Evolution vs creationism ?

Sunny said:
[QUOTEScience and the preponderance of the evidence. Have your fingerprint checked. See if anyone else has the same.
Click to expand...

Camper, how on earth could anyone find out if "anyone else" has the same fingerprints? All we can check is what's on file. Is every fingerprint that has ever existed on file?

As for the snowflakes, that's even more absurd. Whenever I hear that old canard about no two snowflakes being the same, I immediately think, "How do you know?" When a thing is impossible to verify, it is absurd to make
assumptions about it.[/QUOTE]


Sunny. You read too much into my posts.

It's supposed to be understood that no two fingerprints are exactly the same.

That's why it's reliable evidence in criminal cases. That's why if you commit a crime your fingerprint becomes part of the database and compared if you commit a future crime.

Since each snowflake is created individually from a drop of water, it's just science that each one will be different from another one.

How do you know? Well you really don't know for sure but the preponderance of the evidence shows that the odds are there in favor of the claim.

You are always looking for 'absolute' proof. It doesn't exist. Splitting the atom was a theory. It worked. You can't see it in action so are you going to claim it doesn't happen?

When you walk around do you observe? That's a good hobby to take up.
 

SifuPhil said:
As to the question posed by the former evolutionist in FlowerLady's video - why haven't scientists been able to create life in the lab - they have indeed.

Back in 2010 Craig Venter and his team created a completely new "synthetic" form of life from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive.

They called the life form "Synthia". :D

I also recall seeing a documentary - on Nova? - that detailed the success of computer scientists modeling the creation of life from random combinations of chemicals that existed before "life" itself. The computer model took millions of years of hit and miss pairings, but finally achieved a series of amino acids and DNA that became a proto-life form.

I see it as being equivalent to the idea that if you have a room full of monkeys sitting in front of typewriters, at some point (perhaps millions of years later) they will have produced the entire works of Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

Well just a second now.

They didn't create the ingredients. They used what was available.

It's no different than creating an explosion from gunpowder is it?

You are just changing forms. Nothing is created or destroyed. It just changes form.
 
SifuPhil said:
As to the question posed by the former evolutionist in FlowerLady's video - why haven't scientists been able to create life in the lab - they have indeed.

Back in 2010 Craig Venter and his team created a completely new "synthetic" form of life from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive.

They called the life form "Synthia". :D

I also recall seeing a documentary - on Nova? - that detailed the success of computer scientists modeling the creation of life from random combinations of chemicals that existed before "life" itself. The computer model took millions of years of hit and miss pairings, but finally achieved a series of amino acids and DNA that became a proto-life form.

I see it as being equivalent to the idea that if you have a room full of monkeys sitting in front of typewriters, at some point (perhaps millions of years later) they will have produced the entire works of Shakespeare.
Click to expand...
The "empty" cell was already alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium
 

How do you know? Well you really don't know for sure but the preponderance of the evidence shows that the odds are there in favor of the claim.
Click to expand...

Aha, so we agree at least on this much. All I'm saying is that we don't really know that no two snowflakes are or have ever been the same; we also don't know that it's impossible. There's no way of testing that. It does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence would point in the direction that sure, at two points of history, two different snowflakes could be identical. There is a finite number of patterns that would work; sooner or later, there would be repetition. Probability is all we have to go on.

As for your rather condescending suggestion that I observe things when I walk around because that's a "good hobby," why are you assuming that I don't do that? Because my observations don't bring me to your
exact conclusions? Wow.

And I am "always looking for absolute proof?" Well, if there's any statement that is the exact opposite of my philosophy, that is it. I am looking for "scientific evidence," which I can say because this is not an official government document; that is a very different thing from absolute proof. Do you know what scientific evidence is?

Example: Someone tells me he believes that Santa Claus is real. Not as a "yes, Virginia" symbol of the Christmas spirit; he believes that a physical entity actually flies around in a reindeer-driven sleigh. My answer would be, of course, "Prove it." I am looking for scientific evidence. There is no reason to believe anything just because someone tells you it's so.
 
@Camper 6 said: "
Splitting the atom was a theory. It worked. You can't see it in action so are you going to claim it doesn't happen?"

I do believe one can absolutely see it happen and if one so chooses not to, there is always the math to prove it out.
So far as the snowflake goes, each flake does indeed derive from a singular drop of water formed around a singular piece of dust. Even if the water was to be specifically designed to produce such and such a fractal during it's freezing process, the very thought of producing the exact same dust fragment in each is highly improbable at best.

On evolution, EVERYONE believes in evolution but just not the one that is in question. To deny that one's journey from conception to adulthood is not a continuous evolutionary state would be misunderstanding the very nature of our being.

On synthetic DNA, the synthesis calls for biological chemistry not just simple chemistry. Humans share DNA with a pickle but I dare not believe that I somehow evolved from a cucumber smothered in vinegar. But again, I am not here in the attempt to change anyone's structure of faith because just like belly buttons, each person has their own with which to admire or change as they should wish.

​
 
Sunny said:
Aha, so we agree at least on this much. All I'm saying is that we don't really know that no two snowflakes are or have ever been the same; we also don't know that it's impossible. There's no way of testing that. It does seem to me that the preponderance of evidence would point in the direction that sure, at two points of history, two different snowflakes could be identical. There is a finite number of patterns that would work; sooner or later, there would be repetition. Probability is all we have to go on.

As for your rather condescending suggestion that I observe things when I walk around because that's a "good hobby," why are you assuming that I don't do that? Because my observations don't bring me to your
exact conclusions? Wow.

And I am "always looking for absolute proof?" Well, if there's any statement that is the exact opposite of my philosophy, that is it. I am looking for "scientific evidence," which I can say because this is not an official government document; that is a very different thing from absolute proof. Do you know what scientific evidence is?

Example: Someone tells me he believes that Santa Claus is real. Not as a "yes, Virginia" symbol of the Christmas spirit; he believes that a physical entity actually flies around in a reindeer-driven sleigh. My answer would be, of course, "Prove it." I am looking for scientific evidence. There is no reason to believe anything just because someone tells you it's so.
Click to expand...

Here again when I suggest you observe I mean look for identical objects in nature. Two trees alike. Two leaves alike. I guarantee you that you will have a tough time finding anything exactly alike.

Instead of always trying to prove someone else wrong, try proving yourself right.

You are looking for absolute proof. You are not satisfied otherwise.
 
Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting. It was once thought, by the ancient Greeks that all matter was made up of the 4 "elements": earth, air, fire and water. This, of course, was proven to be wrong. We now know that all matter is made up of one or more of the elements found on the "periodical tables of the elements". If we combine 2 atoms of Hydrogen with 1 atom of Oxygen, we get water. That is indisputable. It is also science in action.

I trust that no one disputes that we can tell who the parents of a child are by examining the DNA of the child and comparing that to the DNA of the male and female adults who claim, or deny, they are the parents. Again, science in action.

Every living thing on earth has DNA. Everything from a bacteria to a human has DNA. We are now able to read the DNA structure of any and all living things. For example, we can tell the heritage of any human by examining his/her DNA. If we select any human at random, we can tell with 100% certainty that that individual has X% Nordic DNA, Y% of middle eastern DNA and Z% of Hispanic DNA. Thus we can state with absolute certainty where that specific humans ancestors came from. If we take a few drops of blood from a Japanese person and we give that sample to a genetic testing lab, and we do not give the lab ANY information about that individual, the lab will tell us that the individual is (A) male or female, and (B) the blood type and (C) primarily of Japanese heritage. Science in action.

It might surprise some people to learn that everyone of European ancestry has DNA markers showing between 1 to 3% of Neanderthal DNA. This demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that their was, 40,000 years ago, some interbreeding between Cro-Magnon Man (modern man) and Neanderthals. Again science in action.

Faith did not do this. Science did it.
 
I would be a very lousy evangelist, because my closest friends have been atheists. Once in a while in some context they would say that they don't believe in God. So... I certainly don't care. Beliefs are personal except when it impedes on others. That's my only criteria in that regard, except for being honest people one can count on.
 
Camper, why would the two leaves, snowflakes, etc. have to coexist in time? One of those identical snowflakes could have existed a few million years ago, the other right now.
 
Sunny said:
Camper, why would the two leaves, snowflakes, etc. have to coexist in time? One of those identical snowflakes could have existed a few million years ago, the other right now.
Click to expand...

Remember what I said?

Trust your own observances in your own time of reference. You can speculate all you like. But in your own observances?

See you don't trust fingerprinting and yet that's how people get convicted.

Could your defense be that someone else did the crime and they have the same fingerprint?

When I cite nature it's that nature does not favor sameness. Nature favours diversity. At least that's my observance.
 
rgp said:
"Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents."

NOT arguing, just sharing a thought...how do we know that the scientist are even accurate in their 'aging' method ? Are those rocks really 3.5 billion yr/old? .......or a zillion ?...LOL

Speakin'a rocks...It's always intrigued me , the number of petroglyphs that hint to spacemen / spaceships. Misinterpretation of the drawing?...Who knows?
Click to expand...

You believe in carbon dating or you don't for determining the age of rocks.

Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon (14. C), a radioactive isotope of carbon.
 
mimento mori said:
@Camper 6 said: "
Splitting the atom was a theory. It worked. You can't see it in action so are you going to claim it doesn't happen?"

I do believe one can absolutely see it happen and if one so chooses not to, there is always the math to prove it out.
So far as the snowflake goes, each flake does indeed derive from a singular drop of water formed around a singular piece of dust. Even if the water was to be specifically designed to produce such and such a fractal during it's freezing process, the very thought of producing the exact same dust fragment in each is highly improbable at best.

On evolution, EVERYONE believes in evolution but just not the one that is in question. To deny that one's journey from conception to adulthood is not a continuous evolutionary state would be misunderstanding the very nature of our being.

On synthetic DNA, the synthesis calls for biological chemistry not just simple chemistry. Humans share DNA with a pickle but I dare not believe that I somehow evolved from a cucumber smothered in vinegar. But again, I am not here in the attempt to change anyone's structure of faith because just like belly buttons, each person has their own with which to admire or change as they should wish.

​
Click to expand...


I do believe one can absolutely see it happen and if one so chooses not to, there is always the math to prove it out.
Click to expand...


Well not really because the math could be just a theory until it is proven.


 
Camper6 said:
Remember what I said?

Trust your own observances in your own time of reference. You can speculate all you like. But in your own observances?

See you don't trust fingerprinting and yet that's how people get convicted.

Could your defense be that someone else did the crime and they have the same fingerprint?

When I cite nature it's that nature does not favor sameness. Nature favours diversity. At least that's my observance.
Click to expand...

About your believe in the infallibility of unique fingerprints... here is one article but I have seen other discussions about how matches are determined and how "experts" fudge their results to get the outcome they want.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/why-your-fingerprints-may-not-be-unique/

[h=1]Why your fingerprints may not be unique[/h]
Fingerprint evidence linking criminals to crime scenes has played a fundamental role in convictions in Britain since the first forensic laboratory was set up in Scotland Yard in 1901.
But the basic assumption that everyone has a unique fingerprint from which they can be quickly identified through a computer database is flawed, an expert has claimed.
Mike Silverman, who introduced the first automated fingerprint detection system to the Metropolitan Police, claims that human error, partial prints and false positives mean that fingerprints evidence is not as reliable as is widely believed.
Nobody has yet proved that fingerprints are unique and families can share elements of the same pattern.


... and there is more in the article.
 
Nothing is 100 per cent infallible.

However if they find a fingerprint at a crime scene and the suspect has the same fingerprint.

The odds are that he was there.

There are always challenges but this one has stood the test of time.
 
Camper6 said:
Nothing is 100 per cent infallible.

However if they find a fingerprint at a crime scene and the suspect has the same fingerprint.

The odds are that he was there.

There are always challenges but this one has stood the test of time.
Click to expand...

lol - at first you were saying no two fingerprints/snowflakes/trees/yada yada were alike. Now you've walked that back to say "nothing is 100 per cent infallible". Hmmmm.

Peace and love
Hoot
 
Actually, I agree with Camper on this. Although I don't necessarily think that every fingerprint that has ever existed anywhere on earth, at any time, is unique, I do believe that the probability of a suspect in a crime having the same exact fingerprint as someone else who is also a valid suspect, is so incredibly minute that we might as well call it "impossible."

Good plot for a new Agatha Cristie style murder mystery.
 
Hoot N Annie said:
lol - at first you were saying no two fingerprints/snowflakes/trees/yada yada were alike. Now you've walked that back to say "nothing is 100 per cent infallible". Hmmmm.

Peace and love
Hoot
Click to expand...

Of course. There are always humans making mistakes and contaminating the samples. You can't prove that there are two identical snowflakes without presenting them can you?

Are there two identical humans on the Earth?

Even identical twins are different from one another.

One can say surely with all the billions born two were alike. But how are you going to back that up when billions have died.

I say that the Earth is a fluke and unique in the universe at this time in the history of the world. No other like it.

You can say that there are millions of stars and planets and surely one must be the same as the Earth.

I can't lose my argument and neither can you because due to the speed of light, it is unprovable.
 
Last edited:
First of all, let me state that I have always been oriented in a science direction - with a special interest in archeology, Paleontology, zoology and microbiology.
IMHO:
1) I believe all religion is a form of mythology (about as valid as early Egyptian,Greek and Roman religions): an attempt by a primitive peoples to explain what was to them at the time as unexplainable. Once accepted by a fairly large portion of the population, government seized on it as a means of controlling and manipulating the population (or a power grab), as well as an excuse for their aggression against their neighbors, etc. It is "the Word" and there are no arguments or other explanations permitted, although there are some superficial changes that do creep in as dictated by the powers that be or the general populace.
2) Creationism is a rather transparent attempt to reconcile the competing explanations for the discrepancies between evolution and the biblical mythology.
3) Evolution is an ongoing attempt to explain the "How did this come about" of life. It is fluid and changes as new evidence becomes available to add to their knowledge base. No one really "knows" how life began and most reputable scientists admit that freely - but they are searching for answers.
I, personally, have no problem with whatever religious beliefs a person has - as long as:
1) they do not try to force their beliefs on me or others
2) they do not try to incorporate their religion onto the government.
3) They do not attempt to use the government to force the tenets of their religion on non-believers
 
Dragonlady said:
First of all, let me state that I have always been oriented in a science direction - with a special interest in archeology, Paleontology, zoology and microbiology.
IMHO:
1) I believe all religion is a form of mythology (about as valid as early Egyptian,Greek and Roman religions): an attempt by a primitive peoples to explain what was to them at the time as unexplainable. Once accepted by a fairly large portion of the population, government seized on it as a means of controlling and manipulating the population (or a power grab), as well as an excuse for their aggression against their neighbors, etc. It is "the Word" and there are no arguments or other explanations permitted, although there are some superficial changes that do creep in as dictated by the powers that be or the general populace.
2) Creationism is a rather transparent attempt to reconcile the competing explanations for the discrepancies between evolution and the biblical mythology.
3) Evolution is an ongoing attempt to explain the "How did this come about" of life. It is fluid and changes as new evidence becomes available to add to their knowledge base. No one really "knows" how life began and most reputable scientists admit that freely - but they are searching for answers.
I, personally, have no problem with whatever religious beliefs a person has - as long as:
1) they do not try to force their beliefs on me or others
2) they do not try to incorporate their religion onto the government.
3) They do not attempt to use the government to force the tenets of their religion on non-believers
Click to expand...

Well said. My thoughts, exactly.
 
Dragonlady said:
First of all, let me state that I have always been oriented in a science direction - with a special interest in archeology, Paleontology, zoology and microbiology.
IMHO:
1) I believe all religion is a form of mythology (about as valid as early Egyptian,Greek and Roman religions): an attempt by a primitive peoples to explain what was to them at the time as unexplainable. Once accepted by a fairly large portion of the population, government seized on it as a means of controlling and manipulating the population (or a power grab), as well as an excuse for their aggression against their neighbors, etc. It is "the Word" and there are no arguments or other explanations permitted, although there are some superficial changes that do creep in as dictated by the powers that be or the general populace.
2) Creationism is a rather transparent attempt to reconcile the competing explanations for the discrepancies between evolution and the biblical mythology.
3) Evolution is an ongoing attempt to explain the "How did this come about" of life. It is fluid and changes as new evidence becomes available to add to their knowledge base. No one really "knows" how life began and most reputable scientists admit that freely - but they are searching for answers.
I, personally, have no problem with whatever religious beliefs a person has - as long as:
1) they do not try to force their beliefs on me or others
2) they do not try to incorporate their religion onto the government.
3) They do not attempt to use the government to force the tenets of their religion on non-believers
Click to expand...

It's a tough world out there. So whatever it takes to get through it religion, mythology, or whatever.

Go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top