Creationism Vs Evolution - where do we come from?

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Superstition

Stone him!

[Dr Stevil]

Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Jehovah."

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Jehovah."

Are there any women reading this thread?

[Fiji Dave]

Originally Posted by Moray

I used the dinosaur argument in a discussion I had with a fundamentalist bible belt christian in Nashville, Tennessee. His position was that god can (and apparently did) create things of different ages. Why? to test our faith....

Evolution is more likely.

I've had the same discussion with people of a creationist persuasion, and as a geologist I sooooo enjoyed hearing them try to justify their position on fossils. I even had one guy try to convince me that the 'Great Flood' was responsible for creating all the fossils because that expained why you could find fossils ontop of mountain ranges - the animals were washed up there by the water. He then went on to explain that the positions that many dinosaur bones were in showed that they were trying to run away from the water.

I haven't had so much fun in ages. I almost wet myself laughing.

[Bantam]

Originally Posted by Moray

On the other hand, although I do not believe in the existence of an anthropomorphic god, how do I know? There is a lot out there that we are unaware of.

I like that. We do have an anthropomorpic vision of god, and I'd never thought of that before.

My wife's just finished her degree in Theology (which I proof-read most of her TMA's) and I'm just doing my Earth Science with Oceanography, and therefore currently working on Geology.

For example - this can bring out interesting things like there are certain things which happened in the bible for which there is geological evidence, however, the bible is a recollection of stories from memory of someone from much later than when it actually happened. Much like chinese whispers things will have changed. As someone else said the frontispiece is missing from the bible, and that's probably where we've gone wrong.

Interestingly, though, most god-based religions stem from the same single source. A fair chunk share the old testament, or their version of it.

Islam, for example, agrees that Jesus existed, however they think the second coming's already happened and that was mohammed.

On another topic mentioned here (about evolution and environment) Interestingly, our governments in the world have two faces. They're all up for banning smoking and anything which increases mortality, and the major topics we have running at the moment worldwide are about environmental impact on the human race. Yet at the same time they're happy to steam into a country which they can't understand all guns blazing to assimilate them into the 'Borg' that is freedom of the western world, causing mass casualties, else just stand back and watch another country do it itself (rwanda, for example).

That's a contradiction in terms if ever I saw one!

BTW - I know what you mean Steve W - about DNA - I still find fascinating the Carl Sagan experiment when they used a virtual titan atmosphere (basic compounds) and passed an electric charge through it and hey presto they got amino acids.
I quote;

An organic heteropolymer (Titan tholin) was produced by continuous dc discharge through a 0.9 N2/0.1 CH4 gas mixture at 0.2 mbar pressure, roughly simulating the cloudtop atmosphere of Titan. Treatment of this tholin with 6N HCl yielded 16 amino acids by gas chromatography after derivatization of N-trifluroacetyl isopropyl esters on two different capillary columns. Identifications were confirmed by GC/MS. Glycine, aspartic acid, and alpha- and beta-alanine were produced in greatest abundance; the total yield of amino acids was approximately 10(-2), approximately equal to the yield of urea. The presence of "nonbiological" amino acids, the absence of serine, and the fact that the amino acids are racemic within experimental error together indicate that these molecules are not due to microbial or other contamination, but are derived from the tholin. In addition to the HCN, HC2CN, and (CN)2 found by Voyager, nitriles and aminonitriles should be sought in the Titanian atmosphere and, eventually, amino acids on the surface. These results suggest that episodes of liquid water in the past or future of Titan might lead to major further steps in prebiological organic chemistry on that body

Mark.

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by Fiji Dave

I've had the same discussion with people of a creationist persuasion, and as a geologist I sooooo enjoyed hearing them try to justify their position on fossils. I even had one guy try to convince me that the 'Great Flood' was responsible for creating all the fossils because that expained why you could find fossils ontop of mountain ranges - the animals were washed up there by the water. He then went on to explain that the positions that many dinosaur bones were in showed that they were trying to run away from the water.

I haven't had so much fun in ages. I almost wet myself laughing.

While it is funny to a point it is rather sad that people are stupid and gullible enough to believe something that even a four-year-old child could see is a pile of shite.

Chris

[Bantam]

I meant to ask - has anyone read Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure? His journey takes him some strange twists and turns, but he ends up meeting a man called Duane T Gish, who is the #1 creationist in the USA, and ended up having a discussion with this man. I think he ended up with the opinion that he's a bit batty!

If you're interested in having a good laugh at creationism, then visit http://www.icr.org/



Mark.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by Garf

"...But this happens on a regular basis anyway. We are NOT capable of destroying the environment, and it is only human arogance that leads us to assume that what we are doing is anymore than an uncomfortable millisecond in the life of the earth.

The human race has been here for a microscopic portion of the age of the earth. It is, in fact, difficult to comprehend how truly insignificant we are"

Not true at all Garf. We are quite capable of ruining the environment.

Our impact on the biosphere as a whole and biodiversity in particular is far greater than anything before us other than individual catastrpohic events. I would suggest reading "The Future of Life" by Edward O Wilson for a detailed discussion of the scientific evidence.

Even those that argue for catastrophic events shaping evolution (such as Leakey and Lewin) make the point that as the only self-aware beings on the Planet we have a duty to protect bio-diversity and the planet as a whole.

This point is made in their excellent book "The Sixth Extinction" where they argue exactly for what you have said cannot happen. The sixth extinction is caused by humanity's inability to steward the resources of the Planet (their argument, not mine).

[Gavin Smith]

Originally Posted by rooster

Not true at all Garf. We are quite capable of ruining the environment.

I think it all depends on whether you subscribe to Gaia theories.

I'm sure we are quite capable of runing the enviroment for ourselves and almost certainly for the other CURRENT inhabitants of Earth.

Can we ruin it full stop? Probably not.

Surely evolutionary principles dictate that if we do "ruin it" then life will adapt and overcome.

[ahar]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Be religious if you must but call it what it really is - Superstition

I prefer to call it a matter of faith

Incidentally, the example you gave proves nothing, except that a biological process works in a less than totally efficient way. Who said anything about humans being perfect (on any level)? There's a whole heap of pretty inefficient things about the way our bodies work.