Why should we have to present non-scientific arguments for a scientific theory? If you want to make scientific statements, you need scientific evidence. Nothing else is relevant. If you want to claim that you don’t accept evolution, fine. That’s part of your faith and there’s nothing we can do about it. But if you want to say that evolution isn’t the best theory that fits available data (which seems to be what you’re saying), you need to back that up scientifically. Philosophy has no bearing here; remember that Aristotle’s philosophy led him to believe that women have fewer teeth than men.
I did it last time, by golly. Can’t we just link to the old Lib thread?
manhattan, I would dearly love to see a thread on this topic, and I’m sure more than one exists. Which thread is the best one? Some friends of mine were talking to me about this very topic recently, and the exact argument that morality can’t exist without God was attempted to be made.
It never fails to amaze me how creationists can, in one breath say, “God created everything from nothing!”, as well as, “Scientists can’t prove how the Big Bang created everything from nothing, therefore evolution is wrong!”
Sorry pal, but if you wish to make statements like that, we have every right to call you on it. You claim scientists can’t back up their claims. Yet you can do no better. So, we can do one of two things here:
- Go back and forth with, “I’m not going to show you any evidence because you can’t show me any evidence…nyah nyah nyah!”
or
- We can all acknowledge that the beginnings of the universe, whether from a creationist or scientifc standpoint, are poorly understood (let me preempt you by stating that “God did it!” is not understanding) at this time, and move on to the topic at hand - evolution.
Believe it or not, we’ve all heard your party line before. Until and unless you can provide evidence one way or another about the supposed flaws in evolutionary theory, ones that don’t involve abiogenesis, no one is going to take you the least bit seriously.
If you wish to discuss, great, that’s why we’re all here. If you want to snipe, while both dismissing any evidence provided which contradicts you arguments, and failing to provide any evidence of your own in support of them, then perhaps another forum may be better suited to your cause.
I wonder if we can get back to the point here; I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue that whether biological evolution of species (let’s choose Darwin’s finches as an example) has happened is dependent on where the matter from which the finches bodies consist came from. I really don’t see how much difference it makes where atoms came from when we’re discussing what those atoms are doing now.
RS, I’m sorry if you see this as me arbitrarily disqualifying what you feel to be relevant evidence, but in order to debate a subject properly, I feel we need to define it narrowly, otherwise we can fly off at all sorts of unproductive tangents.
Now, what I’m looking for is evidence that biological evolution has not taken place, scientific evidence, relating to living organisms that better fits the creation view than the evolution view.
RS, would you be willing for all of us to assume, for the sake of argument, that God created the universe and the last common ancestor of all extant species, and then, working from that assumption, debate whether evolution subsequently took place?
-Ben
OK.
The origins of the universe are still pretty obscure. Specifically, we don’t know for certain whether there were any “materials” included in the initial inflation. But. But in the first few moments following the creation the universe had very high energy. In such conditions, from nothingness can spontaneously generate matched sets of particles (check out “Hawking Radiation” for a start).
OK. So we’ve got very high energy. We’ve got particles and anti-particles bursting out all over the place (literally!). Some of these particles and anti-particles fail to annihilate each other as they normally do. All of a sudden, you’ve got a net number of particles, and the universe is no longer perfectly symmetrical in terms of the distribution of matter and energy. Some of these particles get attracted to each other and form larger particles.
Ba-da-bang (heh), ba-da-bing, “material.”
Science is a methodology, nothing more, nothing less. Begin with observations. We observe definite patterns in nature: some organism look very much alike, yet look very different from others. We see variation in form everywhere in nature. We have been able to mold this variation to our own designs via selective breeding. We observe that the offspring of an organism tend to vary with respect to some traits, relative to their parents. Those sorts of things.
Next, we come up with a possible explanation: For example, just as we are able to select certain traits which appeal to us in our domestic breeds, so, too, perhaps, does nature act in a similar manner “in then wild.” Except, rather than selecting for appeal or usefullness to us, nature probably selects based upon survivability or usefullness to the organism in question.
Then, we test this explanation. Does this “natural selection” explain the diversity, and the patterns therein, which we see around us? We do notice that similar forms have similar lifestyles. So, perhaps the form in which we find organisms are directly associated with their lifestyles.
Example:
Fish are streamlined. Dolphins are streamlined. Birds are streamlined. Elephants are not. Fish move quickly through a dense medium. Dolphins move quickly through a dense medium. Birds move quickly through a not-so-dense medium. Elephants don’t move terribly quickly at all (under normal circumstances). Perhaps then, the trait of “streamlining” occurs wherever we see animals moving quickly. Hmmm… what of the cheetah? It moves quickly. It is lean. It lacks the large canine teeth common to other cats. It is streamlined to a great extent. Perhaps we are on to something…
What of flightless birds? Birds are streamlined, right? Flightless birds do not move as quickly as the flying varieties. We notice they are not so streamlined, as well. Perhaps, if we accept this notion of “natural selection”, since the birds had lost the ability to fly, they no longer needed the associated streamlining. That is, streamlining was no longer “selected for,” since it no longer proved advantageous to possess this trait.
(The above are, of course, very simplified examples, and are not meant to cover the breadth and depth of evolutionary thought.)
If we find that, after extensive testing of the hypothesis (e.g., nature selects for traits which are advantageous to the organism in some manner), the observations do not contradict it, then we can say that the hypothesis has achieved the status of “theory.” However, it is not set in stone at any point. A theory is simply a very widely-corraborated hypothesis. We have yet to witness in nature a contradiction to the theory of natural selection. If we were to find one, you can bet that scientists would take notice. Just as there was no great conspiracy in the writing of the Bible, there is no great conspiracy among those who study evolution.
Now, to get back to the OP, if you, Royal Sampler, have such evidence which contradicts “evolution,” by all means share it, since I’m sure we’d all be very keen to hear it.
I, of course, meant “in the wild” up there…
Heh. More than one indeed. The Libertarian one is generally regarded as the best, on account of Gaudere being so patient, but I can’t find it in the archives right now. Throw “atheist morality” into the search box and you’ll get plenty. Here’s one picked at random: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=24291
Is this the main problem creationists have with the concept of evolution? That it seems to take away the meaning of human life and/or removes a standard basis for morality?
I’m just trying to figure out what is it that boils their blood to such a degree. If there’s a creationist out there who isn’t already pissed as hell and feels like doing some honest introspection and subsequent sharing, I’d be appreciative.
From my own experiences, I have my own thoughts on this, but it never hurts to get another opinion.
The Bible’s accounts of creation are not even internally consistent.
This:
Seems to contradict this (when asked if he rejects everything related to science):
Also, your first statement is like saying “Present arguments to me as to where the source of the Nile River is that involve something other than geography.” The structure and history of the natural world are what science tries to explore.
If Asiatic lions and African lions evolve from a common ancestor, is that microevolution or macroevolution? If lions and tigers evolve from a common ancestor, is that microevolution or macroevolution? If lions and housecats evolve from a common ancestor, is that microevolution or macroevolution? If humans and chimpanzees evolve from a common ancestor, is that microevolution or macroevolution?
One step is not a journey. But the longest journey…
As to your piece de resistance argument:
If your argument is against B, argue against B. Doing so would make you a theistic evolutionist, not a creationist. Everyone agrees that the Universe is here, so, for the questions of biology, we can take the existence of the Universe as a given. The question is, given the Universe, where do the forms of life we see around us–bacteria, flowers, insects, people–come from?
Your argument is like telling a farmer his irrigation canal won’t work because you disagree with him where the source of the Nile is.
Better him than Royal Sampler.
Thanks for your help, and for the link. I appreciate the assist.
Now I’m off to throw some threads at someone.
Yes. that is one of the reasons. Second, it does what has been done to do with Black people all this time: equating man with animals. Seeing that this notion has not served black people at all, it certainly serves little good for the rest of humanity.
Black people are animals. So are white people. However, modern evolutionary biologists are pretty vociferous that the biological differences between various groups of people are superficial and trivial. And they say that not because it’s “Politically Correct” to do so, but because that’s what the evidence actually indicates. Meanwhile, some people who claim to believe in and base their ideas on morality and the meaning of life on the Bible as God’s Word say that white people are God’s Chosen Race, and black people are “mud people” and not really people at all. Should we burn the Bible because of how those people misuse it?
Incidentally, the concept of “race” in Western thought goes back to at least the 18th Century. The African slave trade and importation of slaves to the New World goes back at least to the 1500’s. Slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865. The Origin of Species was published in 1859.
OK, let me restate my questions again, I’ll try to be as clear as possible:
-
What is the most compelling and incontrovertible piece of solid evidence to support the creation stance in the sense of creation of living organisms here on earth as opposed to biological evolution? (and I mean a single piece of evidence, not ‘the universe, it’s clearly designed’ or some such.
-
What is the shakiest element of the theory (as we understand it today) of biological evolution. (or perhaps the piece of currently accepted evidence which has been most significantly misinterpreted)?
Outside of these stated parameters, you may make as many assertions and assumptions as you like, for example, you may assume that the moon is made of cheese if you like (not that I’m suggesting this is a creationist doctrine), but your argument must not be based on these assertions/assumptions unless:
[li]You can demonstrate a clear chain of logic from them to the topic being discussed.[/li]and
[li]You can provide evidence or compelling argument for each and every step along the way between your assertions and your conclusions.[/li]
You may not sidetrack the discussion off into unproductive or unrelated tangents, you must address any counter-questions posed by the other camp before moving on to another piece of argument (this applies to both sides of the discussion)
We’re talking about biological evolution of one type of life-form into another in this thread; why have giraffes got long necks?, do humans and apes share a common ancestor? etc, not the ultimate origin of life on earth, not the origin of the universe/planet, just the simple question is it possible for one type of lifeform to adapt by natural selection of advantageous random mutations.
You are welcome to abstain from posting if you cannot debate within these parameters, although if you feel these parameters are unfair, please say so, but be prepared to explain why.
Thank you in advance for your contributions.
oh, and analogies are permitted, but they will serve as illustration of a point, not proof.
**
Hmm, wonder why?
**
There was? Where did this energy come from?
Once again you stepped straight over my underlying arguement that all of this “stuff” had to come from somewhere and began arguing about what happenned once it appeared. Why is it that scientists are completely clueless as to where the materials of the universe came from? Isn’t it funny that they rule out that a creator put it here, and continue to pound their brains for an explanation of the impossible.
**
“high energy levels” are hardly nothingness, manhattan.
All of sudden you’ve got this, all of a sudden you’ve got that, more hazy descriptions, and ba-da-bing, material appears? I apologise if I don’t sound too convinced, manhattan.
I have read each and every one of the replies that were made to my posts, and I apprecitate the time and thought that were put in to them, but I really don’t have the energy or desire to sit and respond to more and more posts every time I submit rebuttals. I’m the only creationist in here at the moment and it just isn’t feasible for me to keep this up. I have responded to the OP, if you don’t think my points were valid, then OK. I accept that. But responding in detail to every post that attacks my arguements is just far too time consuming. No, I am not running from the arguement, I am just tired of it, and if you were in my position you would realise that it is not easy being a lone soldier against a heavy infantry.
Thank you, and God bless.