Science vs. Creationism

[LogGrad98]

So maybe God used the natural process of evolution to develop man in his image, tweaking it here and there until it was just right. Maybe he is how those proteins shifted shape and developed into new structures that could align amino acids in a new way that allowed DNA to mutate in advantageous ways. Maybe there is nothing truly random about it.

Because the one point that does stand from CJs posts is that really if you get into the biochemistry the odds of an advantageous random mutation are infinitesimal compared to the odds of a non-advantageous mutation. The most common mutations seen are by and large detrimental to the organism, so they don't get passed along - technically cancer is a genetic mutation, for example. Other genetic mutations are known in human circles as "birth defects", like if a baby is born with its heart outside its body, or with an extra chomosome or something. So maybe an all-powerful being helped things along by putting the right puzzle pieces together at the right time in the right place to make the jump, so to speak.



Just playing Darwin's advocate.

 

[carolinajazz]

There are at least a coupe of dozen provable, agreed upon processes. You have confused a discussion about which is more important with a discussion of which one exists.

...not confused at all, nor is this discussion confusing to me. What seems to "confuse" you is your blind faith/acceptance of organic evolution as opposed to the true scientific provable Genesis explanation that the Creator made living things whole and complete, ready to reproduce "according to there kinds"! The "religious fundamentalist" that support or believe that God created the earth and all living things on it in six 24 hour days is not supported by what the Bible actually says nor by "proven" scientific fact. But you cannot get around the fact that "true science" supports direct creation and that Darwin and any of his predecessors idea of "evolution" is not just unprovable but has been overwhelming discarded as IMPOSSIBLE! How about this statement from one of your well known "evolutionist!"

Julian Huxley admitted that the mathematical odds against evolution was one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., 1 followed by three million zeros). Huxley gave the odds this way: "The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... no one would bet on anything so improbable happening...."

And, be reminded that such ridiculous odds were calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeroes would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being?

Then add another thousand volumes of zeroes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties of life built into it. Add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and our orbit, and our daily rotation, and the moon, and the stars!

So the only conclusion should be to shift ALL books supporting "evolution" to the humorous fiction section of the libraries!

 

[carolinajazz]

Heck ,even pope John Paul II was accepting evolution.

...well that makes a world of difference! We are going to use the quote of a religious icon who has purposely supported the coverup of thousands of pedophiles in his organization by spending billions to silence victims and move them from parish to parish rather than have them removed from there positions! Now THAT'S a credible source!

 

[carolinajazz]

For example, in every court case actually presented since the beginning of the last century, evolution has prevailed as the scientific explanation. Any decent lawyer would know that.

I believe he was referring to the actual "evidence" necessary to convince a "jury" or judge that evolution has occurred! Now, the flip side of that coin would be the ridiculous "argument" that God created all things in six 24 hour days.....which we have already proven or shown DID NOT take place and is not taught in the Bible!

 

[MVP]

...well that makes a world of difference! We are going to use the quote of a religious icon who has purposely supported the coverup of thousands of pedophiles in his organization by spending billions to silence victims and move them from parish to parish rather than have them removed from there positions! Now THAT'S a credible source!

I guess you missed first part of my post so I will repost it and reverse numbers a bit so it would be easier for you to understand how small you are in this discussion.

Must be tough finding anything supporting your delusions among those 0.14% scientists who are not supporting evolution.

99.86% of scientists support evolution. Can't get any more credible than that...

 

[Zulu]

...not confused at all, nor is this discussion confusing to me. What seems to "confuse" you is your blind faith/acceptance of organic evolution as opposed to the true scientific provable Genesis explanation that the Creator made living things whole and complete, ready to reproduce "according to there kinds"! The "religious fundamentalist" that support or believe that God created the earth and all living things on it in six 24 hour days is not supported by what the Bible actually says nor by "proven" scientific fact. But you cannot get around the fact that "true science" supports direct creation and that Darwin and any of his predecessors idea of "evolution" is not just unprovable but has been overwhelming discarded as IMPOSSIBLE! How about this statement from one of your well known "evolutionist!"

Julian Huxley admitted that the mathematical odds against evolution was one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., 1 followed by three million zeros). Huxley gave the odds this way: "The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print! ... no one would bet on anything so improbable happening...."

And, be reminded that such ridiculous odds were calculated for the evolution of a horse! How many more volumes of zeroes would be required by Mr. Huxley to produce a human being?

Then add another thousand volumes of zeroes for the improbability of the earth having all the necessary properties of life built into it. Add another thousand volumes for the improbability of the sun, and our orbit, and our daily rotation, and the moon, and the stars!

So the only conclusion should be to shift ALL books supporting "evolution" to the humorous fiction section of the libraries!

Soo what's the probability of there being an almighty being????

How did that almighty being come about???

Was he/she formed ready to reproduce????

 

[moevillini]

No one is going to be impressed by random quotes from questionable sources.

no one?

LOL

 

[moevillini]

I've always wondered about this - did Adam and Eve go to heaven?

 

[colton]

I've always wondered about this - did Adam and Eve go to heaven?

From the LDS point of view, yes most definitely. Don't know about other traditions.

 

[One Brow]

So maybe God used the natural process of evolution to develop man in his image, tweaking it here and there until it was just right. Maybe he is how those proteins shifted shape and developed into new structures that could align amino acids in a new way that allowed DNA to mutate in advantageous ways. Maybe there is nothing truly random about it.

This position is called "theistic evolution". It's not a scientific position, but it does contend with the science much less strongly.

Because the one point that does stand from CJs posts is that really if you get into the biochemistry the odds of an advantageous random mutation are infinitesimal compared to the odds of a non-advantageous mutation. The most common mutations seen are by and large detrimental to the organism, so they don't get passed along - technically cancer is a genetic mutation, for example. Other genetic mutations are known in human circles as "birth defects", like if a baby is born with its heart outside its body, or with an extra chomosome or something. So maybe an all-powerful being helped things along by putting the right puzzle pieces together at the right time in the right place to make the jump, so to speak.

The vast majority of mutations are neutral. They have no effect at all on phenotype (the visually apparent structures and behaviors of an organism). Many mutations are environment-dependent; growing larger is useful on the African plain, but detrimental on a smaller island.

 

[8]

From the LDS point of view, yes most definitely. Don't know about other traditions.

You can't be sure can you? I think it's more of an assumption.

And it's really not that much of an accomplishment considering they lived before the days of sex, drugs, and rock & roll.


*edit* there was most definitely sex, but the options for infidelity were limited, and rather incest-y

 

[Biggs]

"In my experience, students who continue to think of this as a dichotomy will either have their faith so shaken when they learn the evidence for evolution that they drift away from the Church, or they will simply shut their eyes and their minds to what I consider to be a glorious way to view creation." Robert Whitning (BYU Evolution professor)

Theistic Evolution makes the most sense to me, so that's what I'm going to believe in.