So let's discuss the evidence around us that supports the conclusion of Evolution over Creation! Woop woop!
For the purposes of this thread, we'll define "creation" as a single event over a brief period of time during which all life on earth was created in more or less its present form by a deliberate, intelligent designer.
We'll concentrate on a few basic evidences: The fossil record Gross morphology Genetics
First up: The fossil record!
Using an evolutionary model we would expect to see life on earth going from less complex to more complex as adaptations compound. From a creation standpoint where the animals were created at around the same time we would expect to see animals at all stages of complexity mixed together.
Well, which circumstance do we actually observe?
If we look at the fossil record, we see the former example: Simple invertebrates to fish to reptiles to mammals and so on. These are separated by distinct geological layers. And while we do of course see simple organisms coexisting with complex ones ( just look at an earth worm) we never see something like a ichthyosaur in a fossil bed with trilobites. Nowhere. Ever. AND we find fossil beds comprised entirely of simple organisms and we never find things like a mosasaur alongside a whale or a triceratops alongside a rhino.
How does creation account for this data? Can it account for the data better than an evolution model?
I did a bit of this stuff on the religion sections of SW but tbh I regret it.
Not because what I posted was wrong (it wasn't) but because I ended up offending people who are actually not really toxic.
If people follow religion in a way that does no damage to others, then that is fine with me. I regard their beliefs as superstition but if they are nice people otherwise then I shouldn't care so much.
Go after the Christian hard-right by any means because they utterly deserve it. Banning abortions and so much more is awful. Also Islamic fundamentalist.
People who follow it peacefully and don't impinge their values on others, I have no problems with.
@Pikachu Yeah. And you are smart. I'm a British atheist schoolteacher who is working in a Catholic school. Religion gives a sense of community and there are even some implicit socialist(ish) aspects to the way the community operates.
I also have huge issues with 'liberal' atheist narratives which justified wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, bans on Muslim headscarves bans. I'm not saying you support these things, I'm just pointing out the dangers for people on the left who make atheism a political issue. I appreciate things are different in North America.
Yeah i don't hold with any of that. Atheism is not a religion but i think it holds the same place as religion in terms of religious freedom. Atheists are entitled to their beliefs but not entitled to force their unbelief on others.
@Burnley123 It is my considered opinion that since the more toxic Christians do the same thing, and then expect one to ignore their posts if one does not care for them, you should not regret doing the same. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
So we look at bone morphology as evidence for common decent and thus evolution. Specifically, that the skeletal anatomy for many organisms is absurdly similar, irrespective of function. The fact that so many animals from a whale to a bat share most of the same bones in very similar configurations indicates that they came from a common ancestor. If they were created by a designer we could expect to see their bones more specifically suited to their environmental needs. Why give a squirrel the same bones as a whale? Of course the bones are altered, but at a fundamental level they are the same structures.
Another example favouring evolution can be found in marine animals. Fish swim by flexing their spine from side to side. Marine mammals swim by flexing it up and down. Well so what? In fact this is very important. Because the side to side motion is a far more efficient mode of aquatic locomotion than is up and down One might ask themselves why an intelligent creator would deliberately design an inferior mode of locomotion for an aquatic animal.
Under evolution, fish evolved into reptiles which later evolved into mammals and all marine mammals are descended from terrestrial mammals. If you look at the way marine mammals swim (flexing the spine up and down) you notice that it is the same way in which land mammals flex their spine when they run. Which is just what you'd expect from an aquatic mammal that arose from a land mammal.
So from an evolutionary perspective we see what we expect to see while under a creation perspective we just have to speculate on why a creator would do such a thing.
Not a believer of creationism yet I must point out not all believers of it say it happened all at once. I have encountered a few that have argued with the time factor, since in their view "a day is as a thousand years" .
Please note the "is as" is not a exacting figure and could be a million as as likely as a thousand years.
That is how some account for the evolution factor. Also other biblical references are giving by them. Yet I won't go into those because of other fallacies like devils mating with other creatures.
@DeWayfarer I find in my experience that most persons use the term creationist to refer to those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. That is to say, literal young earth creationists. However, that is a mouthful to say, and even more annoying to type, every single time.
I don't think it's fair to say that reason doesn't matter them. I would say rather that their faith position matters to them more and that they massage their reasoning until it fits their predetermined belief.
[b]Endogenous Retroviruses are a type of virus (like HIV) that reproduce by inserting their genetic code into the host DNA chain. When one of these viruses infects a reproductive cell, that viral DNA is copied into every cell of the host's children. The presence of these segments of viral DNA in the human genome are the results of discrete infection events.
But what's this? Humans and chimpanzees share these random insertion points of viral genetic material. Not in a couple places or even dozens of places but in over 200 places. If humans and chimps were separate created kinds then the odds of them sharing even a single ERV site, much less hundreds are laughably small (there are something like 10 million possible insertion points).
How does creation account for this data? Can it account for the data better than an evolution model? [media=https://youtu.be/oXfDF5Ew3Gc]
I am not a believer in creationism, but, if one believes in an all powerful, knowing deity and wanted to create, they would create all of those levels at one time. So when earth was created some rocks were created millions of years old at the time.
Certainly. If one begins with the conclusion and has a supernatural option for any explanation then there is no way to disprove it. But these days creationists are often interested in claiming the legitimacy of science to support their worldview because they recognize that they are losing followers.
Before man invented time, or keeping track of time
The Earth formed (as part of the Solar System) ten billion years after the Big Bang, which is what permitted spacetime. Humans arrived 4.5 billion years after the Earth formed. Spacetime has been happily rolling along without any need of humans, and will continue to do so long, long, after humans are just another extinct hominid species.
@Montanaman You've asked a lot of questions, too many to address all of them at once. How about you pick the one you think is the most important and we'll start from there.
I never mentioned god, which was the only stipulation i agreed to. I mentioned a creator which is an unavoidable property of creation.
As i stated earlier, i'm not entering into a contract with you. If you take issue with the definition of terms then describe your concerns and we can discuss them.
Or of course, if you already find sufficient excuse to abandon the discussion then you may feel free to do so. No hard feelings. The ball is in your court but i do encourage you to talk through miscommunication before you resign in indignation.
Well i find the natural antithesis to evolution is unavoidably creation but if you feel you can discuss the evidence for evolution without reference to creation then i'm happy to do so. Do then please proceed with your first response. Do you find the fossil record to be in support or in opposition to evolution?
What creator, intelligent designer were you referring to if not God?
Could be aliens, could be future humans...could be anything. All that it needs to be a creator is a mind and the ability to create. 😉
