ChatterBank1 min ago
Evolution or Creationism?
Is it possible to have both? Initially there were the amino acids but could a creator use these basic blocks to create life? Darwin was just a tool to explain these events and not necessarily wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk...education/8322781.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk...education/8322781.stm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Interesting survey that - and one fraught with design error and ill thought out questions and small country samples, so I would take the quoted figures with a pinch of salt.
As to your concept of a God being smart and/or lazy and getting evolution to do all the work, sure, its possible - Its the "God of Gaps" theory a bit like what was before the Big Bang. I dont personally believe in any Divine Intervention or influence, but that would be because I am an athiest - but current scientific knowledge cannot preclude the idea of a divine spark.
Actually, people always make the argument between creationism and evolution - I think it shoulod be creationism vs abiogenesis myself - and the concept of abiogenesis is fascinating.
As to your concept of a God being smart and/or lazy and getting evolution to do all the work, sure, its possible - Its the "God of Gaps" theory a bit like what was before the Big Bang. I dont personally believe in any Divine Intervention or influence, but that would be because I am an athiest - but current scientific knowledge cannot preclude the idea of a divine spark.
Actually, people always make the argument between creationism and evolution - I think it shoulod be creationism vs abiogenesis myself - and the concept of abiogenesis is fascinating.
Of course you can have both - you just need to think about it a bit. Years ago I was told the the Roman Catholic church was happy to have people accept evolution, as long as they accepted that at some point God endowed mankind with a soul (the soul being the bit that distinguishes people from animals). So God creates the universe, lets things happen and at some point in evolution intervenes to give mankind souls. Easy :-)
I think Darwinian selection and belief in a God is philosophically incompatible myself.
How can you have a ruthlessly mechanistic selection process with a underlying random phenomena that produces millions of species and variation AND believe that one particular subset of a subset of a subset (etc.) is special in any way?
Sheer chauvinism IMO.
How can you have a ruthlessly mechanistic selection process with a underlying random phenomena that produces millions of species and variation AND believe that one particular subset of a subset of a subset (etc.) is special in any way?
Sheer chauvinism IMO.
You can\'t have both! Evolution is a scientific FACT. Creationism is based on faith not reason. That\'s why Creationism should NOT be taught as a scientific theory on a par with evolution.
The word theory has two meanings in English:
1 An idea yet to be proved
2. The details and explanation of a scientific fact
When scientists talk about \"The Theory of Evolution\", it\'s the second meaning they are using
The word theory has two meanings in English:
1 An idea yet to be proved
2. The details and explanation of a scientific fact
When scientists talk about \"The Theory of Evolution\", it\'s the second meaning they are using
How come everybody on Answer banks can't spell ATHEIST?
Theism is the belief in a god - Atheism is the opposite, like moral and amoral
So you are a theist or an atheist
Everybody on here spells it as if it were an adjective:
e.g.
You're a bit athi, aren't you?
He's a lot athier than me!
Yes but she's the athiest
Please try and spell it correctly everybody! Thanks.
Theism is the belief in a god - Atheism is the opposite, like moral and amoral
So you are a theist or an atheist
Everybody on here spells it as if it were an adjective:
e.g.
You're a bit athi, aren't you?
He's a lot athier than me!
Yes but she's the athiest
Please try and spell it correctly everybody! Thanks.
Read this article which demonstrates a very plausible mechanism for the transistion from minerals to living things. It is thorougly consistent with biochemistry.
http://www.newscienti...otonpowered-rock.html
There is no need for a God to explain the origin of life, no evidence for it and no point contemplating it.
Trying to reconcile creation with science is a futile attempt by religion to garner credibility in the face of massive evidence against the rubbish written in the Bible by clueless arrogant men.
http://www.newscienti...otonpowered-rock.html
There is no need for a God to explain the origin of life, no evidence for it and no point contemplating it.
Trying to reconcile creation with science is a futile attempt by religion to garner credibility in the face of massive evidence against the rubbish written in the Bible by clueless arrogant men.
No
If you believe in creation and evolution you are still a creationist.
Creationism falls foul of Occam's Razor ("the simplest solution is the right one")
I say the Universe came into being on it's own
You say God came into being on his own and created the Universe
He says Sparky the robot came into being on his own and created God who created the Universe
She says .....well you get the idea
Occam's Razor tells us to dispense with the unnecessary parts of the explanation and God is unnecessary as his inclusion brings in more difficulties to explain (where he came from) than he solves.
The fact that 60% of people in the UK think this is very worrying - there is a disturbing trend towards superstition and mumbo jumbo "spirituality" in this country and it's really important that it's resisted or before you know it we'll be burning witches again
If you believe in creation and evolution you are still a creationist.
Creationism falls foul of Occam's Razor ("the simplest solution is the right one")
I say the Universe came into being on it's own
You say God came into being on his own and created the Universe
He says Sparky the robot came into being on his own and created God who created the Universe
She says .....well you get the idea
Occam's Razor tells us to dispense with the unnecessary parts of the explanation and God is unnecessary as his inclusion brings in more difficulties to explain (where he came from) than he solves.
The fact that 60% of people in the UK think this is very worrying - there is a disturbing trend towards superstition and mumbo jumbo "spirituality" in this country and it's really important that it's resisted or before you know it we'll be burning witches again
The argument for creationism is that for life to exist it cannot exist in a vaccum. Complementary strands are necessary to occur at the same time otherwise they could not exist. For instance babies need parents, conception needs a Mother and Father, food must be readily available, etc.
Darwin was probably right due to scientific knowledge at the time but we can now reach down to the molecular level and examine our DNA. Single point mutations are evident but usually the only result is genetic illnesses or cancer, it would be hard to explain any mutation has had beneficial effect.
Therefore the diversity of life must have been designed by a higher supreme being. We find it hard to accept there may be someone/something out there who has greater intelligence than ourselves. In the age of the dinosaur animals reigned supreme. We don't just get it yet.
Darwin was probably right due to scientific knowledge at the time but we can now reach down to the molecular level and examine our DNA. Single point mutations are evident but usually the only result is genetic illnesses or cancer, it would be hard to explain any mutation has had beneficial effect.
Therefore the diversity of life must have been designed by a higher supreme being. We find it hard to accept there may be someone/something out there who has greater intelligence than ourselves. In the age of the dinosaur animals reigned supreme. We don't just get it yet.
Rov- my original answer to your post might have given the impression that I support the idea of a Divine Intervention.To be clear – I don’t. Nor do I have any belief in the myth of creationism.
What I meant in my initial answer, was that it was still intellectually defensible to have a belief in God and a belief in first causes ( i.e. what happened before the Big Bang, or what happened between no life and organic life on Earth). In fact there are several eminent scientists who believe in such a thing. It is known as the “God of Gaps” theory, and cannot be disproved by current observable or experimental data. The problem with the God of Gaps theory is that those Gaps where God could exist are gradually being eroded as our knowledge of the universe increases, and eventually there will be no place left.
Your argument about stuff having to occur at the same time otherwise they could not exist sounds very like the argument that various proponents have made in support of the concept of Intelligent Design – According to them, various organs are “irreducibly complex” and therefore cannot possibly have evolved – And every single model or organ that the ID proponents have held up as examples have been comprehensively debunked and shown conclusively not to have been irreducibly complex.
Contrary to your assertion that advances in science have somehow eroded Darwin’s theory of Evolution, the opposite is true, with respect to his basic premise. Scientific data from, amongst many of the scientific fields of study, paleontology, molecular biology and genetics all serve to reinforce and strengthen the arguments for evolution. You then make the claim that most mutations are point mutations (not entirely true) and that most mutations are harmful, causing genetic illness or cancer. (Untrue).
-CTD-
What I meant in my initial answer, was that it was still intellectually defensible to have a belief in God and a belief in first causes ( i.e. what happened before the Big Bang, or what happened between no life and organic life on Earth). In fact there are several eminent scientists who believe in such a thing. It is known as the “God of Gaps” theory, and cannot be disproved by current observable or experimental data. The problem with the God of Gaps theory is that those Gaps where God could exist are gradually being eroded as our knowledge of the universe increases, and eventually there will be no place left.
Your argument about stuff having to occur at the same time otherwise they could not exist sounds very like the argument that various proponents have made in support of the concept of Intelligent Design – According to them, various organs are “irreducibly complex” and therefore cannot possibly have evolved – And every single model or organ that the ID proponents have held up as examples have been comprehensively debunked and shown conclusively not to have been irreducibly complex.
Contrary to your assertion that advances in science have somehow eroded Darwin’s theory of Evolution, the opposite is true, with respect to his basic premise. Scientific data from, amongst many of the scientific fields of study, paleontology, molecular biology and genetics all serve to reinforce and strengthen the arguments for evolution. You then make the claim that most mutations are point mutations (not entirely true) and that most mutations are harmful, causing genetic illness or cancer. (Untrue).
-CTD-
-CTD-
Mutations happen all the time. The overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral. It is common to find a significant proportion of multiple alleles in any given locus, for instance. For those mutations that actually have an effect, whether they are harmful or beneficial is largely determined by the environment. I have listed below just a few of the beneficial effects of mutation that you claim are hard to find/explain.
1. Sickle Cell anaemia – A human Haemoglobin variant, HbS. Those heterozygous for HbS have a protective effect against malaria.
2. Thalassaemia – A mutation that effects the production of the globin chains that make Haemoglobin. Again, heterozygous expression has a protective effect against malaria.
3. Duffy Antigen negative status. Those individuals lacking either of the Duffy Antigens on the surface of their red blood cells have a greater resistance to malaria.
4. The classic, the Peppered moth. There are dark and light forms. In times of severe air pollution and smog, the dark version thrived. When clean air acts were passed that materially improved the air quality, the light form thrived instead.
5. Bacterial resistance to Antibiotics. A hugely favourable benefit to bacteria.
6. Resistance to Atherosclerosis. – Familial studies of the residents of a small village in Italy found that they had a much, much lower incidence of atherosclerosis than the general population. Scientific studies have identified the cause of this protection, a genetic mutation.
Mutations happen all the time. The overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral. It is common to find a significant proportion of multiple alleles in any given locus, for instance. For those mutations that actually have an effect, whether they are harmful or beneficial is largely determined by the environment. I have listed below just a few of the beneficial effects of mutation that you claim are hard to find/explain.
1. Sickle Cell anaemia – A human Haemoglobin variant, HbS. Those heterozygous for HbS have a protective effect against malaria.
2. Thalassaemia – A mutation that effects the production of the globin chains that make Haemoglobin. Again, heterozygous expression has a protective effect against malaria.
3. Duffy Antigen negative status. Those individuals lacking either of the Duffy Antigens on the surface of their red blood cells have a greater resistance to malaria.
4. The classic, the Peppered moth. There are dark and light forms. In times of severe air pollution and smog, the dark version thrived. When clean air acts were passed that materially improved the air quality, the light form thrived instead.
5. Bacterial resistance to Antibiotics. A hugely favourable benefit to bacteria.
6. Resistance to Atherosclerosis. – Familial studies of the residents of a small village in Italy found that they had a much, much lower incidence of atherosclerosis than the general population. Scientific studies have identified the cause of this protection, a genetic mutation.
"The argument for creationism is that for life to exist it cannot exist in a vaccum. Complementary strands are necessary to occur at the same time otherwise they could not exist. For instance babies need parents, conception needs a Mother and Father, food must be readily available, etc. "
That is not an argument, that is an assertion. An argument must, by definition, present evidence that a given assertion is true. It must be said that Creationism struggles in this regard.
The corollary assertion for Darwinism is that life did evolve and develop in a 'vacuum' (for want of a better word), and that one of the outcomes of this was that complex organisms were able to emerge from small sequential changes. The argument for this is the huge mass of data and studies of fossils, genetics etc.
That is not an argument, that is an assertion. An argument must, by definition, present evidence that a given assertion is true. It must be said that Creationism struggles in this regard.
The corollary assertion for Darwinism is that life did evolve and develop in a 'vacuum' (for want of a better word), and that one of the outcomes of this was that complex organisms were able to emerge from small sequential changes. The argument for this is the huge mass of data and studies of fossils, genetics etc.
Not sure what you mean exactly here
Obviously you don't believe that everything needs a mother and a father, or you've never heard of an amoeba!
Perhaps you mean the two strands of DNA?
Well that assumes that early life was like modern life - that's unlikely. DNA came later - RNA is used by primitive forms such as viruses and is single strand.
It is commonly thought that there was an RNA "world" long before DNA evolved, some believe before that life was Sulphur based the Thioester World.
In any case the idea that evolution means that DNA sprag out of nowhere is simply wrong
Obviously you don't believe that everything needs a mother and a father, or you've never heard of an amoeba!
Perhaps you mean the two strands of DNA?
Well that assumes that early life was like modern life - that's unlikely. DNA came later - RNA is used by primitive forms such as viruses and is single strand.
It is commonly thought that there was an RNA "world" long before DNA evolved, some believe before that life was Sulphur based the Thioester World.
In any case the idea that evolution means that DNA sprag out of nowhere is simply wrong
There is no god and there is no heaven. We are intelligent pieces of meat that are capable of rational thought. Religion is a tool, mainly for starting wars, financial profit and people control. People who do not cope well with life in general are religious and use it as a crutch in between popping anti-depressant pills and having breakdowns.
Paraphrasing the original question:
Is it possible to believe that Christmas presents are both supplied by the parents and delivered by Santa? The parents buy the presents and leave them around. Then Santa comes down the chimney and puts the presents at the end of the bed.
Obvious question: why do we need both when the rational explanation is enough?
Why are we discusssing creationism on the Science site? On the R&S site it has been debunked... oh so, many, many times.
Is it possible to believe that Christmas presents are both supplied by the parents and delivered by Santa? The parents buy the presents and leave them around. Then Santa comes down the chimney and puts the presents at the end of the bed.
Obvious question: why do we need both when the rational explanation is enough?
Why are we discusssing creationism on the Science site? On the R&S site it has been debunked... oh so, many, many times.
Another addition to LazyGun's examples.
A single gene that reduced the content of a particular sugar in the internal secretions of the lungs protects against Tuberculosis while two copies results in the disease Cystic Fibrosis. This is why the gene has persisted despite the disease often killing before reproductive age.
A single gene that reduced the content of a particular sugar in the internal secretions of the lungs protects against Tuberculosis while two copies results in the disease Cystic Fibrosis. This is why the gene has persisted despite the disease often killing before reproductive age.
For those who believe this question should not be in the Science topic we can get an alternative view
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question823040.html
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question823040.html
