PDA

View Full Version : Creationist or Evolutionist?



dvb
2003-Dec-21, 11:54 PM
I'm just a little curious as to what type of astronomers we have on this board. I'm not looking to start a religious debate or anything as I know that's against the forum guildlines. I'm just curious about the statistics.

I'm an evolutionist at heart. :)

frenat
2003-Dec-22, 12:22 AM
I had to choose neither as I believe in a combo of both. I believe in God but I don't think he created the universe out of nothing, it took 15 billion years give or take. Evolution was just another tool.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-22, 12:34 AM
I had to choose neither as I believe in a combo of both. I believe in God but I don't think he created the universe out of nothing, it took 15 billion years give or take. Evolution was just another tool.

Bravo! =D>

I also think God never stopped His work. For me, evolution is a law created by God and is valid everywhere in nature as well as gravity, action/reaction, termodynamics, et cetera.

Cougar
2003-Dec-22, 12:35 AM
Scientifically speaking, there's really no contest. It seems plenty of people still need clarification, (http://www.talkorigins.org/) though.

dvb
2003-Dec-22, 12:42 AM
I had to choose neither as I believe in a combo of both. I believe in God but I don't think he created the universe out of nothing, it took 15 billion years give or take. Evolution was just another tool.




Bravo! =D>

I also think God never stopped His work. For me, evolution is a law created by God and is valid everywhere in nature as well as gravity, action/reaction, termodynamics, et cetera.

Wow, interesting way to look at things both of you. A perspective I haven't considered. :)

nebularain
2003-Dec-22, 01:18 AM
I'm with frenat and pteranodon. God is the Author and Creator of all things. Evolution is part of the process of creating. I also believe that the Bible is not a scinetific account, more allegorical or poetic or something like that, written for the understanding of the people of the time.

Kizarvexis
2003-Dec-22, 02:09 AM
I'm with frenat and pteranodon. God is the Author and Creator of all things. Evolution is part of the process of creating. I also believe that the Bible is not a scinetific account, more allegorical or poetic or something like that, written for the understanding of the people of the time.

I agree with you. IMO, the Bible informs on how you should live, it does not give a literal history of the world.

Kizarvexis

Alex W.
2003-Dec-22, 03:18 AM
I feel the same way- that the existence or absence of God is totally irrelevant in comparison to the guidance on how we should lead our lives.

Tensor
2003-Dec-22, 03:59 AM
Evolution here.

freddo
2003-Dec-22, 04:10 AM
Moi too.

digitalspector
2003-Dec-22, 05:57 AM
I didn't see "alittle bit of both" as an option. So I un-willingly went with neither. Which is both my truth, and a lie in the same.

I love to believe that a uni. energy is behind it all.....ultimately. I am not saying that the energy is sentient or anything, just a basis.

From that, evolution took over. Thats well, if you want to see it, its visible.

From the paleological viewpoint, and watching the evolution of the fossil record, evolution can not just be a "farse".

semi-sentient
2003-Dec-22, 06:11 AM
Evolution.

Archer17
2003-Dec-22, 06:34 AM
ditto

captain swoop
2003-Dec-22, 11:09 AM
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time, that this happens is a fact.

What has this got to do with astronomy?

dvb
2003-Dec-22, 11:19 AM
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time, that this happens is a fact.

What has this got to do with astronomy?

Absolutely nothing. That's why it's posted in "The BABB Community" forum. :wink:

Thank you everyone for your opinions. Keep em coming. :)

bbtuna
2003-Dec-22, 02:40 PM
Like a few others, I had to pick neither because I think there is merit to both ideas. We are complicated organisms so I find it hard to believe that we are here by luck.

captain swoop
2003-Dec-22, 03:04 PM
Like a few others, I had to pick neither because I think there is merit to both ideas. We are complicated organisms so I find it hard to believe that we are here by luck.

What has luck got to do with it?

Don't confuse probability with luck.

Your belief assumes that humans are the intended result of the universe!

Something I find hard to handle.

Why make us so small and insignificant if we are what the universe is about?.

It also implies a 'chain of being' that evolution is about a ladder of improvement.

Also why are we more complicated than bacteria?

they have DNA, it is subject to mutation, exactly like us.

It could be argued that by volume and number of species bacteria important and we are an insignificant accident.

The vast majority of life gets alon perfectly well as a single celled life form.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-22, 03:18 PM
Evolution.

People who have religious beliefs and at least some scientific training feel that God created the universe and that all the phenomena observed and studied by science are the tools used to make it work.

It seems to me that rabid creationists have another kind of agenda that has nothing to do with science or with faith for that matter.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-22, 03:50 PM
Like a few others, I had to pick neither because I think there is merit to both ideas. We are complicated organisms so I find it hard to believe that we are here by luck.

Agreed! I find hard to believe the elements of a complex systems can get together and function out of nothing. Who studied some system theory knows that entropy ensues soon or later and the system collapses. Everyone knows that destruction is easier than construction.

Even the life simulation softwares are not proof that life can evolve by itself. The programmers were there to provide the basic rules.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-22, 04:06 PM
Agreed! I find hard to believe the elements of a complex systems can get together and function out of nothing. Who studied some system theory knows that entropy ensues soon or later and the system collapses. Everyone knows that destruction is easier than construction.

IIRC that would be in a closed system, earth by itself is not a closed system.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-22, 04:33 PM
Agreed! I find hard to believe the elements of a complex systems can get together and function out of nothing. Who studied some system theory knows that entropy ensues soon or later and the system collapses. Everyone knows that destruction is easier than construction.

IIRC that would be in a closed system, earth by itself is not a closed system.

Well, natural occurences shows that entropy applies to open systems too, otherwise we wouldn't die or get sick. I never saw a successful experiment proving that complex systems can rise from simpler elements.

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-22, 04:35 PM
I agree with a lot of you in that God created the universe (big bang) and that evolution was guided by His hand. Obviously scientifically there is no way to prove this, and I am aware of this. I think this is where a lot of creationists fall short. They believe that they can "prove" creation, which I would think by definition is unproveable. The other problem is they generally don't even provide evidence for their own side, rather they try to disprove the other side. As many of us have said before, if the options are A and B, disproving A does not prove B.


Check this site out for a full transcript of a debate between a creationist and an evolutionist. Duane Gish is a well known proponent of creation, and it's interesting to see his arguments.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/index.shtml

captain swoop
2003-Dec-22, 05:00 PM
www.talkorigins.org

also try the talk.origins usenet group

You can believe what you wan't but don't try to mix it with science.

My last posting on the subject.

Valiant Dancer
2003-Dec-22, 05:06 PM
I'm just a little curious as to what type of astronomers we have on this board. I'm not looking to start a religious debate or anything as I know that's against the forum guildlines. I'm just curious about the statistics.

I'm an evolutionist at heart. :)

While I am of the same opinion as frenat, I took creation to mean the mutually exclusive Creationist/evolutionist debate. In that case, I am a evolutionist. I fully recognize the fact and theory of evolution.

Fact: species change over time

Theory: mechanism by which species change over time

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-22, 06:46 PM
Well, natural occurences shows that entropy applies to open systems too, otherwise we wouldn't die or get sick.
here (http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/denbig1/denbig1e.htm) is a paper written by chemist Kenneth Denbigh where he especifically talks about the conflict that some people feel there is between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Biological Evolution

For example:



What then is meant by those who maintain that the phenomenon of life is not easily reconcilable with this law? I think that what they have in mind is a rather vague assertion to the effect that (a) organisms are highly 'orderly' and/ or 'organized' systems; (b) 'orderliness' and 'organization' are inversely related to entropy: and therefore (c) organisms are abnormally low entropy systems. They may then wish to go beyond (a), (b) and (c) and to assert that organisms somehow avoid the Second Law, even after allowing for their 'openness'. Or without actually going so far they may wish only to say that highly orderly and/or organized systems are exceedingly improbable, that improbability is related to low entropy and that Einstein's fluctuation theory is sufficient to show that, even within an open system, a fluctuation sufficient to produce a local increase of order and/or of organization of sufficient magnitude is exceedingly unlikely.

If one or the other of these assertions is a fair statement of what is meant, I shall argue that the whole argument is confused and fails because, in fact, there is no necessary connection between entropy and either 'orderliness' or 'organization'.



We get sick for a variety of reasons that are not related to enthropy by themselves and IIRC the ultimate cause for death is degeneration in the cell replication process because the process itself is not good enough. That in itself doesn't have much to do directly with entropy



I never saw a successful experiment proving that complex systems can rise from simpler elements.

Well the Miller Experiment (http://www.issol.org/miller/) is one.

dvb
2003-Dec-22, 06:54 PM
Sorry about the options to the poll everyone. At first it I was just thinking of creation/evolution as the only 2 options in the poll, but I figured that there may be people that believe in some other theory I didn't consider.

I also should have been more clear in my meanings of creation/evolution. I meant both in the exclusive sense.

pteranodon
2003-Dec-22, 08:01 PM
We get sick for a variety of reasons that are not related to enthropy by themselves and IIRC the ultimate cause for death is degeneration in the cell replication process because the process itself is not good enough. That in itself doesn't have much to do directly with entropy

The process is pretty good until the organism reaches a certain age, then, gradually the process becomes "not good enough". I see no difference at all, such degeneration means more errors in DNA molecules as time goes by, such errors mean a lowering in organization level (entropy).


Well the Miller Experiment (http://www.issol.org/miller/) is one.

The mentioned experiment is a fascinating organic synthesis process. It produced advanced organic substances, but they were not live organisms.

informant
2003-Dec-22, 09:01 PM
I'm just a little curious as to what type of astronomers we have on this board.
Many posters are not astronomers. :)

captain swoop
2003-Dec-23, 08:54 AM
I know I wasn't going to post any more on this thread but...

here are some "Must Read' FAQs

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

Please look at them, they address the SCIENTIFIC evidence and view on evolution.

They can be downloaded in PDF format.



Thank you.

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-23, 12:08 PM
The process is pretty good until the organism reaches a certain age, then, gradually the process becomes "not good enough". I see no difference at all, such degeneration means more errors in DNA molecules as time goes by, such errors mean a lowering in organization level (entropy).

Quite so, but that doesn't mean that it's an application of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which was your objection originally, I'm afraid you cannot use the term "entropy" that liberally.


The mentioned experiment is a fascinating organic synthesis process. It produced advanced organic substances, but they were not live organisms.

Correct again, but it did produce more complex organic substances out of simpler elements. Which again was (as I understood it) your statement.

Just to make sure we are not debating about a moot point, I would like to add that I am not arguing with you the fact whether God created Life or not, that point falls into the philosophical, or religious category. my point is that the particular inconsistencies that you find in the Theory of Evolution are not inconsistencies.

[As usual, edited for spelling]

Normandy6644
2003-Dec-23, 04:14 PM
I think the majority of people here are fully aware of how scientific evolution is and what the word "theory" actually means. In addition, I don't think those with religious beliefs are trying, or will try, to put them in the same category as science. When it comes down to it, there are certain questions that cannot be answered by science and are left open to the realms of philosophy and religion. This doesn't make them right, wrong, or even open to scientific discussion since they are beliefs based own personal interpretation rather than any hard evidence. And there is nothing wrong with that, provided that the person recognizes the limitations of their beliefs and does not try to scientifically "prove" them.

Vermonter
2003-Dec-25, 04:21 AM
I accept Evolution. I don't believe in what the Bible has to offer, or accept that form of morality or law.

man on the moon
2003-Dec-25, 04:39 AM
In addition, I don't think those with religious beliefs are trying, or will try, to put them in the same category as science. When it comes down to it, there are certain questions that cannot be answered by science and are left open to the realms of philosophy and religion...

thank you normandy! i couldn't have said it better, though i've been trying to figure out how. =D>

guess i'll take a second to say i am a christian and believe in God and creation, but i try not to be exclusive until i have no other options. (try to have an open mind). so you won't find me opening a debate here since i do not believe that is what this board is for. i may join a debate, but try to keep myself to only necessary thoguhts and pertinent information. AND i try to keep my thoughts informed and up to date.

cheers, and no more from me. i'm done with this. :) it's onto something we all have common ground in.

Russell
2003-Dec-25, 01:16 PM
I voted neither. I'm not an astronomer, I'm just a curious person. But have spent time with both. My conclusion is is that we just don't have enough info availible to us to make a decisive conclusion. But I do hold more faith in evolution than creation. And for some odd reason I feel OK with this. I don't feel like I floating out in nothingness with no direction. And I'm very sure that I'm not going to burn in hell because of it. As long as there is something out there to learn we have purpose. And even if we were to find that Theory of Everything (which may or may not exist), we still have purpose, in our children.

Gmann
2003-Dec-25, 02:07 PM
[-X
Ya'll aint gonna suck me into this one. 8-[

Cougar
2003-Dec-25, 07:52 PM
...When it comes down to it, there are certain questions that cannot be answered by science and are left open to the realms of philosophy and religion...
thank you normandy! i couldn't have said it better, though i've been trying to figure out how. =D>
Yeah, but who's to say which "certain questions" will not be able to be answered? Surely there are many, many questions that in the past were considered well beyond the capability of science and empiricism, but today there is pretty solid evidence supporting feasible answers to those questions.

Cougar
2003-Dec-25, 08:23 PM
....I would like to add that I am not arguing with you the fact whether God created Life or not, that point falls into the philosophical, or religious category.
Wellllll.... it may not have overrun the territory, but I believe science has now breached that once-hallowed ground as well. The ultimate conclusion may not be absolutely firm at this point, but I contend that Stuart Kauffman, with his At Home in the Universe and Origins of Order, has made it pretty clear that future research will very likely build upon his initial findings, leading to a compelling purely natural explanation for the origin of living things. Heck, I think his evidence and arguments are already compelling.

Now, whether some "God" initially instilled the life-generating laws of self-organization into all matter in the universe at the instant of the big bang, that I cannot say.
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/cougsm.jpg

Sigma_Orionis
2003-Dec-26, 02:26 PM
Now, whether some "God" initially instilled the life-generating laws of self-organization into all matter in the universe at the instant of the big bang, that I cannot say.

Well that's exactly it. Science advances and answers more and more questions (and of course creates other questions to be answered as well), but anybody with religious beliefs can argue your point above and that point cannot be countered with science because it's a matter of faith. It cannot be proven one way or the other.