How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

lol. Ahem ahem. Fairy tale with things popping out of nothing? Is that any better than things gradually becoming out of nothing?

I know we've discussed this before.

Excellent point (though not new).

JD, things growing gradually around you is not unusual and was not invented when evolution was thought up (or discovered). If God made things just pop up out of nothing, its just as much in his power (and will) to make them grow gradually. And what you are citing sounds to me like Micro-evolution (within species evolution, which is reasonably possible), and NOT macro-evolution. (i.e. monkeys to men, dinasaurs to birds) which is the big transition kind of evolution.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Excellent point (though not new).

JD, things growing gradually around you is not unusual and was not invented when evolution was thought up (or discovered). If God made things just pop up out of nothing, its just as much in his power (and will) to make them grow gradually. And what you are citing sounds to me like Micro-evolution (within species evolution, which is reasonably possible), and NOT macro-evolution. (i.e. monkeys to men, dinasaurs to birds) which is the big transition kind of evolution.

NO - I just didn't go into Maco-evolution. I've already did a full post in the evolution thread which explains how macor evolution works. I feel no need to go through it again - because everyone pretty much understands it.

As for jellyfishes comment that people came out of nothing even with gradual change - that isn't so. It's just that we don't claim to know how things might have begun. There could have very easily have been chemical and biological reactions. There are many theories on this. But some people blindly accept that some mystical being just popped us up on earth - that is actually what people claim to KNOW happened. There is a difference.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

lol. Ahem ahem. Fairy tale with things popping out of nothing? Is that any better than things gradually becoming out of nothing?

One thing I would like to just note here briefly. The Bible does not claim that living creatures popped out of nothing. It says that God made living creatures out of dust-organic material-the physical substances that already existed in the universe. It does not describe the process he used very clearly. However, it does not say that he created them out of nothing. Neither does evolution say that creatures gradually became out of nothing. It too claims that they became out of the physical substances of the universe that already existed. Neither creationism nor evolution says that living creatures popped from nothing.

Just making a note .

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One thing I would like to just note here briefly. The Bible does not claim that living creatures popped out of nothing. It says that God made living creatures out of dust-organic material-the physical substances that already existed in the universe. It does not describe the process he used very clearly. However, it does not say that he created them out of nothing. Neither does evolution say that creatures gradually became out of nothing. It too claims that they became out of the physical substances of the universe that already existed. Neither creationism nor evolution says that living creatures popped from nothing.

This is just a triviality really, but the Bible doesn't necessarily claim that life came from organic dust. You can read that the "earth brought forth grass, and herb". The early earth, where nothing has ever grown before, must have been mainly inorganic, so God didn't use organic material for the plants.
Scientists believe evolution at least had the decenty to produce early life from organic material

Btw, this is a good read - Genesis

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This is just a triviality really, but the Bible doesn't necessarily claim that life came from organic dust. It says the "earth brought forth grass, and herb" - and soil, where nothing has ever grown before, is mainly inorganic. Scientists believe evolution at least had the decenty to produce early life from organic material

I don't fully understand your argument. Vegetation requires sunlight and water to develop. Early Earth according to scripture filled those requirements. Also the scripture doesn't really point out a specific time when microscopic life forms were created. Are you arguing that plant life could not have developed?

If you look at the order of the animals, you'll see that they even have a similar pattern to what is predicted in the Theory of Evolution. First came the marine animals, then land animals, and finally humans. By the time we get to mankind being created out of dust, dust had existed for a long time.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't fully understand your argument. Vegetation requires sunlight and water to develop. Early Earth according to scripture filled those requirements. Also the scripture doesn't really point out a specific time when microscopic life forms were created. Are you arguing that plant life could not have developed?.

Vegetation requires a little more than that, like carbohydrates for starters, that's what all life is made of. I'm saying there can't have been very big amounts of carbohydrates or other organic compounds in the earth. There are now, since the planet has been covered with vegetation for a very long time. Besides, the Bible states sunlight was created after the first plants . I guess that makes sense in a way, because if there had been sunlight before that, it would have irradiated the plants to death. We have vegetation to thank for our planet's ozone layer and without it, life on land wouldn't have been possible. Conclussion - sunlight came before vegetation and life in water came before life on land. Genesis states the opposite

Also, it is quite obvious that the Bible doesn't mention microscopic life. No one knew it existed

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you look at the order of the animals, you'll see that they even have a similar pattern to what is predicted in the Theory of Evolution. First came the marine animals, then land animals, and finally humans. By the time we get to mankind being created out of dust, dust had existed for a long time.

In many ways, the pattern is similar. However Genesis says birds came at the same time as marine animals, before life was created on the ground. Scientists believe birds evolved from (landliving) dinosaurs.

You are right that there was more than enough organic compounds to create human beings by the time mankind came to the earth.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't fully understand your argument. Vegetation requires sunlight and water to develop. Early Earth according to scripture filled those requirements. Also the scripture doesn't really point out a specific time when microscopic life forms were created. Are you arguing that plant life could not have developed?

Since when is the bible a source for scientific study? That's the problem with your argument right there..."the scripture doesn't really point out". You shouldn't be using the bible at all as source material foir your argument.

If you look at the order of the animals, you'll see that they even have a similar pattern to what is predicted in the Theory of Evolution. First came the marine animals, then land animals, and finally humans. By the time we get to mankind being created out of dust, dust had existed for a long time.

What? According to the bible it was just 6 days.


Jonathan already covered what I would have said to address your post to me though.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This is just a triviality really, but the Bible doesn't necessarily claim that life came from organic dust. You can read that the "earth brought forth grass, and herb". The early earth, where nothing has ever grown before, must have been mainly inorganic, so God didn't use organic material for the plants.
Scientists believe evolution at least had the decenty to produce early life from organic material

Btw, this is a good read - Genesis

i have never ead any of the bible before now, that is qute funny, that 'genesis', in a silly kind of way

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

How is that flawed? Why not listen to yourself - don't you think that through EIOLUTION the moths developed to where they had coloration that enabled them to live in certain places. Sort of like the coloration of penguins IR mentioned.

As for the peppered moth experiment it came about as a study of how pollution affected the lives of organizations. Around pollution causing industries which left a black soot on trees, white moths who were normally safe from preditors - all of a sudden found themselves exposed. The darker moths however survived under those conditions because they remained well hidden.

As I said before, the experiment was flawed in several major areas. The two biggest flaws were:

1. In all but 1 experiment, Kettlewell released the moths during the DAY, when in fact these moths are NOCTURNAL, and

2. When released during the day (which is entirely unnatural to this species) the moths were either placed, or landed, on tree trunks, which are NOT at ALL the natural resting places of these types of moths.

This is a deeply flawed experiment, pure and simple. If the hypothesis is that because of environmental coloration changes due to pollution, the moth population shifted percentage of darks to lights, then this is NOT the type of experiment to prove it, since the REAL habits of these moths were blatantly disregarded in two major areas.

Why would you defend this experiment? It's deeply flawed, as is clearly illustrated by the differing results in different areas of England (i.e., in other polluted places, the number of LIGHT moths increased!)

If you want to prove that birds will eat light colored moths placed unnaturally on tree trunks during an unnatural time of day for them to be out and about, this is the perfect experiment. However, if you want to prove that due to environmental color changes, dark moth percentages increased in a population because birds couldn't see them as well, then this experiment does NOT fit the bill, because the natural habits of these moths were NOT used.

Experiments in nature should match the natural habits of the species under observation. That was NOT the case in this experiment.

I just don't understand why anyone would support this experiment when it is so flawed I really don't. It's just one of those leftover things, like the "gill slits". I mean you might as well call the "gill slits" on fish embryos "inner ear slits"! "Gill slits" on humans have NOTHING to do with gills or breathing. "Gill slits" on fish develop into gills. They happen to have a superficial, outer (i.e., non-functional) resemblance to one another. Why would you call "gill slits" on fish "gill slits" and not "inner ear slits", if you call "gill slits" on humans "gill slits"? The only reason they were called "gill slits" is because of that recapitulation idea. IOW, they were called "gill slits" NOT because of anything to do with reality, but because of everything to do with wanting something to be true.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

So the theory of evolution is not proven. .. Wow, this ended up being a lenghty post. Hope someone takes the time to read it .

Very good post, Jonathan! I have read it once, and will re-read it and address it hopefully later this afternoon. I esp. want to address the bacteria and monkey points (I have a degree in computer science, specializing in math and simulation). I'm afraid I don't know your background very well - what is/was your field of study, just so I know what your background is? (IOW, if it's math/computers, I'll know I can skip details I would use with other people.)

Btw, notice how in this thread, RÃ*an uses the "" smiley where others would have used the "" smiley. Now that's the way people should post! Kudos to RÃ*an

*blushes* Thank you very much!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Hey wait, don't ruin the discussion! . I'm very interested in hearing about what evidence the creationists have

If you'd like, you can go to the first post in this thread and follow the link to my multi-post discussion on the subject

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hence - survival of the fittest. Which is part of the theory of evolution.

I have no problem with this extremely obvious aspect of reality

The one time Rian tried to back up her opinion with "well god wouldn't use evolution because it's not eligant enough" (paraphrasing here). If that's the type of thing that will be used in an argument to back up some unscientific theory - then sorry - it's a bunch of bull.

You're picking out one miniscule sentence that I said to Lief (IIRC) to explain one philosophical aspect of why I don't believe in theistic evolution, and disregarding the reams of info that I've posted supporting creationism and showing that certain aspects of mainstream evolutionism that are considered to be fact are in reality just unproven deductions. You may disregard that sentence as proof for any particular side - I certainly don't consider it to be proof for any particular side.

Thank you for the note that you paraphrased me, tho - it's important, esp. in these types of discussions, to accurately quote others, and if you don't know the quote then it's good to note it's a paraphrase, IMO.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

But some people blindly accept that some mystical being just popped us up on earth - that is actually what people claim to KNOW happened.

I am not aware of ANYONE on this thread that holds that belief.

[jerseydevil]

Rian - that is one example of natural selection. There may have been flaws in the conclusion - but there were a number of experiments performed (something I never saw mentioned in the creationist websites that paint a VERY one sided picture of the experiment). Do you deny that natural selection exists? Can you admit that there are MAJOR flaws in the "popped out of thin air from some mystical being" theory you support? There is no scientific basis for that "popped out of thin air" theory - other than belief. And belief is not science.

See all the sites that condemn the experiments outright are all supporters of creaionism. It's as if the only way they can support their claim is by saying "see - there experiment was flawed, we're therefore right" It doesn't work that way. Where are the scientific studies that support creationsim - WITHOUT having to resort to dragging evolution through the mud? The Theory of Evolution only talks about the fossil record and the evidence that is at hand and comes up with a hypothesis - it doesn't have to resort to attacking creationism to back up their claims.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You're picking out one miniscule sentence that I said to Lief (IIRC) to explain one philosophical aspect of why I don't believe in theistic evolution, and disregarding the reams of info that I've posted supporting creationism and showing that certain aspects of mainstream evolutionism that are considered to be fact are in reality just unproven deductions. You may disregard that sentence as proof for any particular side - I certainly don't consider it to be proof for any particular side.

Sorry - but you said that you were basing your opinions on whether it would be something that god would do. Since god is not proveable - you can't base scientific decuctions on whether a god exists. That is the problem with your arguments.

And I have read your posts - for 2 years and counting - you have never provided evidence of creationism other than through a belief in god or by knocking evolution in some way. You have never, nor have I seen on any creationist website - be able to back up creationsim on it's own merits. The only thing you guys can do is pick apart some experiments or to say the fossil record is incomplete or that evolution is unproveble because we can't observe it. There is much we understand about physics and so forth that we can not fully observe.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I am not aware of ANYONE on this thread that holds that belief.

So then you don't believe that "god" just created life as the bible states? and as creationists try to claim? That's surprising - because for 2 years that's what you have been saying basically.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Besides, the Bible states sunlight was created after the first plants ... Conclussion - sunlight came before vegetation and life in water came before life on land. Genesis states the opposite.

If you're suggesting that there is a problem with the sun being created after plants, this isn't correct - I suggest you re-read your link to Genesis! (and don't just quote verse 16 - re-read the whole section and think it thru...)

Understanding is the key to a good discussion.

I totally agree! I would also add "consideration of others", too, and it's obvious from your posts that you agree with that ideal - yay!

There are various ways too look at this. What came first, the hen or the egg? Did evolution enable the moth to change colours, or was the darker colour something that pre-existed and that evolution brought fourth?
As far as I know the genes for the darker colour have existed for a very long time. The genes are recessive, which is why most moths are white. However some moths still turn black if they're unlucky to get 'bad' genes. In areas where it's actually beneficial to be dark, the black moths don't die as easily as they would otherwise and can therefore spread their 'bad' genes and give birth to even more dark moths. This is just natural adaption - a step towards further evolution but still far from it. The moths population has the dark genes, it's just not always they're expressed.

Exactly!!! But we have to be very careful to define our terms - when you say "evolution brought fourth" in your third sentence - I think it would be more accurate to say "natural selection brought forth". I think substituting the broader term of "evolution" when actually something more narrow is meant (in this case, "natural selection") is a major cause of many misunderstandings. People think that the moth experiment "proves" evolution in toto (including things like beneficial mutations and macro evolution); however, in reality, at the MOST it proves one SMALL aspect of evolution that no one has a problem with, anyway! The dark moths were pre-existing in the population, so the experiment (even if it had been correctly conducted and the results turned out the same) COULD NOT have supported the beneficial mutations aspect of evolution. Do you see what I mean?

The theory of evolution has several components (natural selection, beneficial mutation, etc.), and I think we have to be careful and accurate what part(s) we're saying are supported by evidence as we discuss various experiments.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There may have been flaws in the conclusion ...

JD, I think we're just fated to misunderstand each other My point was that there were flaws in the experiment, not the conclusion. Given the observations in the experiment, the conclusion was perfectly valid. However, since the experiment was deeply flawed, the conclusion should be thrown out. Now the conclusion could be true, but that particular experiment should NOT be cited as proof for the conclusion, because the experiment was flawed. Do you see the difference?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"Gill slits" on humans have NOTHING to do with gills or breathing. "Gill slits" on fish develop into gills. They happen to have a superficial, outer (i.e., non-functional) resemblance to one another. Why would you call "gill slits" on fish "gill slits" and not "inner ear slits", if you call "gill slits" on humans "gill slits"?

You're quite right that humans don't have gills or anything. However from an evolutionist's point of view, the region in fish and humans where gills/inner ears are developed, has a common history. During millions of years, that region in fish developed into gills whereas the same region in other animals turned into inner ears. During the early stages of the embryo, one can see the resemblance between fish and humans more clearly than when the organism is fully developed. By looking at how a human fetus grows, one can get an idea of how evolution has developed our different organs.

Another example is our blood corpuscles and the chlorophyll of plants. They resemble one another quite a lot when it comes to structure and it seems our blood and chlorophyll have a common evolutionary past. It is probable that when life forms developed that no longer needed sunlight to get their glucose, they had no use for chlorophyll and through evolution their chlorophyll eventually obtained the properties of blood.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Very good post, Jonathan! I have read it once, and will re-read it and address it hopefully later this afternoon. I esp. want to address the bacteria and monkey points (I have a degree in computer science, specializing in math and simulation). I'm afraid I don't know your background very well - what is/was your field of study, just so I know what your background is? (IOW, if it's math/computers, I'll know I can skip details I would use with other people.)

Thank you RÃ*an! I'm looking forward to your reply . Nurvingiel told me you were into math and that you'd be interested in the typing monkey.
I'm a biomed student and am more into biochemistry than math/computers, so don't skip any important mathematical details please

[edit]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

If you're suggesting that there is a problem with the sun being created after plants, this isn't correct - I suggest you re-read your link to Genesis! (and don't just quote verse 16 - re-read the whole section and think it thru...)

Oops! I completely forgot the "Let there be light" part
[edit] How could there have been a day/night cycle without a sun?

[jerseydevil]

Rian - here is your quote....

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...ion#post251200

And finally, for Lief, re the salt pillar and the serpent changing -

I think the difference btwn single celled organism evolving and the making of man out of dust is that the former is simply rife with mistakes and death (remember, a mutation by definition is rare, and a beneficial mutation the rarest of rare birds, so all those UN-beneficial mutations would cause death and disfigurement and disease, etc); while the latter is one simple, beautiful, elegant, incredible creative act, done right the first time (man was declared "very good"), and is more consistent with the character and "style" of God, IMO.

This is Lief's statement...

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...ent#post250712

I don't think the Bible has anything against evolution. As a matter of a fact, in Genesis Chapter 3 we see God punish one of his own creatures by changing it into something else. The serpent.

Though I tend to view that as a whole species transformation, that the serpent represented the dinosaur. Because he said "you shall crawl on your belly and eat dust." For that to be a punishment, it must imply that it didn't crawl on its belly and eat dust in the past, which implied it was in a more upright position. In fact, the dinosaur perfectly fits that.

I don't actually think that the dinosaur really evolved into current day reptiles, because of my Dad's studies, but in a way it did. And what it does show beyond a doubt is that God doesn't mind changing his creatures from one sort of creature to another.

As is plainly proved by humans, as well. Aren't we born again? Changed into a totally new life . Different from evolution, of course, but once again, I see science as paralleling the Christian experience.

Now, as far as evolution disproving intelligent design, I greatly agree with you. Evolution doesn't say whether or not a creator is pulling the strings of the universe and pushing everything into place in his perfect plan.

If you notice - both of these posts were nearly two years ago. This si a circular argument and I still have not seen where the creationists have prsented any evidence of creationism. At one time Rian was trying to defend the teaching of "evolution by intelligent design", which to me i a way of getting a non-scientific backed belief into the classroom. They can't get it taught by calling it creationism, but they want to teach that some mystical supernatural being created us anyway.

This is another example of Rian trying to explain why she believes in creationism, not by scientific study - but by belief in god.

http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/show...ion#post251198

Now Lief, I disagree with you and JD, I believe it was, when you say that the theory of evolution says nothing about God. Of course, it is not explicitly stated as premise number 35 that "God does not exist". However, it does say that chance is the driving force behind the evolutionary changes, doesn't it? IOW, random beneficial mutations, etc. Of course, there is theistic evolution, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the basic th. of evolution that is taught in schools. And if you say that chance drives the events, then that by logical inference means that God does NOT.

And what is so devastating about that is that people are stripped of their value, and I hate that, because that is a lie. Young, impressionable students are taught at a very early age by authority figures that they are just the results of random chance and beneficial mutations. And believe me, they are laughed at if they disagree with this. Well, then, what does that mean? It means that there was no loving Creator that made them, individually and carefully and tenderly in their mother's wombs, as the Bible says. Does a result of chance events have any inherent value? No. And I object to that thought, because people ARE very valuable beings - they are of great worth! Every one of you who post here on Entmoot is an incredibly valuable being, both to me and to God. And THAT is why the morality values are put into our hearts - it is WRONG to lie, it is WRONG to steal, etc., BECAUSE it is WRONG to HARM a thing of great worth and beauty - a valuable person, made in God's image.

This one line states very well why Rian does not believe and can not accept evolutio, because to believe that the things around us developed through chance then means that "by logical inference means that God does NOT." (exist).

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

JD, I think we're just fated to misunderstand each other My point was that there were flaws in the experiment, not the conclusion. Given the observations in the experiment, the conclusion was perfectly valid. However, since the experiment was deeply flawed, the conclusion should be thrown out. Now the conclusion could be true, but that particular experiment should NOT be cited as proof for the conclusion, because the experiment was flawed. Do you see the difference?

I understand perfectly well the difference. but the only thing that creationsits use to try to back up creation is trying to disprove evolution and using the bible as source material. Creationism has to be viewed from an aspect of belief in god - not from scientific evidence - that does not make good science at all.