Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. Cranium

Evolution Vs. Creation

  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. Which do you beleive in?

    • Evolution
      139
    • Creation
      27


Recommended Posts

Evolution ftw.

 

Science flies you to the moon.

 

Religion flies you into buildings.

 

so true!

 

religion is the cause of many mass murders/sacrifices to keep gods appeased/wars and terrorism

 

Err... Let's not get into which has killed more because in the science vs religion battle I think science takes that one out.

 

3000 people 9/11

200,000 hiroshima/nagisaki

 

I voted evolution. All very interesting though!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion ruins any practical thought on creationism.

 

Edited by Eric_23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how the same people chime in with no relevance to what's currently being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution ftw. Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
so true! religion is the cause of many mass murders/sacrifices to keep gods appeased/wars and terrorism
Err... Let's not get into which has killed more because in the science vs religion battle I think science takes that one out. 3000 people 9/11 200,000 hiroshima/nagisaki I voted evolution. All very interesting though!!

 

you sure about that? what about prior to this century, the crusades? Roman times? Medieval times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People kill people because it's what people do. They will just use the most justifiable excuse which will change between centuries and civilisations. Either way it has nothing to do with this thread.

Edited by steveP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People kill people because it's what people do. They will just use the most justifiable excuse which will change between centuries and civilisations. Either way it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

True, so true.

 

but hey, I think this thread is a discussion of everything but evolution vs creationism... and on that note, anyone happen to watch survivor on tuesday night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope 17 people are trolling since I find it sad that any Australia doesn't accept evolution.

 

Sicence understands more and has more evidence for evolution than gravity.

I cbf debating this. There is just so much information on the subject, if you don't accept it you either fail to understand the theory or are choosing to ignore evidence. Of course that tactic is common among religious extremists.

 

Final note, if you don't accept evolution, stop using modern medicine. Modern anti-botics are based off our understanding of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope 17 people are trolling since I find it sad that any Australia doesn't accept evolution.

 

Sicence understands more and has more evidence for evolution than gravity.

I cbf debating this. There is just so much information on the subject, if you don't accept it you either fail to understand the theory or are choosing to ignore evidence. Of course that tactic is common among religious extremists.

 

Final note, if you don't accept evolution, stop using modern medicine. Modern anti-botics are based off our understanding of evolution.

I hope you're trolling when you post that (even though your s14 is staunch as f*ck), yes there is substantial evidence in support of evolution, but not as much proof as there is for gravity, hence why one is a law, and one is a theory. There is evidence of gravity around us everywhere, go jump and see if you land, there; gravity for morons...

 

antibiotics are not based on our knowledge of evolution, seeing as an antibiotic is pretty much a designer poison for bacteria, all you have to do get a couple petrie dishes of bacteria and dose them with different chemicals of said bactericide, and then test whether said chems are harmful to humans, there's your antibiotic, now the bacteria resisting the anitbiotic, is evolution. Would you consider, feeding someone hazardous chemicals to kill them as knowledge based on evolution or just wanting to kill the bastard?

 

Modern medicine also has nothing to do with evolution, that's anatomy and biochemistry...

 

 

nice thread revival though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ) the thread is 3 days old.

 

B ) Yes, there is a better understand of evolution than gravity. Our understand of gravity itself is actually quite limited and the theory of gravity does not work with our current understand of quantum mechanics.

I haven't read into quantum mechanics and gravity recently but some quick research will easier find why I am right.

 

C ) Theory is also the highest regarded scientific understanding. Gravity is also a theory not a law. Science is always adapting to new evidence, thus our understand is not set in stone. This is the most fundermental basic of science.

 

D )

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the central tenet of modern biology. Darwinian medicine offers a new perspective on human health. Application of Darwin's ideas to the evolution of pathogenic organisms, and consideration of their coevolution with their human hosts, has given modern medicine new insights into why we get sick and the ways in which we heal. Traditional medicine has focused on the proximate causes of diseases and treatment for their symptoms. By considering human health and disease from an evolutionary perspective, modern medicine is gaining new insights into why diseases occur, and how the human body is adapted to respond to them.

 

maybe anti-botics was the wrong term but it redefined how we did modern medicine.

 

E ) not my s14. though i do own one, its not that hardcore.

Edited by Peter89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The demand for consistency between a quantum description of matter and a geometric description of spacetime,[166] as well as the appearance of singularities (where curvature length scales become microscopic), indicate the need for a full theory of quantum gravity: for an adequate description of the interior of black holes, and of the very early universe, a theory is required in which gravity and the associated geometry of spacetime are described in the language of quantum physics.[167] Despite major efforts, no complete and consistent theory of quantum gravity is currently known, even though a number of promising candidates exist

 

Like I said, our understanding of gravity is still limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, our understanding of gravity is still limited.

 

And there are still many things we don't understand about evolution. Again as said, there is a reason why gracity is a law, and evolution is still a theory, the evidence is overwhelming, but not definitive just yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does "no complete and consistent theory of quantum gravity is currently known" mean do you?

 

Our understanding of evolution is huge. Sorry but the inability to explain quantum gravity is not a small thing. It is HALF the entire understanding of gravity.

 

There are no such thing as scientific laws. Once again, you fail to show an understanding of how science works. Nothing is right, science gives us the BEST explaination we have with our current evidence.

Since there is no "answer book" as such, we can never know if the current understanding is true or not however scientists work to try and disprove or search for new evidence to prove current theories.

Edited by Peter89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
C ) Theory is also the highest regarded scientific understanding. Gravity is also a theory not a law. Science is always adapting to new evidence, thus our understand is not set in stone. This is the most fundermental basic of science. D )
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the central tenet of modern biology. Darwinian medicine offers a new perspective on human health. Application of Darwin's ideas to the evolution of pathogenic organisms, and consideration of their coevolution with their human hosts, has given modern medicine new insights into why we get sick and the ways in which we heal. Traditional medicine has focused on the proximate causes of diseases and treatment for their symptoms. By considering human health and disease from an evolutionary perspective, modern medicine is gaining new insights into why diseases occur, and how the human body is adapted to respond to them.
C) Newton's law of gravity is a law, Darwin's theory of natural selection is a theory, there is a large difference in theory and law. No matter how substantial the current evidence is, there is no definitive tangible proof(regardless of how retarded the opposition is they have a point) I challenge you to try and disprove gravity, vacuums further substantiate the proof of gravity I can drop a ball and prove gravity. A theory denotes that the proposition is widely accepted, though ther is no way of actually proving, A law dictates that though substantial evidence may not exist, or we may not understand the observation, it is undisputed/undisputable (you cannot deny gravity does not exist), a theory is a widely accepted understanding D) Again modern medicine is due to an improved understanding in genetics, anatomy, and biochemistry, though evolution plays a role in modern medicine as far as pathogens go, modern medicine itself is still centered around those three areas of science. Actually the first, and most important vaccines known to man, were developed long before Darwin's theories became mainstream. smallpox, rabies, bubonic plague, typhoid, TB, all of these plus many more were developed before Natural selection became viable.

 

some links for further readings on theories, laws and hypotheses.

 

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=1846

 

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Edited by spongeboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects.

 

You really don't understand anything about physics do you. Netwons "Law" is just a name. You didn't even know that general theory of relativity explains gravity in modern science.

 

Science is science, nothing is right, just the most correct we have today. You also ignored the vital part of my last post. I give up. You need to study some physics and come back. Cbf trying to convice you how science works and why our understanding of gravity is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects.

 

You really don't understand anything about physics do you. Netwons "Law" is just a name. You didn't even know that general theory of relativity explains gravity in modern science.

 

Science is science, nothing is right, just the most correct we have today. You also ignored the vital part of my last post. I give up. You need to study some physics and come back. Cbf trying to convice you how science works and why our understanding of gravity is limited.

 

Really so is the law of conservation of mass a namesake as well? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, You made several incorrect assumptions about evolution in your posts (it's exagerrated significance in modern medicine, and the somehow overwhelming evidence that apparently only ignorants can ignore), whilst explaining that science is never a certainty just the best explanation. The evidence for gravity's existence is a certainty, it is tangible and easily proved, the understanding behind it however, has evolved and phycsicists continually find new evidence and theory behind the law to question our understanding of it.

 

that is the difference between evolution and gravity, until we see something evolve right before our eyes, like we see buildings drop. or planets stay in the orbit of the sun, then it can be disputed. Sure we have a lot of credible evidence, the transition of say homo-habilis to modern homo-sapiens, the genetic similarity between species. but until we see something evolve in front of our eyes (like Pokemon lol) naysayers will continue to hate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess arguing with people so strongly embedded into their ideals just brings about the responses of, "Okay".

 

And then everyone loses, because those people are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believed "theory" just implied that it was subject to change if any further evidence contradicting it were to appear. Unlike religious zealousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a very simplistic view of modern science :P.

 

 

I was merely stating that evolution itself has little to no relevance in the medical world. I never said that scientific law transended theory or there was any hierarchy of the sort, I just stated they were different and pointed out the differences. Again, the development of antibiotics has a stronger relationship with biochem and not genetics. The law of gravity itself hasn't changed, when I last checked what goes up must come down, the ideology and theory may have evolved as time goes by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects.

 

You really don't understand anything about physics do you. Netwons "Law" is just a name. You didn't even know that general theory of relativity explains gravity in modern science.

 

Science is science, nothing is right, just the most correct we have today. You also ignored the vital part of my last post. I give up. You need to study some physics and come back. Cbf trying to convice you how science works and why our understanding of gravity is limited.

 

Really so is the law of conservation of mass a namesake as well? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, You made several incorrect assumptions about evolution in your posts (it's exagerrated significance in modern medicine, and the somehow overwhelming evidence that apparently only ignorants can ignore), whilst explaining that science is never a certainty just the best explanation. The evidence for gravity's existence is a certainty, it is tangible and easily proved, the understanding behind it however, has evolved and phycsicists continually find new evidence and theory behind the law to question our understanding of it.

 

that is the difference between evolution and gravity, until we see something evolve right before our eyes, like we see buildings drop. or planets stay in the orbit of the sun, then it can be disputed. Sure we have a lot of credible evidence, the transition of say homo-habilis to modern homo-sapiens, the genetic similarity between species. but until we see something evolve in front of our eyes (like Pokemon lol) naysayers will continue to hate...

 

sigh

  • You seem to forget I was discussing the difference in understanding between theory of evolution and the theory of general relativity( aka gravity). I never said the evidence of evolution was stronger than the evidence of general relativity.
  • evolution has evidence gathered over a short time period. Yes, we have seen completely new species evolve. The best example is a bacterium that only consumes nylon, a human made compound.
  • I never said anything about the evidence not existing for Newtons laws. Like I already said, which is totally IGNORED without an understand of quantum gravity, our understanding of gravity is limited. The theory only applies to the universe on a scale larger than the quantum level. Since you have chosen to ignore this point, it really shows you don’t understand the importance of quantum gravity and how limited our understanding of gravity is.
  • Unlike gravity, the evidence for evolution has covered all aspects; there isn’t a HUGE gaping hole in our understanding of it. I never said our understanding of evolution is perfect but there is a better scientific consensus on the subject. Whilst this is due to the fact the subject is quite limited, does not dispute my point.
  • Whilst science is just OUR BEST UNDERSTANDING AT PRESENT, doesn’t mean that creationism is magically another alternative. I stand by my statement that if you don’t agree with our current understanding of evolution, due to all the evidence that supports it, you either don’t understand the concept or are too ignorant and choose to ignore evidence. If YOU can prove another theory, go right ahead, ill be waiting.
  • Evolution has played a FUNDAMENTAL role in our understanding of modern medicine and like I already quote, it totally change how we view and treat diseases and conditions.

For Australians sake, I hope you are trolling. If not, its just sad.

Edited by Peter89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again as I stated Genetics plays a vital role in modern medicine, all of those breakthroughs you and richard cranium have based your opinion on, they have made are due to an understanding of genetics, not evolution itself, how is an understanding of previous genetics traits made obsolete by nature, going to help humanity through medicine? You need to brush up your knowledge of evolution before you use these quotes. Evolution and genetics a one way dependence, in order for evolution to be a viable theory, genes must exist and trigger or stop phenotypes the way they do, genetics has no dependency on evolution for viability, hence why they are two different fields of study. However evolution itself in simple terms is the study of the relationship between organisms through heredatory mutations in the genetic code, I cannot stress this enough. Genetics is the study of genetic code, Which has led to gene splicing, cloning, and many other medical marvels. Vaccines don't have much at all to do with evolution, the vaccine for smallpox was developed using a weakened/dead form of cow pox to help the body develop an immunity towards it before Darwin's theory of natural selection was proposed, the discovery pre-dates Darwin's birth by roughly a decade.So yes you can be justified in saying that evolution is vital for modern medicine, however it isn't evolution itself that is vital, but the areas of study that have branched from it or have been bolstered by it. To say evolution is vital towards medicine is a gross over generalisation on your part.

 

Pete, again Modern medicine still revolves around anatomy and biochem, and within the last 2 decades has involved genetics and not evolution directly. Our further advancing understanding of the genetic code enables us to create new species, clone and splice genes. Stem cell research like all of these other breakthroughs in modern medicine are due to genetic research, not research on evolution.

 

If you also bothered to read my previous posts, as I have studied evolution genetics, biochem, organic chem, and physical chem, I completely agree with evolution, I acknowledge there are holes and I am open to anything that fills the voids. What you don't seem to realise is that though it is undeniable that we have evolved, there is little evidence to show how we came to be in genetic code, our main evidence of evolution... As I stated with sarcasm, if someone can definitively prove that the planet is only 6000 years old, then I will have to believe. Why? because it is ignorance to doubt if there is definitive evidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't even read the link.

It goes in DETAIL why modern medicine requires an understanding of evolution.

 

I never said I blinding accept evolution, I just said with our current knowledge if you don't accept evolution which is the best theory we have on the subject, you are ignortant because that person chooses to ignore evidence. this was a general statement, not aimed towards you.

 

 

"there is little evidence to show how we came to be in genetic code"

You are confusing evolution with the creation of life aka abiogenesis. Evolution is only a theory on how organisms change over time not how biologic life came from inorganic matter.

 

nice to see you dropped the entire gravity debate.

Edited by Peter89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one also have to clearly delineate especially creationists. I assume that only believing in the creation theory from a faith point in one god will be what most people want to discuss and that deism might be as sacrilegious as evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the responses are about you people trying to prove a point, if you truly believe in evolution or creation then believe in it through your own self, majority will always win over most people as hardly anybody attempt to discover things for them selves, the begining of life should be viewed differently by each individual. Be your own philosopher and live for a purpose in which you feel strong about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe i will live my life how i see fit and repent my sins on my death bed, just in case.

 

and if i dont get a death bed, oh well, rolled the dice and lost. its life, or as the case may be, death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×