Creation VS Evolution

peach, we don't even really understand gravity.

That's like saying we don't understand anything about water but we still know that boiling water freezes faster than cold water.

That's like saying we don't understand anything about water but we still know that boiling water freezes faster than cold water.

No, we really don't know much about gravity.

And the only reason we don't have an explanation for the Mpemba effect is because no-one gives enough shits about it to find out, vs gravity where being the person to find some serious proof of antigravity/gravitons/antigravitons are all but guaranteed a nobel prize in physics.

No, we really don't know much about gravity.

And the only reason we don't have an explanation for the Mpemba effect is because no-one gives enough pomegranates about it to find out, vs gravity where being the person to find some serious proof of antigravity/gravitons/antigravitons are all but guaranteed a nobel prize in physics.

But we don't know that much about water, but there are results we understand regarding it

No, we really don't know much about gravity.

And the only reason we don't have an explanation for the Mpemba effect is because no-one gives enough shits about it to find out, vs gravity where being the person to find some serious proof of antigravity/gravitons/antigravitons are all but guaranteed a nobel prize in physics.

I thought it had been proven that gravity doesn't actually exist, it's just that the Earth sucks.

But we don't know that much about water, but there are results we understand regarding it

I think you're overestimating how much is actually known about gravity.
We don't understand anything about gravity other than A) it pulls things with mass together and B) It (probably) curves spacetime. And we're not even sure on that second thing, because it pineapples up quantum mechanics, which has a lot of experimental evidence in favour of it.

I think what you were talking about when you said
[quote]When Gravity is involved in empty space, matter spontaneously creates because it's so unstable when gravity is involved. That's at least what I could gather from his explanation. In fact when theists argue against this they decide to argue the semantics of what "nothing" actually is.[/qupte]

Is the zero point energy of space, which is more of a quantum mechanical effect rather than a gravitational one (To put it simply, one of the uncertainty principles, the energy of any point over an amount of time of any given space can only be measured to within a finite limit, meaning each space has an amount of energy which then can form a small mass for a period of time). This is one of the main things that actually makes matching QM with Relativity difficult.

Oh hey, perfect day for this comic to have come out.

This is my reference point but I can't exactly watch it, but I can quote him later if you don't want to watch it, although it was entertaining;

[video=youtube;68hRI_WtcBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68hRI_WtcBA[/video]

Christian (hence creationist) and Microbiologist here. At most the only thing a debate like this will encourage is more thought on the matter and solidifying whatever views are currently held if you are are indeed an intellectual. If not, as others have said, it will cause the people who are unsure and looking for answers a biased view based on whoever is deemed the "victor" in their eyes. Don't get me wrong i'm all for debates but most people who go into debates already have their mind set on one side or another.

As for the whole "how can you practice science and hold to it's values while still believing in creation"....pretty easily to be honest. Any true scientist knows there is a whole lot we have yet to understand, a dishonest scientist will try to tell you "we have the answers based on our evidence and without a doubt, this is how it is fullstop". That being said anyone who understands science and the scientific method at it's core, knows it's finding an observable correlation between action and reaction and then saying so far this holds true and has yet to be disproven or fail, and in most fields we all know there are almost always anomalies in a theory. But that is the part that people who hold science as the end-all should really think about the "observable" part. As scientist we can only base what we know on what can be observed in some form or fashion. Given the vastness of the universe(scientifically proven lol) and regular every occurrences that are unexplainable (though in error can be attributed to theory that seems to fit) can you really say that the we as humans with our limited scope of senses and equipment, that we can say we have all the answers. For me personally no, I simply view science and as means to explain the observable, but given all the advances throughout history, and how often once again throughout history alot of what we once thought was impossible is now possible, it would be silly for me to sit back and say pfft that's impossible.

Touching on my views on creation and science converging, I would say God set up the machine called life, down to DNA, base pairs, RNA strands you name it and set it on it's way, and from that we have micro-evolution, (still not finding the evidence to support full on we came from apes thing, too many plausible solutions) degeneration, mutations etc. To me it's simple, definitely not trying to change anyone's opinion or get into a huge debate, been there done that on multiple forums over the years, just dropping my two cents on the matter.
Forgive any errors i'm at work.

Three points I'd like to address:

1. Creationist != Christian. There are plenty of Christians in science that believe in evolution.

2. micro and macro evolution exist on a continuum. It's not like one is completely different from the other. The "we descended from apes" part is not completley accurate. We diverged from apes. Evidence from psuedogenes, phylogenetics, etc pretty much confirms this.

3. From a professional perspective, unless you can muster up some physical explanation or mechanism, speculating on "how God did it" is pointless. You are not going to get any papers published on it nor are you going to get any grant money.


(Sorry if I sound like a jerk, I'm just passionate about this subject)

Three points I'd like to address:

1. Creationist != Christian. There are plenty of Christians in science that believe in evolution.

2. micro and macro evolution exist on a continuum. It's not like one is completely different from the other. The "we descended from apes" part is not completley accurate. We diverged from apes. Evidence from psuedogenes, phylogenetics, etc pretty much confirms this.

3. From a professional perspective, unless you can muster up some physical explanation or mechanism, speculating on "how God did it" is pointless. You are not going to get any papers published on it nor are you going to get any grant money.


(Sorry if I sound like a jerk, I'm just passionate about this subject)

As i said i'm not about to get into the technicalities of it nor was it writing something to be accurate to avoid being bombarded by a rebuttal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter, and i'm happy that you are passionate about it, I am too but not about the same aspect others such as you may be inclined to dive deep into.

Not sure why the last point was put in as I was not trying to speculate on "how God did it" or trying to do anything academic with this belief. Everything I said in the last paragraph is already proven to exist by science...I simply put in that God created all the mechanisms that we see in everyday life, the design simply had a designer, and we discover more of that design as life goes on. The difference to me is saying "the big bang was the cause of it all" vs "God is the creator of the big bang, and hence having evidence of the big bang does not mean that there wasn't a being that caused it". Just because we cannot measure or distinguish something does not mean it does not exist. If that is your mandate as human then good luck with that lol. My stance is our scope on the realities of life and matter in the universe as humans is very limited and we love to pretend we have it all figured out.

But I would like to ask something regarding your 1st point, regardless of what any christian you may have come across may have stated, to believe that we came from apes goes against the very first chapters of the christian Bible. Man made from dust. There was no animal (ape or ape-like), then a successive change over time to then become human according. It was dust then man according to the bible. So I must ask in what capacity do you mean when you say "Christians in science that believe in evolution"? Because i myself believe in natural selection, which is not the same as evolution, key part of it yes but believing and accepting natural selection is not the same as saying I believe in evolution and all it's facets.

But I would like to ask something regarding your 1st point, regardless of what any christian you may have come across may have stated, to believe that we came from apes goes against the very first chapters of the christian Bible. Man made from dust. There was no animal (ape or ape-like), then a successive change over time to then become human according. It was dust then man according to the bible. So I must ask in what capacity do you mean when you say "Christians in science that believe in evolution"? Because i myself believe in natural selection, which is not the same as evolution, key part of it yes but believing and accepting natural selection is not the same as saying I believe in evolution and all it's facets.

...How do you have a legitimate degree in biology and believe in natural selection but not evolution? What do you think is the driving force in evolution? lmfao

There were a few things else I wanted to point out but frankly it's not worth the time. Although I will digress, if you believe in a personal deity, as Christianity suggests, it comes off very arrogant to me that you feel the creator cares about not even a spec of dust in the universe. Frankly it be like bacteria worshiping us, and how much bacteria are you aware are just on your eyelashes?

...How do you have a legitimate degree in biology and believe in natural selection but not evolution? What do you think is the driving force in evolution? lmfao

evolution isn't the same as evolutionism

There were a few things else I wanted to point out but frankly it's not worth the time. Although I will digress, if you believe in a personal deity, as Christianity suggests, it comes off very arrogant to me that you feel the creator cares about not even a spec of dust in the universe. Frankly it be like bacteria worshiping us, and how much bacteria are you aware are just on your eyelashes?

I might be wrong, but I think the answer to that is "He knows the number of all the stars and their names" and "even the very hairs on your head are numbered"

evolution isn't the same as evolutionism

Clarify this so I know what direction you're going with this petty semantics game.

Guys, please don't let's get into that kind of argument. This thread has been civil so far, let's keep it that way.

Clarify this so I know what direction you're going with this petty semantics game.

Evolutionism saying that evolution is the be-all end-all for the formation and propagation of species.
evolution being the observation of genetic changes that form over time that forms new cultivars or even reproductively-incompatible divergent breeds (usu. species). Saying that evolution is an evident reality would not necessarily preclude the influence of a divine being of some sort to make the necessary tweaks to the genomes in a step-by-step process, especially if the divine being is omnipresent and exists outside of time such that numerous gradual and miniscule changes over aeons would not be any inconvenience whatsoever.

Evolution is a natural process, but it's not the only way something can be brought about.

wow that didn't come close to what I was wanting to say.

He was stating that natural selection is separate from evolution, but what I was getting at is natural selection is a huge cause for evolution which is the effect so to believe one over the other is contradictory. As for the "source" of all things, I can let agree to disagree because obviously we don't have an answer for that yet. However this is what I was getting at for people in general who believe in a personal god, should start at 40 seconds, if it doesn't just fast forward;

[video=youtube;x3sPsbv3fnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3sPsbv3fnY#t=40[/video]

He was stating that natural selection is separate from evolution, but what I was getting at is natural selection is a huge cause for evolution which is the effect so to believe one over the other is contradictory. As for the "source" of all things, I can let agree to disagree because obviously we don't have an answer for that yet. However this is what I was getting at for people in general who believe in a personal god, should start at 40 seconds, if it doesn't just fast forward;

[video=youtube;x3sPsbv3fnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3sPsbv3fnY&t=2m16s[/video]
Now you look at the same video and pay attention to 2:16.

[video=youtube;x3sPsbv3fnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3sPsbv3fnY&t=2m16s[/video]
Now you look at the same video and pay attention to 2:16.

The context of the video is that you shouldn't think of yourself outside of the universe, as in, have a personal god looking over you. So can I assume you missed the point..?

The context of the video is that you shouldn't think of yourself outside of the universe, as in, have a personal god looking over you. So can I assume you missed the point..?

No, but you should know that you didn't demonstrate your point at all.
Look check this out it's gonna blow your mind okay. Substitute "universe" with "god".

I know I'm small, but I'm also big. I'm big because I'm connected to the universe; and the universe is connected to me.

[MENTION=12978]Jazeon[/MENTION]

Thank you for the reply. My apologies I misunderstood you when I wrote my 3rd point. Unfortunately I am unable to respond in detail because I am loaded with work, and I don't think the mods want this thread going in that direction.

Best of luck with your studies.

In my opinion if there is a god, he's more of a curator, not a creator.

No, but you should know that you didn't demonstrate your point at all.
Look check this out it's gonna blow your mind okay. Substitute "universe" with "god".

However this is what I was getting at for people in general who believe in a personal god

By trying to make the comparison to begin with you omit the fact we are talking about religions specifically who favor a personal god. I believe that there is no such thing, although a curator is completely probable in my opinion.

It's not that I didn't make my point, but you looked at every post as a separate window rather than the entire building.

No problem man nice to see people who can be passionate but still civil.