Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Rig 17580]

Evolution.

I believe in evolution. I do believe there is something, or someone out there that created what we now call Earth. Not Earth in it's entirety, but in some forms, a template. I used to believe that God did create everything, and that evolution was a load of total crap - however, as I've grown older I've developed on the idea, and I do believe that evolution happened.

The big bang, and all that crap is false I believe, and merely some stupid excuse for scientists to claim they've discovered how everything was made - I don't believe a single word of it. The part of evolution I do believe, and agree with is that every living thing has grown from single-cell organisms to what it is today.

I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Allah. I don't believe in any god, but I do think that something did make the world, as a base for what it's become. Everything has grown off of this template, and become where we live today.

Someone....finally....understands!

[Lego XBOX 915]

Someone....finally....understands!

Indeed, it seems so, but what Danny believes created the Big Bang cannot be proved or refuted, for we cannot currently know what caused it.

But evolution exists, and that is what the debate is about.

[The Best Basileus 97]

"If more energy is going in than out, then the object gets hotter or faster. The Earth is staying at roughly the same temperature, so heat in and heat out of the atmosphere are roughly similar.

 

Everyone here seems to be mixing up entropy and energy a lot."

 

Entropy increases more in any physical process than we would predict by chemical equations. A lot of science is based on approximation. For the universe to always be losing useful energy, then the processes going on have to "waste" useful energy, even if a very small amount of useful energy is lost. Every thermodynamic process does this. Hence, if earth is always absorbing and radiating energy, then each joule of energy emitted or absorbed, there is a small amount of usable energy lost. This "disorder," thus, is increasing. If the system as a whole is losing energy, then its constituent parts have to be losing it over all as well.

 

"It would mean the entire human race is incest? To make a third generation, Adam and Eve's children would have to... well. It's a very small gene pool. Look at those poor pedigree dogs and you'll see how well that goes."

 

That only goes to that point because the gene pool has been mixed and meddled with so much. In the first few generations, incest would not have produced harmful effects, because, assuming Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans (as is being assumed in this case by both sides for the sake of argument), they would have had to have all the genetic potential of humanity between them. That amount of diversity allows for incest's effects to be eliminated. Once the gene pool starts to get depleted for each "line" of the human race, then breeding within that line would cause problems because of a lack of genetic material.

 

"White hair at the north pole is an advantage. A black bear will stick out like a sore thumb."

 

A change in hair color doesn't make a different type of animal. It doesn't take a bear from a bear to an entirely as of yet undiscovered form of creature. The bear is still a bear. No small change could make the bear something else, and any huge change would not meet the specified amount of complexity in either old or new attributes.

 

" Disproving evolution is not proof of Genesis creationism"

 

That's why this thread is called Evolution vs. Creationism, not Evolution vs. The Bible. :)

[Jistuma 1996]

Entropy increases more in any physical process than we would predict by chemical equations. A lot of science is based on approximation. For the universe to always be losing useful energy, then the processes going on have to "waste" useful energy, even if a very small amount of useful energy is lost. Every thermodynamic process does this. Hence, if earth is always absorbing and radiating energy, then each joule of energy emitted or absorbed, there is a small amount of usable energy lost. This "disorder," thus, is increasing. If the system as a whole is losing energy, then its constituent parts have to be losing it over all as well.

Yes, usefull energy is wasted, but some of it is used. And that is how you get things to work, some usefull energy is used. Do you know, for example, how much of the usefull energy is used by a combustion engine? About 20-30%. Does that make it that the car can not move? No, it only means a lot of energy is wasted, but the car still moves.

It's the same with the energy reaching from the sun, most of it will be useless, and just leave the earth without being of much use, but some, even if just 1% is used, then other things can happen. Most of the energy from the sun, actually gets lost in the atmosphere. Then it reaches the ground where some is reflected back into space. Of that which is absorved, most of it produces heat, heating the dirt for example, and that will make the air hotter, which will then get colder with time, by losing energy to space. But, a tiny bit is used for chemical reactions, which will then store energy for a plant, or energy in a chemical, which will then be able to be used another time.

[The Best Basileus 97]

"Until I finally show him otherwise, thermodynamics is a little different for Sarkly."

 

lol.

 

But really, dude, I understand what the law is saying. I know all these things about chemical processes. I got an A in all my high school science courses, and I study these things for fun on the side. I totally understand how this all works, and all that I have based that one argument I used on was the fact that all thermodynamic processes produce more entropy than is expected by our formulas. On the smallest level, every process "wastes" usable energy. This is what, overall, leads to the degeneration of order in the universe (or the heat death of it eventually, if you like). Saying that entropy stays the same for Earth and life forms despite the multitude of physical processes they go through is what I'm arguing against. The Gibbs free energy states that the more enthalpy (total energy) a system has the more entropy it has. Change in entropy is proportionate to change in enthalpy. When life produces energy, it increases its own entropy. When life uses energy, it decreases its own entropy. The order in a molecule of DNA is only there because the reaction that produced it emitted energy. To say that a reaction that an endothermic process (a reaction that absorbs energy, like the mutation of DNA when irradiated) actually increases the enthalpy but decreases entropy isn't logical based on Gibbs free energy (and in turn on the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Since macroevolution depends on mutations of DNA to improve the order in a life form, macroevolution denies Gibbs free energy and thus the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Macroevolution bows to the more credible Second Law, and is thus impossible. Tell me what is wrong with what I said in this paragraph, please.

 

Beyond this, though, there is the issue of specified complexity, which I have brought up and so far defended. See, the issue is that macroevolution would want to change a wolf into a whale. The steps necessary to do this, though, do not meet the specifications of complexity for either the old wolf systems or the new whale systems. A change in hair color or skin color can be superior in certain circumstances. So can many other things, including drug resistance in bacteria (which relies on information manufacture by cells, not mutation). The big changes that move one species from its home type to an entirely new type, however, are also impossible.

[The Best Basileus 97]

The idea that there is no absolute truth is rather silly. Saying that there is no absolute truth is basically a self-murdering argument. All I must do to confound you is ask if the statement that there is no absolute truth is a true statement. Contradiction.

 

EDIT:

"But evolution exists, and that is what the debate is about"

 

Well I guess this discussion is over then. Evolution wins because it exists? What? How is that good form in a debate? If you insist that evolution exists WITHIN your arguments for evolution, then I can assume creation in my argument for creation. That wouldn't be very productive, now would it? :P

[Jistuma 1996]

To say that a reaction that an endothermic process (a reaction that absorbs energy, like the mutation of DNA when irradiated) actually increases the enthalpy but decreases entropy isn't logical based on Gibbs free energy (and in turn on the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Here is the wrong part. Anything when irradiated with absorve energy, when DNA suffers a mutation, it needed energy for the connection to break, then it would releace energy as it would connect back. The entropy rises? Yes, in the end, the DNA is at a bigger temperature, but that will soon dissipate throughout the rest of the organism. So enthalpy raises, and so does entropy, but then, the entropy lowers as well as the enthalpy. In the end the Global entropy from this reaction will rise, but the entropy of the animal after a while will go down once more to the normal state.

DNA mutation is a chemical reaction like any other, if you say that DNA mutation can not happen due to the second law, you are also saying that no endorthermic process can be reversed or happen.

Also, Entropy is a constant for a certain temperature at a certain pressure for a certain material. Example: liquid water at 1 atmosphere of pressure, at 20ºC has an entropy of 0.2965 KJ/Kg.K

It's a constant, water at that temperature and pressure will always have that entropy. If the water heats up, the cools down to the same temperature as before, it will once again have the same entropy.

[edit] I will give you an example on how the entropy rises now:

1 kg of liquid water at 1 atm and 20ºC will be added to 1kg of liquid water at 1atm and 40ºC

The result will be: 2 kgs of liuid water at 1 atm and 30ºC(this was calculated through enthalpies)

S1 = 0.2965 (water 20ºC)

S2 = 0.5724 (water 40ºC)

Si = (S1 * 1 + S2 * 1)/2= 0.43445 (The *1 means that it's 1 kg of each)

Sf = 0.4367 (water 30ºC)

Now, have you seen the diference? Si < Sf : 0.43445 < 0.4367, the entropy of the state has risen. Now, can we get the entropy back down? Yes we can, if the system is an open system, we can remove energy and place the temperature back down to 20ºC, and then the entropy would go down in that system.

[3andD 1722]

Creationism: Flawed, I.E God couldn't of existed before time, therefor God couldn't of existed before the big bang.

 

Evolution: Flawed to an extent, I.E That the evolution of intelligent lifeforms has only happened once.

 

Solution: ​ Agnosticism, I.E It's human nature to be skeptical.

[Rhonir 16]

Creationism: Flawed, I.E God couldn't of existed before time, therefor God couldn't of existed before the big bang.

 

Evolution: Flawed to an extent, I.E That the evolution of intelligent lifeforms has only happened once.

 

Solution: ​ Agnosticism, I.E It's human nature to be skeptical.

 

When you say that the Evolution of Intelligent lifeforms has only happened once, I am compelled to dispute that. For example, many other 'Intelligent' life forms have had evidence for evolving as well. For example, Homo neanderthalensis, or Neanderthals, shared a common ancestor with Homo sapiens, or modern humans. They had a cranial capacity that is comparable to the size of a human's. Neanderthals buried their dead, and observed the world around them, using tools and fire. Only one of these many different 'intelligent lifeforms' survived to modern day. But this is supported by Natural Selection, as the struggle for life would eventually have only one of these survive. As for the Neanderthal's demise, it may have not even been their 'inferior' minds, which I have asserted was not a defining or degrading factor, but their bulky bodies. These heavy set hominids required about 5,000 calories per day, compared to the Human's average consumption of about 2,000 calories. 

 

As for Agnosticism, not committing oneself to a side of a conflict until the evidence is in is always a respectable choice. However, on the topic of Evolution, the evidence is in. I will not devote this post to provide evidence, but it is there, and it is easily accessible. 

 

Have a good one,

 

ThePrroman

[hammer01 29]

Neanderthals buried their dead, and observed the world around them, using tools and fire.

I really dont see how we can actually know this without a time machine...

[Lago 2572]

Saying that entropy stays the same for Earth and life forms despite the
multitude of physical processes they go through is what I'm arguing
against.

You appear to have been saying that molecules cannot become more complex.

[Supremacy 3361]

I'm sorry, I normally refrain from posting on such threads but this 'entropy' argument has gone on long enough. The entropy of the earth at any given period of time can become higher or lower. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to the entire universe as a whole.

 

Given that:

• The universe is expanding
• Energy conversions are not 100% efficient

If the above two are true (which science tells us they are) then the entropy of the universe increases over time.

 

The entropy of a limited area such as the earth however, does not have to increase with any given energy conversion. There are outside sources (i.e. The sun) which provide a constant flow of energy from outside the system. Thus the earth does not have to gain entropy while the universe must.

 

This neither affirms or counters either side of this argument. However, if we are going to use terms... use them right. Entropy should not really need to be used as a means to argue for or against evolution as it applies to the universe as a whole.

 

Now we have settled this silly definition squabble, go back to your 'heated internet argument'.

 

Other corrections to misinformed points I have seen:

 

• Zero Kelvins is not an achievable temperature.
• All mutations are not harmful. Some are beneficial, some are detrimental... others have no effect.

[Rhonir 16]

I really dont see how we can actually know this without a time machine...

Well, it's called finding skeletons in unnatural positions with unnatural surroundings. For example, in one of the most famous, Shanidar IV, we found large amounts of pollen from flowering plants surrounding the corpse of the Neanderthal. These flowers, which included Yarrow, Cornflower, Bachelor's Button, St. Barnaby's Thistle, Ragwort, Grape Hyacinth, Joint Pine or Woody Horsetail and Hollyhock (T. D. Stewart, Shanidar Skeletons IV and VI) are also known for their medicinal properties. Among other Neanderthal Grave sites lay grave goods like bison bone and ochre pigment. If this does not count as enough evidence for an ancient burial, I have no idea what does. 

 

(Above) ^ A representation of the burial of Shanidar IV, based on the skeleton's position and pollen deposits on and around the skeleton.

As for tools and observing the world. Neanderthals definitely used a variety of tools. They used spears, axes, and knives to hunt. Although their tool box was not has large as ancient Homo Sapiens at the time, they still had a large one of specialized weapons to use for hunting and other necessities. 

(Below) A few Neanderthal shaped points for spears

They also used a variety of traps and definitely used fire. As for understanding the world around them, these Neanderthals were among the world's first artists. They painted what they saw in caves and other available canvasses. 

(Below) A Neanderthal Cave Painting found in Spain, possibly the oldest found yet.

The dating of this cave art predates Homo Sapiens settlement in the region. 

 

So as you can see, you don't require a time machine to see into the past. Think of it like the scene of a crime. Using evidence available, you can formulate what happened accurately. This is more than enough evidence to testify for the Neanderthal's intelligence. 

 

Thankyou,

ThePrroman

[Rhonir 16]

Im just saying its a side effect... if we are just smart animals, then we should be able to get away with anything, because, hey! there is no punishment after death! Before evolution Christianity was the norm. People had morals. After evolution, people could get away with anything...

So you are saying that humanity basically requires a giant blackmail of an ultimatum of eternal destruction in order to do the 'right' thing. That is a bleak view on humanity and that is insulting to me, and every non-christian on the planet. Your claim that before evolution Christianity was the 'norm'. It is sickening. Let's use Darwin's publication of On the Origin of the Species in 1859 as a benchmark for the beginning of Evolutionary thinking. 

 

Now let's begin. 

 

Around 1830, a religious movement called 'Manifest Destiny' came around in the United States. People felt that they were called by god to expand the country to the Pacific ocean. This would require the displacement of Millions of Native Americans west of the Mississippi. And they did it. Justification? The land belonged to them. Even though many of the Native American Nations had been given the land they lived on by the United States, and the land legally belonged to the Native Americans, the white people basically ignored that and took the land. They said that god gave them the land and 'Savage, God Hating Injuns' had no claim to the land they lived on. Not one Evolutionist among them. Where was the morals you said they had?

 

Even before that, long before the birth of Darwin himself, came the Spaniards to America. This was in the 1500's and early 1600's. (Forgive me if my dates aren't exact.) The Spaniards came and commonly said the goal was God, as in spreading Catholicism, Gold, or finding riches, and Glory, by claiming the land for Spain. They encountered a native people known as the Tainos, a peaceable people who lived on the Caribbean Islands. When Christopher Columbus encountered these people, they presented him with gifts and friendliness. In his journal he wrote, ""They are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as no one would believe but him who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts." Later in the letter Columbus went on to say:"their Highnesses may see that I shall give them as much gold as they need .... and slaves as many as they shall order to be shipped." And so he did. Within half a century, the Tainos were declared an extinct people, as they were brutally murdered, enslaved, and tortured for gold. His motive was that these people were not Christian, and therefor did not have rights. Evolution played absolutely no factor in his actions.

 

Now let's go back to mainland North America. It's 1760 (ish), and Pennsylvanian farmers are taking native lands from peaceful tribes that had agreements with the crown. They claimed that the heathen savages did not deserve to live on 'Christian Soil,' or breath 'Christian Air,' and raided and pushed back the Natives. Even those who were taken into custody to protect them were broken out, then mobbed to death. The mobbers definitely believed in an afterlife, and the blackmail that you pose is so powerful it can stop all crime. 

 

Now let's go ahead to 1840 in North America. Here, Christianity is often portrayed as the religion that said that slavery was immoral and evil. But it also was the same religion that slave captors and slave owners used to justify their actions to themselves and others. They picked their own choice Bible verses to preach. They said that since the Africans were savage, devil worshiping, 'cannibals,' (Even though Cannibalism was never majorly documented in Africa) it was a favor to enslave them, Christianize them, and 'civilize them'.

 

The point I am making is Humanity has always used something to justify their actions. You say that after evolution, people could get away with anything, and that is a lie, because before evolution, people could get away with anything as well. People always use something to justify what they do, and to point out that something that has been misinterpreted and misused a few times does not make the actuality of it false, nor does it make the misuse of every other thing false, as religion, as I have shown in this post, has definitely caused bad actions. There has been no change of actions to others since the discovery of evolution. Dictators still commit genocides, people still kill. You cannot pin these actions on one particular thing. Especially if the thing you defend has caused ten times as much death as the thing you argue against.

 

Thank you

 

ThePrroman

[Ventusyr 233]

-snip- 

ThePrroman

I do agree people calling themselves Christians have done terrible things. And this does render hammer's argument invalid.

However, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This does not support evolution or creationism. It only supports that humans suck. A lot. Which, I'm sure, everyone here understands.

Please, sir, understand that just because someone says they are doing something for God does not mean that they are actually a Christian. It has given our religion a bad name, and we understand that, but Biblically, their endevours were not supported. So, really, God did not sanction the death of millions of Native Americans, God did not support European colonialism in America, and God certainly did not sanction the evils the Europeans did. As soon as a "Christian" goes against one of the Ten Commandments, they aren't following God's word. The Spaniards and American colonials did just that.