<p>I recently read in an article that life must have started in the ocean due to reactions between the mantle and the ocean, i.e. between chemicals in the antle and the ocean. Now Japan is going to drill into the mantle - abt 7000m deep - for geological purposes and also to study abt life creation processes. Here's a quote from the article - "We may be able to see the same processes that lead to the origin of life". That'll be a great setback for creationism.</p>
<p>Anything that uses the scientific method is a setback for creationism.</p>
<p>"Anything that uses the scientific method is a setback for creationism."</p>
<p>OK then, evolution shouldn't be a threat to creationism. Take shirish's post: people are going to do research WITH A SPECIFIC RESULT IN MIND. That is NOT how the scientific method is supposed to work. Yes, we can have hypotheses beforehand, but we cannot love them so much that we LOOK for results to support it and throw out the ones that don't fit.</p>
<p>Of course, NO ONE can honestly claim to perform unbiased research in the evolution/creationism debate; therefore, the debate is deadlocked unless some marvelous new discovery is made.</p>
<p>It's true that even the scientists are biased towards evolution, but that's just because scientists are biased towards, well, science.</p>
<p>Creationism, or its close cousin, intelligent design, is fine as a matter of religious faith, but it's certianly not science. It's simply a matter of faith. There is clearly no scientific evidence to support creationism. Not a shread. There are piles and piles of scientific evidence that all but proves evolution. That's not really a question; those who claim that it is are confusing the debate. Creationism = faith, evolution = science. Period.</p>
<p>"There are piles and piles of scientific evidence that all but proves evolution."</p>
<p>IF you make some nice assumptions, THEN it all but proves evolution. What you people refuse to admit is that evolution comes from an INTERPRETATION of data that has not been proven to be valid other than that "everyone says so." For example, isn't the Big Bang, well, "invoking a miracle," that thing that evolutionists always accuse creationists of doing?</p>
<p>sigh, creationists always always always get the theory of evolution mixed up with that of the big bang. The big bang has very little to do with evolution. In fact, the big bang has almost nothing to do with evolution. One explains how the universe came about, the other how life came about once the universe was already in place. Evolution is all but proved if you look at the facts; the big bang isn't quite as well accepted. </p>
<p>What assumptions are you talking about, by the way?</p>
<p>Evolution theory does not confine itself to biology. One of the reasons that people think it is so scientifically sound is that there is researching beaing done in many different fields that point to the -same- result: archaeology, genetics, geology, anthropology, chemistry, and more. For more stuff read the evolution sections in Campbell's Biology.</p>
<p>is evolution really that questionable? darwins finches are a fine example of evolution. the survival of the fittest created from one species, seperate species which occupied seperate niches and different lifestyles. is it not possible that humans and all living organisms came from the anerobic cells which formed from the amino soup? the chance that a soup of organic material could somehow form into living things is indeed slim. </p>
<p>but where else has life been found? any sign of ET anywhere? Earth is a miracle. all the plants but earth are unable to sustain anything but a couple of rocks.with that said, one may argue that creationism is the only way humans can grow to be so complex. mayb that is so. but in the end, these are just points of view. its not a matter of life and death. we shouldnt bicker too much. right? =)</p>
<p>This is a quote from Campbell's Biology 3rd Edition. "Some people dismiss Darwinism as "just a theory." This tactic for nullifying the evolutionary view of life has two flaws. First, it fails to separate Darwin's two claims: that modern species evolved from ancestral forms, and that natural selection is the main mechanism for this evolution. The conclusion that life has evolved is based on historical facts - signs of evolution discussed in the previous section. For example, to ignore all of the evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles just because none of us was there to observe the transition would be like denying that the American REvolution hapened because none of us saw it.What, then, is theoretical about evolution? Theories are our attempts to explain facts and integrate them with overarching concepts. To biologists, "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is natural selection - the mechanism Darwin proposed to explain the facts of evolution documented by fossils, biogeography, and other types of historical evidence. So the "just a theory" argument concerns only Darwin's second claim, his theory of natural selection. This brings us to the second flaw in the "just a theory" case. The term theory has very different meaning in science compared to our general use of the word. The colloquial use of "theory" comes close to what scientists mean by a "hypothesis" In science, a theory is more comprehensive than a hypothesis. A theory, such as Newton's theory of gravity or Darwin's theory of natural selection, accoutns for many facts and attempts to explain a great variety of phenomena. Such a unifying concept does not become a widely accepted theory in science unless its predictions stand up to thorough and continuous testing by experiments and observations... ARguing about evolutionary theory is like arguing about competing theories of gravity; we know that objects keep right on falling while we debate the case." In the same manner, we know that new species arise over time. It is the mechanism that is under dispute.</p>
<p>"but where else has life been found? any sign of ET anywhere? Earth is a miracle. all the plants but earth are unable to sustain anything but a couple of rocks.with that said, one may argue that creationism is the only way humans can grow to be so complex" You should read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" Very informative.</p>
<p>see this is how it all began:</p>
<p>so as humans get more and more advanced 1000 years from now, they develop a time machine. but you see, no one wants to change the present so they send things that cant change the past, such as plants, little cells, stupid animals, and stuff to the past to test out the time machine. Then, one day, theres this incredibly hot scientist who gets trapped inside of the time machine with a bunch of hot supermodels who all have dirty thoughts for him. they then go back in time but cant come back because the time machine breaks and they forgot to bring a screwdriver. so they procreate. then the cycle repeats.</p>
<p>little lizards that were transported evolve to ---> dinosaurs
hamsters ---> mammoths
kittens ---> saber tooth tiger
etc.</p>
<p>sleep, very nice theory. i like it! =D</p>
<p>There is not an iota of proof for creationism. If you want to have faith that it is the way the world came to be, that's your right to do so, but you are absolutely unjustified in attempting to discredit evolution which, though not directly provable or set in stone, has multitudes of evidence corroborating its conclusions. Contrary to popular belief, scientists do not have preordained conclusions in mind that they are trying to prove. Instead, they take observations of the physical world and attempt to extract conclusions from them in a systematic and logical way. All theologians have are beliefs based on faith, which can never be proven or disproven.</p>
<p>And honestly, no one wants the world to be cold and empty and godless. Everyone, either secretly or openly, wishes there were divine influence and providence guiding the fate of the world. But just because such a state is written of in religious texts doesn't make it so. There are those who are willing to discover and accept the truth, the way the world actually is - in all its beauty and harshness, and then there are those who hide behind faith.</p>
<p>edited out because guy above edited his</p>
<p>"There are those who are willing to discover and accept the truth, the way the world actually is - in all its beauty and harshness, and then there are those who hide behind faith"</p>
<p>Think for a minute about what you just said. You have just claimed that those who are religious are somehow inferior to those who aren't, that they don't have the strength of character to handle the "truth". Conceited, are we?</p>
<p>"There is not an iota of proof for creationism."</p>
<p>Go back and read the helium discussion. Then notice the childish tactics employed by the evolutionists to "refute" the evidence.</p>
<p>"we know that new species arise over time"</p>
<p>Yes, new SPECIES arrive over time. But new families, orders, classes, phyla, and kingdoms? Creationists know very well how natural selection works, and it operates under what we call "limited variation"; that is, natural selection has a TWOFOLD purpose: to allow creatures to adapt to new circumstances, AND to prevent creatures from losing control over their DNA. In other words, you can adapt within certain bounds; a cockroach may learn to resist an insecticide, but it probably can't gain immunity to a sledgehammer.</p>
<p>"sigh, creationists always always always get the theory of evolution mixed up with that of the big bang"</p>
<p>And evolutionists always get microevolution and macroevolution mixed up. One has proof, the other doesn't. One is "science" in every sense of the word; the other is "faith", also in every sense of the word.</p>
<p>The micro/macro evolution distinction was created by disgruntled creationists set on disproving evolution. Now, sadly, ID/Creationist people try to prove a theological argument on scientific terms. This is severely misguided. Theological truth and Scientific truth are in completely different realms. </p>
<p>Science, leave religion alone about the whole god/no god thing. There's no evidence either way. Religion, please, please, please stay in your theological realm and don't cloud the issue by mixing (and insulting) both the scientific and theological realms.</p>
<p>"The micro/macro evolution distinction was created by disgruntled creationists set on disproving evolution."</p>
<p>Forget who created it; doesn't it make sense? Analogy: let's let a Rubik's Cube represent an organism's gene pool. Natural selection (a person playing with the cube) can switch different things around to create "new designs", but only within the constraints of the original. Our gene manipulation (taking apart the cube and reassembling it into different shapes) can create designs farther away from the original, but with more limited functionality (less fitness) than the original. Either way, we could twist that Rubik's Cube for a billion years, and we still wouldn't get a GameCube.</p>
<p>"This brings us to the second flaw in the "just a theory" case. The term theory has very different meaning in science compared to our general use of the word. The colloquial use of "theory" comes close to what scientists mean by a "hypothesis" In science, a theory is more comprehensive than a hypothesis. A theory, such as Newton's theory of gravity or Darwin's theory of natural selection, accoutns for many facts and attempts to explain a great variety of phenomena. Such a unifying concept does not become a widely accepted theory in science unless its predictions stand up to thorough and continuous testing by experiments and observations... ARguing about evolutionary theory is like arguing about competing theories of gravity; we know that objects keep right on falling while we debate the case."</p>
<p>Ah, a favorite tactic of the evolutionists...unfortunately, in order for geoevolution to work, gravity has to take a coffee break for a couple million years, and IMHO, if I had to choose between the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Geoevolution, I'd choose the former.</p>
<p>Tanonev, </p>
<p>I'm not going to try to bother to refute your helium argument or your Rubik's Cube argument; quite frankly, I never once said that evolution is flawless or irrefutable. Also, I admire your ability to attempt to logically argue against evolution. That is great, because it gets people thinking about the ideas at hand, and I respect that. </p>
<p>However, </p>
<p>One can't have a "religious argument" because organized religion is not based on logic. I personally am not an atheist, but I fully respect and admire science because it attempts to find out the way the world actually is, be it supernatural or not. Religion is based on faith, which leads to beliefs, as opposed to reason, which leads to truth. So one can debate all day the veracities and nuances of evolution and its corresponding scientific theory, and it would be a just cause. But then, if you turn around and start to defend Creationism, the discussion comes to an abrupt halt, and we delve into the realm of personal belief uprooted in faith based on old books, which CAN NOT BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN.</p>
<p>"Forget who created it; doesn't it make sense? Analogy: let's let a Rubik's Cube represent an organism's gene pool. Natural selection (a person playing with the cube) can switch different things around to create "new designs", but only within the constraints of the original. Our gene manipulation (taking apart the cube and reassembling it into different shapes) can create designs farther away from the original, but with more limited functionality (less fitness) than the original. Either way, we could twist that Rubik's Cube for a billion years, and we still wouldn't get a GameCube."</p>
<p>You cannot create an example out of context. Why would random movements select a gamecube? Would that fit the environment better? Provide more context or the example is meaningless.</p>
<p>"Ah, a favorite tactic of the evolutionists...unfortunately, in order for geoevolution to work, gravity has to take a coffee break for a couple million years, and IMHO, if I had to choose between the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Geoevolution, I'd choose the former."</p>
<p>This is so random. Please elaborate on this more.</p>
<p>Yeah, what's this about gravity going out for coffee? There's one I've never heard before... Elaborate, por favor.</p>