Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[docelmo]

Interesting point.

Ganon nga ba, Doc?
 
Tama naman yon, di ba?

Creation = magical.  Hindi scientific yon.  E hindi nga talaga scientific.  Religion na yon.
Evolution = magical din...    Scientific ba yon?  Hindi.

The reality is that science doesn't know how we got here.  But they don't want to say "I don't know,"  kahit iyon naman talaga ang totoo.

Bakit?  Kasi ayaw nilang magkaroon ng foothold ang religion sa usapan.  Pag sinabi nilang hindi nila alam, the religious nuts will have a foot on the door and say, "Ayun, inaamin na nila na totoo ang creation!"  Kaya pinipilit ng science na alam daw nila.  Evolution is a provable fact daw.

Hehehe Atty, cross examination ba ito?

Let me again put forth my position. The neo-darwinian evolution of unguided natural selection acting on random mutation. Does not hold water for several reasons, first the fossil evidence show that animals arrived fully formed and functional. Variations only occur within the species. Second from the first microbe to man....contains biological/digital information  independent of the organism. Third random mutation would never form new information to form functional system.

From the book Darwin's Doubt
"The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).

So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand—as the Darwinists do—you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible."

As I said before Intelligent design or Intelligent Cause is a much better explanation on the complexity than an unguided natural selection acting on random mutations!

[docelmo]

The view of science is that evolution is both fact and theory.

Atty, my opinion is Science is unbiased, its the scientists that are biased...

[barrister]

Ako, I believe scientists are not biased.  Pero pagdating sa evolution, talagang sarado na ang isip, ayaw man lang sabihin na hindi sila sigurado.  Talagang siguradong-sigurado na evolution is a fact... 

Hehehe Atty, cross examination ba ito?

xxx

... As I said before Intelligent design or Intelligent Cause is a much better explanation on the complexity than an unguided natural selection acting on random mutations!

Ikaw naman Doc, hindi pa rin malinaw yung sagot mo... 

You don't believe in unguided evolution.  You believe in ID (Intelligent Design).

Pero ang tanong ni sir bumblebee, "guided evolution" ba yung belief mo?  The term is actually "theistic evolution," pero malinaw naman yung tanong.  Sometimes, it's called "EC" (Evolutionary Creationism).

Ang intindi ko, you do not believe in theistic evolution?  Tama ba?

Kung ganon, pareho tayo.  I don't think theistic evolution is correct.

[docelmo]

Atty, my opinion is Science is unbiased, its the scientists that are biased...

Ako, I believe scientists are not biased.  Pero pagdating sa evolution, talagang sarado na ang isip, ayaw man lang sabihin na hindi sila sigurado.  Talagang siguradong-sigurado na evolution is a fact... 

 
Ikaw naman Doc, hindi pa rin malinaw yung sagot mo... 

You don't believe in unguided evolution.  You believe in ID (Intelligent Design).

Pero ang tanong ni sir bumblebee, "guided evolution" ba yung belief mo?  The term is actually "theistic evolution," pero malinaw naman yung tanong.  Sometimes, it's called "EC" (Evolutionary Creationism).

Ang intindi ko, you do not believe in theistic evolution?  Tama ba?

Kung ganon, pareho tayo.  I don't think theistic evolution is correct.

That was my point actually scientist are biased....when it comes to evolution;

To make things clear.....I believe an Intelligent, purposeful cause is the "mechanism" for the emergence of life. I don't agree w/ TE also simply because uses unguided cause for life.

[barrister]

I don't agree w/ TE also simply because uses unguided cause for life.

No, hindi ganon yon sir.

Theistic Evolution is GUIDED evolution, not unguided evolution.  It means evolution is correct, but it occurred with the intervention of a supernatural creator.

Non-theistic evolutionists believe that evolution occurred naturally, without supernatural intervention.  To accept that a creator caused it to happen would require too many assumptions, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle.

[bumblebee]

So, you agree that according to science, evolution is both fact and theory?  That's how I understood your post.

Yes, both.

[RU9]

[RU9]

[RU9]

[RU9]

[RU9]

From a medical point of view: "Ganito sasabihin sayo ng consultant" Doctor, Your Diagnosis is NOT supported by the Signs and Symptoms!

That's my point. Buti nga me signs and symptons, sa kabila, faith - take it or leave it, tapos na.

Tuloy tuloy  ang discoveries ng fossils, fossil DNA to shed light on this process of evolution.

[docelmo]

No, hindi ganon yon sir.

Theistic Evolution is GUIDED evolution, not unguided evolution.  It means evolution is correct, but it occurred with the intervention of a supernatural creator.

Non-theistic evolutionists believe that evolution occurred naturally, without supernatural intervention.  To accept that a creator caused it to happen would require too many assumptions, in violation of the Occam's Razor principle.

My bad, i generalized again. By Theistic evolution i was referring to the movement of combining creation and neo darwinian evolution. Which says that God has placed the building blocks and then lets "nature' take its course. Which means this employs natural selection on random mutation.

My view is that GOD was in full control of the entire creation from the first atom
To man. This intelligent purposeful Cause would result in fully formed functional animals w/ variations in the same level.  Which is what is seen in fossil evidence. If this is also a form of theist evulotion, then in this sense i would be a theist evolutionist. The bible has declared GOd created the heavens and the earth and He created all living things. This and what we now know about. Anatomy, chemistry, math, etc.....points to the presence of an intelligent mind!

[dpogs]

saan pumapasok ang plants sa evolution?

[heisenbergman]

That's my point. Buti nga me signs and symptons, sa kabila, faith - take it or leave it, tapos na.

Yup, this is the main difference of evolution and creation.

Evolution is not fact. That's why it's called The Theory of Evolution. However, it is backed up by a lot of scientific evidence and data that has been gathered through centuries.

Creationism is purely based on faith. Yun lang.

[docelmo]

That's my point. Buti nga me signs and symptons, sa kabila, faith - take it or leave it, tapos na.

Tuloy tuloy  ang discoveries ng fossils, fossil DNA to shed light on this process of evolution.

Sir, lahat po nakatingin sa ebidensya( signs/symptoms. Ang pagkakA iba po ay yung pag interpret ng evidence,
Pang hindi tugma ang diagnosis mo base sa nakikita mo ay dapAt maghAnap ka ng ibang diagnosis.....that is what we call differential diagnosis you consider all the posinities. You dont go around disregarding evidence that does not fit your diagnosis, you look for another diagnosis.....same goes for evolution!

[docelmo]

Yup, this is the main difference of evolution and creation.

Evolution is not fact. That's why it's called The Theory of Evolution. However, it is backed up by a lot of scientific evidence and data that has been gathered through centuries.

Creationism is purely based on faith. Yun lang.

I partly agree with your statement sir, but allow me to clarify;

If by Evolution you are referring to small-scale changes/variations in species. This has been observed and accepted...indeed this is a FACT.
However if by Evolution you are referring to large scale changes via natural selection on random mutations to form complex and functional body plans, then this mechanism has NOT been proved, tested or seen in the research....so this is most certainly NOT a FACT.

.......And that's a Fact!

Creationism is a faith-based biblical account of life. However,  It doesn't mean that it's claim cannot be tested or compared w/ present-day knowledge in nature.

[docelmo]

Sir, Evolution is a broad term. When you say evolution, what mechanism of evolution are you in agreement with to say that there is evidence of evolution based on say comparative anatomy or DNA?

[barrister]

My view is that GOD was in full control of the entire creation from the first atom
To man. This intelligent purposeful Cause would result in fully formed functional animals w/ variations in the same level.  Which is what is seen in fossil evidence. If this is also a form of theist evulotion, then in this sense i would be a theist evolutionist.

No, that is not theistic evolution.

Remember, when we say "evolution," we mean a common ancestor for all living things.  Theistic evolution means all living things have a common ancestor, but the process of evolving from the simplest to more complex forms of life was caused by the action of an intelligent designer.

But that is not what the bible says.

The bible says living things were created independently and instantly, not gradually through the process of evolution as guided by God.

In other words, a different kind of animal did not come from a simpler kind of animal by evolution.  Yung bagong klase ng hayop, biglang lumitaw yon. 

For example, sabi ng evolutionist, reptiles evolved into birds.  Kung ganon, dapat may transitional fossils, showing that reptiles gradually evolved into birds. 

But what is in the fossil records?  Reptile; Bird; but nothing in between.  Bakit?  Kasi biglang lumitaw ang birds; wala talagang in-between.  (Yung mga evolutionist na gustong pag-usapan ang archaeopteryx and archaeoraptor, puwede rin ako doon...  )

That is why I don't believe in theistic evolution --- because I don't believe in evolution.  Kabitan mo man ng "Theistic" ang "evolution," evolution pa rin yon.

[docelmo]

In that case attorney, since i don't accept that "gradual" changes in animals but the emergence of fully formed functional organism.... I am recanting my earlier statement and now say .....I am NOT a Theistic Evolutionist! 

[barrister]

I see.

E malinaw na talaga, Doc!

Thanks, ang impression ko kahapon theistic evolutionist ka sir...

[bumblebee]

In that case attorney, since i don't accept that "gradual" changes in animals but the emergence of fully formed functional organism.... I am recanting my earlier statement and now say .....I am NOT a Theistic Evolutionist! 

So bigla na lang lumitaw ang manok?

[leomarley]

magic!

[barrister]

So bigla na lang lumitaw ang manok?

Yes, biglang lumitaw ang manok.  But remember, that answer is from a religious, not scientific, point of view.

The scientific answer should be, "we're not sure."  But what is the answer of the scientist?   "It evolved."  That is not scientific.

[leomarley]

so what is the alternative to evolution if it's not true? scientifically of course not based on religion?

[barrister]

The alternative is for scientists to simply admit that they don't know, or that they are not sure.

Bakit naman kailangan ng siguradong sagot agad-agad?  It is not necessary to have a definitite answer if the scientist is really not sure. 

For example, the wave-particle duality of light is still a scientific mystery.  Wala namang problema ang mga scientist na aminin na hindi sila sigurado.

But when it comes to evolution, ibang usapan na yon.  Magkakamatayan na, hindi pa rin aaminin ng scientist na hindi siya sigurado.
 
Bakit?  Para hindi makasingit yung mga creationist... 

[docelmo]

so what is the alternative to evolution if it's not true? scientifically of course not based on religion?

My best guess is the "opposite of natural selection acting on random mutation" paano yun? Di ko rin alam, but fossil records support presence of well-formed life forms rather than millions of transitional life forms that are expected in the neo-darwinian process.
Besides if we were to follow the computation on population genetics that it would take 43 million years to change to 2 parts from two animals in the supposed whale evolution....then it would probably take billions and billions of year to change the microbe to a man! Baka wala na solar system nasa amphibians pala si Darwin...

[bumblebee]

Besides if we were to follow the computation on population genetics that it would take 43 million years to change to 2 parts from two animals in the supposed whale evolution....then it would probably take billions and billions of year to change the microbe to a man! Baka wala na solar system nasa amphibians pala si Darwin...

I've not read that article on whales but if they're able to change 2 parts, then that's evolution for you. As to why it will take 43 million years, I don't know, were they able to simulate the environment back then?

[leomarley]

My best guess is the "opposite of natural selection acting on random mutation" paano yun? Di ko rin alam, but fossil records support presence of well-formed life forms rather than millions of transitional life forms that are expected in the neo-darwinian process.
Besides if we were to follow the computation on population genetics that it would take 43 million years to change to 2 parts from two animals in the supposed whale evolution....then it would probably take billions and billions of year to change the microbe to a man! Baka wala na solar system nasa amphibians pala si Darwin...

sir, can you site the source that says whales changed to 2 parts only from two animals?

this video from the Ocean Portan website (a part of the Smithsonian Institution's Ocean Initiative) says differently:

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/evolution-whales-animation

[docelmo]

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/jonathan-wells-on-whale-evolution/

Sir, here is site that mentioned the work by Richard von Sternberg an evolutionary biologist on whale evolution

[bumblebee]

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist, author and advocate of intelligent design.[1] Wells joined the Unification Church in 1974, and subsequently wrote that the teachings of church founder Sun Myung Moon, his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers convinced him to devote his life to "destroying Darwinism." The term Darwinism is often used by intelligent design proponents to refer to the scientific consensus on evolution.[2][3][4] He gained a PhD in religious studies at Yale University in 1986, then became Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City. In 1989, he studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology in 1994. He became a member of several scientific associations and was published in academic journals.

In his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2000), Wells said that a number of examples used to illustrate biology textbooks were grossly exaggerated, distorted the truth, or were patently false; he said that this shows that evolution conflicts with the evidence, and so argued against its teaching in public education.[5][6][7] Some reviewers of Icons of Evolution have said the Wells misquoted experts cited as sources and took minor issues out of context, basing his argument on a flawed syllogism.[6][8] Wells's views on evolution have been rejected by the scientific community.[4][5][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)