Creationism v's Evolution

Sid · 04-11-2006, 05:47 PM

There is to be a debate this evening about the above subject. It starts at 6:30 and you can watch it live here
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4110

Hope to have a good discussion on the subject later!

Sid · 04-11-2006, 08:05 PM

So, I gather from the lack of response nobody watched it.

It was a very conclusive, or as conclusive as can be, talk on how evolution is not just a thing of the past but an ongoing process. The best demonstration was showing the way the HIV virus has evolved over the short space of time that it's been with us.

If a virus can change its structure so as to be identifiable between strains, and to show where those strains came to branch from, does it not therefore seem perfectly feasible that over a period of millions of years changes through natural selection are not only possible, but probable.

Unless of course some out there still think the Earth is only some 7000 years old, if that's the case, well, what could I say to that?

had_enough · 04-11-2006, 08:17 PM

I did not watch the program, but having a few people saying their piece is not really going to prove anything.
Scientists base their opinions on what I see as flawed information, like the carbon dating process. It has scientifically been proved to give wrong readings, such as old bones which were buried for a year or so and then dug up and given a date of thousands of years old.

All scientists can rely on are hypothetics and models, which are slowly but surely being proven wrong by later discoveries. They have had to change their thinking many times and rewrite their theories and models.

**Will** · 04-11-2006, 08:59 PM

For every piece of scientific evidence, there is another piece of research that apparently proves it wrong. The question isn't "who's right", but rather "who's credible and who isn't". Some people blindly believe that anything that proves a certain part of 'the theory of evolution' wrong, is unquestionably right because it conveniently fits with their beliefs.

It's not unusual to find a scientist that is biased towards creationism. That's not to say that scientific theory doesn't get rewritten, that's the whole point of scientific theory! But it's rarely at the hands of some of the poor and incredible scientific results that come from biased scientists.

Sid · 04-11-2006, 09:15 PM

Ahh, but you didn't see the talk. When the transcript is available I'll get it and post a link to it so you can read it yourself.

Though evolution can't be proved the arguments for it are so strong, along with the evidence, that all but a fool would disagree with virtually the whole of the scientific world.

Why is it that The Royal Society, who are not fools no matter what you may think, disagree with creationism being taught in science? Because creationism is just a belief, and a belief alone. There is no evidence that can be put forward to back up the argument for it except for the Bible, whereas, when you do get to read the evidence for evolution there is no contest between the two. If you went to court with an argument that was, this is what happened because I think it did, against an argument where you had physical proof, the changes in the RNA structure of HIV, who'd be more likely to get the decision?

Face it, God didn't create the Earth, putting all the fossils in place just to fool us humans???, we evolved, and will die and be nothing just as we were before we were born. A hard fact to face I'll admit, but a fact it is.

Sid · 04-11-2006, 09:28 PM

QUOTE, Forum Admin Will

Quote:

For every piece of scientific evidence, there is another piece of research that apparently proves it wrong. The question isn't "who's right", but rather "who's credible and who isn't". Some people blindly believe that anything that proves a certain part of 'the theory of evolution' wrong, is unquestionably right because it conveniently fits with their beliefs.

I think the man who gave the talk puts it well. Creationists believe, scientists try to find answers. Some questions are easier to answer. Some of the things that used to be believed are mentiond below that we now know to be ridiculous concepts.

By Professor Steve Jones, University College London
Science is about disbelief. It accepts that all knowledge is provisional and that any theory might in principle be disproved. Some theories are better established than others: the earth is probably not flat, babies are almost certainly not brought by storks, and men and dinosaurs are unlikely to have appeared on earth within the past few thousand years.

Then again, according to some, there never were dinosaurs on this planet, SHEESH !!!

had_enough · 04-11-2006, 09:41 PM

Remember that the scientist are only basing their facts on theories and models and even those are flawed. A study on human genes reveal a backward analysis of only up to around 200,000 years.

I prefer to believe in creation rather than evolution and I am no scientist. I just look around and can see creation.

**Will** · 04-11-2006, 09:42 PM

I don't believe in creationism, and I tend to have serious doubts about God. But at the same time I don't rule out the possibility of God, I think even many scientists who'd tend to call themselves atheists, would admit that it would be idiotic to rule out something completely when it's an area we frankly know nothing about. In other words, they may agree that the God that exists in any of our many religions doesn't exist. But to rule out the idea that the universe was created by some conscious being? It would be a poor scientist who ruled out the idea without any rational reason.

Sid · 04-11-2006, 09:51 PM

QUOTE, had_enough

Quote:

A study on human genes reveal a backward analysis of only up to around 200,000 years.

But according to creationists the planet has only been here about 7000 years. A slight flaw or contradiction detected there, no?

Sid · 04-11-2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forum Admin Will

I don't believe in creationism, and I tend to have serious doubts about God. But at the same time I don't rule out the possibility of God, I think even many scientists who'd tend to call themselves atheists, would admit that it would be idiotic to rule out something completely when it's an area we frankly know nothing about. In other words, they may agree that the God that exists in any of our many religions doesn't exist. But to rule out the idea that the universe was created by some conscious being? It would be a poor scientist who ruled out the idea without any rational reason.

Gosh Will, that's deep, but as near to the way I think about the subject as you can get in so few words.

What was before the Big Bang is a question that intrigues me? Another is what surrounds our Universe?
If our universe is expanding what is it taking the place of, another universe?

Stephen Hawking wrote an essay on black holes and baby universes. I don't know if it's available on the internet but anyone interested in the subject should definitely give it a read. It's not too deep and understandable to most and the way he puts his ideas across is mind-blowing. It's basically about our interpretation of time and how it's only relevent to us. It can be used as an argument for creationism if you're of that mindset, so don't be put off if you disagree with me on most things.