that, yet you evolutionists who claim to be well educated can't see that. You guys don't understand the simple:

Neither can be proved.

It's more about faith than anything. Even evolutionists run on faith.

[Carebian Knight]

There's a ton of physics involved. It is really hard to say for a newb like you who doesn't know shit about modern science, but we start with a primordial atom. Understand that there are no dimensions, including time, and the instability of this atom causes the big bang. Everything ever to exist, and all the energy everywhere is compressed into this infinitely small space (they, matter and energy, are actually the same thing at this point).

Now you've got to understand that there are four forces of the universe, gravity electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces, and they were combined into a single force embedded into this primordial atom before the big bang. Within a billionth of a second, gravity breaks off and does its own thing, and not much after that the other three forces break off as well. The big bang happens, and with this release of energy comes things like matter and antimatter (since the two can essentially 'make' each other in equal amounts) along with dark energy and other weird and exotic forces we don't understand.

Now you can deny this all you want, but mathematically this makes as much sense as the idea that water is made up of H2O.

Actually it doesn't, let's look at this:

Everything didn't exist before

(So basically, nothing existed before.)

we start with a primordial atom

If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?

[unriggable]

But there are so many facts you overlook. If we were created, then we would expect fossils of us just as old as dinos, we don't. We, humanity, are in a very specific recent time. You'd wonder why creatures alive today, whales, birds, humans, you'd wonder why they're not extinct if animals like plesiosaurs and trilobites and lystrosaurs are. It just doesn't make sense. How is it that mass extinctions, floods, disasters in general are so selective in creatures that are essentially replicas of a previous time (pterosaurs and birds, whales and plesiosaurs)? If creation is true than every creature ever alive today would have to have always existed on earth, and not only is that an undoable food web, it's just pure bullshit.

[unriggable]

If nothing existed before, then where did the primordial atom come from?

That's the thing. There was no 'from' since there was no before. Try to understand. Time has a beginning. Shit 'begins'.

[unriggable]

Now you can deny this all you want, but mathematically this makes as much sense as the idea that water is made up of H2O.

Actually it doesn't,

Now you can deny this all you want, but mathematically this makes as much sense as the idea that water is made up of H2O.

There's a reason I said this. Literally, mathematically it just makes sense. I'd post it, but it would take more than three consecutive posts to say all these equations. Plus you wouldn't understand it.

[Neoteny]

It makes me sad that Widow isn't responding to my posts.

[unriggable]

It makes me sad that Widow isn't responding to my posts.

You gotta do what you gotta do.

[Neoteny]

It makes me sad that Widow isn't responding to my posts.

You gotta do what you gotta do.

I'll take it as a complement to my reasoning abilities.

[WidowMakers]

You did not answer my question.

Please post a response to these questions.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

If you answer "It is wrong" to any of those questions, then that means you do not feel that there are evolving morals. You feel that there are things that are wrong (such as killing your for no reason) all the time. But if nothing is right or wrong, the majority is always justified in anything they do.

There is no universal set of morality, simply by looking at different cultures you can see vast differences. It is, for instance, an immoral and punishable crime for a woman to be alone with a man who isn't your husband or a relative. Western culture on the other hand find the lashings used as punishment for the crime as immoral. Why would there be these differences if morals had not steadily changed as isolated pockets (seperation) of the world developed their own particular cultures (outside influence) and responded in kind to them.

So you are saying that there is no right or wrong correct. Then please again answer my questions. And by answer my questions I mean actually give answers to the 4 questions I wrote please.

And on a side note. Someone said that a couple hundred years ago slavery was OK. Was it OK for the slaves? Do you think they thought it was OK? NO!!!! So who was right there, the slave owner or the slave?

You say there are difference between cultures. Well who is correct when those cultures meet? When there is a dispute and both sides feel justified (US civil War / WW2 / etc) who is correct? And if the outcomes of these wars would have been different (south wins / Hitler wins) would the rest of the world have said "well i guess it is OK to kill Jews then and slavery must be OK because the south won the war". NO!!!

The implications of no universal moral code are that anything is justifiable. Can anyone here live with that fact?

Please answer the 4 questions first.

Again, you need a proved and good case for stellar evolution before biological evolution can take place.

How so? The idea of evolution (outside of biological evolution) is simply a metaphor (this includes the above idea of "evolving" morality).

So you are saying the universe can into being by metaphor? What does that even mean?

Please explain, scientifically, how the solar systems were formed by explaining all of the issues I previously listed.
I guess I don't understand. Everyone in this thread want to give a scientific explanation for evolution but no one will give an explaintion, scientifically for teh origin or the universe and the planets (and so on), which are required before biological evolution can start.

WM

[MeDeFe]

Well, WidowMakers, maybe people don't want to explain the origins of life, the universe and everything to you because that would mean going off topic. This is after all the "Evolution vs. Creation"-thread. Not the "Tell me the whole history of the universe and why it is here"-thread.
Despite this there have been some posts describing the basic outlines of some theories regarding the very beginning of the universe. Maybe you should read them.

As for your questions, why should anyone bother to answer them when you have already stated what you will conclude from the answers, and fyi, your conclusion is flawed. (In any case, answering "It is wrong" to the questions you have posed would be tantamount to saying "it is wrong because it is wrong", circular reasoning never wins) I really don't see how answering "Doing X is wrong, because..." leads you to conclude that morals are static and unchangeable (i.e. non-evolving). Please, explain it in some more detail.


And if you want to behave like an asshole and ridicule your opponents, at least do it properly. I suggest you re-read what Frigidus wrote, pay attention, and then notice that he said that talking about evolution in a non-biological context is using the word 'evolution' metaphorically. You and he might be able to have a fruitful discussion if you clear up your terminology first.

[Heimdall]

Please explain, scientifically, how the solar systems were formed by explaining all of the issues I previously listed.
I guess I don't understand. Everyone in this thread want to give a scientific explanation for evolution but no one will give an explaintion, scientifically for teh origin or the universe and the planets (and so on), which are required before biological evolution can start.

Unfortunately, we are limited by the tools and knowledge that we currently have to be able to properly explain the origin of the universe. Humankind has only taken baby steps when in comes to space exploration and our knowledge of the universe is very limited.

A good analogy would be lighting. For the longest time is human history, we were not able to explain scientifically this phenomenon. And it is human need to be able to explain and understand everything that is around us. The unknown scares us. So for what we lacked in knowledge and tools, we made up with a bit imagination. The explanation for lighting at the time was that "god" was angry. Obviously, now that we know what electricity is, this explanation seems very foolish.

Another example would be Mountains. How could we possibly explain mountains if we did not know anything about plate tectonics? Solution: God put the mountains there.

Like i said, it's a human need to be able to explain everything that we see, smell, touch and hear. And for what we currently can't explain with science, we make up with our imagination.

[WidowMakers]

Well, WidowMakers, maybe people don't want to explain the origins of life, the universe and everything to you because that would mean going off topic. This is after all the "Evolution vs. Creation"-thread. Not the "Tell me the whole history of the universe and why it is here"-thread.
Despite this there have been some posts describing the basic outlines of some theories regarding the very beginning of the universe. Maybe you should read them.

As for your questions, why should anyone bother to answer them when you have already stated what you will conclude from the answers, and fyi, your conclusion is flawed. (In any case, answering "It is wrong" to the questions you have posed would be tantamount to saying "it is wrong because it is wrong", circular reasoning never wins) I really don't see how answering "Doing X is wrong, because..." leads you to conclude that morals are static and unchangeable (i.e. non-evolving). Please, explain it in some more detail.


And if you want to behave like an asshole and ridicule your opponents, at least do it properly. I suggest you re-read what Frigidus wrote, pay attention, and then notice that he said that talking about evolution in a non-biological context is using the word 'evolution' metaphorically. You and he might be able to have a fruitful discussion if you clear up your terminology first.

Well first of all this is a creation vs evolution thread as you have said.

The evolution of the universe (stellar) or of a creature (biological) are bothimportant areas that we can discuss. Creation covers both areas. And this topic was never intended (or have it tried to make it) a biological only discussion.

If I am so wrong with pointing out issues with stellar evolution (which again is required for biological evolution to work) why does someone not point out the issues?

And second. Why has no one answered my question about morals? I have asked 4 questions. I have an opinion about what the implications are for specific answers. If I am wrong, then answer the questions and prove me wrong. Show we why my conclusion is flawed.

And I also don't particularly like how evolution is used metaphorically when i comes to the universe but literally when it comes to biology. There have been many times in this thread that evolution has been described as "CHANGE".

I am sorry if the words stellar evolution do not sit well with you. SO I will change them to stellar/planetary changing.

Please explain how the universe came from nothing and formed to be in the arrangement we see today making it possible for biological evolution.

I am not trying to be a pain or anything. I have opinions and am simpley responding to otheres questions or opinions.

Why is it so hard to answer my questions and then prove my opinions wrong?

[WidowMakers]

Please explain, scientifically, how the solar systems were formed by explaining all of the issues I previously listed.
I guess I don't understand. Everyone in this thread want to give a scientific explanation for evolution but no one will give an explaintion, scientifically for teh origin or the universe and the planets (and so on), which are required before biological evolution can start.

Unfortunately, we are limited by the tools and knowledge that we currently have to be able to properly explain the origin of the universe. Humankind has only taken baby steps when in comes to space exploration and our knowledge of the universe is very limited......

.....Like i said, it's a human need to be able to explain everything that we see, smell, touch and hear. And for what we currently can't explain with science, we make up with our imagination.

Unfortunately the tools and knowledge are not lacking in this area. The basic principles of the universe (gravity, thermodynamics, laws of motion) contradict the ability for the universe to gradually form.

And if we say "well we don't have the knowledge to understand the formation of the universe" how can we say we understand biological evolution (formation of DNA to eventually higher level organisms) when those too violate some of the natural laws? (which i have explained before).

I previously listed many issues with protein/DNA/enzyme formation. Could someone please explain those issues?

[WidowMakers]

WM, read this about the big bang:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 595#914595

To summarize, pre-big bang there was no time since there were no dimensions (time is a dimension) so everything really started then. Everything didn't exist before, but it also existed forever. No human's mind can cope with that, we didn't evolve that way.

OK for the sake of discussion, I will give you the big bang. I don't agree or believe in it because I still do not believe that with nothing ever existing that something could come from it.

Now explain everything after it.
Please read this link and tell me how each issue is wrong.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_2.htm

[WidowMakers]

But there are so many facts you overlook. If we were created, then we would expect fossils of us just as old as dinos, we don't. We, humanity, are in a very specific recent time. You'd wonder why creatures alive today, whales, birds, humans, you'd wonder why they're not extinct if animals like plesiosaurs and trilobites and lystrosaurs are. It just doesn't make sense. How is it that mass extinctions, floods, disasters in general are so selective in creatures that are essentially replicas of a previous time (pterosaurs and birds, whales and plesiosaurs)? If creation is true than every creature ever alive today would have to have always existed on earth, and not only is that an undoable food web, it's just pure bullshit.

First you are assuming fossils are millions of years old.

In my other post I have shown the issues with radiometric dating and the fact that the fossils ages were already in place before that anyway.

I will ask again. How were the ages of the fossils/rock layers determined before radiometric dating?

Every creature would not have existed as it is today. Natural selection allows to make variation within a species. The first dogs that were created would pass genetic material to offspring and after each generation natural selection would start to differentiate them. They would still be dogs but just have different characteristics.

WM

[MeDeFe]

Show we why my conclusion is flawed.

In order to do that I need to know how you arrived at the conclusion you arrived at. However, this is not clear from your post, I see a starting point A, a point B from which you're waving at everyone else but nothing to tell me how you got there. In order to tell you exactly where you went wrong I need to know your whole line of reasoning.

[Heimdall]

I will ask again. How were the ages of the fossils/rock layers determined before radiometric dating?

So If I understand your question, you are asking how we can determine the age of fossils/rocks without the use of radiometric dating?

There's a few ways to go about it:

- Incremental techniques measure the regular addition of material to sediments or organisms.
- Correlation of marker horizons allow age-equivalence to be established between different sites.

[Snorri1234]

If I am so wrong with pointing out issues with stellar evolution (which again is required for biological evolution to work)

No it isn't! You always amaze me at how your conclusions are totally illogical. Biological evolution merely deals with how life evolved over time, it doesn't even deal with how life began. And it certainly doesn't need to deal with stellar evolution for it to make any sense. I mean, there are countless people who accept evolution without rejecting God. They put God in as the person who created life and let it evolve towards Man as he intended. Or he initiated the beginning of the universe, which formed according to his plan since he created all the laws that govern it.

And second. Why has no one answered my question about morals? I have asked 4 questions. I have an opinion about what the implications are for specific answers. If I am wrong, then answer the questions and prove me wrong. Show we why my conclusion is flawed.

Because NOONE thinks it's okay for anyone to hit him for no reason. To assume that proves there are absolute and universal morals is silly.
I think it's wrong not because there are some laws that are written in the sky, but quite simply because I don't like getting hit.
Since we have this amazing ability called "empathy", we can understand that other people would feel the same way, so it's not strange that we adopted this as an universal rule.
Just because the rule is universal does not mean it has an absolute basis, it's just that we all decided that the rule was pretty usefull.

And I also don't particularly like how evolution is used metaphorically when i comes to the universe but literally when it comes to biology. There have been many times in this thread that evolution has been described as "CHANGE".

Because the universe is complicated, and more importatly it does not deal with the same mechanisms as biological evolution.

I am sorry if the words stellar evolution do not sit well with you. SO I will change them to stellar/planetary changing.

Please explain how the universe came from nothing and formed to be in the arrangement we see today making it possible for biological evolution.

I have no idea at the moment. I'm not a cosmologist.

[got tonkaed]

WM...i did in brief provide an answer to your questions, and didnt flush it out further because i thought the rationale behind it was explained.

However....

Question 1: No i would not feel this was right

Question 2: i would not feel this is right

Question 3: i would not feel this is right

Question 4: i would not feel this is right.

I think its a little demeaning to you to have to put that into words like that, but since you seem to be harping on it, there you have my answers. Now then back to the issue at hand with it.

It seems that you have this idea that if we dont live in a world of black and whites, there is a nothingness or its simply majority rule. Now clearly im going to answer no to those things because they all affect me in a negative way so im certainly likely to respond in the negative. Albeit i probably would respond in the negative to questions that were not directed specifically at me, but thats not necessarily what you were asking.

Theres a bit of a problem with your methodology. You are asking questions which are tailored to specific responses. I could ask 4 questions that were tailored to the positive and i would get 4 positive responses.

Would you have a problem with someone giving you 10k if you didnt know where it was from?

Would you have a problem with someone giving you 100k if you didnt know where it was from?

Would you have a problem with someone feeding 1 person if you didnt know where the food was from?

Would you have a problem with someone feeding 1000 people if you didnt know where the food was from?

In all likelyhood, all of these answers are yes. It however doesnt in any way suggest theres some kind of universality of morality.

Another fun analogy to describe the concept of correlation and casuality is the idea that intelligence increases as shoe size does. Clearly it does, but the increasing of shoe size is not the cause. In a similar vein, although the answers to your 4 questions are all in my estimation no, it does not cause a universal set of morality.

To respond to something you said in a different post. Yes when different cultures get together there does have to be a process of determing what things are right and what things are wrong. This can be a somewhat difficult or painful process. However, the proper response to such an issue is not to run and hide behind your own set of morality. We would all be better served by actually trying to actively engage in discourse with the other, because in that way not only will we gain understanding of their perspective, we may better understand our own.

And you also pointed out a grey area with that issue on slavery. Clearly a lot of people (at least by our standards) did not know what was right and what was wrong in terms of the slave issue. If there is an objective perfect form of morality out there, it is quite likely that we do not quite have the capability of understanding it, though some ethicists would argue we are closer than before. However, by taking one specific moral compass, which has at times come under question in its precepts, and asserting that it is the true moral compass, you not only show a failure to critically analyze your own texts and a failure to see what else is out there in the world.

[Snorri1234]

I will ask again. How were the ages of the fossils/rock layers determined before radiometric dating?

So If I understand your question, you are asking how we can determine the age of fossils/rocks without the use of radiometric dating?

There's a few ways to go about it:

- Incremental techniques measure the regular addition of material to sediments or organisms.
- Correlation of marker horizons allow age-equivalence to be established between different sites.

Indeed. What was discovered after radiometric dating became known was that these techniques were pretty spot on.

[unriggable]

I will ask again. How were the ages of the fossils/rock layers determined before radiometric dating?

Layers, and many of these estimates were falsified by radiometric dating.

Every creature would not have existed as it is today. Natural selection allows to make variation within a species. The first dogs that were created would pass genetic material to offspring and after each generation natural selection would start to differentiate them. They would still be dogs but just have different characteristics.

WM

So you're saying that a chimpanzee that has a hip mutation which allows it to walk is not outside the realm of possibility?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Badger.JPG

[Frigidus]

So you are saying that there is no right or wrong correct. Then please again answer my questions. And by answer my questions I mean actually give answers to the 4 questions I wrote please.

Please post a response to these questions.

1) If I walk up to you and hit you in the face (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

2) If I kill your family (for no reason), am I wrong? Why?

3) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to hit you in the face (for no reason), is it ok? Why?

4) If the majority of the people on earth agree that it is OK to kill you (for no reason), is it OK? Why?

Fine, I'll humor you.

1) Yes, it is wrong. But! This is an example, although a rather strange one in potential differences in culture. In my culture (and from what I can tell, everyone else in the forum's culture) this is wrong. I will go into more detail on the particulars of this later in the post.

2) Yes, it is wrong. This one is a rather interesting question when it comes to our culture. We have labeled random killing as wrong (a good idea in my opinion, but hey, opinions aren't universal either). If we came across a new group of people, theoretically, that had random acts of violence ingrained into their culture, we likely wouldn't respect their views and would attempt to force them to stop. That's our culture.

3) No, it isn't wrong. I don't, of course, refer to a 51% majority. I mean that it is the cultural standard of the people. To each his own I guess.

4) No, it isn't wrong. It's pretty tough for me to say that, but they've gotten by, somehow, with random killings being a part of their culture. It's not my place to judge

Before you tear into me about #3 and #4, keep in mind these are your arbitrary questions and are the literal extreme of this idea of evolving morals. Anyways, moving on...

And on a side note. Someone said that a couple hundred years ago slavery was OK. Was it OK for the slaves? Do you think they thought it was OK? NO!!!! So who was right there, the slave owner or the slave?

You say there are difference between cultures. Well who is correct when those cultures meet? When there is a dispute and both sides feel justified (US civil War / WW2 / etc) who is correct? And if the outcomes of these wars would have been different (south wins / Hitler wins) would the rest of the world have said "well i guess it is OK to kill Jews then and slavery must be OK because the south won the war". NO!!!

Well, slavery was practiced throughout human history until very, very recently. The Romans, who were mainly Christians later in their existence, felt no qualms about slavery. They also had the Gladiatorial games, a step away from your aforementioned random killings. The idea of slavery being evil has only been culturally accepted (here in America at least, most other countries were a bit ahead of us) in the last 100-150 years. As you said, a war was fought (partially, I know it's more complicated) over it! So how can it be universally wrong when the Christian world spent the majority of it's life practicing it?

A quick note on the World War II bit, Hitler, not Germany, felt that the Jews should be killed and it was far from being accepted throughout the country.

The implications of no universal moral code are that anything is justifiable. Can anyone here live with that fact?

Yes. If people respect my culture then I'll respect theirs.

Again, you need a proved and good case for stellar evolution before biological evolution can take place.

How so? The idea of evolution (outside of biological evolution) is simply a metaphor (this includes the above idea of "evolving" morality).

So you are saying the universe can into being by metaphor? What does that even mean?

Please explain, scientifically, how the solar systems were formed by explaining all of the issues I previously listed.
I guess I don't understand. Everyone in this thread want to give a scientific explanation for evolution but no one will give an explaintion, scientifically for teh origin or the universe and the planets (and so on), which are required before biological evolution can start.

I had misunderstood what you meant at first, I thought you were implying that the universe was evolving. Sorry about the confusion. That said, the Big Bang theory is only a theory. It is the most widely used theory, but it can't be proven with our limited scope of understanding. All that we have to go on is the snapshot of the universe that is our reality. It's not easy to jump from the result to the beginning, and we haven't yet.

[Carebian Knight]

Now you can deny this all you want, but mathematically this makes as much sense as the idea that water is made up of H2O.

Actually it doesn't,

Now you can deny this all you want, but mathematically this makes as much sense as the idea that water is made up of H2O.

There's a reason I said this. Literally, mathematically it just makes sense. I'd post it, but it would take more than three consecutive posts to say all these equations. Plus you wouldn't understand it.

So you think, you'd be surprised at what I can understand.