Creationism vs. Evolution … 124514.htm … index.html
(this article was posted in ‘Natural Sciences’ but no one read it)

For all those who are anti-evolution or pro-creationism, what do you have to say about these articles? More and more evidence is being uncovered that favors evolution. Though there may be some minor holes and assumptions, it’s the best explanation we have at this point. But how can you can argue that creationsim is a better explanation? The whole argument is an assumption! And the Bible doesn’t count as evidence…

Please read the articles before you reply. I posted them for a reason.

Come on…no replies, comments? The first article is a very interesting.

Can’t really argue with you, since I’m not pro-creationism. Just wanted to show appreciation for posting the articles, very interesting. I do hope someone does post on the creationism side, I’d be very interested to hear their position. Even odds it’ll include a quote from scripture.

What’s so interesting about the first article and how does it in any way refute the idea of design? Lizard changing or modifying to become faster and stave off indigenous predators rather artificially introduced or not is in no way a revelation or support to the idea that total chaos and accident is the source of random mutations. In fact, this article helps support design, they both do IMO. Thanks…

How can survival being so complex be so successful without some design parameters? Why did this extremely fast and limited mutation experiment have such overwhelming success without any reported failures of some lizards being less adapt to outrun their introduced predators? Isn’t this against the founded evolutionist ideas that many random mutations are always present and only the most successful live to reproduce? Isn’t this idea required for total randomness and chaos theory to work?

To believe creation, one has to dispel reason, in one way or another. It is inevitable. There is no logical explanation for creation, hence the word “faith.”

I’m pro-evolution. I’m also pro-gravity.

So this sophomoric open-ended statement without any support or examples and no mention of the OP’s articles is helpful or on topic in what way?

The article simply does not give any credence to the illogical and irrational idea of complete chaos without designed parameters. There is much logic and supportive evidence of a designed system of laws and boundaries, the very fact that they work together so faceted and perfectly is some evidence of design. The astronomical chances of total chaos and accident being the driving force is further undermined by the lack any evidence of any other systems of natural laws ever existing in the past.

Why would complete chaos keep the laws of physics so absolute, how can anything absolute come from chaos?

Has the laws of gravity ever changed or mutated? The fact that we can observe without doubt that there are absolute unbreakable laws governing nature and all of this physical world should be a clue as to some form of intelligent design unless anyone can make a case of how complete chaos and accident can logically do this the first time without changing or having any evidence of failed versions.

Now, which side seems illogical and unsupported? :smiley:

Absence of design does not equal complete chaos without parameters.

Didn’t say it did, but most all evolutionist that I speak with use the idea of complete chos and or accident to found their idea of origins on.

Why cannot anyone bring up any argument of any kind to support this idea of complete chaos when they use it?

What other alternatives are there for creation by ID or complete chaos and accident, please list them.

evolution through natural selection, which is a cumulative, non-random process.

Incomplete, try again. This doesn’t explain origins and how absolute laws that govern the entire physical world could come to be as they are without some design.

Why is everybody so afraid to stand for the evolutionist side and all that it is founded on and that includes complete chaos? Are you guys going to go the religion way and cherry pick the things you like about evolution and leave the rest out?

What about that challenge for creationist and how irrational and silly we are, why cannot someone come here and easily dispel these questions with one hand tied behind their back as suggested?

Bring it on, I can show more proof for ID then anyone can show for complete chaos and accident any day of the week, even drunk.

You will impress me after you demonstrate that you thoroughly understand the counter-argument against intelligent design.

There is a counter-argument for Paley’s watchmaker argument. Amuse me. Please explain it to me to demonstrate that you thoroughly understand both sides of the argument, for I’m sure you would agree that one would need all evidence for both sides before reaching a conclusion.

I’m not here to impress you or anyone and I couldn’t care less about showing you how well I understand the subject before you grace me with a proper rebuttal of answers to my simple and logical questions.

If you can address any of the points I bring up then you can count me impressed rather you care or not, if you cant, I will contend that you don’t know enough of what your talking about to engage, so why waste my time.

As for the Watchmakers analogy it is almost always misrepresented or the main point misunderstood. BTW, Paley is not the originator of this analogy.

The reason I ask is because the arguments you make have already been addressed. I have attempted to learn both sides of the argument. I haven’t heard you make mention of even attempting the same. Is this because you haven’t?

Or correct me if I’m wrong, perhaps you have read The Blind Watchmaker, or The God Delusion, both which address your arguments directly, and perhaps incorrectly. If so, I’d like to hear your opinion as of how these rebuttles are faulty.

Then do tell how it is misreprented, and the correct representation. My understanding is the argument goes something like this:

Life is too complex, and intricately interwoven, to have occurred by chance. If even one of the six constants of the universe were different, life would be unable to develop or exist. The complexity of the human eye, the human cell, or even the human DNA, could not have occurred by accident. This would be similar to a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a boeing 747.

In addition, some parts of things are irreducibly complex, in that the parts by themselves would not function, and therefore could not have come about through evolution by natural selection. Please, if I’m misinformed or way off, let me know. If you have additional arguments, please share them.

I’ll repost (for the third time) the true meaning of the watchmaker analogy as I see it as soon as you attempt to answer one of my questions.

You don’t talk to any living, breathing ones, then.

Non-chaotic natural processes that are not the result of deliberate design.

Alright Kingdaddy, you’ve baited me in and peaked my curiosity. I’m not sure if your objective is for me to beg for your point of view, but a kind inquiry is as far as I’m willing to go. In addition, I will complete your request, not only to improve my own reasoning abilities, but also as an earnest attempt to understand your reason and logic.

I agree they work together “so faceted and perfectly.” What isn’t so clear for me is why this is evidence of intelligent design. If this is the way they have to work, why does it have to be by design? In addition, what would lead one to believe that this supposed “designer” is intelligent in any of the same ways that we define intelligent?

I’m not sure which evolutionists you are speaking with, but I would also be curious to hear about their theory of the origins of everything coming from “chaos” or “accident.” These terms sound so vague, I couldn’t even begin to imagine what exactly they refer to. I would also be puzzled as anybody could use any argument to support ideas such as these, considering the ideas are so vague, I’d find it impossible to know what I’m arguing against.

Agreed. Evolution and natural selection can explain the various species and complex species on earth, but it cannot explain the origin of life. There are theorists who are attempting to answer that question, but why would their inability to do so at this time point to a God? And even moreso, why would it point towards a God who experiences human emotions, or who is all powerful?

And as Richard Dawkins points out, no matter how improbable the cause of the origin of matter might be, isn’t it much more improbable to assume a complex being, who would have to be much more complex than whatever is the cause of the origin of life?

Who is arguing complete chaos keeps laws of physics absolute? And if there has always existed a God, in your opinion, what makes it so less likely that these absolute laws of physics have always existed?

Excellent, I would love for you to explain them, and I would love to have a discussion with you about them. A discussion about the ideas presented, their validity, and their logic.

Evolution, and natural selection, has nothing to do with the origins of matter, nor do I see how the origin of life must include complete chaos. Nor do I understand what you mean by “complete chaos.”

Okay, that’s all I have for now. Really, I just want to discuss the ideas, and their validity. I don’t want to dance in circles around the meat of the issues. I have answered some of your questions, to what is right now, the best of my ability. Now, I would be endeared if you could explain your take on the watchmaker argument, on the arguments of intelligent design, and your arguments for the origins of life. Thanks in advance.

No it’s not. It can be explained by the Anthropic Cosmological principal, which says that for a universe to be observed by observers, it must be formed in a way that gives birth to observers. So crappy universes, quite simply, can’t be observed, and since esse est percipi, they also can’t exist. No God required.

Can you be anymore vague?

I mean do you seriously expect me to take this as an answer; you don’t even bother to explain how a non chaotic natural process can come from thin air without any form of design. Did you think that was an actual answer and I would just say, OK, you’re right, never mind.

How funny.

Look, what I’m saying here is that you’re drawing a dichotomy between design and chaos that isn’t real. The alternative to deliberate design isn’t chaos, it’s just an absence of deliberate design. Order doesn’t have to result from deliberate planning and choice, and chaos doesn’t automatically result from the lack thereof.

Deny that you said it did all you like, your entire argument rests on that dichotomy, and since it’s completely fallacious, you basically have no argument. Everything coming from chaos is a feature of ancient Greek creation mythology, and perhaps of the book of Genesis (if you so interpret the “formless and void” stuff, and the waters being unseparated above and below), but it’s not a feature of science or of non-theistic cosmology. There is nothing in evolution theory or big-bang theory or really any theory about the origin of anything, that argues for all the observed order in the universe arising from chaos.

YOU said that. Nobody else did.

The watchmaker analogy gives rise to the questions that are on the mind of all who think about ultimate origins and this is how I see it when I first heard of this analogy when I was kid, even then I could easily understand it.

The idea of a watch being so complex is only the beginning. The point is that Time is a human construct that is specifically analogous to a watch in that every part has specific meaning to us humans alone. The minute hand and the second hand and the date window each represent things that we can understand and use as a tool and this tool matches the way our mind operates. This tool measures lunar cycles and day and night and seasons and so forth, things that were already in action before the watch magically created itself or happened by chance.

This idea represents the multifaceted operation of all the natural laws and how we can purposefully and specifically relate to them different then any other species. Now, how can such a purposeful tool that matches our specific understanding so precisely be of accident or Chaos or mutate without some design goal or parameters to guide them? Also realize that all of the natural laws of physics and nature are absolute and cannot be broken and are operating in symphony with so many variables that the odds of any chaotic engine causing this is beyond astronomical. In fact the more you observe nature and its relationships to our place the more evidence of design one can see, and that design has much to do with us according to this evidence.

Why do we feel things and operate irrationally to the point of putting ourselves and others in danger? What useful survival purpose can any of this have, how does any reality of this fit the mold of evolution? How can evolution explain Love or hate or compassion, or even our idea of purpose and why do we have understanding of these things? Where does the DNA get all this information to mutate to so many possibilities and why would it know that it needed to In the first place? Wouldn’t it have to already have some designed template to give off the most probable successful mutation variables and how can it be so connected with the rest of the environment? How can this evolution of the DNA strand evolve from a blank slate and perpetuate so that the life survives long enough to assimilate the information it needs from the environment first, how can the egg come before the chicken?

What are the chances mathematically of these things coming together without leaving any evidence of any emotions or natural laws that have randomly mutated unsuccessfully?. Where does the parameters and laws of evolution get its reference to operate by, without reference there is no way to build any structure but there is obvious meaningful structure that the vast majority can see.

And the big question, to what purpose is evolution aspiring to so accidentally and chaotically, why survive at all if all will be gone one day? What’s the point, to just exist? If so why do we have the need for purpose and hope and Love for the will to survive? How can a chaotic mechanism put these things together when they are outside the dumb creative processes of gene and proteins and simple life forms that were supposedly in the early cell forms that evolution pretends we came from? And why cant evolution go back any further then this first single celled life form that illogically came from nothing, doesn’t everything once you boil it down point to something that always was, some master absolute or reference?

If you or anyone can explain the makings and fabric of the universe and the meanings of all things without any reference or absolute then I would love to hear it because I can easily do so with an absolute like God.

BTW, total chaos is just what it sounds like, its chaos without any operation parameters or absolutes to reference, don’t know how I could be simpler then he way I put it, I think the word TOTAL says it all.