Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

originally posted by: Isurrender73
Everything is what you imagine it is and I choose to believe in the prophets.

That's fine. I don't mind that people choose to believe in things. As long as they admit it is just their belief which they've chosen for themselves. Some people like to claim they Know the things they believe when that isn't true. Even worse is when they insist that others believe it's also true but can provide no reasoning or bad reasoning to do so.

I know evolution does happen. I can see it and even participate in it. I don't know where everything came from in a cosmological sense, but I'm not convinced that there must be an even more complex being outside reality that made it happen. That leads me to believe in a variety of ideas from time to time.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Most evolutionists are much more closed minded then I am. Only one of us is calling our imagination scientific facts. While I prefer to wait for scientific method to prove scientific facts. I clearly stated that I know that I am using my imagination, but like most evolutionist you want to ignore scientific method and call evolution from single cell to human a fact.

Evolution is a scientific fact, you just admitted that speciation occurs. Well that's what evolution is. If genetic changes can occur that alter species into a new species than there is no reason, and no "closed-mindedness" or "imagination" in the idea that, given enough time and selection pressure, different Genus, Order, etc will also develop.

It is only in the imagination of creationists that a barrier exists between one species evolving into another that would prevent that new species into another and that species into two others diverging and changing until, down the line, you have something so different it counts as another genus, order, family, etc.

Now you say that God is our common ancestor but you've ignored my point that genetics proves our interrelatedness to other life, by reproduction. Meaning that we are the product of evolution, of genetic variation across generations, and thus share a common ancestor will all other life on Earth. This is a very simple point and one that is a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of personal belief or of faith or of imagination. The same genetics that prove you are the child of your parents prove that you are also related biologically to everything else on this planet.

The only way this can even begin to make sense when you're arguing for creation is to say that God created via evolution. Otherwise you are saying that God took 98% of chimp DNA to make us or the other way around, that God took a part of our DNA to make chimps. You are saying that God made everything on Earth APPEAR genetically related while in actuality we're not. Why would God do this?

Do you understand what I'm suggesting here? Reproduction is what recombines genes into new combinations, meaning that we all carry the genetic information of our ancestors, of where we came from biologically speaking. And this information, upon study, also shows us the amazing similarities we have with other animals meaning that we share a common ancestor - that is where the evidence leads.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Its because we experience time linear that we create a cause and effect paradox.

Every cause is an effect and every effect is a cause. Therefore, we interject a divine diety outside our realm of reality in order to overcome this problem, when in reality it is merely an extra variable that isnt required.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

I hate to tell ya this but I'd bet the farm and the cow on the fact that neither of them even read what you wrote about. If they did, it would blow apart their whole concept of reality.

Everything you wrote makes perfect sense. It's logical and reasonable but they just don't want to hear it. They actually just refuse to hear it.

They're like really bad crusaders who imagine themselves fighting the good fight and slaying the great evil dragon of Science, but they're armed with cardboard cutout swords and paper shields and afraid to look the dragon in the eye.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

There is nothing in science (including evolution) that makes any definite determination on the validity of the concept that everything was created. Similarly there is no actual disagreement, from the standpoint of a creation based faith, regarding evolutionary processes.

One does not rule out the other by any means. They are not either/or opposites.

The disagreements that I see are largely based upon religious dogma, either someone is pro-religion or anti-religion and trying to mask their true motives and validate their opinions.

That people try and justify their religious opinion by alluding to evolution vs creationism indicates their not having adequately considered all the implications of either or both.

Personally, I believe that God is the creator of everything.

I also see the world as having order and its basic operations follow a rational process.

The Bible is not a textbook and to read it as such misses the point. It is poetic and historical, exposing ethical and moral issues in a framework of man's interactions with God. Similarly, I would never attempt to infer ethical and moral dictates from a book on physics.

I believe that all component processes of evolution do occur and are reproducible in a variety of circumstances but I do not believe that evolution is the ONLY explanation for biodiversity. This also does not imply that the only alternate option is creationist belief. There are many alternate secular and scientific paradigms which are not evolution (panspermia, ancient aliens, morphic resonance, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics & etc).

Those who delineate the world into us & them, evolution or Creationist, like it is all about some kind of dichotomy, are, to my way of seeing, ignorant and bigoted.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm glad that you've found a way to allow faith and science to co-exist within your worldview

There is nothing in science (including evolution) that makes any definite determination on the validity of the concept that everything was created.

More or less I have to agree with you. There's no reason that a God couldn't use the natural process of evolution to allow life to diversify. And given that most gods are said to be immortal there is no reason for folks to cling to literal 6 day creation narratives, when a god would have the billions of years to wait until a creature evolved that could discover and comprehend him.

While I am an atheist myself the point of this thread is not to talk people out of faith or to try to set up religion and science as opposites but simply to address those anti-science folks who think evolution is a conspiracy and perhaps suggest they drop their unnecessary rejection of evolution.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm glad that you've found a way to allow faith and science to co-exist within your worldview

There is nothing in science (including evolution) that makes any definite determination on the validity of the concept that everything was created.

More or less I have to agree with you. There's no reason that a God couldn't use the natural process of evolution to allow life to diversify. And given that most gods are said to be immortal there is no reason for folks to cling to literal 6 day creation narratives, when a god would have the billions of years to wait until a creature evolved that could discover and comprehend him.

While I am an atheist myself the point of this thread is not to talk people out of faith or to try to set up religion and science as opposites but simply to address those anti-science folks who think evolution is a conspiracy and perhaps suggest they drop their unnecessary rejection of evolution.

Unfortunately, your reasonableness is quite unique.

I did start a thread proposing one way that timescales could actually be different for the same events, with regard to the creation account.

Perhaps you could glance through it if you wish: One answer to the dilemma of a seven day Creation vs Scientific views of creation.

Just two quick points I'd like to make:

1. You make the assumption that being made "in God's image" refers to our DNA. While our DNA may show some common design elements, I would argue that being made in the image of God refers to mankind being self-aware beings with a moral compass (qualities that neither the chimps nor the deep-sea creatures you mentioned have).

2. About your statement on the laws of thermodynamics: You state that the sun provides enough energy to make the Earth an open system and therefore is not subjected to the second law of thermodynamics. However, evolution (at least as most would argue), would imply a secular view of creation. This creates a problem because on a universal scale we're still working with a closed system. Our universe would then have had to either A) come into existence from nothing (violating the first law of thermodynamics) or B) exist in some type of eternally recycling energy loop (violating the second law of thermodynamics). No matter how you twist it, using quantum mechanics or any other potential explanation for our existence, at some point something "supernatural" (due to a force beyond our current laws of nature) happened to create our universe. If we then start to discuss potential scenarios which could never be duplicated under our current laws of nature and making untestable hypotheses, we're no longer working with the scientific method, but rather with our faith of a secular worldview.

Ultimately everything will come down to where your faith resides.

a reply to: Henshin

I would argue that being made in the image of God refers to mankind being self-aware beings with a moral compass

What part of Genesis suggests this? It's fine if its your personal belief that that's what in the image of God means but most people reading the Bible will not come to that conclusion when they see that phrase in Genesis... especially when the rest of the Bible suggests God is generally human in shape, sits on a throne, has hair, etc.

This creates a problem because on a universal scale we're still working with a closed system

Not necessarily. However many cosmologists believe that entropy will eventually win out and cause the Universe to go into heat death billions and billions of years from now. So even if it is a closed system the matter and energy that was condensed into the singularity was enough to become the Universe we see around us.

at some point something "supernatural" (due to a force beyond our current laws of nature) happened to create our universe

We don't know this for certain although for now the ultimate origin of the Universe seems more or less an insoluble mystery, we don't know what future discoveries will find. Even if I grant that there must be some explanation "external" to the Universe and laws of nature as we know them the word supernatural is problematic in my opinion. I feel the word unnatural would fit just as well and comes without any baggage.

Ultimately everything will come down to where your faith resides.

Not really. I don't pretend to know the secret to cosmic origins. I admit that it's a mystery. That is the intellectually honest thing to do in this point, even most scientists who study this stuff agree that we don't have the answer to the origin of the Universe.

a reply to: StanFL

Good point... It has been so forced into their teachings that they cannot see that there are alternate evidence to move their thought. Sadly it is a harsh reality. Science is always moving forward and in its progression surely in itself proves evolution, as we learn we evolve to our environment. The Galapagos is a creation of evolution.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Evolution as on planet Earth for more than 500 million years was based on struggle for life. A principle that created so many species that there always will be a few species that would survive the next catastrophe. Earth is not a planet where consciousness had enough time to grow. Eaarth is a dangerous planet. Consciousness is out of reach for all creatures on planet Earth. Except for humans.
What an extraordinary coincidence.
Only we don’t believe in coincidences. Just like Alfred Russel Wallace said: at some point in evolution of mankind a superior being must have intervened.
That superior being was an astronaut out of space. It would be stupid to believe that at some point in our evolution we will find intelligent life in space and at the same moment not to believe in the possibility that extraterrestrial intelligent life did not found Earth long before Homo sapiens sapiens appeared on Earth.
Those extraterrestrials created Homo sapiens sapiens I think.
www.evawaseerst.be... (red dots)

Considering the subject matter and the perspective of its author - this whole thread seems remarkably thin on actual science. It seems more like a promotion of the faith of Scientism by means of attacking its more traditional counterparts.

What I found interesting in the responses to this thread is the number of people who used to believe in some type of creation by God, and now they don't.
This change has happened to some since they joined up with ATS, there are some very intelligent and persuasive posters here. Then again it takes a lot of humility to take the constant ridicule from the unbelievers unless your faith is rock solid they will sway you to their side. If there is the tiniest crack in your personal ideology they will find it and exploit it, faith is like a damn holding back tonnes of water, the smallest crack and leak can lead to a catastrophic failure.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
Considering the subject matter and the perspective of its author - this whole thread seems remarkably thin on actual science. It seems more like a promotion of the faith of Scientism by means of attacking its more traditional counterparts.

Funny I read these preachy science threads and seem more attracted to creationism than science.
It does seem remarkably thin on science and the op opening statement was nothing but TV evangelist preachy.

Is this what the science of evolution is now, point scoring on the internet between fan boys, anything but science in the real world.

a reply to: zandra

I don't think humans are as unique or extraordinary as you are making them out to be nor do I think we were the only species with a chance to gain consciousness. In fact for a while we weren't even the only human species, there were Neanderthals who were a distinct species but shared a great deal in common with us.

If alien intervention did take place we'd expect to see some evidence of that in our genes which set us far apart from our ape relatives and yet despite holding ourselves in high esteem the differences genetics wise aren't all that drastic.

Creating threads like this gives undue attention to absurd creationist claims which on merit do not deserve even a canned a laughter track devoted to them.

R e l i g i o u $
e
t
a
r
d
a
†
i
o
n

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
It is Creation which allows for any evolution to take place...

Let's see nothing evolve into anything...

that would not even be evolution, that would be creation...

evolution as a start of things is therefore laughable...

Figure it out...

The only thing laughable here is that you think you've made a good point.

Evolution happens. If you believe creation is required, that's fine and that's your belief. It isn't factual, though.

Evolution doesn't claim nothing turned into something.

Evolution doesn't claim to be the start of things.

Clearly you didn't even read the OP because you are attempting to derail a good thread based on facts. If you have something to argue against the OP then make your case instead of laughably bad arguments like this that show you've never studied science in your life.

Figure it out.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Unfortunately you present no justification for any of your posts.

I created you. Prove me wrong.

a reply to: Henshin

Entropy doesn't apply to the entire universe equally and at the same rate. It is definitely happening, it just takes time. When you have planetary systems out there that constantly receive external energy from the sun, it gives the appearance of order because new energy is constantly added. Gravity also gives that APPEARANCE. Keep in mind that the sun is not going to burn forever, so entropy still applies, it's just that our system is removed from it until new energy stops coming in. The misunderstandings with the laws of thermodynamics are a bit old. Evolution does not violate any such thing.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

The fact that people are starting to come around to science and not fight it due to personal beliefs is a good thing. It sure beats posting factually inaccurate statements and attacks on science over and over again in threads completely irrelevant to the thread topic, RIGHT?

Nobody is exploiting holes in people's beliefs, they are defending valid science. Sorry that this offends you, but knowledge is power and denial of science NEVER gets us anywhere. It sounds to me like YOU are the one attempting to exploit holes in their beliefs by insulting their faith and saying that it isn't solid like yours. Strong faith does not mean you have to interpret the bible 100% literally. That's not strong faith, that's lunacy.

You are too funny. You are prime offender of posting falsehoods in this section. Sticking to lies and falsehoods over facts and science doesn't show strong faith. It shows intellectual dishonesty. If you actually had strong faith, you would promote the morally good things about the religion and set a good example of the golden rule rather than attacking what you don't believe in. People like you are the reason your faith is dying and if you don't realize this, I really don't know what to say. Most religious people are rational, but somebody on the fence, deciding whether to believe in god, will likely be turned off by the extremism that many of you guys demonstrate via ignorance and intellectual dishonesty to promote a worldview. Why not promote it with positivity? You'd recruit way more followers. I know that's your true goal here. No need to pretend.