Evolution vs Creationism

Posted by: CommunistDog

Do you either believe in Darwinism or Creationism?

Vote
43 Total Votes
1

Evolution (Darwinism)

32 votes
3 comments
2

Creationism, Traditional Christian Belief

9 votes
2 comments
3

Cats created the world

2 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:08:39.2305926-05:00
These comments aren't going to go well. I wonder how many negative words I can count in it?
CommunistDog says2015-04-13T10:10:55.9534501-05:00
O_O
TBR says2015-04-13T10:12:57.1191578-05:00
I wrestled with "believe" in the question. As it is, the question that it, it works well enough, so I voted. I would like to see more people from the "creationism" side actually understand what they are worked up about. Not being insulting to all of them. I think many, if not most, DO understand the theory. The ones that are very vocal seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the basics.
reece says2015-04-13T10:21:53.8121252-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe So is gravity. It's the weakest electromagnetic force, but look at the world around you... You need to look at the bigger picture.
reece says2015-04-13T10:26:42.8229377-05:00
Sorry i was just meant to say gravity is the weakest force. Not electromagnetism.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:31:15.6365462-05:00
Reece, gravity works over longer distances, so when there is a large amount of it, it is among the strongest. Hence why there are black holes.
reece says2015-04-13T10:33:12.7139490-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Keep what you just said in mind. Do you believe in micro evolution?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:38:35.1059641-05:00
Yes I believe in micro evolution.
reece says2015-04-13T10:40:31.4789801-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Do you believe Microevolution has the same mechanics as Darwinism in terms of gene mutation?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:45:54.6972933-05:00
They have similar mechanism.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:46:11.6413279-05:00
I have a question for you, does stacking bricks use the same mechanism as building a tower of bricks?
reece says2015-04-13T10:46:51.2859447-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe One last question. How old do you believe the earth is?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:48:24.0739259-05:00
Inconclusive. According to radio dating I believe the estimate is around 4.5 billion years?
reece says2015-04-13T10:53:44.6785487-05:00
You have being giving me question marks. Can you please give me yes, no or what you don't understand or know without question marks please.
reece says2015-04-13T10:53:52.8616313-05:00
Been*
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T10:56:31.4627645-05:00
Woops, sorry about the ?. I was thinking about a question when I was writing. Typo fix. I believe it is about 4.5 billion years old according to radioactive dating.
TBR says2015-04-13T10:57:07.0454521-05:00
Reece & Mathgeekjoe - I assume that Mathgeekjoe is a good example of "anti" people understands the theory well enough. I would also assume that quibbling over the age of the earth is not the issue with him.
reece says2015-04-13T11:00:00.8717949-05:00
I was just trying to show Microevolution over long periods of time has 'caused the the current world'
reece says2015-04-13T11:01:06.9673001-05:00
Gravity and Evolution both are "weak" forces but with time, their strong.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:03:24.7273677-05:00
Reece, I am saying evolution is still weak over a billion years. Anyways you asked me if microevolution and macroevolution have the same mechanics. I have a question for you, does stacking bricks and building very a tall stack of bricks use the same mechanics?
TBR says2015-04-13T11:07:00.6767656-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - to your brick question, I could make an argument either way, but as a very general analogy, they are the same, yes.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:09:20.2110525-05:00
There is a limit to stacking bricks right?
TBR says2015-04-13T11:10:22.6284866-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - I would like to play this out. See where it is going. Yes, there is a reasonable limit to stacking bricks.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:10:56.7566479-05:00
What causes this limit?
TBR says2015-04-13T11:12:09.8712785-05:00
Physics, mechanics...
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:14:21.7261039-05:00
"Physics, mechanics" These are kind of broad terms that while true, aren't really describing what causes the limit. What are the typical causes that limits the building of the brick tower?
TBR says2015-04-13T11:16:22.0398361-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - I'm searching, but not getting it. Engineering? Sophistication of engineering?
TBR says2015-04-13T11:16:48.9959449-05:00
Complexity?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:18:15.3594125-05:00
Let me ask it this way, if I start stacking a pile of bricks, what would be the first cause for it to fall. What happens if I eliminate this cause, what would be the second to cause it to fall. Continue the process as far as you can think.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:20:18.0305849-05:00
I might be unable to respond for a while, my study hall is almost over, I need to go to statistics afterwards.
TBR says2015-04-13T11:20:36.4693121-05:00
I am so not trying to be obtuse. I want this to play out, but am driving right past the point you are making. Gravity, atmosphere?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:22:52.9502125-05:00
Well the first cause for it to fall might be from defects in the stacking process, Lets say I removed all of these defects, next problem would be the wind, lets say I prevented the wind from hitting the structure. Next problem would be changes in the ground from settling or earthquakes, lets say I stop that problem, what would the next one?
BblackkBbirdd says2015-04-13T11:25:29.8843844-05:00
Communist, can I call you Laika?
reece says2015-04-13T11:27:16.5522533-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe I have an analogy. Imagine a 3 billion number combination...
TBR says2015-04-13T11:28:28.4976085-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Yea, I know you are on a track, and will conceded to the examples given. Since I don't real know where you are driving, I am having a hard time co-piloting. A mad bull knocks the bricks over, I just don't know.
PetersSmith says2015-04-13T11:32:18.6707809-05:00
I don't really like how the options are phrased. You're implying that Christian Creationism is the only one out there and it's not. There are more religious people on this site than just Christians, and some people believe in both evolution and creationism.
reece says2015-04-13T11:35:25.3969185-05:00
@TBR My analogy is rough but it gets the point over. Would you think?
TBR says2015-04-13T11:36:31.1336329-05:00
@PetersSmith - I balked a bit at the wording too, but not every poll question has to be inconclusive of permutations. If the question were phrased "all creation myths" it might have worked, but that would introduce a new problem.
TBR says2015-04-13T11:37:21.7855341-05:00
@reece - yes, but I really want to understand where Mathgeek is going.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T11:54:52.3405961-05:00
"@Mathgeekjoe - Yea, I know you are on a track, and will conceded to the examples given. Since I don't real know where you are driving, I am having a hard time co-piloting. A mad bull knocks the bricks over, I just don't know." A mad bull could just as easily knock over a small stack. But lets say I eliminate all random events. What would be the next limit? Would any evidence of this limit causer be apparent in a small stack?
reece says2015-04-13T11:55:02.7611289-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe In regards to your last comment; I get what you mean. But you don't consider survival of the fittest (adaptation). Do you know the field of epigenetics (gene expression via direct body chemistry)? Species do go extinct obviously.
TBR says2015-04-13T11:56:33.4028464-05:00
@reece - Really, you are getting it? I'm not. May just be how my brain is working this AM, but I just don't see where this is going.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T12:01:28.7700224-05:00
"@Mathgeekjoe In regards to your last comment; I get what you mean. But you don't consider survival of the fittest (adaptation). Do you know the field of epigenetics (gene expression via direct body chemistry)? Species do go extinct obviously." Epigenetics is the field I actual have in mind when I claim that the current theory of evolution doesn't properly describe what happens. Epigenetics has less to do with survival of the genes as much as which genes are expressed by the environment.
reece says2015-04-13T12:03:09.6402445-05:00
@TBR Hes pretty much saying 'what if this happens or that, etc' And my answer is 'they adapt or go extinct.'
reece says2015-04-13T12:05:03.5329241-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe Gene expression with the environment is the most important part.
TBR says2015-04-13T12:05:31.9709949-05:00
Reece - I can't really believe that is where he is going. Then it makes no rational sense. I would not put this on him, but many creationists put the cart after the horse. That evolution was "making" humans. It adds purpose where there is none.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T12:05:49.5567110-05:00
Anyways the next cause of my brick tower collapsing would be the weight of the bricks at the top crushing the bricks on the bottom. Lets say I fix this by making my brick tower out of a material infinitely strong or at least strong enough to make it to the next limit? "@TBR Hes pretty much saying 'what if this happens or that, etc" Reece this is not what I am saying. The purpose of my example of bricks is that there are limits that are unnoticeable when looking at something small like micro evolution. Micro evolution(small brick stack) may work while macro evolution (large brick stack) may not.
TBR says2015-04-13T12:06:13.4347317-05:00
Sorry, cart before the horse. You get it. Sorry.
TBR says2015-04-13T12:08:00.4724710-05:00
"there are limits that are unnoticeable when looking at something small like micro evolution." OK. That works. Still nothing to disprove the theory, but at least I get it now.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T12:09:24.3270369-05:00
Point I am making with my brick example, is that micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution. My brick example though does not disprove macro evolution.
reece says2015-04-13T12:09:40.4694360-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe giving an analogy is one thing but to actually go into detail of how bricks and DNA are structurally identical is another.
TBR says2015-04-13T12:09:41.2682025-05:00
Using "micro evolution" as a model for evolution may not be sufficient to prove the larger. There are additional variables that "micro evolution" cannot make good use of. That is the point, rigth?
Reeseroni says2015-04-13T12:55:47.0712002-05:00
CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION DO NOT CONFLICT. GET OVER It
CommunistDog says2015-04-13T13:06:02.5439009-05:00
(Creates poll) I dont expect many will use it (4 hours later) O_O
TBR says2015-04-13T13:22:42.3880399-05:00
@Reeseroni - That is supercilious. There are many from one side of this argument that insist the two DO conflict.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T13:26:35.4114881-05:00
Sorry for not responding, I am still in school right now. "Using "micro evolution" as a model for evolution may not be sufficient to prove the larger. There are additional variables that "micro evolution" cannot make good use of. That is the point, rigth?" Basically the point, but it isn't the only one I have. "@Mathgeekjoe giving an analogy is one thing but to actually go into detail of how bricks and DNA are structurally identical is another." The analogy was merely to show that microevolution does not guarantee macroevolution.
TBR says2015-04-13T13:29:16.2275456-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Not to be dismissive, but it really doesn't have to, does it? What I mean is, lacking better science I accept what I can know, and fits best with the data I do have access to.
TBR says2015-04-13T13:30:48.2321053-05:00
The is the common, "well you don't know X so therefor God did it". I, and many others, find that answer not only easy to dismiss out of hand, but childish and wishful.
TBR says2015-04-13T13:33:06.9926473-05:00
That is slightly argumentative. To give you something you can work with. I don't look to Hilbert's problems as proof of a god. That's just not rational.
Furyan5 says2015-04-13T14:02:38.3159039-05:00
Aggreed. The odds of everything being random are too big to be plausible, but the odds of creationism are impossible.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T14:22:24.9887993-05:00
To tell the truth, I do not go with creationism because it is a better explanation, I go with it because there is already enough people looking at the situation through the view of evolution. Even if my belief is wrong, it still allows me to see problems through a different point of view which may allow my to notice or realize something I wouldn't have notice or realized otherwise. And then there is always the chance where my belief is right.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T14:28:26.7566198-05:00
@Furyan5, there are very few things that are impossible. If I have a base ball and a wall, there is a random but highly unlikely chance that it will appear on the other end of the wall. The actual probability is so low that even with several lifetimes of the known universe, it would still be unlikely to happen. But what matters is that it isn't impossible.
TBR says2015-04-13T14:32:42.3117701-05:00
@Furyan5 - This is the cart before the horse problem I was speaking of. Every attempt to look at from an odds prescriptive I have seen attempt to attribute meaning or purpose to evolution. That is, that human was the necessary outcome, and therefor we must calculate the.... Do you see the issue? The world is not suited for US we are suited for the world we live in. Europa may have life. It will look nothing like a human, and that's fine. If somewhere else, the best possible thing created walks on three wonky legs and has no eyes, that works fine for evolution too.
TBR says2015-04-13T14:35:53.4108756-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - It looks like I am "here". Truth is, I am just MORE likely to be here than there. For the non-chemistry/math/physics people, your physical body (or any part of it) COULD suddenly be elsewhere, it is just not very likely to happen.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T14:37:43.3528509-05:00
TBR, the thing I said about random teleporting was just me trying to say nothing is impossible. I wasn't saying anything about creationism or evolution with it.
TBR says2015-04-13T14:46:10.1384943-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - No, I just love the idea. There really is only just... Well, "chance" that my physical body is in this spot (like right this second). It COULD be "elsewhere" and break no rules of physics, chemistry etc. All backed by real science.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T14:53:32.0893237-05:00
Well the odds are in the favor of your body not randomly teleporting(not exactly teleporting it looks like teleporting). Basically there is a very small chance that your atoms will quantum tunnel a certain distance through a barrier. If all of your atoms tunneled the same way at the same time, you may appear on the other end of a normally impassable barrier like a wall. But there is a far greater probability but still a very small possibility that your atoms would tunnel in a way that causes you to cease to function.
TBR says2015-04-13T14:56:32.0828507-05:00
Yup. But, back on topic. I wish Furyan5 would come back to the discussion. This one I have seen from many creationists. Its not about bickering over it, but my point is, its just wrong.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T14:57:29.7875325-05:00
You mean that it is unlikely humans came to be randomly?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T14:58:16.6572269-05:00
You mean his argument "that it is unlikely humans came to be randomly? "
TBR says2015-04-13T14:59:59.7081845-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Yeah. I don't know if this is exactly where he was going, but I have seen people attempt to "run the numbers" before, and the common problem is in working backwards from the outcome. There simply is NO reason to do that.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T15:10:29.6512317-05:00
I guess you mean by pointless to run the numbers because any outcomes would have been unlikely. If I flip a coin 100 times, what ever the outcome is, it would be incredibly unlikely. But there are ways to run the numbers that doesn't go through that misconception. I personally find quite unlikely for current life to have occurred randomly with only a billion years.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T15:11:52.9530957-05:00
By random, I mean by purely natural selection.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:12:10.2062533-05:00
"I guess you mean by pointless to run the numbers because any outcomes would have been unlikely." - Exactly "If I flip a coin 100 times, what ever the outcome is, it would be incredibly unlikely." Yup. "But there are ways to run the numbers that doesn't go through that misconception" - Yes, and I have never seen any good ones.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:16:00.6747437-05:00
Play a game of chess. Document the moves. Now, try to run the probability of THAT game getting played. Well, it got played. We watched and documented it happening. However, just by the math, playing chess for billions of years may not result in the same game.
CommunistDog says2015-04-13T15:17:54.3699450-05:00
CATS O_O
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T15:19:50.5504493-05:00
I'll try to give the the calculation I know, but it has been awhile since I did the actual calculations on the likeliness of evolution. I am probably going to be rusty.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:21:41.6751749-05:00
I would love to see it Mathgeek. Just went looking for the probabilities of duplicate chess games getting run. Only can find the oft stated POSSIBLE games. 10^120.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:22:12.2705596-05:00
The number boggles the mind.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:26:01.6493337-05:00
Run our evolution for the past couple billion of years, and there is JUST NO RATIONAL CHANCE of getting the same result. Any attempts to use this as the argument fail in a spectacular way. Evolution is not "trying" or "desiring" any outcome.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T15:26:27.8566617-05:00
If I remember correctly, one calculation was the average times it takes for a beneficial mutation to cause a double in the mutation population compared to the normal population. Basically the time it takes for 1/100 population mutation to become 2/101 of the population.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:50:28.3536646-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - would really like to see some of the math played out.
TBR says2015-04-13T15:56:48.7667705-05:00
Sorry. Stuck reading chess stories. Anyway, one guy says it is very likely that there has never been a repeated game (popular science). Using an attempt account for common setups, etc. the number is still just too damn high to even make it likely that the same game has ever been played in the ancient history of the game.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T16:05:27.5021275-05:00
Just got back from eating. You want to see some of the calculations? Ok, well first you take the natural log of 2 then divide it by the natural log of the increase in survival. Lets say you have a mutation that increases survival by one percent, which one percent is a extreme large increase in survival compared to other mutations, but it makes a good starter. You get 69.66071689 when you divide ln2 by ln1.01. This means that on average it will take somewhere around 70 generations for this mutation to go from 1/100 of the population to 2/101 of the population. I need to relearn the next step. Oh, something to keep in mind, this is a basic example, I will go into the calculations that don't add up with evolution after I get past the basics.
TBR says2015-04-13T16:08:02.7607098-05:00
"which one percent is a extreme large increase in survival" - To make it... Fair, that is WAY high.
TBR says2015-04-13T16:08:57.4607127-05:00
You may be able to get good numbers from that recent experiment... Just can't think of it. I will look later, and post a link.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T16:30:58.8242099-05:00
""which one percent is a extreme large increase in survival" - To make it... Fair, that is WAY high." I think you are being sarcastic about saying it is way too high. One percent is a very large increase if you consider the average mutation. Typically you get something that allows the creature to get more food or run slightly faster, these advantages really only help in specific situations. Being able to run faster really only helps when you get chased by a predator, and it only effects your survival when that extra bit of speed is the difference between life and death. If you get a good head start then you would survive anyways, if you react to late or were in a bad position you would die either way. When it comes to food, it really only helps when that increase in food either makes a difference in reproduction or survival, if food is plentiful it doesn't matter, if food is too scarce you will starve even if you are better at getting food.
Texas14 says2015-04-13T18:19:51.9228110-05:00
Both
TBR says2015-04-13T18:22:10.4719313-05:00
Nope. No sarcasm. I could do some research, but gut tells me it is high.
CommunistDog says2015-04-13T18:24:59.8055893-05:00
Maybe you can create a debate. It does seem like an unofficial one right now. It would be interesting to see you two face off like the Scopes Trial!
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-13T18:26:05.4967924-05:00
There isn't a debate, we are just having a conversation.
CommunistDog says2015-04-13T18:26:51.9199145-05:00
Seems like a debate... O-o
Furyan5 says2015-04-14T14:18:52.5828539-05:00
Sorry. Got distracted. Let me rephrase..... The odds of creationism are impossible because god does not exist. Therefore evolution wins by default.
CommunistDog says2015-04-14T15:52:15.3796638-05:00
Well no proof supports God does or does not exist. I think he does but I know there is a possibility there is no God. If there was a God, would you support creationism?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-14T15:53:29.7901741-05:00
"Sorry. Got distracted. Let me rephrase..... The odds of creationism are impossible because god does not exist. Therefore evolution wins by default." How do you know for sure that god does not exist?
TBR says2015-04-14T15:56:01.2945192-05:00
In that direction lies madness. Don't try to use the non-existence of God to support a scientific theory. It is... Unscientific. It is like "god of the gaps" in reverse.
Furyan5 says2015-04-15T00:28:55.5019227-05:00
Creation requires a creator. Scientific fact..... Why are we even discussing this?
Furyan5 says2015-04-15T00:35:40.1775441-05:00
If God existed then Yes. Creation is more plausable than evolution given the fact that for life to even exist on this planet the odds are astranomical. Type and size of sun. Size/rotation/tilt/electromagnetic field of the earth. Size and location of the moon. To name but a few.
Furyan5 says2015-04-15T00:52:37.8158118-05:00
@mathgeek by definition God is benevolent and allknowing. It follows that God knew what Satan would do but created him anyway. Or he did not know what Satan would do. Therefore God is either not allknowing or not benevolent and by definition, not God. Well that's the Abrahamic God anyway.
Furyan5 says2015-04-15T01:43:04.2192589-05:00
@TBR Well I'm human. I cant argue on bahalf of a chicken. But that's irrelevant. Just the neccesary factors for life to exist on this planet are astranomical. Yet here we are. Any possibilty bigger than a billion to one may as well be impossible even if you can imagine that 1 happening.
CommunistDog says2015-04-22T21:02:25.6106024-05:00
You know... Cats do seem like a possible answer....
CommunistDog says2015-05-07T09:46:20.5363893-05:00
Natural selection has been achieved. You can see how animals adapted to different changes and obstacles in the environment. Eventually, these animals "mutated" into different creatures.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.