CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION

[tomday]

Hi doggone, always happy to accept any invitation to a discussion.  Whilst I enjoy expressing my ideas and attitudes, I tend to speak from the standpoint of my own logical analysis based upon intelligence, intellect and the general knowledge plus awareness built up over more than 60 years.  
I do not have a huge repertoire of scientific data to back what I say but most definitely have internalized the evolutionary school of thought rather than creationist notions which I find to be totally incredulous.
I look forward to our discussion!

[doggone]

Hey tomday :
  The people that can quote other people, chapter and verse, aren't scientists, they're only students of science. There's a big difference... The human mind is a powerful thing, all by itself... That said:
  The discussions, and counter-discussions, I’ve see here seem to be ultra limited.. An ET circling the Earth, and observing us earthlings from above, would be saying "criminy, these guys stopped too soon in their research".. Here's some food for thought and I do ask for some feed back on it:
-- and I’m not looking for 'do we accept it all” style of comments - if you're not an Atheist then just be quiet and pretend you accept this - if you’re Atheist, only let me know if you DON’T accept this in principle (I know it's abbreviated, we can’t write a book here).
Evolution:
1) Life developed on Earth as a 'simple life form'
2) Life progressed along evolutionary lines and filled in specific needs and accomplished specific opportunities along the evolutionary tree. (i.e  Water was inhabited and difficulties overcome, flying was accomplished and difficulties overcome, walking on dry ground was accomplished and difficulties overcome, etc)..
3) Evolution is both vertical and horizontal (along the evolutionary tree): i.e.  monkeys will adapt and progress by changing within the species, or by going up the ladder into sometimes a different, more intelligent, species (ie hominid).
 Any problems so far..??

[tomday]

sorry doggone, don't follow your drift when you say

"- and I’m not looking for 'do we accept it all” style of comments - if you're not an Atheist then just be quiet and pretend you accept this - if you’re Atheist, only let me know if you DON’T accept this in principle"

You ask for feedback, but, yes, I am an atheist therefore I do not need to be quiet - and, yes,  I do accept the principle of what you say, so I don't need to let you know.
It seems that you only want feedback from an atheist who does not agree with your 3 statements - I would be surprised if you will find anyone here because we are mostly intelligent, educated atheists who accept the theory of evolution as the most plausible causation of life as we know it.  

In my opinion, an atheist who would argue against what what you have written is not going to be worth debating with.

Please enlighten me.

[Will]

I would put it this way:
1) Life developed on Earth or on another world as simple life forms (this allows for the viable theory that life may have accidentally found it's way to Earth once upon a time) that came from inorganic compounds. This almost certainly happened absent supernatural intelligence of any kind, seeing as there's no evidence to suggest the supernatural or any intelligence predating life on Earth.

Everything else seems fine to me.

[doggone]

Interesting that someone said, “life may have accidentally found it's way to Earth”. I like that. I’m actually an evolutionist myself but I suspect you have mono & polytheists lurking about and I don’t need sermons. The site doesn’t seem to mind if they’re here.
How do you feel about scientific law and method.?.

Scientific Principle:
4) The Universe is common: i.e., Newton's laws work here and they'll work over in that galaxy as well. If evolution works on this planet (with equivalent ambiance) it will work over there, and there, and over there.
5) The Universe is stable. You can't unbalance the Universe. If you could shut down an electron here then somewhere in the cosmos (doesn't matter where) another electron will pop into being. Same goes for any other particle. Popping an electron with a positron doesn't unbalance the universe. It’s all basic physics.
6) There's another part of the scientific principle that says: You don't create something out of nothing.  
.. Any disagreements with this, in principle..??

[Will]

Interesting that someone...

You can call me Will.

said, “life may have accidentally found it's way to Earth”. I like that.

I'l admit I'd only considered it as science fiction until the meteor with evidence of microscopic life (that, admittedly, has yet to be verified) was found in the 90s. While I suspect that wherever life started, it was elements combining into amino acids, combining into peptides, etc. until microscopic life was formed, it's not unreasonable to think it may have occurred elsewhere. The elements and situations necessary are quite probably present elsewhere in the universe.

I’m actually an evolutionist myself but I suspect you have mono & polytheists lurking about and I don’t need sermons. The site doesn’t seem to mind if they’re here.

I also consider myself an evolutionist. I find evolution the be a wonderful and beautiful system that explains well the very origins of life. It's the answer to questions asked by philosophers for thousands of years, and it's perfectly scientific.

How do you feel about scientific law and method.?.

I suspect I find them as important as the pope finds the bible.
Scientific Principle:
4) The Universe is common: i.e., Newton's laws work here and they'll work over in that galaxy as well. If evolution works on this planet (with equivalent ambiance) it will work over there, and there, and over there.
5) The Universe is stable. You can't unbalance the Universe. If you could shut down an electron here then somewhere in the cosmos (doesn't matter where) another electron will pop into being. Same goes for any other particle. Popping an electron with a positron doesn't unbalance the universe. It’s all basic physics.
6) There's another part of the scientific principle that says: You don't create something out of nothing.  
.. Any disagreements with this, in principle..??[/quote]
Sounds good, basically, though my understanding of quantum mechanics tends to turn Newton on his ear. Or on his apple. Newton's observations and laws work on a macroscopic level. Different laws, which are the underlying explanations for the phenomena Newton documented and attempted to explain, exist and are still being discovered.

[doggone]

You’re a wise and learned man, Will... "Newton's observations and laws work on a macroscopic level". . The dissection of Newton is actually immaterial here. That would be just legalism, which wasn't the point I was trying to make. For the sake of brevity, I was merely pointing out that;  gravity works here and it’ll work over there also, light works here and waaaaay over there also...

More on the list thingy: again, this isn’t a thesis
Evolution
1) As life "evolved" there apparently were specific niches to be filled. Starting with the insects: Some had spikes, some were smooth, some insects adapted to living in water, some on land, some ate plants, some ate other insects, some flew, some burrowed, some swarmed together, some walked alone, etc.
2) Then came the reptiles and amphibians. Guess what, they filled the same niches: Some had spikes, some were smooth, some adapted to water, some on land, some ate plants, some hunted meat, some flew, some burrowed, some kept in groups together, some walked alone, etc..
3) Then came the mammals and guess how they evolved: Some had spines, some were smooth, some adapted to water, some to land, some ate plants, some hunted meat, some flew, some burrowed, some kept in groups together, some walked alone, etc.. Can we be more "shocked and awed".??
4) Then somebody discovered Australia; an isolated land populated with mostly just opossums (marsupials if you wish). Scientists soon found out that even if there's just one narrow sub-class available, opossums (or marsupials), then the same niches were still being filled: Some Marsupials had spines, some were smooth, some adapted to water, some to land, some ate plants, some marsupials hunted meat, some flew, some burrowed, some kept in groups together, some walked alone, etc., heck, some even laid eggs..
If the niche is there, then evolution and adaptation may very well fill it, and by all indications, and records, it would be nearly impossible to stop it..
….Does anybody disagree with this, in principle..??

[Will]

I'm pretty sure we had microorganisms, plants, fish, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, basically in that order.

I totally agree about mutation, natural selection, and adaptation.

[doggone]

… “We had microorganisms, plants, fish, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals”. Yup, there are volumes of books written on such. While trying to fit things into a small 'chat' I tried to cut acceptable corners. If anybody was going to launch a tirade it’s, more often than not, the theists.. I didn’t hear anything, so they’re probably not here. Toooo bad actually.

[Will]

We scared them all away with the scientific method long ago. Occasionally, a few wonder in with their "the universe is to complex to be an accident" type things, but they're usually cut and pasting from www.jesushatesscience.com/creationsm/pat?robertson

[McQ]

Here's a new one for the creation vs. evolution topic....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071210/od_ ... lawsuit_dc


Poor guy.  :roll:

What a freaking crybaby!

[SteveS]

How can somebody be a biologist and reject evolution?  Can't be a really good biologist at any rate, can he?

I should apply to be a priest and complain when they fire me 'cause I'm an atheist.....

[sthginkralpmeTheT]

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH, AND SO IS THE TRUTH OF GOD.  Where do you think the mysteries of science will end?  Can you not see that the big bang was our Lord FIRST THINKING of us?

[ryanvc76]

How cute... an unhappy theist got lost in the happy atheist forums.

[jcm]

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH, AND SO IS THE TRUTH OF GOD.  Where do you think the mysteries of science will end?  Can you not see that the big bang was our Lord FIRST THINKING of us?

Please explain to me how you came to that conclusion.