Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[bernee51]

Evolution requires a continual process of INCREASING information, not decreasing information as we observe continually.

increasing yes, but do you assume constantly increasing? Have you considered the possibility of preodic large increases.

Comparison the DNA of humans to that great ape has found a mere 0.4% difference. The major biological difference beteeen us and them is that we have developed a triune brain, our complex neocortex seem to be the defining differeence. This seem to would indicate that when we and they evolved from a common ancestor there was a 'jump' in our DNA compared to their's (or their's jumped in a slightly different direction). What caused this jump is speculation - but it doesn't necessitate a god.

That is one challenge I have with the theory...

challenge is good, It leads to change. Maximum evolution occurs at the border of support and challenge.

[nikolayevich]

I agree, challenge is good. Debate is imperative for positive change.

Periodic large changes... yes, certain denominations of evolutionists believe this is what happens, but it is the resulting answer to a question:
Why do we not see large-scale evolution all around us, continually? We believe evolution is true, therefore, it must have happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. So goes the argument.

Why does a 0.4% difference in genetic makeup mean one thing evolved from the other? If I genetically engineered 2 proteins, with a 0.4% difference, each doing slightly different things, when you came accross them in a lab, would you look at them and say, they are very close and must have evolved from a similar primitive? By this argument you would do that... but you'd be wrong. They were designed. The problem is, we both have the same evidence but interpret it differently.

[bernee51]

certain denominations of evolutionists ...

{chuckle} - never heard them described as a denomination before but I suppose it is technically accurate by some definitions of the word.

Do you view evolution as a religion?

Why do we not see large-scale evolution all around us, continually?

I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps the challenge which brings about the change has not occurred in our brief (post Enlightenment) recorded history on this planet

The problem is, we both have the same evidence but interpret it differently.

Yes it is all in the interpretation of data.

So how do you account for the close relationship of ours to primate DNA.?

[nikolayevich]

certain denominations of evolutionists ...

{chuckle} - never heard them described as a denomination before but I suppose it is technically accurate by some definitions of the word.
Do you view evolution as a religion?

I would say at the least that it is a worldview with as large an impact on people's value systems as any major religious system. Many of its followers are also "religious" in their loyalty to the tenets of the theory, and zealously work to "convert" theists to a faith in the evolutionary system.

Why I mention denominations of evolutionists, is because there are an increasing number of competing evolutionary ideas. For instance, Richard Dawkins is a proponent of "complexity theory", whereas, Darwin was a proponent of "gradualism", Eugenie Scott "reductionism". Other new theories arise now and again... punctuated equilibrium, etc.. The problem is some of the evolutionary concepts are incompatible with each other. This doesn't mean that evolution is false, but it does mean there is debate over it, and in ways where at the very least, it confirms for us that the "how" of evolution hasn't been settled. Debate as we've agreed is healthy. My only beef is that I was lead to believe in school that there was much more certainty about evolution. With enough searching, one learns that large and important pieces of evolution remain debatable - not by just by design theorists but by evolutionists themselves.

So how do you account for the close relationship of ours to primate DNA.?

The same way I would account for the close relationship of programmatic code in various software applications. If a program is written in a given language, say PHP (as is this forum), the alphabet and fundamental variability are defined by the language. Any software made with the language, no matter how different in functionality will appear very similar in relationship. Software languages are always designed, either by humans, or by machines (in special experiments) which were themselves designed by humans.

In addition, if programmer A and programmer B both set out to create different pieces of software, experts will quite easily trace their origins back to their respective designers, because designers have unique traits. Similarity in design actually points to the unique and attributable nature of the Designer.

Bill Gates once said, "Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."

[bernee51]

So how do you account for the close relationship of ours to primate DNA.?

The same way I would account for the close relationship of programmatic code in various software applications. ...Software languages are always designed, either by humans, or by machines (in special experiments) which were themselves designed by humans.

Friend the scenario you describe is a straw man fallacy (as was you reference in an earlier post to lab genetics) You then compound your original fallacy with another, an appeal to authority (the Bill Gates quote).

DNA is not designed (unless by its own inate intelligence) Human DNA did not just 'appear' as a complete. Evolution comes about by one level transcending and including the previous. Note the word 'including'.

Take the human brain...from neural cord, through reptilian brain stem, limbic system, neocortex to complex neocortex. All these elements are present in the human brain. Each is complete in and of itself, but are also part of the whole. Each 'higher' level has transcended and included the level below.

Evolutionary change is value free, neither good nor bad, the change occurs. Natural selection decides if the change is fit to endure.

The same evolutionary process (transedence and inclusion) occurs in the development of conciousness and, I believe, in the development of spirituality.

regards

Bernie

[nikolayevich]

Friend the scenario you describe is a straw man fallacy (as was you reference in an earlier post to lab genetics) You then compound your original fallacy with another, an appeal to authority (the Bill Gates quote).

I in no way attacked a straw man, but rather offered an alternative interpretation of the same evidence- from my position, not yours. I didn't rebuke the evolutionist view, but rather put forth my own view. In other words I did not distort your perspective or oversimplify it. You can attempt to poke holes in my analogy but a straw man is not present. Nor do I like to tear down arguments evolutionists themselves don't use, i.e. straw man arguments.

As for an appeal to authority, it wasn't my intention to suggest you take Gates' statement as a matter of science, as I felt it was more a matter of curiosity. However, now that you raise the point, it is not always illogical or imprudent to appeal to authority if that authority has expertise relative to the situation. Neither is it absent from much scientific literature. No scientist is capable of learning all that is possible about every field of investigation, and so, it is sometimes necessary to reference people we believe to be qualified in a given area. Especially, if the authority is known to the reader and accepted as an expert in their field. In the case of Bill Gates, I wouldn't consider him a geneticist or biologist, but a world renowned programmer he is. Therefore in fact, his statement is not made out of ignorance, as he knows code better perhaps than many biologists or geneticists.

So how do you account for the close relationship of ours to primate DNA.?

...And my response was simply to suggest a different way of looking at it. How that becomes a straw man fallacy escapes me.

DNA is not designed (unless by its own inate intelligence) Human DNA did not just 'appear' as a complete. Evolution comes about by one level transcending and including the previous. Note the word 'including'.

Take the human brain...from neural cord, through reptilian brain stem, limbic system, neocortex to complex neocortex. All these elements are present in the human brain. Each is complete in and of itself, but are also part of the whole. Each 'higher' level has transcended and included the level below.

Your response to my position is simply to disagree, but you haven't said why. You simply restate your position, bolstering it with "just so" statements as the above.

Evolutionary change is value free, neither good nor bad, the change occurs. Natural selection decides if the change is fit to endure.

I agree that evolutionary change would be neither good nor bad, and think that meaning is replaced by existence rather than a part of it in the Darwinian scenario. "Natural selection decides...." Seems very intellectual to me... This is something that is quite noticeable when listening to evolutionist discussion. There are always words like, "decide", "choose", "selection", even "designed". These are all words evolutionists use regularly to describe nature. To their credit I imagine it's for lack of better words to suit the evolution paradigm, but my estimation is that it's very difficult to avoid using terms like these when discussing the mechanics of nature, because they have qualities of non-biological things on earth which ARE designed.

The same evolutionary process (transedence and inclusion) occurs in the development of conciousness and, I believe, in the development of spirituality.

May I ask how you define spirituality?

[bernee51]

{Gates is }... but a world renowned programmer he is..

a world renowned business man who hired well I would agree with, I have oproblems with him being defined as a "world renowned programmer"

May I ask how you define spirituality?

you certainly may...and when I get around to figuring it out I will surelt respond.

[Lotan]

Hmm, creationism or evolution eh? That's a tough one.

Faced with the choice between the internally inconsistent, oral traditions of bronze age nomads as redacted by religiously inspired, politically motivated refugees and the product of millions of hours of research by thousands of the best minds of modern science, I'll take evolution until someone comes along with something better. Or was the question about Hindu creationism? Or Navaho...?

[nikolayevich]

May I ask how you define spirituality?

you certainly may...and when I get around to figuring it out I will surelt respond.

Fair enough.

As for programmer or businessman Bill Gates, I think you're right about his best ideas (at least in the past) coming from other people. DOS is a good example. That said, however, a businessman alone would have difficulty fulfilling the role of chief software architect as he now does. His bio speaks of his early start with programming at 13 and more advanced work at MIT. Of course, those skills combined with the history of MS have given him a reputation where programmers worldwide listen to what he says.

As a side note, I think there is better software to be found outside of the Microsoft universe, but that's a different forum.

[bernee51]

As a side note, I think there is better software to be found outside of the Microsoft universe, but that's a different forum.

I use Firefox as a browser and T'Bird for email. History shows that nature despises a monoploly

Over the next day or so I will start a thread on spirituality.

Re. my straw man comments...I agree with you that your scenarios did not meet the general requirements to be considered as such. That said, I still believe that the analogies were not equivalent to the position is was (perhaps badly explianed) taking

cheers