Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

Originally posted by Yoda411

Originally posted by centrifugal
First thing you must understand is that evolution does not contradict creationism. So it can't be used to prove creationists are delusional. Your logic is flawed.

The term creationism is generally used to describe the belief that creation occurred literally as described in the Book of Genesis (for both Jews and Christians) or the Qur'an (for Muslims)[12] The terms creationism and creationist have become particularly associated with beliefs about the time frame of creation, conflicting with scientific understanding of natural history, particularly evolution. This conflict is most prevalent in the United States, where there has been sustained controversy in the public arena, centering over the issue of the science curriculum in public schools.

It is a popular belief among creationists, and certainly receives the most attention when evolution is involved. But it does not define creationism.

reply to post by centrifugal


I'm just going to pull some Bible verses in which I believe are interpreted literally, the specific verses in which evolution debunks as not literal statements.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The more I pull verses from the Bible, the more it seems to prove evolution. Everything is said to have been created "out of the ground". Should this not be interpreted as multi-cellular organisms were evolved from microscopic single-cellular organisms?

[edit on 12/18/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Yoda411


Well you make a good case for evolution, I am not interested in disproving it. I personally don't care how old the earth is, if a creationist wants to argue over the exact timeline then they are missing the point of the bible.


Two interesting things to note(I am not making an argument here)

- With regard to science a day is relative and would vary in length depending on which planet you are on.
- The bible defines a day as 12 hours and a night as 12 hours. So if anyone took it literally then the earth was really created in 72 hours.

Originally posted by centrifugal
Two interesting things to note(I am not making an argument here)

- With regard to science a day is relative and would vary in length depending on which planet you are on.
- The bible defines a day as 12 hours and a night as 12 hours. So if anyone took it literally then the earth was really created in 72 hours.

That's true. Snappy turnaround time!

Thanks for the input.

you might want to include Dr. Craig Venter on your list of "Delusionalists"
link - Craig Venter Claims Artificial Life Has Been Created


Who's to say other, more advanced intelligent species, or pre-current-history-humans didn't do the same, but on an exponentially broader scale, including dynamic adaptability (ie: evolution) into the blueprints of their creations of life and ecology?

yes "Intelligent Design" but on a less Dietic, NON-THEISTIC, more plausible light.

Is Venter not creating intelligently designed life?

Link - Dr Craig Venter search results on YouTube
(you tube was acting weird for me - view some of the vids)



-

The actual fossil of Sahelanthropus tchadensis;

looks much like a............
Modern chimpanzee;

or a ..........
Modern bonobo;


At any rate, it HAS been determined by many to be a common female ape skull;
Sydney Morning Herald
The 'short' canine teeth being characteristic of female gorillas, also.
Maybe more, later.

reply to post by Clearskies


While it does look similar to a modern day Chimpanzee, you could expect these similarities if they were common ancestors to Homo sapiens.

As for this Craig Venter - I will research that claim further and get back on my comment. Sounds like a cool topic though, thanks for sharing.

Edit: Very cool that he has created a chromosome, that is extremely significant. He hasn't done it yet though . Seems more viable as genetic engineering technology than the creation of even simplistic bacteria. Will have to stay tuned with that guy's projects though for sure, thanks for mentioning him.

Is it a "sin" according to the Bible and/or Christians to be the one whom creates life?

[edit on 12/18/08 by Yoda411]

reply to post by Yoda411


This thread seems so much more hilarious than the "Evolution Officially Debunked" thread. Mainly because you just insulted mad Christians and referred to them as delusional.

Good collaboration of evidence never the less. Would like to see an identical amount of evidence for the creationists point of view.

First thing you must understand is that evolution does not contradict creationism. So it can't be used to prove creationists are delusional. Your logic is flawed. ~ centrifugal

That would depend on how you define creationism. To use it in the colloquial sense, Evolution and Creationism are at polar opposite sides of the spectrum. However, there are plenty of "creationists" who do not reject science - and have made great contributions to the fields of palentology, biology, etc. For example, Kenneth Miller is a christian. Robert Bakker is Pentacostal. Theodosius Dobzhansky was a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the broadest sense of the word, all of these men are creationists - because they believe in a creator god. I, myself, also believe in a creator god. Though perhaps not the same as them.

The problem is, however, no matter how feverently you believe or how strong your faith is - it does not change reality. The real truth of "gods" work is see in his creation, not a book, and everything science, reason, and logic is telling us is that IF god is a creator, he's exclusively using what we would consider natural systems and natural processes. Science say nothing on the presence or absence of god him/her or itself - but can only illuminate us as to the natural processes. Since we cannot distinguish between a universe in which there is a god, and one in which there is not - then the only recourse is faith. Which is all it's really about anyhow, isn't it?

Who's to say other, more advanced intelligent species, or pre-current-history-humans didn't do the same, but on an exponentially broader scale ~ prevenge

There's simply no evidence for either supposition though. At best, we have a few unanswered questions which some like to answer with baseless speculation. But no actual evidence. Especially not in comparison with evolution.

including dynamic adaptability (ie: evolution) into the blueprints of their creations of life and ecology? ~ prevenge

I can't agree to this. Evolution isn't some programmable trait. Evolution simply happens. Further, it's not just limited to biology. You can see the process of evolution at work in literature, language, religion, science, etc. It's not limited to the spheres of human thought, but can seen in natural world as well. Geology, Astronomy, Robotics, etc. It is simply a process by which reproduction with variation that cause small changes over time will eventually make large changes.

I've used this example before, but science in itself is actually a wonderful example of non-biological evolution in practice. Science as a methodology for discovery has evolved throughout the ages. From the earliest trial and error, to Greek logic, to Ibn Al-Haytham who created the framework for the modern scientific method. Our process of discovery has been streamlined and improved. Further, in our modern scientific process we basically model evolution. A hypothesis is formed to explain a phenomena. It's then tested against reality. If it does not pass, the hypothesis is then replicated but with modifications. So let's say it passes this time. It's moved on publication and peer-review. If your fellow scientists cannot reproduce your results, the hypothesis fails. It needs to be replicated, again with variation. Natural selection, reality, weeds out the unadaptable and non-functional hypothesis. The final result is either a hypothesis that fails entirely, is adapted to fit reality, or is only partially correct and is adapted into an entirely different hypothesis to explain a whole different (or perhaps related) set of phenomena.

So evolution isn't something that can be invented, it's a logical process. Inventing evolution would be as silly as inventing cause and effect.



An example of evolution in robotics.

At any rate, it HAS been determined by many to be a common female ape skull ~ Clearskies

Actually most scientists regard Sahelanthropus as a descendant species which split off separately, and does not represent a direct ancestor of either humans or chimpanzees. It's simply too young to be considered a plausible candidate. It most certainly is an Ape skull, though. I wouldn't say common - since even most modern apes aren't particularly common (check the endangered species list) and this species went extinct quite a long time ago. Nobody regards it as a Bonobo or Gorilla skull. Sediment isotope analysis dates the skull as being far too old to be from a modern species.

However, again as must be stressed, it IS of an ape skull. Within this context, even in the case that it might be a direct human ancestor, this doesn't mean much since Humans ARE a Great Ape species.

Edit: By the way, the article you posted is from 2002. Since the skull was found in 2001, that means it took just about a year for scientists to fully analyze the skull and determine that it was not a human ancestor. That's science at work for ya. The question is, however, why are you posting old news?

[edit on 19-12-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Yoda411


I just wanted to re-post this question posed to you by an anonymous user, as I too am interested to read what you and others have to say in response. (I didn't see a reply, so I figure you have anonymous posts blocked, or just didn't see it)

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a question for the OP. I'm convinced by the scientific evidence of how the Earth was made and the evolution process, but there is something that keeps bugging me...

At what time did a separation between plants and animals happen? is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid? This always puzzled me so please help me understand how the difference between plants and animals came to happen.

reply to post by Warrior of Light


Thank you for the question.

Plants and Animals evolved from two different types of single celled organisms.

One group of single celled organisms developed the ability to synthesize their own food molecules by using simple inorganic molecules and the energy of sunlight. These were the precursors to today's plant life, and would be most closely related to cyanobacteria. These types of organisms are anaerobic; they do not use oxygen but instead produce it.

Photosynthesis that these primitive anaerobic single-celled organisms were carrying out thus released oxygen as a by-product. By about 2.2 billion years ago significant amounts of free oxygen were accumulating in the atmosphere. Aerobic metabolism (using oxygen) which generates more cellular energy than does anaerobic metabolism arose around this time. Eukaryotic cells then evolved by about 1.7 billion years ago, which arose as symbiotic associations between predatory prokaryotic cells and other bacteria.

Multicellular organisms evolved from these eukaryotic cells and first appeared in the seas about 1 billion years ago. Multicellularity offers several advantages, including greater size.

The earliest land vertebrates evolved from lobefin fishes, which had leg-like fins and a primitive lung. A group of lobefins evolved into the amphibians about 350 million years ago. Reptiles evolved from amphibians, with several further adaptations for life on land: internal fertilization, waterproof eggs that could be laid on land, waterproof skin, and better lungs. Birds and mammals evolved independently from separate groups of reptiles. A major advance in the evolution of both birds and mammals was insulation over the body surface in the form of feathers and hair.

God came down and spoke to Darwin.
He said, "If you're so smart make a human out of some dirt"
Darwin said " Ok I will" and he grabbed some dirt.
But then God said, " get your own dirt".

Originally posted by Warrior of Light
reply to post by Yoda411

 

I just wanted to re-post this question posed to you by an anonymous user, as I too am interested to read what you and others have to say in response. (I didn't see a reply, so I figure you have anonymous posts blocked, or just didn't see it)

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a question for the OP. I'm convinced by the scientific evidence of how the Earth was made and the evolution process, but there is something that keeps bugging me...

At what time did a separation between plants and animals happen? is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid? This always puzzled me so please help me understand how the difference between plants and animals came to happen.

The separation between plants and animals likely occurred very, very early in the Earth's history. Plants and Animals in the single-cellular stage were probably already split between the Chemosynthetic/Photosynthetic organisms which gained their energy from their environment/sun and those that gained it through ingesting and digesting other cells. I don't know if a definitive date for the separation has been set, but I've heard that it's speculated to have happened shortly before the Oxygen Catastrophe. It was speculated to be the stress of predation on chemosynthetic organisms that drove them closer and closer to the surface of the water. However, this also drove them away from the chemical compounds they relied upon for sustenance. The evolution of photosynthesis allowed these organisms to live further up in the ocean where light could penetrate. The byproduct of photosynthesis, however, is oxygen - and it eventually converted Earth's atmosphere into (more or less) what it is today. The extra oxygen was subsequently sequestered into the oceans, and once animal life evolved to use oxygen in it's metabolism - life exploded in diversity. This is apty called the Cambrian Explosion.

(This is, at least, how it was explained to me. I could be very wrong, however, so I'll look into it once I get a bit more time and might update with a more accurate answer.)

Indeed, the ingestion and digestion of living cells to sustain ones-self is a diagnostic trait of animals. However, there are some exceptions on both sides of the spectrum. Carnivorous plants such as the Venus Fly Trap and Pitcher Plant both ingest and digest living organisms. On the other side there's a species of sea slug (Elysia chlorotica) which ingests the photosynthetic algae cells. It uses the chloroplasts from these algae to gain some of the benefits of photosynthesis.

Edit: Also, you yourself, gain some of your nutrients from the sun. While not Chemo/Photo-synthetic, exposure to ultraviolet light from the sun allows your body to produce Vitamin D.

[edit on 19-12-2008 by Lasheic]

reply to post by infolurker





That is an absurdity. It's a Croc-a-duck, basically. Evolution doesn't work that way, and nobody aside from ignorants and creationists claim that it does. If you don't understand how evolution works, then educate yourself. If you still have a problem with it, then come back with some legitimate complaints, not impossible cartoonish charactures.

reply to post by Yoda411


Thanks for the quick response and the info. I also have a couple of follow-up questions/points for you and anyone else who can help me.

So if, according to evolution, animals and plants have taken different paths from the single-celled organism stage, the 2 would not (and could not) share biological traits? In other words, a plant and a human could not possibly share an attribute at the cellular or chemical level according to the laws of evolution? I don't know if this sounds crazy, but I have some other questions regarding this issue, and I just wanted to get some background first. Obviously we are very different from plants, but do evolutionists see the plant kingdom and humans as completely separate, despite our common "ancestry" (single-celled organisms)?

Also, consider me the "devil's advocate" on this next question, as I am not interested in a God vs. Evolution discussion, just trying to get informed, and you seem to know what you're talking about.

If the lobefin fish was able to make its way out of the water and evolved into an amphibian, and these fish are still around today, why don't we continue to see these fish making their way onto land? The lungfish, for example, seems to be a type of lobefin and it is still around. Why was the lobefin so interested in becoming a land animal millions of years ago, but is now content with being a fish? And I guess the same can be asked about the primates and Great Ape ancestors of humans. We still have monkeys and apes, but not the other primates who we evolved from. So where are the primates like cro-magnons, neanderthals, etc. who supposedly preceded us?

reply to post by Warrior of Light


While they share very few similarities at the cellular level, they both share the characteristics which define life. Essentially the only characteristics that were necessary for them to begin life.
Six Characteristics Of Life

Lobefin fish are a great example of evolution, but as a species they were primitive and inefficient in producing energy because they were the first species on land. Through time, the Lobefin fish became more efficient as a land animal, as well as becoming more efficient in the way it produces/processes energy thus developing into amphibians whom could search the land for food and process energy very efficiently. Unfortunately for the Lobefin fish, who were not as efficient, the fight for food, territory, and inability to reproduce lead to their ultimate demise.

reply to post by Warrior of Light

In other words, a plant and a human could not possibly share an attribute at the cellular or chemical level according to the laws of evolution?

No. Both plants and animals are Eukaryotic (they both have a nucleus). So we share some similarities. Fungus actually share more similarities with animals than plants do, as they are also opisthokonts like us. (meaning our reproductive cells/spores have a single posterior flagellum)

If the lobefin fish was able to make its way out of the water and evolved into an amphibian, and these fish are still around today, why don't we continue to see these fish making their way onto land?

It may yet make the transition to an entirely land-based creature. We don't know how selection will act upon it yet. It's merely in the process, and could return to being entirely marine based or it's descendants (which would be several new species down the line) may become truly amphibious.

This may not be in the spirit of your question, but as for why we still have mudskippers around if fish already made the transition from sea to land - the answer would be the same as why we still get European immigrants in America.

We still have monkeys and apes, but not the other primates who we evolved from. So where are the primates like cro-magnons, neanderthals, etc. who supposedly preceded us?

Ok, nevermind the above "not in the spirit". Modern apes weren't around when we split from a common ancestor. They all evolved parallel to and separate from us. The common ancestors of us and modern apes are all extinct. Evolution works by diversification, not consolidating. Even WERE it true that we evolved from modern apes (we didn't), they're continued presence wouldn't really mean we couldn't have come from them. To use the above example, American's exist - but there are still Europeans.

The question as to why Cro-Mags, Neanderthals, and other hominids aren't around is a bit of a mystery. Of all of humanities sister species, we are the only ones to have survived. This could be due to several reasons, including genocide or competition by early humans. However, I'm inclined to believe that intelligence is a bit of an evolutionary dead end in hominids. Our species is amazingly successful, yes, but for how long? Neanderthals were around easily for twice or three times as long as modern humans have been around - and yet we already have the tools to nearly seal the extinction deal of the human race via our technology. However, the brain is a very energy expensive organ, and ours is not only particularly vulnerable to fatal trauma - but combined with our bipedal gait it makes for extremely difficult childbirth. Without our technology, we wouldn't have medicines and treatments for complications of childbirth and our mortality rates would skyrocket. Early humans only lived on average about 25-30 years, and this is largely due to a very high infant mortality rate. To say nothing of the dangers to the mother.

It would be interesting to see how well we do in the future.

Also, while it's fair to say that Neanderthal preceded us - they apparently weren't a direct ancestor. Many of the species presented in the OP were not direct human ancestors - but rather sister species that diverged alongside our ancestors but similarly went extinct.

Originally posted by infolurker
Got anything besides a human skull (to many of those faked) news.bbc.co.uk...

.... millions and millions or billions of years of evolution... where are the 1/2 formed ones.. not this resembles this so it must be evolution but an actual complete transformation?

I could throw a bunch of different cat skulls and skeletons (lions, tigers, panthers, housecats, pumas, bobcats) next to each other and claim.. look, evolution and it would line up better than the drastic changes and "leaps of faith" we have to go with to completely believe evolution..... Sorry, that's the truth, either way you have to put faith in it as there isn't concrete proof.

You've got some marbles... My father ran one of the biggest U c14 facilities in the country, the man was a sharp one... I have seen it first hand. If you saw it would you decry - MAGIC -- SOOOOOORCERY?

The point is many bright folks maintained that the universe revolves around the earth and killed for it on religious grounds. Now you are making a stance based upon stubborn and logic free statements that are hardly any more --- well --- smart ?

The ultimate truth is the world revolved around the- flat earth folks- faith.
Miracles and magical thinking.

It is a shame your drink the same cocktail a 12th century zealot.

Remind yourself to stop going to the doctor because electricity is SATANS work.

MAybe,,, drink some Jepson and jump off a cliff because an ancient book approves of it.

reply to post by Yoda411


Thanks for the explanation.

You said: "While they share very few similarities at the cellular level..."

So does this mean we do share some traits? Particularly chemical? Or are there just biological similarities which can be compared, but nothing more?


reply to post by Lasheic


Thanks for the responses.

Your statement: "Both plants and animals are Eukaryotic (they both have a nucleus). So we share some similarities."

So is the fact that both have a nucleus the only similarity? Do you know of any other similarities on a chemical level.


Another question I have, or rather another way of stating the general question I've been posing: Would it go against the laws of evolution for a mammal to naturally produce a chemical in its brain which is also produced by a particular plant species? Would this mean that plants and animals evolved from the same organism, that plants and animals are more closely related than evolution has theorized?


Also, for anyone who has knowledge or an opinion, why haven't we found more fossils or bones of primitive homonids? We have found some skulls, but I can only assume (based on my limited understanding) that with the number of dinosaur discoveries, we should also find more homonid skulls too. Is this because dinosaurs were more abundant and lived longer? After so many years of existence, the various homonids must have grown in number. And even if many of them died early on, their bones would still exist, right?

Once again, I am not trying to argue a point, I just want to learn. I have some questions that may seem basic to many, but science has never been my strong suit. So thanks for the helpful explanations from Yoda411 and Lasheic so far.