# Two questions for creationists... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 12, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944 "2001-08-12T21:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/21 "2001-08-13T23:18:50Z")
**cap** , what do you mean by “boundless randomness?” Are you trying to say that if there is order there must be God? ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/22 "2001-08-14T00:57:15Z")
What I’m saying is that creativity, is, in essence, randomness bounded in a series of rules and laws. Can randomness by its nature bind itself by itself? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/23 "2001-08-14T01:10:38Z")
Good thing Natural Selection is a non-random process, then. ---
**Author:** ![Evno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c68b51/32.png) [@Evno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evno)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/24 "2001-08-14T01:36:12Z")
**capacitor** , have you ever read the book “Jurassic Park”? There’s a great few pages where the mathematician, Ian Malcolm, explains the nature of randomness, and how, as it becomes more and more complicated, branches off into unique fields and organizes itself. If it’s hard to accept that, just know that it can all start with the attraction of certain atoms to certain other atoms, molecules to molecules, types to types, for reasons of weight, temperature, size, and so many other things. **That’s** what I mean by unintelligent organization. “Lost World” is also good to read for these theories, which do make alot of sense. As for the eternal randomness, it’s not quite that eternal. It stopped being eternal the moment our most basic ancestor flourished. Then it became chemical, and with time, many many things. Maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/25 "2001-08-14T08:14:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*What I’m saying is that creativity, is, in essence, randomness bounded in a series of rules and laws. Can randomness by its nature bind itself by itself? \*\* **Randomness:** A big jumble of elements, energies and forces. **A series of rules and laws:** Physics. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/26 "2001-08-14T18:45:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Evno \* > \*\ ***capacitor** , have you ever read the book “Jurassic Park”? > > (snip) > > “Lost World” is also good to read for these theories, which do make a lot of sense.\*\* If you’re going to cite a book, it would be better to cite a _textbook_, not a science-fiction novel. This is like citing _Star Wars_ to support theories on intelligent life on other planets! From what I understand, Michael Crichton doesn’t understand chaos theory nearly as well as he thinks he does. Chaos theory merely states that leaving out even ONE factor in an equation would make the predicted outcome different from the actual one, but not catastrophically so. IOW, a weather forecast that calls for a high of 80 degrees and light rain and you get 78 degrees and moderate rain instead. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/27 "2001-08-14T19:04:45Z")
And he simplified the Butterfly Effect and its implications almost to the point of misrepresentation. ---
**Author:** ![ninja\_rydr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8491ac/32.png) [@ninja\_rydr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninja_rydr)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/28 "2001-08-14T19:37:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > **1) What is the most compelling and incontrovertible piece of solid evidence to support the creation stance? (and I mean a single piece of evidence, not ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’ or some such.** I don’t beleive there is an answer you (or me) would find acceptable, the “proof” to the creationist is in their faith and that isn’t for anyone else to justify. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/29 "2001-08-14T23:23:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > From what I understand, Michael Crichton doesn’t understand chaos theory nearly as well as he thinks he does. Chaos theory merely states that leaving out even ONE factor in an equation would make the predicted outcome different from the actual one, but not catastrophically so. IOW, a weather forecast that calls for a high of 80 degrees and light rain and you get 78 degrees and moderate rain instead. \*\* Actually chaos theory says that complex and unpredictable results will occur in systems that are sensitive to small changes in their initial conditions. That result could very eaily be catastrophic. For example, a few inches difference in the location of a raft in a river could result in being pulled into a whirlpool and dashed on the rocks rather than being carried safely down stream. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2001, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/30 "2001-08-14T23:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ninja\_rydr \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > > **1) What is the most compelling and incontrovertible piece of solid evidence to support the creation stance? (and I mean a single piece of evidence, not ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’ or some such.** > > I don’t beleive there is an answer you (or me) would find acceptable, the “proof” to the creationist is in their faith and that isn’t for anyone else to justify. \*\* However, if that is the source of their proof, then it’s not a scientific claim, and should not be treated as such. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/31 "2001-08-15T01:07:20Z")
And I contend that the ‘eternal’ randomness stopped well before the creation, or rather, development, of man. The Earth has to be set up and aligned in its with rotation around a star that in itself is rotating around the Milky Way. Then this planet has to be somehow relatively stabilized on the surface, while it has hot molten magma in its core that always want to bubble or burst up into the sky. Then it has to be stabilized enough to support the conversion of a set of amino acids into DNA in some primordial ooze. These steps alone I am not too willing to leave it up to pure chance. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/32 "2001-08-15T01:12:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*And I contend that the ‘eternal’ randomness stopped well before the creation, or rather, development, of man. The Earth has to be set up and aligned in its with rotation around a star that in itself is rotating around the Milky Way. Then this planet has to be somehow relatively stabilized on the surface, while it has hot molten magma in its core that always want to bubble or burst up into the sky. Then it has to be stabilized enough to support the conversion of a set of amino acids into DNA in some primordial ooze. These steps alone I am not too willing to leave it up to pure chance. \*\* [hijack]I say it is. Remember, random fluctuations at the quantum level lead to every law of classical physics out there.[/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/33 "2001-08-15T01:24:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > \*\*And I contend that the ‘eternal’ randomness stopped well before the creation, or rather, development, of man…These steps alone I am not too willing to leave it up to pure chance. \*\* Do you know how many planets there are in the universe? I don’t either, but it runs into lots of digits, and covers a lot of possible combinations of conditions. The fact that we even exist, much less have the ability to wonder why, shows we were one of the lottery winners. Somebody was almost certain to, given the number of opportunities. The person who wins Powerball has just as much right to claim that the hand of Divine Providence picked the numbers as we do to claim that Earth was specially chosen - and yet somebody was probably going to win eventually. Let’s keep our humility and not claim that we’re Special just because we’re here. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/34 "2001-08-15T15:18:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > **…Then this planet has to be somehow relatively stabilized on the surface, while it has hot molten magma in its core that always want to bubble or burst up into the sky…** The earth’s crust is just like the skin that forms on custard, why does that need a supernatural explanation for it’s behaviour and existence? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/35 "2001-08-15T15:25:43Z")
I’m going to reiterate the question just once before I give up: > [@](#): > > 1. **What is the most compelling and incontrovertible piece of solid evidence to support the creation stance?** (and I mean a single piece of evidence, not ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’ or some such. > > 2. What is the **shakiest element of the theory of evolution.** (or perhaps the piece of evidence which has been most significantly misinterpreted)? Because nobody’s done justice to these questions yet, what I want is for a creationist to debunk evolution based on evidence, not reasoning (show me a fossil human in strata where the evolution camp say only dinosaurs should be found, or show me something which cannot be accounted for by the theory of evolution) ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/36 "2001-08-15T16:05:39Z")
capacitor wrote: > [@](#): > > Then [the Earth] has to be stabilized enough to support the conversion of a set of amino acids into DNA in some primordial ooze. Buddy, if you can show me **one** scientist who says that amino acids were converted into DNA, I’ll eat my hat. The two molecules are nothing like one another, and no molecular biologist claims they are. ---
**Author:** ![ninja\_rydr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8491ac/32.png) [@ninja\_rydr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninja_rydr)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/37 "2001-08-15T17:17:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ultrafilter \* > I don’t beleive there is an answer you (or me) would find acceptable, the “proof” to the creationist is in their faith and that isn’t for anyone else to justify. \*\* However, if that is the source of their proof, then it’s not a scientific claim, and should not be treated as such. \*\* [/QUOTE] You won’t get an argument from me on this point. So as long as creationist dismiss evolution out of hand, creationists vs. evolutionists may have to agree to disagree. I’ve had discussions with a co-worker about this and his only rebuttal to the fossil record, evolution etc. etc. is “scientists are wrong” and anything that didn’t fit into his belief system was just plain wrong. If you can change his mind good luck, I wasn’t able to. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/38 "2001-08-15T22:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BlackKnight \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by capacitor \* > > \*\*How about scientists who declare that an arrow **must** be made by a man. If scientists does not allow a simple design to be created totally by chance, then why should I think that man was created purely by chance? \*\* > > Huh? \*\* That is exactly what I was thinking, and then I read your post. Erek ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/39 "2001-08-15T23:14:54Z")
jab1: Were you talkin to me? What I menat was, snowflakes look intricately created but they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944/40 "2001-08-15T23:26:12Z")
Oh, okay. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/two-questions-for-creationists/75944.md?page=3)