Is there such thing as a Creationist who knows what evolution is?

[doclkk]

Couple questions

1. Big bang - where did the bang come from
2. Law of therodynamics - Evolution conflicts with this idea. I WANT to be educated.
3. Perfection - look around, so it is by good chance and the survival of the fittest trees, the fittest planets and the fittest sun that we live on this earth - our eyes are so complex that what we do in a second cannot be comprehended by any of the super computers that are built.

What about bats - they are blind, how many bats did it take to smash into walls before they started using their nautilus?

What about the earth, if the earth was 440 miles closer to the sun, everything would be destroyed by the heat. If it were 440 miles further away, everything would die because it would be too cold. How many times did the planet have to be frozen then thawed before it got it right?

 

[Mike Flynn]

1. Big bang - where did the bang come from

The best answer is this: we're not sure. The earliest moments of the universe have defied a precise theoretical formulation. At the heart of the problem is incompatibility between General Relativity and Qantum theory on microscopic scales.

However there are several theories on the table: (a quantum fluctuation, God, brane intersection (M- theory), etc)

2. Law of therodynamics - Evolution conflicts with this idea. I WANT to be educated.

Ice cubes form in you refrigerator, right? The crystals are more organized than they were when they were water. It works because the fridge has an input of energy that comes from outside the system (electricity). Similarly, complex molecules can form on the earth, thanks to the continuous supply of energy from the sun. IOW, the earth is a closed system (fixed mass) with a continuous influx of energy from the sun. Underthese conditions, it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics to get complex molecules out of simpler ones.

3. Perfection - look around, so it is by good chance and the survival of the fittest trees, the fittest planets and the fittest sun that we live on this earth - our eyes are so complex that what we do in a second cannot be comprehended by any of the super computers that are built.

Actually, the world is far from 'perfect'. Even the bible will tell you that. You have to boil it down to the molecular level. A child is complex, but the single cell that was once the child is much simpler. Yet we can measure all of the chemical reactions and processes that make the child from the cell. Can complex molecules that form the basis of cells form naturally? Apparently, the answer is yes.

What about bats - they are blind, how many bats did it take to smash into walls before they started using their nautilus?

You are assuming their were once bats that lived in an environment that required SONAR, but they did not have it. This is not a valid assumption. I will let the biologists handle this one.

What about the earth, if the earth was 440 miles closer to the sun, everything would be destroyed by the heat. If it were 440 miles further away, everything would die because it would be too cold.

Mercury is closer to the sun...has it been destroyed. I believe you mean to say that life may not have formed if the earth were closer or farther away. Of course, I am not sure how this point is meaningful. In addition, I am suspicious about this claim of yours. Can you tell us the source of it?

How many times did the planet have to be frozen then thawed before it got it right?

Huh?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

What about the earth, if the earth was 440 miles closer to the sun, everything would be destroyed by the heat. If it were 440 miles further away, everything would die because it would be too cold. How many times did the planet have to be frozen then thawed before it got it right?

The Earth varies its distance to the Sun by about 3 million miles each year. Look up "perihelion" and "aphelion". So, no, 440 miles closer or farther away doesn't seem to be having the effect you want.

 

[PreacherJoe]

Captain I know what Evolution is.....

It is the only widely accepted alternative to Creation for the origin of man or any other species. Regardless of how silly evolution is it cannot be abandoned until something besides believing in the bible and accepting the truth of Genesis can be conjectured.

Evolution is a religion. It has ever changing doctrine. It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions. They are still trying to piece together enough facts to support the theory. It takes more faith to believe the monkey story than it does to believe the bible. There are no intermediate species. There will always be missing links and species will continue to reproduce after their own kind.

And you thought no Christian understood Evolution.....

 

[notto]

It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions.

Have you read any of Darwins work? What you describe here is the absolute opposite of how Darwin approached species.

He examined facts, gathered data, and formed his conclusion, just as any good scientist would do.

what you have described is creationism as can be evidenced by the 'Statements of Faith' and 'Tenents of Belief' that can be found on any creationist website which state the conclusion as unchangable and only present facts that support it while ignoring the large amounts of evidence that falsify it. This is the opposite of science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is a religion. It has ever changing doctrine.
It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions. They are still trying to piece together enough facts to support the theory. It takes more faith to believe the monkey story than it does to believe the bible. There are no intermediate species. There will always be missing links and species will continue to reproduce after their own kind.

And you thought no Christian understood Evolution.....

You obviously don't.

The theory of evolution is no more a religion than the theory of gravity (and bevets, I've already addressed those Michael Ruse quotes you are so fond of, so you can keep them to yourself). It was orginally conceived out of observations made about the physical world: exactly how science works. Evolution has been studied for over 150 years now, with mountains of supporting evidence.

And there are plenty of intermediate or transitional species (see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html). The only ones who think there aren't are badly misinformed.

 

[Data]

our eyes are so complex that what we do in a second cannot be comprehended by any of the super computers that are built.

Wrong. It's even done by my digital camera, which has much better resolution than my blurry eyes.

 

[Natro]

What about bats - they are blind, how many bats did it take to smash into walls before they started using their nautilus?

A better question is how many bats did it take to relize that using their advanceing ability of sonar is better then relying on sight while hunting at night(hunting at night to avoid preditors)? Having a useless sense is a waste of energy.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Captain I know what Evolution is.....

It is the only widely accepted alternative to Creation for the origin of man or any other species.

Correction: It is the only widely accepted explanation for the origin of man or any other species.

Just so you know, creationism is not widely accepted anywhere outside of America, even among Christians.

Regardless of how silly evolution is it cannot be abandoned until something besides believing in the bible and accepting the truth of Genesis can be conjectured.

Evolution will be abandoned if and only if it is found to be wrong. The writings of the Bible or any other religious text have no bearing on the descision process.

Evolution is a religion. It has ever changing doctrine.

Evolution is not a religion by any commonly accepted definition of the word. You will need to show how one of the most secure and respected theories in science is a religion before making that kind of claim.

And change is good. If it did not change in the light of evidence it would be bad science and erroneous.

Scientist: We think XYZ as it is the most likely given present evidence, so we'll do some tests to check.
*tests falsify XYZ but support XYA*
Scientist: We think XYA, so we'll do some tests to check.
*tests still support XYA*

There, 'changing doctrine' led to a more accurate theory.

It is certainly not science in that it approaches the species issue from a completely opposite direction than that of science which examines the facts to form conclusions.

And that is what evolution was born from: A man studied the facts and drew his conclusions. Creationism on the other hand is based on taking a conclusion (a literal interpretation of Genesis) and twisting, ignoring and making up the facts to fit it.

They are still trying to piece together enough facts to support the theory.

Where did you get this falsehood from? Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. There is more disagreement over the theory of gravity than evolution.

It takes more faith to believe the monkey story than it does to believe the bible.

Evolution requires no faith to believe, as it is based on evidence and scientific inquiry.

There are no intermediate species.

Thats a rather bold statement. What about homo erectus, intermediate between homo habilis and homo sapiens?

There will always be missing links

Well, duh. Not everything fossilises so we cannot expect a perfect picture.

and species will continue to reproduce after their own kind.

Actually there are a huge number of observed instances of speciation. Ask Lucaspa for a list.

And you thought no Christian understood Evolution.....

You have done little to dispel that impression.

 

[pentecostal girl]

No offense, but WHAT ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT

?? A few people said there wasn't really a difference between micro and macro, so I was showing that there is a difference.

Who is your teacher-Kent Hovind????

His name was Jason Walker and he was also a college professor. My biology class was an actual college course. We were getting college credit for taking that class. It was a very hard class. My teacher was a christian, so naturally he believed in creationism.

 

[Douglaangu]

Then he failed as a teacher. He shouldn't have tried to teach or encourge his religous beliefs in a biology class.

 

[pentecostal girl]

It is genetic variation (evolution) within a species.

That's what I said.

MicroEvolution is not really evolution at all. It is the simple variation within a species. It is the prominence of genes being displayed within that species.

 

[pentecostal girl]

Then he failed as a teacher. He shouldn't have tried to teach or encourge his religous beliefs in a biology class.

As a matter of fact, he didn't tell us his view on evolution until we were finished with our study on evolution. He didn't want to sway our opinion.

 

[pentecostal girl]

Out of curiosity, pentecostal girl, do you go to a private Christian school?

No it's a public school

 

[Douglaangu]

As a matter of fact, he didn't tell us his view on evolution until we were finished with our study on evolution. He didn't want to sway our opinion.

Then why OH WHY did he include a 'Debate' in the study?
Out of interest, what scientific reasons did the creationism side give for their view point being correct?

 

[pentecostal girl]

Then why OH WHY did he include a 'Debate' in the study?

It was for a grade, this was his way of making sure we knew what we were talking about.

 

[pentecostal girl]

Out of interest, what scientific reasons did the creationism side give for their view point being correct?

I'm not going to debate with you on this topic, but I will tell a few of our arguements. We used things such as the Second Law of Therymodynamics and mutations. Evolution is hard to debate against, I'll give you that!

 

[Physics_guy]

My teacher was a christian, so naturally he believed in creationism.

You do realize that there are many Christians who do not accept the failed doctrined of Creationism? There are a great number of Christians that accept that Genesis is an metaphorical tale meant to convey spiritual and theological truth not history and science.

 

[revolutio]

And you thought no Christian understood Evolution.....

I sincerely hope that was a joke.

 

[Physics_guy]

We used things such as the Second Law of Therymodynamics

If you teacher did not grade you down for abusing the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as most creationists do, then you teacher has no business teaching anything. If you want to understand why the Theory of Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, just ask.