Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[Dilbert7]

As human entered this generation where knowledge is at your finger tips (Internet), and vast information is available, almost at an instant it occurs, young generation, as always, tries to make a change against the establishment (meaning, the established beliefs and culture). It is just like Elvis Presley earned the ire of the conservatives against the excitement of the youth of his time.

So, religion has a battleground in almost all parts of the world. Social life (partnership) have their battle ground too.

Consequently, this subject (Creation & Evolution) have been in a battleground for some now now - though now likely to be raging.

Being a creationist, I am contributing this tract for a read.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf

[tigkal]

1. HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?
It was by trial and error. Errors did not prosper while good combinations prospered.

2. HOW DID THE DNA CODE ORIGINATE?
Again by trial and error. What works proceeded to the next step while what does not work dies down.

3. HOW COULD MUTATIONS—ACCIDENTAL
COPYING MISTAKES (DNA ‘LETTERS’
EXCHANGED, DELETED OR ADDED, GENES
DUPLICATED, CHROMOSOME INVERSIONS,
ETC.)—CREATE THE HUGE VOLUMES OF
INFORMATION IN THE DNA OF LIVING THINGS?
Again by trial and error.

5. HOW DID NEW BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS,
WHICH INVOLVE MULTIPLE ENZYMES WORKING
TOGETHER IN SEQUENCE, ORIGINATE?
Just by changing a gene sequence would make a bird's beak point down. Again by trial and error based on need. If humans need later need four eyes, we will have four eyes, because if two eyes no longer work, those with two eyes dies while those with four eyes live. Just an example.

6. LIVING THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY WERE
DESIGNED, SO HOW DO EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW
THAT THEY WERE NOT DESIGNED?
Again based on trial and error. Conservationist wanted to protect zebras so they put them in an island without predators. In ten years time, they were all dead. All animals have their own role in nature. It is man who has no role.. Man was inserted into nature, while all the rest evolved..

7. HOW DID MULTI-CELLULAR LIFE ORIGINATE?
Again by trial and error. what works evolved to the next level.
8. HOW DID SEX ORIGINATE?
Trial and error again.

9. WHY ARE THE (EXPECTED) COUNTLESS
MILLIONS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS MISSING?
It may not be missing. It may not be discovered yet. We thought there was no life in deep see. Now we know there are living things thousand of meters below the sea.

10. HOW DO ‘LIVING FOSSILS’ REMAIN
UNCHANGED OVER SUPPOSED HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, IF EVOLUTION HAS
CHANGED WORMS INTO HUMANS IN THE SAME
TIME FRAME?
If it works then it will remain unchanged. Evolution initiates if there is a need. If there is no need, and a specie tries to evolve due to the trial and error,it will not proceed to the next level.

11. HOW DID BLIND CHEMISTRY CREATE
MIND/ INTELLIGENCE, MEANING, ALTRUISM AND
MORALITY?
Intel has developed a chip that mimics our brain. Maybe that chip will develop meaning and atruism. Let us wait and see.

12. WHY IS EVOLUTIONARY ‘JUST-SO’ STORYTELLING
TOLERATED?
It would depend on the situation. The appendix must have a use before, but now no more.. Before, men need to be aggressive, nowadays, men need to be wise, and hire aggressive men to protect him.. It is no longer brawn, it is brain that matters most.

13. WHERE ARE THE SCIENTIFIC
BREAKTHROUGHS DUE TO EVOLUTION?
It is bogged down on the ethics of stem cell research, cloning, etc..

14. SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
Evolution can now be don on the lab. Making a bird's beak point to the ground can be done by altering the genes.

15. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
By habit?

[fattyacid]

Nakikinita ko na 'to. Kung hindi gulo, away.  
Threads like this are almost always closed by the moderators due to  . Same as the fate of "Sino ang mas maganda si Angel Locsin or Marian Rivera" threads.  

[barrister]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie  | June 18, 2002

(From Scientific American:) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist

http://www.motownsports.com/forums/political-discussions/53313-intelligent-design-debate-2.html#post1254533



========================



15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense
by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1104

[Ice Storm]

Roman Catholics believe in evolution.

Ewan ko lang sa mga ibang creationists. They appear to know more than the Pope.

[barrister]

The Catholic Church has no official position about evolution, so I wouldn't directly say that it believes in evolution.

The Catholic Church has an open mind about it.  However, according to the Catholic Church, if evolution is correct, then it occurred under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to Him.

Concerning human evolution, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but man's soul was a special creation of God.

Pope Pius XII said, "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — (but) the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

[dindop]

The Catholic Church has no official position about evolution, so I wouldn't directly say that it believes in evolution.

The Catholic Church has an open mind about it.  However, according to the Catholic Church, if evolution is correct, then it occurred under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to Him.

Concerning human evolution, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but man's soul was a special creation of God.

Pope Pius XII said, "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter — (but) the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

hmmm... is it tantamount to saying that the Book of Genesis is kuwento2 lang?
or baka naman hindi ko nainitindihan hehehe... teka mabasa nga ulit...

[barrister]

hmmm... is it tantamount to saying that the Book of Genesis is kuwento2 lang?

Hindi naman sir.  

It only means the Catholic Church is open to different interpretations of Genesis.  Pero may mga aspects pa rin sa Genesis kung saan non-negotiable ang official interpretation nila.

[RU9]

Concerning human evolution, the Catholic Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but man's soul was a special creation of God.

Are they saying that the previous biological forms have no soul (e.g. bacteria)? When man evolved, suddenly God gave him soul? God's plan? Can we call this evolution since God already planned the final result to be man then give him a soul?

[barrister]

I am not a Catholic, but I'll try to give a respectful answer from the Catholic point of view.

Are they saying that the previous biological forms have no soul (e.g. bacteria)?

Catholics believe animals have a soul because Pope John Paul II said that "the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren."  

When man evolved, suddenly God gave him soul?

Yes, that's right.

Can we call this evolution since God already planned the final result to be man then give him a soul?

Strictly speaking, that is not evolution as understood in science, because that's incompatible with scientific theory.

So my answer is no, we can't call that evolution in the scientific sense.

The belief that the evolution of man was guided by God is called "Theistic Evolution" or "Evolutionary Creation."  This is the view that reconciles modern scientific understanding about biological evolution with traditional religious belief.

[Dilbert7]

Both stood on the same ground! - on a theory.


Both stood as if their theory is correct without proof, and both gathers proof to support their respective theory.


Evolution in simple terms is that - man comes from simpler life form (meaning, not man). This is also a theory in itself.

Creation in simple terms is that - man is man from the beginning. Scientifically, this is also a theory in itself.

Theory, in science, is an idea not yet proven.


any evolution - theistic or whatever - is still a theory, and can not contaminate science nor scientific methodologies to qualify them as science.


Thus, whether you believe creation or evolution - that's it - a belief system.


But scientific methodologies/findings will continue the quest for knowledge independent of theories, and unfold lots of life mysteries. Whether the discoveries points to evolution theory or creation theory, is something all of us should take with an open mind. After all, a healthy belief system should be opened for correction, if it is really shown without a shadow of a doubt.


Thus, discussion can be healthy if we take the independent science expose their discoveries - and assess for ourselves if our belief system is not crumbling under us.

[Dilbert7]

For my part,

Darwin's foundation for evolution were, during his time, are mere assumptions for the simple reasons that few things are known in those days about single-cell dynamics & composition.

With powerful microscope, scientists now can drill to the smallest parts of single cell microorganism - and is opening a new whole dimension of how single cell (if ever we came from them) operates.


Here is an item: bacterial flagellum. (in modern terms - it is a complex motor system, an engine as a whole, a car if you will, or a modern system like a personal computer - no, something higher than that, in that, it was able to assemble itself into a life form [which the PC can not] - not lifeless form [which the PC is])


See for yourself (google youtube and articles about the subject). I am reading about this, and I am amazed about its complexity, being a single-cell life.


Evolution sometimes attached to it "trial & error" - while creation attribute "life from a giver".

[Klaus Weasley]

The problem with Creationism is that it is not science. And should not be taught as such. It belongs in religion classes, philosophy classes and literature classes. NOT SCIENCE CLASSES.

Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact. It is a theory the same way the theory of GRAVITY is theory. It's not something that someone pulled out of their behind one day but it was observed and tested SCIENTIFICALLY.

I have no problem believing in God AND evolution. The Book of Genesis in the Bible is a metaphor, an allegory. Much like lots of stuff in the Bible (FACT: Only 1/3 of the Bible has proven historical and archaelogical facts backing it up). The Bible is not supposed to be used as a historical or scientific document. That's just foolishness.

[dpogs]

The problem with Creationism is that it is not science. And should not be taught as such. It belongs in religion classes, philosophy classes and literature classes. NOT SCIENCE CLASSES.

Evolution may not be perfect but it is scientific fact. It is a theory the same way the theory of GRAVITY is theory. It's not something that someone pulled out of their behind one day but it was observed and tested SCIENTIFICALLY.

I have no problem believing in God AND evolution. The Book of Genesis in the Bible is a metaphor, an allegory. Much like lots of stuff in the Bible (FACT: Only 1/3 of the Bible has proven historical and archaelogical facts backing it up). The Bible is not supposed to be used as a historical or scientific document. That's just foolishness.

EVOLUTION - tested scientifically??? paano???

[Wildfire™]

ang pagkakaalam ko pag THEORY di pa siya proven kaya hindi siya FACT

[barrister]

Evolution -- some call it a fact, some call it a theory.  I call it a fairy tale.  

EVOLUTION - tested scientifically??? paano???

This I'd like to see.  

[Verbl Kint]

Thus, whether you believe creation or evolution - that's it - a belief system.

Evolution is not a "belief system".  Let's not confuse it with Faith.

Evolution can be observed over successive generations of a species.  It is in this statement that evolution is a fact.

Evolution as a theory revolves around the idea that there are still many unknown concepts that need to be studied and empirically measured and observed.  

This is similar to that of relativity and even plate tectonics.  These definitely exist and are, in fact, observed but not yet fully understood.

[indie boi]

[bumblebee]

ang pagkakaalam ko pag THEORY di pa siya proven kaya hindi siya FACT

Many theories that have been proven are still called theories. Theories are not just intelligent guesses. You need to bring in related facts before you can theorize.

[tigkal]

Many theories that have been proven are still called theories. Theories are not just intelligent guesses. You need to bring in related facts before you can theorize.

There is still no definition of electricity. It can only be observed. So I guess it is still a theory..

[dpogs]

Meron na bang nakapag observed ng evolution in process???

[fattyacid]

Kasama rin ba sa evolution theory ang life from non-living?

[tigkal]

Meron na bang nakapag observed ng evolution in process???

Di ba basis ng theory of evolution ni Darwin was his observation in Galapagos Island. From his observation and evidences, he formulated the theory of evolution. Nowadays, scientist can jumpstart the evolution process by manually tweaking on the DNA.

[dpogs]

Di ba basis ng theory of evolution ni Darwin was his observation in Galapagos Island. From his observation and evidences, he formulated the theory of evolution. Nowadays, scientist can jumpstart the evolution process by manually tweaking on the DNA.

Did Darwin observed the actual process of evolution? Darwin stayed in Galapagos Island for a brief period of time and he observed the actual evolution?

Ang nakita ni Darwin sa Galapagos Island is the diversity of animals and their adaptation to survive... What he saw - animals in their complete form (no missing limb, no missing tail, etc.. not even in stage of evolution)...

Ano ang proof ni Darwin any evolutionist to conclude that Human came from Ape?

believing in something without solid proof is simply a matter of 'FAITH'.

[bumblebee]

Ano ang proof ni Darwin any evolutionist to conclude that Human came from Ape?

believing in something without solid proof is simply a matter of 'FAITH'.

Anong proof ng mga relihiyoso that we are alone in the universe? Nalibot na ba nila buong universe?

Kaya nga po theory pa lang. Di pa napo-prove.

[dorian_gray]

Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.

[dpogs]

Anong proof ng mga relihiyoso that we are alone in the universe? Nalibot na ba nila buong universe?

kaya nga po... sabi ko... by 'FAITH' (with or without proof)

Kaya nga po theory pa lang. Di pa napo-prove.

LOL... there it goes... un naman pala eh... di pa naman pala napoprove... pero may naniniwala... ano tawag doon?

[bumblebee]

LOL... there it goes... un naman pala eh... di pa naman pala napoprove... pero may naniniwala... ano tawag doon?

Kasi po, based on known, accepted facts. Di naman yun tatanggapin ng mga academics kung hindi. It's very different from "ancient aliens" na speculative at best.

[alistair]

LOL... there it goes... un naman pala eh... di pa naman pala napoprove... pero may naniniwala... ano tawag doon?

To give you the benefit of a doubt, kahit ilang beses na naulit (kasi alam ko kailangan sa 'yo paulit-ulit din), In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

To put it another way, the Pythagoream Theorem is a mathematical theory, yet no one will say it requires 'faith' to understand or to put to good use everyday, in practically every field of construction and engineering on the planet.

The theory of gravity is 'just a theory', too. I guess if you don't believe in it, you'll fall (or levitate) off the planet?

[Tempter]

Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.

I agree, this can be considered as an evidence of evolution.

In America, foxes are evolving. There was even a case where a young musician girl(i believe) was attacked and killed by them. They believe that this was a result of fox and wolf cross breeding.