Creationism vs Evolutionism

[otseng]

OK, give me reasons why evolutionism or creationism is right or wrong.

[Corvus]

Not really. We have plenty of evidence for transitional fossil forms. They published fairly often in National Geographic. We have fossils of creatures with only slight differences between them. I don't see why God would want to be so redundant, or why he would have created them if he knew they'd die anyway.

On to transitional fossils. Let's take about some of the most famous transitional fossils.

Piltdown man was supposed to be a "missing link". Turned out to be a deliberate hoax.
Nebraska man was another missing link. Turned out it was just a tooth of a pig.
Java man was just a gibbon.

And the other 14 hominid fossils on the chart I posted earlier? Yes, science occasionally gets it wrong, but that's because it questions itself. I notice some creationists still hold it antiquated and disproved beliefs with a tenacity that is surprising.

Also, since the mechanism for evolution is genetic variation and survival of the fittest, we would assume that the fossil record would be full of animals in the process of evolving to be another animal. Reptiles trying to develop feathers. Marine animals trying to be land animals. And on and on. It would seem like there should even be more transitional life forms than regular life forms. But the transitional life in fossils is very sparse, if any.

Sparse, if any? Go to the site I linked to earlier on transitional forms and you'll see they're in abundance.

In the case just mentioned, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor"), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.

Figure 3.1.1. Comparison of the forelimbs of various relatives of modern birds. Forelimbs of (A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur, (B) Archaeopteryx, (C) Sinornis, an archaic bird from the lower Cretaceous, and (D) the wing of a modern chicken (modified from Carroll 1988, p. 340; Carroll 1997, p. 309).
Click on the picture for an article on reptile to bird fossils.

If mud really did cover most of the earth, and thus create a good deal of our fossils (all at different times in different stratas), why don't we have any modern animal fossils? Those are the ones that just didn't happen to fossilise at the time?

[Corvus]

I have several questions for Corvus.

How do you define life or how do you decide whether something is living or not?

How do you define thought or thinking?

Do you accept the statement "I think therefore I exist" as valid?

I'm not entirely sure what these have to do with the topic, but if you wish, I'll answer them.

I define life as an organism that reacts to its environment. So, yes, that includes virii and microbes, as well as plants, trees and mammals.

I define thought as the process of not just reacting to the environment, but interacting with the environment by being aware of it.

Yes, I accept the statement that I think therefore I am. Doubting your own existence is a self-defeating exercise, I find, with the only benefit being that it gives philosophers something to do.

[Paul]

On Wed Feb 11, 2004 Corvus posted a scull collection with the comment below.

Here are a collection of fossilised hominid skulls from the Smithsonian institute. Not the flattening of the brow ridge and the way the jaws become less protrusive

I assume these are supposed to show life forms progressing to something like modern man. I assume none of these life forms are living today. If none of these life forms are living today then my question is why not? I could accept some of them becoming extinct but not all.

I assume evolutionists have some sort of system for deciding which life form is closer to modern man. Perhaps so many points for walking on two feet, so many points if standing up straight and it can’t scratch its’ knees, so many for the skull appearance etc. I also assume these fossils are dated some way and then placed in ascending order by date to produce such a display as the skull collection you posted. Is the progress always toward modern man or is there ever some regression?

[Corvus]

On Wed Feb 11, 2004 Corvus posted a scull collection with the comment below.

Here are a collection of fossilised hominid skulls from the Smithsonian institute. Not the flattening of the brow ridge and the way the jaws become less protrusive

I assume these are supposed to show life forms progressing to something like modern man. I assume none of these life forms are living today. If none of these life forms are living today then my question is why not? I could accept some of them becoming extinct but not all.

First, let me tell you that I'm hardly an authority on the subject. I'm a 19 year old young man with a search engine.

First of all, although man hasn't been around as long as, say, dinsosaurs, I looked in my encyclopedia and saw that the earliest hominid fossils are about 4 million years old. I suppose the reason we don't have another distinctly hominid species on earth is that evolution isn't always so clear cut. If evolution is the act of becoming better adapted to one's environment, then it's only natural those that don't adapt... die, especially when competing with other creatures that may have a competetive advantage. Man's intelligence may have been the most essential trait when surviving in primeval conditions, just as how strength in numbers help the docile herbivorous herd survive, or the ability to fly helps birds survive. Men are pretty big, slow targets, really, when you compare them to other animals.

The second reason is that we didn't split from them, we were them. Over the course of thousands of years of minute alterations and improvements, we change from one species to another, and on and on and on until the gaps get bigger and bigger. You've probably heard that humans and primates all have a common ancestor. That's often mistaken as, "humans were once apes", which isn't entirely correct. In the distant past, we were, perhaps, one and the same creature. But then we split. I assume different group became isolated or took to a different way of surviving. Monkeys took to treetops, apes to jungle floors and humans... who knows what conditions were like then, but I think I illustrated my point. Primates are currently our closest relatives on the evolutionary ladder and it shows.

I did read that at one time homo sapiens lived side by side with neanderthals, and that they might have interbred for strength.

I assume evolutionists have some sort of system for deciding which life form is closer to modern man. Perhaps so many points for walking on two feet, so many points if standing up straight and it can’t scratch its’ knees, so many for the skull appearance etc. I also assume these fossils are dated some way and then placed in ascending order by date to produce such a display as the skull collection you posted. Is the progress always toward modern man or is there ever some regression?

Er, well, sure they can assess the creatures for typically human characteristics and structure. But they also date the things so they have a rough approximation of how old they are.

As for regression... that I'm not entirely sure of. Sure, there's such a thing as devolution, but that simply means a part of creature becoming obsolete over time, usually. Evolution always moves towards becoming more adapted to the environment. It's also possible that our ancestors might have interbred with neanderthals for the purposes of strength. Then again, at least some, if not all, of the species might not have been able to interbreed. There are plenty examples in life now, like the ass and the horse. Intelligence, I think, is something that only becomes better. The smartest reptile is actually only as intelligent as the dumbest mammal.

Very good questions.

[Abs like J']

The biggest thing between Creationism and evolution is that Creationism is simply a belief whereas evolution is actually science. Scientists studying evolution are able to make predictions about evolution, apply tests to verify these predictions and come away with accurate explanations about the world we see around us. Creationism, by its very dependance upon the introduction of supernatural forces, is not subject to testing to either verify or falsify its claims. It is faith, not science.

The theories of evolution may not be complete as to provide us an easy answer to the issue of macro-evolution, but the theories being worked out currently are subject to the scientific method. Their validity can be worked out and determined scientifically rather than dogmatically. Creationism can not make this same claim.

The only difference between Creationism and an admittedly fictitious account of world creation is the Creationist claim of divine authority. Again, this is faith and not science.

Dogmatic belief in religious texts and attacks against valid scientific theories by way of misused or misunderstood science will not bestow any credibility upon the faith that is Creationism.

[otseng]

The biggest thing between Creationism and evolution is that Creationism is simply a belief whereas evolution is actually science.

Again, let's clarify on what we're talking about when we're referring to evolution. We all take that microevolution is a science. But macroevolution is not. It has never been observed. It has never been repeatable. And according to evolutionists, it is not falsifiable. Macroevolution is just a theory, or even a belief as you put it.

Creationism, by its very dependance upon the introduction of supernatural forces, is not subject to testing to either verify or falsify its claims. It is faith, not science.

Just because there is an element of the supernatural doesn't make it false.

The theories of evolution may not be complete as to provide us an easy answer to the issue of macro-evolution, but the theories being worked out currently are subject to the scientific method. Their validity can be worked out and determined scientifically rather than dogmatically.

OK, you made the statement, now prove your case with evidence and arguments.

Dogmatic belief in religious texts and attacks against valid scientific theories by way of misused or misunderstood science will not bestow any credibility upon the faith that is Creationism.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. "Dogmatic belief in religious texts"? In this discussion, any reference to religious texts has been minimal.

What's wrong with attacking theories? How is the attacks based on misused or misunderstood science?

[Abs like J']

Contrary to the case with Creationism, we have data and knowledge to base theories of macro-evolution on and we can perform experiments to work out the feasability of every theory as it comes along. The dependence upon the idea of some "supernatural" existence prevents Creationsm from ever being scientifically applicable because as far as anyone knows, there isn't anything that exists supernaturally.

If we don't have data, that is to say if we don't have any information about this supposedly supernatural world and the forces within it, we can not devise and execute any tests to find out whether hypothesis' with a supernatural element have any validity to them or not.

Reference to religious text in this discussion has been kept at a minimum, you're right, but the reliance upon religious text as an unerrant and infallible account of the world is the essential foundation of Creationism is it not?

What's wrong with attacking scientific theories is that their continued perseverence as theories shows there is as yet nothing shown to be wrong with them. Science pursues a knowledge of the world around us objectively by way of the scientific method and presently the theories of evolution continue to present us with a successful explanation of nature. Attacking theories will not lend credibility to Creationism or any other world view because slinging mud doesn't make any pseudo-science more applicable to the scientific method or any more scientific.

When I mention misused and misunderstood science I refer to the positions I have seen advocated from Creationist websites in which the authors have either misrepresented the laws of thermodynamics by portraying Earth and life on it as a closed system, the misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what a scientific theory is, etc.

The theories of evolution don't simply exist because they're entertaining or fit some preconceived notion of how the world works. They exist because they were thought to be accurate models of how life works on this planet and the objective measures of testing them have supported their hypothesis. They are scientific and seeking to merely brush them aside because they don't fit the patently unscientific dogma originating from faith will not change that.

[otseng]

The dependence upon the idea of some "supernatural" existence prevents Creationsm from ever being scientifically applicable because as far as anyone knows, there isn't anything that exists supernaturally.

Little in my discussions so far has relied on a diety, except for the first cause. But, even in the case of evolutionism, you have the same problem of what caused everything to come into existence.

Reference to religious text in this discussion has been kept at a minimum, you're right, but the reliance upon religious text as an unerrant and infallible account of the world is the essential foundation of Creationism is it not?

If you want to bring up religious texts, we can do that. But so far I haven't.

What's wrong with attacking scientific theories is that their continued perseverence as theories shows there is as yet nothing shown to be wrong with them.

Theories are always open to attack. That's why they are theories.

When I mention misused and misunderstood science I refer to the positions I have seen advocated from Creationist websites in which the authors have either misrepresented the laws of thermodynamics by portraying Earth and life on it as a closed system, the misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what a scientific theory is, etc.

Let's limit the discussion to what is debated here. If there are things said here that you view is incorrect, go ahead and challenge them with counter arguments.

Science pursues a knowledge of the world around us objectively by way of the scientific method and presently the theories of evolution continue to present us with a successful explanation of nature.

Let's move on from rhetoric. Prove to me why macroevolution is a valid theory.

[Paul]

On Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:05 pm Abs like J' posted

The biggest thing between Creationism and evolution is that Creationism is simply a belief whereas evolution is actually science.

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. Where does Creationism violate the definition of science? The difference between the two seems to be in what each takes as axiomatic. It seems Creationism assumes God created life forms that have changed little with time. Evolution assumes life started as a quantum event in the cosmos and the various life forms evolved over time by adapting to an ever-changing environment. Assume that parallel lines do not intersect and you develop Euclidian geometry. If you drop this assumption you may develop some other kind of geometry.

Understand that a theory is an assumption or guess based on limited knowledge or information. Also all theories assume certain things are true and go from there. You either have faith that something is true or simply assume it as true and see what results. Furthermore there are things that can be demonstrated as unknowable. In physics the first example that comes to mind is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principal. Even in mathematics there are things that will never be known. Goedel’s Theorem proves that there exist meaningful mathematical statements that are neither provable nor disprovable, not simply because human thought or knowledge is insufficiently advanced but because the very nature of logic renders them incapable of resolution, no matter how long the human race survives or how wise it becomes. You ultimately accept something by faith even if it is as simple as “I think therefore I exist.”

On Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:05 pm Abs like J' posted

Dogmatic belief in religious texts and attacks against valid scientific theories by way of misused or misunderstood science will not bestow any credibility upon the faith that is Creationism.

There is nothing wrong with attacking a scientific theory. It should be attacked. That is fundamentally the way that science progresses. Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein wore each other out at international physics conferences attacking each other’s theories.

Finally I am not as concerned about how life forms got here as I am about ones that are likely to be created. We are now able to play God both by creating life and tinkering with genetics to create new life forms. For a while the genetic information for small pox was available on the internet and then removed because of the concern that someone would use the information to create small pox in a laboratory or worse create it and modify it into something more deadly and then use it as a biological weapon.

[clue]

Yes, I accept the statement that I think therefore I am. Doubting your own existence is a self-defeating exercise, I find, with the only benefit being that it gives philosophers something to do.

I find that believing in Evolution is a self defeating exercise. Why should I even listen to an Evolutionist's arguments since he himself declares that he is just rearranged pond algae? After all, your nonextinction is based on supposed survival advantage, which doesn't necessarily correlate to intelligence. For example, an animal can be physically strong and wipe out all his competition and not become extinct.

Wouldn't it be more logical to listen to someone who, from the get go, claims that he is an intelligent being? Whether he credits this intelligence to design or some other factor is another matter. But at least he already has a leg up on the Evolutionist.