Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[Tempter]

My Creator is the alpha and the omega (period).





You still dont get it... 

IT IS BY FAITH... (i never mentioned that creation theory is scientific)...


if anyone says that evolution is in anyway... scientific... then prove it scientifically (hindi iyong puro hypotheis, theories, suggestions, recommendation... perhaps... etc etcd).

You also don't get it... 

I am not PRO-EVOLUTION nor PRO-CREATION... I am an advocate of both... 

That's why natatawa ako sa inyo dahil you seem so sure of what you're talking about, when in fact both sides is neither right nor wrong... or shall I put it, both sides are both right and wrong... 

Parang Chicken or the Egg question lang yan... all nonsense debate 

[Quitacet]

May question lang ako sa mga Creationists:

1. How old is the Earth according to the Bible?
2. Did God create one group of living things at the same time or periodical ang creation even within a group (i.e., animals, nauna ang ...dinos, sumunod ang mammaals. etc.)


may tanong ako sa Evolutionists:

1. How do science explain the beginning of it all? What materials are there before the Bigbang? where did these materials come from?

[bumblebee]

Chicken came first

1. How do science explain the beginning of it all? What materials are there before the Bigbang? where did these materials come from?

IIRC, Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang.

But the concept of a universe seems old school nowadays. Now, there are multiverses (supported by entropy, discovery of dark energy and string theory.)

[dpogs]

IIRC, Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang.

there it goes... a very simple and scientific explanation... we just came from nowhere... baang... out from thin air... nagkaroon ng pagsabog...

a very scientific explanation came from famous physicist....

[alistair]

Anybody here that can prove to us that living things came from non-living things?

Evolution ≠ abiogenesis.

[alistair]

All that shows is degeneration, not evolution.

There is no difference.

It's a common misconception that "evolution" = "getting better".

A species can evolve to become bigger, or become smaller. It can become stronger (and have a higher metabolism/require more energy) or weaker (less muscle mass, but need less caloric intake).

It all depends on the selection pressures of its environment.
Si Pokemon kasi, kapag nag-evolve palaging lumalakas.

[leomarley]

Chicken came first

IIRC, Stephen Hawking said there was nothing before the Big Bang.

But the concept of a universe seems old school nowadays. Now, there are multiverses (supported by entropy, discovery of dark energy and string theory.)

String theory (through Ed Witten who is "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world.") suggests that the Big Bang is the result of collision between membranes (pre-Big Bang) and say that this is followed by the Big Crunch where the expansion of space reverses and causes the universe to collapse and a black hole singularity happens. These two events endlessly cycle from one process to another.

[dpogs]

String theory (through Ed Witten who is "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world.") suggests that the Big Bang is the result of collision between membranes (pre-Big Bang) and say that this is followed by the Big Crunch where the expansion of space reverses and causes the universe to collapse and a black hole singularity happens. These two events endlessly cycle from one process to another.

"suggests" again.. come on... what else... meron pa bang mga suggestions dyan... kasi maraming mga open minded dito na puwedeng tanggapin ang mga suhestiyon na yan...

[dpogs]

Evolution ≠ abiogenesis.

see... lol...

dont equate evolution to abiogenesis... thats another topic... hindi na nga pala sakop ng evolution ang abiogenesis... hays...

well... lets just assume evolution begins 200 million years ago.... minus of course abiogenesis... ibang usapan na yan...

[barrister]

"suggests" again..

Kaya nga dinagdagan ng "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world."  

Ibig sabihin, huwag mo nang kontrahin at huwag ka na ring mag-isip; basta tanggapin mo na lang kahit ubod ng labo ng sinasabi ...  

[Clondalkin]

Higgs Particle day today isn't it?  There's your god particle for the scientists at CERN.

Oh, Im not saying I believe it but I think I watched the documentary "What Happened Before The Big Bang" like 5x already.

[leomarley]

Kaya nga dinagdagan ng "generally considered the greatest theoretical physicist in the world."  

Ibig sabihin, huwag mo nang kontrahin at huwag ka na ring mag-isip; basta tanggapin mo na lang kahit ubod ng labo ng sinasabi ...  

that is why it's called a theory. i'm not saying that it's true. i just find it interesting. actually, if you delve more into String Theory talagang malalabuan ka. sobrang complex ng theory na 'to which a lot of physicist consider as the "Theory of Everything".

[alistair]

well... lets just assume evolution begins 200 million years ago.... minus of course abiogenesis... ibang usapan na yan...

Exactly. No one's claiming abiogenesis as fact.

OTOH, I think I believe in this today:

"Before there was earth or sea or heaven, there existed only chaos: shapeless, unorganized, lifeless matter. There was opposition in all things: hot conflicted with cold, wet with dry, heavy with light, and hard with soft.

Finally a god, a natural higher force, resolved this conflict, separating earth from heaven, parting the dry land from the waters, and dividing the clear air from the clouds, thus organizing all things into a balanced union. Thus did the god, whichever god it was, set order to the chaotic mass by separating it into its components, then organizing them into a harmonious whole.

Then the god shaped the earth into a great ball and caused the seas to spread in one direction and the other."[1]

It's a matter of FAITH! You can't prove it didn't happen!

Take my word for it—and give me 10% of your income.
[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-ovid.html

[Tempter]

Exactly. No one's claiming abiogenesis as fact.

OTOH, I think I believe in this today:

"Before there was earth or sea or heaven, there existed only chaos: shapeless, unorganized, lifeless matter. There was opposition in all things: hot conflicted with cold, wet with dry, heavy with light, and hard with soft.

Finally a god, a natural higher force, resolved this conflict, separating earth from heaven, parting the dry land from the waters, and dividing the clear air from the clouds, thus organizing all things into a balanced union. Thus did the god, whichever god it was, set order to the chaotic mass by separating it into its components, then organizing them into a harmonious whole.

Then the god shaped the earth into a great ball and caused the seas to spread in one direction and the other."[1]

It's a matter of FAITH! You can't prove it didn't happen!

Take my word for it—and give me 10% of your income.
[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation-ovid.html

This sounds like it came from DILBERT's website... 

Funny but sadly true...

[barrister]

that is why it's called a theory. i'm not saying that it's true. i just find it interesting.

Well, that clarifies where you're coming from.  I accept that viewpoint.  

However, once they claim it's "evidence" or "proof," that's when I take exception.

actually, if you delve more into String Theory talagang malalabuan ka. sobrang complex ng theory na 'to which a lot of physicist consider as the "Theory of Everything".

Pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka kasi masyadong mahirap intindihin?

O baka naman pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka, kasi mahahalata mo na puro kalokohan lang pala ang sinasabi ng theory na yon?

Don't get me wrong.  I believe scientific theories are important tools for mankind's understanding of the world and the universe.  But at the same time, there are some theories that are so downright quacky, yet the average Joe wouldn't dare criticize them for fear of being labeled as a dumbass hick who's too stupid to comprehend them.  

The String Theory is one of those that hide behind layer upon layer of complexity to cover up the fact that it's nothing but nonsense mumbo-jumbo speculation that's better-suited for shamans than for scientists.

It's time for the string theorists to admit that the emperor has no clothes.



String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end?
Robin McKie, science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 8 October 2006

The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.

This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.

... But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produce a single practical observation to support the theory.

... And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation

[bumblebee]

there it goes... a very simple and scientific explanation... we just came from nowhere... baang... out from thin air... nagkaroon ng pagsabog...

a very scientific explanation came from famous physicist....

Simple lang naman talaga e. Nothing, then bang. Yung theory mo ang kumplikado e

[Tempter]

Simple lang naman talaga e. Nothing, then bang. Yung theory mo ang kumplikado e

Yeah nakakatawa kasi yung big-bang they find funny, pero yung bigla na lang nagkaroon ng creationist hindi... 

[barrister]

Yeah nakakatawa kasi yung big-bang they find funny, pero yung bigla na lang nagkaroon ng creationist hindi...  

Ewan ko naman kung ano ang nakakatawa doon.

Pag relihiyon ang nagsabing bigla na lang nagkaroon, ano ang problema doon?  Relihiyon lang naman yon.  E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.

Pag science ang nagsabing bigla daw nagkaroon, malaki ang problema doon.  Kailangan kasi nating paniwalaan ang science kahit ano pa ang relihiyon natin o kahit wala tayong relihiyon.  

Ang tanong, "science" nga ba yung sabihin mong bigla na lang nagkaroon, kahit wala ka namang maibigay na patunay doon?

Bakit mo tatawaging science yon kung ang lumalabas ay pananampalataya lang talaga ang batayan sa paniniwalang yon?  

Alin ngayon ang lumalabas na katawa-tawa --- Yung umaamin na pananampalataya lang ang batayan ng paniniwala niya, o yung ayaw umamin na pananampalataya lang din ang batayan ng paniniwala niya?  

[dpogs]

they cant just admit it... that evolution is a religion... a belief that we came from nothing... a belief that nagkaroon lang ng pagsabog .. BAAANG!!!... and they call it science... haluan mo ng kunting explanation using stars distant measurement, physics principle, time frame (hmmmmm billion years ago etc etc)... na ang speaker or bumuo ng idea ay isang dakilang physicist or scientist = science...

hindi nga naman nakakatawa iyong paniniwala na we came from nothing and then ang belief na living things came from non-living things kasi ayon sa kanila science un eh...

I believe that there is a Supremce Creator na siyang nagpasimula ng lahat. I take it by faith...


ang iba dito... pinaninindigan na what they believe is based on facts and scientific findings (take note - not by faith as what they claim)... hmmm.... ayos na ayos... they just believe na we came from nothing scientifically and wisely.

[leomarley]

Well, that clarifies where you're coming from.  I accept that viewpoint.  

However, once they claim it's "evidence" or "proof," that's when I take exception.


Pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka kasi masyadong mahirap intindihin?

O baka naman pag pinag-aralan mo, malalabuan ka, kasi mahahalata mo na puro kalokohan lang pala ang sinasabi ng theory na yon?

Don't get me wrong.  I believe scientific theories are important tools for mankind's understanding of the world and the universe.  But at the same time, there are some theories that are so downright quacky, yet the average Joe wouldn't dare criticize them for fear of being labeled as a dumbass hick who's too stupid to comprehend them.  

The String Theory is one of those that hide behind layer upon layer of complexity to cover up the fact that it's nothing but nonsense mumbo-jumbo speculation that's better-suited for shamans than for scientists.

It's time for the string theorists to admit that the emperor has no clothes.



String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end?
Robin McKie, science Editor
The Observer, Sunday 8 October 2006

The most ambitious idea ever outlined by scientists has suffered a remarkable setback. It has been dismissed as a theoretical cul-de-sac that has wasted the academic lives of hundreds of the world's cleverest men and women.

This startling accusation has been made by frustrated physicists, including several Nobel prize winners, who say that string theory - which seeks to outline the entire structure of the universe in a few brief equations - is an intellectual dead end.

... But as the years have passed, scientists failed to produce a single practical observation to support the theory.

... And it is at this point that the rot set in. An unprovable theory that talks of unseeable parallel universes and 10-dimensional space has proved too much for some physicists. 'Quasi-theology' and 'post-modern' have been among the most polite terms used; 'bogus' and 'nonsense' among the less forgiving.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/oct/08/research.highereducation

It may or it may not. It's only been 17 years since the last Mathematical breakthrough in String Theory wherein Ed Witten has mathematically reconciled Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Quantum Theory and Newton's Law of Gravity. It doesn't take overnight to achieve breakthroughs as big and complex as this unified theory. One reason why this theory cannot be tested is because we don't have the technology but the results in CERN's LHC regarding Higgs Boson particle might give a lead into resolving String Theory (or M-Theory as Witten proposes).

M-Theory might be a dead end but it is the only one we have that's close to having a unified theory.

"M-theory is the only theory that seems to have all the properties that we would expect of a complete and consistent theory of everything, but that may just reflect our lack of imagination. If M-theory is correct, it predicts that every particle should have a superpartner. So far we have not observed any superpartners, but the hope is that they will be found at the LHC. If they are discovered, that will be strong evidence for M-theory. On the other hand, if they are shown not to exist, that will be exciting, because then we'll learn something new."
- Stephen Hawking

Medyo OT na tayo sir

[bumblebee]

they cant just admit it... that evolution is a religion... a belief that we came from nothing... a belief that nagkaroon lang ng pagsabog .. BAAANG!!!... and they call it science... haluan mo ng kunting explanation using stars distant measurement, physics principle, time frame (hmmmmm billion years ago etc etc)... na ang speaker or bumuo ng idea ay isang dakilang physicist or scientist = science...

hindi nga naman nakakatawa iyong paniniwala na we came from nothing and then ang belief na living things came from non-living things kasi ayon sa kanila science un eh...

I believe that there is a Supremce Creator na siyang nagpasimula ng lahat. I take it by faith...


ang iba dito... pinaninindigan na what they believe is based on facts and scientific findings (take note - not by faith as what they claim)... hmmm.... ayos na ayos... they just believe na we came from nothing scientifically and wisely.

Who created your creator? Same logic lang naman e. For us, it started with the Big Bang, for you, it started with your creator. Bago mo itanong what happened before the Big Bang, dapat alam mo rin kung ano nangyari before your creator was created

Matanong ko lang, how did your creator created the universe? Yung nasa Genesis ba?

[alistair]

they cant just admit it... that evolution is a religion

You mean Science.

Evolution is both fact and theory.

... a belief that we came from nothing...

Some people believe the Universe has always just existed and will always continue to exist (even with Big Bang—they just add a Big Crunch). Like Bumblebee said—it's no different from believing God has always existed and will always exist and nothing came before God.

a belief that nagkaroon lang ng pagsabog .. BAAANG!!!... and they call it science...

Wrong, that's not Science. That's the BBT.

The Science part comes from measuring (no faith required, anyone with the right equipment can do the same) the cosmic background microwave radiation, the red shift, etc. etc.

haluan mo ng kunting explanation using stars distant measurement, physics principle, time frame (hmmmmm billion years ago etc etc)... na ang speaker or bumuo ng idea ay isang dakilang physicist or scientist = science...

Just because you don't have a PhD in astrophysics or can't grasp the simple concept of a light-year doesn't mean that (most) those things aren't based on observable fact.

I'll that String Theory is a stretch, even for me, but that's a real new theory. Gravitation, Electromagnetism, etc. etc.—do you know how the Lorentz Field equations work? Does that mean that Lorentz forces require faith?

I believe that there is a Supremce Creator na siyang nagpasimula ng lahat. I take it by faith...

I think this is what I believe in today:

"The gods were dredging the rivers,
   were piling up their silt
   on projecting bends--
 and the gods lugging the clay
   began complaining

 Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
 The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
 You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
 Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
 The goddesses [of birth] .  . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
 O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
 Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods,
 It is man . . . . "

It's based on FAITH! You can't prove it didn't happen!

[barrister]

It may or it may not.

That's what I accept.

You don't say it's proven to be correct.  You merely say, "It may or it may not."  And that's a reasonable point of view.

Let's say a scientist says he doesn't believe in creation because it's pure fantasy.  I also accept that, because I cannot prove my creation belief.  Therefore, his refusal to believe is reasonable and acceptable.

But if the same scientist says he believes in evolution including abiogenesis because they are proven facts, that's the time that I vehemently object.

And that's my position.  I emphasize that I'm not one of those religious nuts who force others to believe their dogma.
    

[tigkal]

Akala ko na answer na ang lahat ng questions sa recent findings in the particle collider. From nothing, we have something.

[docelmo]

Simple lang naman talaga e. Nothing, then bang. Yung theory mo ang kumplikado e

Sir,
The statement is not at all factual and in fact contradicts one the most fundamental law of Science!
The Law of Thermodynamics!
 
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! What does this imply? Energy was already in existence before the universe was formed! So there was Something there before everything and not..Nothing!

TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Which means that everything left to itself will decay or will result in disorder. The discovery of Uranium and other radioactive elements led scientist the believe that  Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner.
Which means that at some point in time all radioactive elements came into existence!

And here's another Principle that is found all around....Cause and Effect!

Simply put "Nothing" cannot have an Effect right?

Common Sense nalang.......Typing comments on this thread.

                                     What is the Cause.....YOU!
                                     What is the Effect.....Words posted on this thread.

Without You (Cause) then there would no comments posted (Effect) here, in the same manner without, a creator, energy, God (First Cause), there would be no Universe, earth, us (effect)!!!

Oh another nature of this Universal Law.....the Cause is always greater than the Effect!

[leomarley]

Ewan ko naman kung ano ang nakakatawa doon.

Pag relihiyon ang nagsabing bigla na lang nagkaroon, ano ang problema doon?  Relihiyon lang naman yon.  E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.

Pag science ang nagsabing bigla daw nagkaroon, malaki ang problema doon.  Kailangan kasi nating paniwalaan ang science kahit ano pa ang relihiyon natin o kahit wala tayong relihiyon.  

Ang tanong, "science" nga ba yung sabihin mong bigla na lang nagkaroon, kahit wala ka namang maibigay na patunay doon?

Bakit mo tatawaging science yon kung ang lumalabas ay pananampalataya lang talaga ang batayan sa paniniwalang yon?  

Alin ngayon ang lumalabas na katawa-tawa --- Yung umaamin na pananampalataya lang ang batayan ng paniniwala niya, o yung ayaw umamin na pananampalataya lang din ang batayan ng paniniwala niya?  

ito sa tingin ko ay unfair specially that Creationists want their belief to be considered as a science.

[barrister]

ito sa tingin ko ay unfair specially that Creationists want their belief to be considered as a science.

It's not true that all creationists have that attitude.  I am not one of them.  Notice that I said in my previous post:

Relihiyon lang naman yon.  E di huwag mong paniwalaan kung ayaw mo.

Does that sound like someone who wants his belief to be considered as "science"?



However, it is true that there are creationists who like to mix religion and science, and are using "science" to prove that their creationist beliefs.

One example is ICR: http://www.icr.org/

ICR is a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) group.  Here's an example of their quack "science" articles:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

ito sa tingin ko ay unfair specially that Creationists want their belief to be considered as a science.

No, it's not unfair.

If an evolutionist says his belief has been proven by science, then let's see if his proof can stand up to scrutiny.

If a creationist says his belief has also been proven by science, then by the same standard, let's see if his proof can also stand up to scrutiny.

That's fair and square.

[leomarley]

Sir,
The statement is not at all factual and in fact contradicts one the most fundamental law of Science!
The Law of Thermodynamics!
 
The First Law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! What does this imply? Energy was already in existence before the universe was formed! So there was Something there before everything and not..Nothing!

TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics, which states that the total entropy in any isolated thermodynamic systems tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. Which means that everything left to itself will decay or will result in disorder. The discovery of Uranium and other radioactive elements led scientist the believe that  Radioactive elements always break down in a highly systematic, controlled manner.
Which means that at some point in time all radioactive elements came into existence!

And here's another Principle that is found all around....Cause and Effect!

Simply put "Nothing" cannot have an Effect right?

Common Sense nalang.......Typing comments on this thread.

                                     What is the Cause.....YOU!
                                     What is the Effect.....Words posted on this thread.

Without You (Cause) then there would no comments posted (Effect) here, in the same manner without, a creator, energy, God (First Cause), there would be no Universe, earth, us (effect)!!!

Oh another nature of this Universal Law.....the Cause is always greater than the Effect!

i think it is for this reason that they came up with the Big Crunch.

[docelmo]

i think it is for this reason that they came up with the Big Crunch.

The big crunch is being postulated as the universe's ultimate fate.....and NOT its Origin.

[docelmo]

The big crunch is being postulated as the universe's ultimate fate.....and NOT its Origin.

The second law of thermodynamics has already answered the fate of the universe......entropy!