Creationism vs Evolution... not the usual 2cents.

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

that would be funny were it not for the fact that the 'Science of' books actually deal with real world science theories & understandings using the discworld wizards as an external instrument to explore the science with. Theres nothing psuedo about the actual science bits.

tut tut, ppl will attack anything they dont understand or havent read these days wont they

Actually, I love Terry Pratchett. The Last Continent is one of my favourite novels. As yet I have not read "The Science of Discworld", but I will go out and find it in the near future. I also guarantee that I will understand every word of it.

I just found it amusing that you cite "Professors and Researchers" in one breath and fantasy fiction in another.

However, on a semantics note, you could indeed say that the Bible and The Science of Discworld are both ways of putting a complex idea into a more palatable form. It's just that they were each written for different purposes.

[jedi~tank]

Contrary to mainstream belief, the bible was not written or compiled to establish religion, thats mans doing, the purpose of the bible is Revelation.

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

Creamy Tart, you will find that the Science of books are not written by Pratchett alone, but with two others Ian Stewart (a Professor of maths @ warick uni) & Jack Cohen (a biologist). The books are well researched and break up into alternating chapters of story & then science. the science bits are all relating to erath and are as real as you can get.

EDIT: also the didnt understand bit wasnt an attack on you or anyone else specifically, i was just covering all eventualities

No worries, I wasn't taking it as a personal attack anyway. I have the same sort of principle when I write. I collaborate, but instead of using biology or physics as a base, I use oddities and curiosities in social sciences and semantics as a block to build my stories around (like many, many great authors do).

I, a Social Sciences and English grad, bounce ideas off other students, fellows and even detractors of my chosen fields in order to get a base on which I build my story. You see it a lot in great fiction: fictitious societies that mimic and parody certain types of social organisation (i.e. The land of Eks-eks-eks-eks placing all it's Prime Ministers in prison the moment they are elected). It makes the points no less valid. However, I always remember that such texts are written for enjoyment rather than education.

[fourtwozero]

From here onwards, if someone says "go research the area" they should be banned (myself included). IF you can't post a link to something that supports your theory, or explain it yourself, its not worth you posting, will enrage you and others and that doesn't help.

I am the only one that has posted an external link, and that wasn't even supporting anything besides trying to elude to, in my opinion, what I find a waste of money, and a point of view I have struggled to understand.

This is an increidbly interesting topic and there will never be one clear answer. People will always seek their own truths. I love to understand how other people come to their truths, but in order to do so peoples comments like "Science disproved darwins theory" and "the bible is scientific fact" are comments that really don't help. I do not prescribe 100% to darwins theory, but with a science background admittidly I do look for evidential support, which I have never found anything that debunks Darwin, don't get me wrong though I am completley open to alternative explanations, just please point me to them. So when commenting, if you ever are going to talk about research this, or that, post a link... at least to the book or reference material your formed your view from (Wikipedia links are strictly forboden as anyone should know!).

This is the easiest way to keep it civil. We don't all share the same views and I respect all those and their own views. But for anyone to understand your point of view its not as easy as "This is how it is. so adopt it" help that person understand what led you to your beleifs by at least showing them part of the path that led you there.

[jedi~tank]

I understand and appreciate your point and view. Myself will not post an external link because much of my study has been through interviews, personal experience and reading of many many many books and cross referencing etc etc etc, so me posting external links will not be good enough..I will however challenge anyone to do the following.

Know what you believe and why you believe it.

[~[ Greased Gerbil ]~]

Wikipedia links are strictly forboden as anyone should know

Why?

I am constantly perplexed by people who automatically dismiss Wikipedia as a source of information. Why does a source of information need to be leather-bound and cost $100/volume in order to be valid? Information on Wikipedia is sourced from other reliable sources, which in turn are verifiable (look at the amount of footnotes on some articles. Sometimes the references section is as long as the article). Unverified claims made on Wikipedia are very quickly flagged, and that is the point at which I search for other sources.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that this thread relies heavily on opinion. That is what Wikipedia is. A large gathering of researched opinions. Just because the article wasn't written by an Emeritus Professor, doesn't make the opinion any less valid. I have contributed to Wikipedia on a number of occasions, and i don't agree with the insinuation that my opinion should be dismissed simply by virtue of where I have posted it.

EDIT: I do, however, agree that people posting should summarise their evidence in their post. I shouldn't have to read 10 pages offsite, or watch 45 minutes of YouTube to see someone else's argument. Citing and interpreting your evidence shows that you understand the reason underpinning your point of view.

[Holdfast]

It amazes me that people discuss creationism and evolution on in the same sentence. They should NOT be taught in parallel or treated as equivalents. Now, if you want to discuss how we GOT here then yes you could then speak about them both. Evolution should be be taught in science class and creationism should only be taught in religious studies.

Evolution as a PROCESS is indeed fact - anyone that argues against that has not bothered to learn what it really means. As a molecular biologist (non practicing!) I can tell you that DNA has an inherent measurable and reproducable error rate when replicating. Each time a cell divides there are small errors and everytime you get an error it means there are new potential properties. You can actually observer this happen OVERNIGHT in a test tube. So, even if you dismiss all the other evidence, the idea that we could have evolved from simple molecules that gained the ability to replicate is not that far fetched at all.

Scientists are at least open-minded - willing to raise questions, investigate them and have their findings reviewed by others ( their competition) rather than blindly accept dogma that cannot be questioned.

I am at least open to the possibility that our solar system could just be an atom in the squeeky toy of a massive superior being's pet Let's investigate that!.

[harchester]

It amazes me that people discuss creationism and evolution on in the same sentence. They should NOT be taught in parallel or treated as equivalents. Now, if you want to discuss how we GOT here then yes you could then speak about them both. Evolution should be be taught in science class and creationism should only be taught in religious studies.

Evolution as a PROCESS is indeed fact - anyone that argues against that has not bothered to learn what it really means. As a molecular biologist (non practicing!) I can tell you that DNA has an inherent measurable and reproducable error rate when replicating. Each time a cell divides there are small errors and everytime you get an error it means there are new potential properties. You can actually observer this happen OVERNIGHT in a test tube. So, even if you dismiss all the other evidence, the idea that we could have evolved from simple molecules that gained the ability to replicate is not that far fetched at all.

Scientists are at least open-minded - willing to raise questions, investigate them and have their findings reviewed by others ( their competition) rather than blindly accept dogma that cannot be questioned.

I am at least open to the possibility that our solar system could just be an atom in the squeeky toy of a massive superior being's pet Let's investigate that!.

agreed

[semper]

Interesting series of post's. This topic really took off and it's good. However.. a few points with relevance to conduct here.

Firstly, I noticed in the first few pages a little aggression. Keep it cool chaps.

Secondly is the direction of the topic. Whereby I respect discussing the validity of evolution and creationism as theories and such points weight within this topic don't forget to stay ON topic and keep your minds at least referring back to the original point. Should they still be taught in schools? Are they of equal merit? WHY?

Thirdly is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not accepted as a relevant source by any respected scientific or intelligence journal. We're a bit more light hearted here though.. so please. Feel free to back your points up with source information (even from Wiki!) but be willing and ready to accept that a lot of people will not accept a wikipedia article as anything other than potential background reading and may request a more direct source. So don't get offended or off topic.

Keep it clean. I'll be watching and I'll make another post on topic later!

~Semper

[unseen1]

I create a quiche by lining a pan with puff pastry, filling it with scrambled eggs and bits of meat, then putting it in the oven. The quiche does not exist simply because I conceive it, it is a process. There are stages. Nonetheless, when it is finished, it is my creation.

I referred to "creationism" as a theory not as something you create and you have your creation.Didnt you follow that link I gave to see what intelligent design is all about.

So, imagine Mr Spock explaining warp drive to your equator-calculating Greek... Next, I wouldn't refer to the Jews as a mob of thugs. I think they would have been on an intellectual level consistent with the time.

We far to often like to think that because we have electricity that we think differently from ancient people.In my opinion we wouldn't have any problem explaining anything to anywhere descent civilised people.All it would take is time and patience.
As for mob of thugs...All they did since they left Egypt was slaughter other people around.What would you call them then if not mob of thugs?

both theories have UNDENIABLE flaws, and those who would deny that are simply blinded by their need of an explanation, regardless of which side they claim.

Can you specify what are those UNDENIABLE flaws in evolution theory?
And can you give me at least one FACT in creationism?And by fact I mean some evidence that doesnt require faith.

i tend to be a more logical thinker and prefer facts to blind acceptance of an idea. if somebody walked up to me on the street and told me that i had pink eyes, i would call them retarded and tell them my eyes are blue. however, the chance that i DID have pink eyes that caused me to see things differently still exists and would therefore make ME the retard, understand?

It wouldnt make you an retard but colour blind.We have some knowledge about optical spectrum so you dont have to worry about your eye colours.Science is pretty sure about it.

This is the problem...

Parts of the theory are without a doubt are illogical. Such, as I said the theory that humans spawned from monkeys.....

You are the problem IMHO.

None ever said that we evolved from apes.Did your priest told you that?We probably have same ancestors but we never came out from an ape,some primate maybe never ape.

In addition, as I said before. All theories of evolution. Do not explain how the verse can to be.

Do you understand what word evolution means?

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
But not necessary more complex and better!

Evolution only explains how life EVOLVED not how life STARTED.Remember that.For that question to be fully answered it will take a hole other theory.

Let us also state that it is possible to believe in parts of evolution and in creationism. As many bases do not conflict.
- No theories can disprove God.
- The theories that, the universe was always around... is impossible (law of thermodynamics)

It is not possible to believe in both,In any part of it, because one excludes the other.

There are many theories that disprove your "GOD".Its just a problem that when you disprove it then all of a sudden you lose your consistency and tell bunch of stories and hole bunch of new interpretations for him that voilà you cant prove him.

What theory says that universe was always around?That is not a scientific theory it again some mumbo jumbo stuff.

The theory that life 'suddenly' appeared due to randomisation of stuff... is proven to be... mathematically improbable to impossible... The look at the complexity of flagellum...

Can you please elaborate on this.Who exactly proved what and where?

In a nutshell, the core belief in creationism is: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1)

In a nutshell "GOD" created all living creatures...everything...and nothing changed since then.I wonder if he created bananas also?If he created dozen breeds of cattle,chicken,dogs...list goes on...

Does it matter how many years the earth is? No, it doesn't, the age of the earth is not even relevant, it does not disprove God.

Yes it does matter how old it is because people like you found that number 6000 years in your book.And yes you said it yourself:

Is the bible historically accurate? Yes.

You cant use something to be a fact and something to be a story for interpretation.You see why not one theory can disprove your "GOD".Because you adopt your historically correct book to suit your needs.

Is the bible scientifically accurate when it makes scientific claims? Yes
Does the bible state there is a round earth? Yes

Please name one so I can properly reply to this non sense.Its been a while I have read the book.

the theory of Darwin can be proven wrong ...

Indeed and it took only what,150 years so you could disprove evolution???
If it can be proven wrong,why noone did it by now?!?!

especially since science itself can prove Darwins theory of evolution is absurd yet is kept hush to this very day,

How can science prove that evolution is wrong?Tell me exactly how,dont just go yabba dabba it can do it.HOW?
Do you think that scientist work 24/7 just to cover their faulted theories?Like they are some kind of secret society that wants to keep us in the dark so we accept evolution?

for it is impossible for 1 species to willfully or unwillfully evolve into another.

Can you back up this statement?

Remember, according to the evolution theory it goes way beyond the apes to???? the sun and a stagnant pool of water

It goes only from first green stuff,how green happened are pure speculations.

Contrary to mainstream belief, the bible was not written or compiled to establish religion, thats mans doing, the purpose of the bible is Revelation.

You have any proof of this?Or are you just saying this from top of your head?What Revelation exactly?Be more exact?


Everyone is looking hair in egg when it comes to science(and it should be like that) but when It comes to religion then everything is possible.Sandman talks about thermodynamics which to begin with excludes his God but yet on the other side he says that science is subject of interpretation.How can math be subject of interpretation and faith cant be?How can faith have sense,logic when core essence of faith is illogic,non sence.You need to have a leap of faith...Well I said it many times...next time you fell sick dont go to hospital go to bakery and have a huge leap of faith and ask for aspirins.Or next time you are hungry go to shoes store to buy some bread,just pack up with you huge leap of faith.
Oh so here you consider the evidence that shoes store doesnt have bread to sell but when it comes to more complex things you say they are illogical.

Ask yourself this question:When did you start to believe in God?


Please be more exact what you think isnt right at evolution!Dont just yabba dabba that evolution can easily be proven wrong.It cant be proven wrong,yet alone easily.Many have tried in 150 years and all failed miserably.

And also lets get record straight what Intelligent design is teaching.Its not teaching that God created first life and then all started.It teaches that God created all life and its been like this ever since.No mutations,no evoolution no nothing.
And you find logic in this,you dont find this absurd?!?!?
And every year we have different flu virus?Wonder where it came from?It didnt evolve from erlier virus flu right?Nah someone created him right?

Edit:
And just for the record I like many others here am also open to other hypothesis but with bit more realism then,Volcans came to Earth planted life and voilà here we are.Some evidence,it doesnt matter how small and insignificant it looks like just present one.Dont just say you got there by interwievs,books(we know nothing about) and you just got there...Thats not the answer.Say exactly what you think its wrong with evolution.

[Mister Sandman]

None ever said that we evolved from apes.Did your priest told you that? We probably have same ancestors but we never came out from an ape,some primate maybe never ape.

However, that is a theory under the banner of evolution. Kit fox would disagree with you there.

And I dont have a priest....

Do you understand what word evolution means?

"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
But not necessary more complex and better!

Evolution only explains how life EVOLVED not how life STARTED.Remember that.For that question to be fully answered it will take a hole other theory.

Again people would disagree with your definition. It isnt the word, it is the theory. And people trying to explain how we 'evolved' out of nothing.... People use the theory of evolution to try to prove that God doesnt exist. Even though as you just stated "Evolution only explains how life EVOLVED not how life STARTED" so therefore you just contradicted yourself by saying

It is not possible to believe in both,In any part of it, because one excludes the other.

Where you stated that evolution is a process, not how things started.

As I mentioned before, the theory of evolution is ambiguous and deciding fact from fiction in the theory is a fine line.


There are many theories that disprove your "GOD".Its just a problem that when you disprove it then all of a sudden you lose your consistency and tell bunch of stories and hole bunch of new interpretations for him that voilà you cant prove him.

What theory says that universe was always around?That is not a scientific theory it again some mumbo jumbo stuff.

I would gladly like to see the theories disproving my God. And remember, theories are not fact.

For the flagellum:
http://www.faces.com/videos/watch/SdwTwNPyR9w

In a nutshell "GOD" created all living creatures...everything...and nothing changed since then.I wonder if he created bananas also?If he created dozen breeds of cattle,chicken,dogs...list goes on...

Incredibly wrong.... It is possible to have 'purer genes' have you heard the terms of dominant genes recessive genes and heterozygous genes?

Basically, big X = dominate, little x = recessive
heterozygous = Xx


with logic it is possible to come from a common origin. i.e With understanding of biology it can be safe to say that adam and eve were Xx

im sure it is possible to go on... but currently i cant too busy

Yes it does matter how old it is because people like you found that number 6000 years in your book.And yes you said it yourself:

Surprisingly I haven't heard that figure from most Christians, and no i didnt say the earth was 6000 years old.. and I dont care how old it is... it is irrelevant. God is outside the constraints of time. The only real base is Christians believe God created the heavens and the earth. How long it took does not matter.

Mister Sandman wrote:
Is the bible historically accurate? Yes.

You:
You cant use something to be a fact and something to be a story for interpretation.You see why not one theory can disprove your "GOD".Because you adopt your historically correct book to suit your needs.

Mister Sandman wrote:
Is the bible scientifically accurate when it makes scientific claims? Yes
Does the bible state there is a round earth? Yes

You:
Please name one so I can properly reply to this non sense.Its been a while I have read the book.

Again, theory isnt fact.
If you have differing opinion please show why... i.e back up your response. Because what i am just reading is religious prejudice from someone who has a distorted view on the bible and cant recall many facts.

Should they still be taught in schools? Are they of equal merit? WHY?

As mentioned over and over, it depends on the parts of evolution, and what you exactly mean by evolution. Both should be taught in science, objectively or as best to objectivity as possibly.

why? To give students both views of both beliefs presented. They should not be taught as conflicting ideals, because they arnt really.


You cannot judge things which are completely different. So, i would say they arnt of equal merit. because one is fact and theory at once, thats evolution. And depending on what you believe, creation is either fact, or wrong.

[Legendary Apophis]

A very logical theory to me (oh sorry it's from wikipedia) and it's very close to my own belief of things.
Theistic evolution, or "christian darwinism".
That puts aside the denial of scientist proves, bu also puts aside the denial of existence of God, theory reducing creation of universe to some bigass mathematical formula (atheist scientist belief of universe's creation), which the following quoted one doesn't agree with.

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. In describing early proponents of this viewpoint, it is sometimes described as Christian Darwinism.[1] A very similar view is evolutionary creationism.[2]

#1 ^ Numbers (2006), pp 34-38
#2 ^ a b c Evolution Vs. Creationism, Eugenie Scott, Niles Eldredge, p62-63

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I'm glad that some people can adapt their beliefs to new discoveries and don't discredit themselves into blind denial, nor give up their faith due to attempt of some scientists to prove God doesn't exist.

Consider this..

Billions of years ago the sun shown its radiance on a stagnant pool of water

after a few million years something green began to grow

after a few million years that green stuff began to wiggle

after a few more million years it changed into something we would call a tadpole and began to swin around

after a few more million years it developed extremeties, split in half, one half satyed grew gills a tail and fins while the other half grew lungs arms and legs and got out on dry land..

the half that got out on dry land grew hair, a tail, longer arms, eyes etc etc and climbed into the trees, wrapped its tail around the branches and hung upsidedown scratching its armpits

Scientists say or once said thats humanities great great great grandaddy..

You see how stupid that is..I dont have the faith to believe that nonsense.

especially since science itself can prove Darwins theory of evolution is absurd yet is kept hush to this very day, for it is impossible for 1 species to willfully or unwillfully evolve into another.

Short answer:
Long answer: Life appeared ~530mil years ago, not few million years after earth appeared. More likely 3.5BIL years later (talk about few millions lol). It started to go live on the earth from oceans around 380-350mil years ago or so. (I forgot exact numbers, but about 200mil after life appeared on oceans, I mean, more than bacterias)
Your scale of dates is completly UNaccurate but oh well, it's logical since you try to humour those proven facts, well, you should do it better to make it be credible criticism.
Between end of dinosaurs (mammals already existed by this time, small mamals but still that they survived from the big crash) and appearance of first primitive forms of humans, 59-60mil years. Between first primitive human forms and "modern" forms such as neanderthal and sapiens sapiens, about 4.9mil years.
Having a look at elephants evolution is a good dig example at all the deniers.
[spoiler][/spoiler]

Since you know all...care to explain how is it possible if evolution doesn't exist, that humans from today are about 20cm average higher than some milleniums ago? Oh that's a coincidence, of course
Or that's not true. Meh.

[lone dragon]

Mister SandmanIncredibly wrong.... It is possible to have 'purer genes' have you heard the terms of dominant genes recessive genes and heterozygous genes?

Basically, big X = dominate, little x = recessive
heterozygous = Xx


with logic it is possible to come from a common origin. i.e With understanding of biology it can be safe to say that adam and eve were Xx

im sure it is possible to go on... but currently i cant too busy

Hi Mr Sand man, is the what you think the theory of evolution is?
This " It is possible to have 'purer genes" was not an evolutionary belief it was re framed due to English politics of the time.
From what I have studied the original context of evolution was the dominate phenotype or physical expression would adapt to the required environment if the pheotype could not adjust or adapt to the environment it would not survive. "The strong survive and thrive, while the weak die". As for pure genes are irrelevant and non existant.

In addition the latest I have read states the also the environment can affect the species' genes as well..

I would believe this strengthens your argument of creation's design..

[spoiler]Wallace's "powerful essay," e4 "On the Law which has regulated
the Introduction of New Species," was published in September
1855, but to his disappointment it attracted little notice
at the time. ~5 He had written it in the preceding February
during a lull in his collecting activities, induced by the publication
of Edward Forbes's theory of polarity, and he had
hoped at the least for some comment from this brilliant young
naturalist; unknown to Wallace, however, Forbes had died in
November 1854. Except for Bates's, other response was minireal,
if not disparaging.
Wallace phrased his '~law" as follows: Every species has
come into existence coincident both in space and time with a
pre-existing closely allied species. 26 Although the evolutionary Wallace's "powerful essay," e4 "On the Law which has regulated
the Introduction of New Species," was published in September
1855, but to his disappointment it attracted little notice
at the time. ~5 He had written it in the preceding February
during a lull in his collecting activities, induced by the publication
of Edward Forbes's theory of polarity, and he had
hoped at the least for some comment from this brilliant young
naturalist; unknown to Wallace, however, Forbes had died in
November 1854. Except for Bates's, other response was minireal,
if not disparaging.
Wallace phrased his '~law" as follows: Every species has
come into existence coincident both in space and time with a
pre-existing closely allied species. 26 Although the evolutionary[/spoiler]
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n1g ... lltext.pdf

While I do not agree with creationist theory, faith requires no evidence and science does, I see no way to argue definitively..

Mister Sandman wrote:
Is the bible historically accurate? Yes.

You:
You cant use something to be a fact and something to be a story for interpretation.You see why not one theory can disprove your "GOD".Because you adopt your historically correct book to suit your needs.

Mister Sandman wrote:
Is the bible scientifically accurate when it makes scientific claims? Yes
Does the bible state there is a round earth? Yes

You:
Please name one so I can properly reply to this non sense.Its been a while I have read the book.

I have a hard time with circular arguments, could you state the prof of this without quoting the bible?
..thanks..

[[BoT] Jason]

to nie ma sensu