Evolution vs. Creation Topic

[calvin]

Hypothetical::
Somewhere out there between the clusters of galaxies there is a volume of space that measures 100 cubic light years.
Within that volume of space there is exactly one atom of Hydrogen.
Did that atom evolve, and if so, from what did it evolve?
Within that same volume of space there used to be exactly one neutron. How did that neutron form an alliance with a non existent positron and a non existent electron to become a hydrogen atom?

 

[Ghid]

Is there a connection here between evolution vs creation?

Good question. Genes are chemicals. To understand how change in species works, a person should understand the chemistry. For example, another poster already posted that thermodynamics is important. That is a fancy way to say energy. The energy for organisms comes from the sun, sometimes inorganic chemicals, but mostly organic chemicals. Much of the mass of those chemicals must become urea, which was the first chemical in life forms to be shown to be an ordinary chemical.

The understanding of energy must have begun with Leibniz and Newton. I don’t know who put it all together.

Anyway, seems to me it must be important.

Hypothetical::
Somewhere out there between the clusters of galaxies there is a volume of space that measures 100 cubic light years.
Within that volume of space there is exactly one atom of Hydrogen.
Did that atom evolve, and if so, from what did it evolve?

This is way above my paygrade, but why should ignorance stop me. I think that the standard Christian answer is that God did it. I think that is a good answer, as long that is not the end of the quest.

I think that the standaard scientific speclulation is that empty space produces neutrons, both normal matter and antimater, and neutrons decay into hydrogen atoms and a photon. I'm not sure if that is one change of two or four. Since to change is to evolve, calling it evolution would be correct grammar.

Hypothetical::

Within that same volume of space there used to be exactly one neutron. How did that neutron form an alliance with a non existent positron and a non existent electron to become a hydrogen atom?

I think that neutrons decaying into hydrogen atoms is something that can be observed, but I don't know any of this except that I heard it in dinner-table converstation. I have no clue as to why it happens. My faith says that God did it. I don't know if that includes does it. The story of Job suggests to me that God did it, bu he doesn't does it.

 

[calvin]

Good question. Genes are chemicals. To understand how change in species works, a person should understand the chemistry. For example, another poster already posted that thermodynamics is important. That is a fancy way to say energy. The energy for organisms comes from the sun, sometimes inorganic chemicals, but mostly organic chemicals. Much of the mass of those chemicals must become urea, which was the first chemical in life forms to be shown to be an ordinary chemical.

The understanding of energy must have begun with Leibniz and Newton. I don’t know who put it all together.

Anyway, seems to me it must be important.



This is way above my paygrade, but why should ignorance stop me. I think that the standard Christian answer is that God did it. I think that is a good answer, as long that is not the end of the quest.

I think that the standaard scientific speclulation is that empty space produces neutrons, both normal matter and antimater, and neutrons decay into hydrogen atoms and a photon. I'm not sure if that is one change of two or four. Since to change is to evolve, calling it evolution would be correct grammar.



I think that neutrons decaying into hydrogen atoms is something that can be observed, but I don't know any of this except that I heard it in dinner-table converstation. I have no clue as to why it happens. My faith says that God did it. I don't know if that includes does it. The story of Job suggests to me that God did it, bu he doesn't does it.

Actually, no, neutrons don't decay into a hydrogen atom.
Basically if you have a bag full of neutrons...you just have mass.

 

[Ghid]

Actually, no, neutrons don't decay into a hydrogen atom.
Basically if you have a bag full of neutrons...you just have mass.

Mr Calvin, I hope you don’t mind being a girlfriend just for a moment. I went to a school dance last night and I had so much fun like one of my down quarks must have changed into an up quark and my girl friends and I have this contest to see who dances with the most boys the most times and I think I mighta won. I think I mighta won. The girl with the tally sheet went home in a different car, so I don’t know for sure. And I am having trouble typing this because my Spanish keyboard has become an English keyboard. Bummer.

Anyway, enough of that. At first I thought about how this has nothing to do with change of species, but radioactivity is the one area in which Lamarck had the right idea. He believed that the environment causes change of species. Radioactivity in the environment can change genes, which would cause changes for the environment to select..

 

[Ghid]

Evolution #8 Holmes and the age of Earth

Hutton must have been the first to try to date rocks, but he used relative dating, which says that rocks on the bottom should be older than rocks on the top. Relative dating says nothing about the time between the layers.

In the nineteenth century, astronomers, biologists, geologists, and physicists such as Lord Kelvin debated about Earth’s age. Science teachers at my high school genuflect when they hear the name, Lord Kelvin. He must have been the major celebrity in the debate.

In the early twentieth century, the geologists won the argument when Arthur Holmes (14 January 1890 – 20 September 1965) published The Age of the Earth. He used the ratio of radioactive chemicals in rocks to find an absolute age. His first calculation used the ratio of uranium to lead in a Norwegian Devonian rock. The discovery of isotopes complicated the calculations, and the debate continued for several more decades, but like many ideas, people accepted it before they knew for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Holmes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 

[KingJ]

Evolution #8 Holmes and the age of Earth

Hutton must have been the first to try to date rocks, but he used relative dating, which says that rocks on the bottom should be older than rocks on the top. Relative dating says nothing about the time between the layers.

In the nineteenth century, astronomers, biologists, geologists, and physicists such as Lord Kelvin debated about Earth’s age. Science teachers at my high school genuflect when they hear the name, Lord Kelvin. He must have been the major celebrity in the debate.

In the early twentieth century, the geologists won the argument when Arthur Holmes (14 January 1890 – 20 September 1965) published The Age of the Earth. He used the ratio of radioactive chemicals in rocks to find an absolute age. His first calculation used the ratio of uranium to lead in a Norwegian Devonian rock. The discovery of isotopes complicated the calculations, and the debate continued for several more decades, but like many ideas, people accepted it before they knew for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Holmes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Ghid, I am sure you mean well, but why are you posting these?

 

[calvin]

I must admit that I am completely in the dark as to how these people know the original ratios. Sure if you start out with 1 gm of 100% pure uranium, after the passage of time you can calculate the age of it based on the amounts of decay products. It is probably not reasonable to expect a pure starting point though. I have yet to read a plausible estimate of the starting ratios.
If we were to measure a sample that only contained 1 microgram of uranium and predictable ratios of the various decay products, calculations might indicate that the age of our sample is x million years old. What if that sample was simply a mix of decay products that were formed only 1 thousand years ago?
I'm suggesting this possibility based on the reasonable assumption that the materials that make up all the rocks of this planet are , must be the same age. To talk of a rock being younger than another based on when it was ejected from the core via a volcano is a pure nonsense. A uranium (half life) clock would not start ticking the moment a rock cools.
Either the Earth is as old as it is or this bit of it is this age, and that bit of it is some other age, and that is a nonsense.

 

[calvin]

Ghid, I am sure you mean well, but why are you posting these?

I think it helps her think the issues of creation vs evolution through. Sort of using the tread as a sounding board

 

[dUmPsTeR]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll answer the Op.

There are different aspects to evolution. Some are true and some false.

Macro-evolution is false, or large changes in animals, humans, etc. There is no way to prove it, no evidence. There's a twist/distortion/deception in science that gets people to believe it. Speculation enters. Example: fossils. There is no way anyone can factually prove that one being(fossil) begot another being, or procreated. They weren't there to observe it. Also, another deception enters in. 'Millions of years'. Scientist love to toss that out there to help justify their position. Again, who was there to observe this?

Next, micro-evolution. Very small changes that we can observe. Example: Two people have a child that share their parents traits.

What scientist like to do is to justify true evolution(micro). Then they turn into speculation(macro), or what I call the religion of science; where faith has to enter in.

 

[HisManySongs]

I must admit that I am completely in the dark as to how these people know the original ratios. Sure if you start out with 1 gm of 100% pure uranium, after the passage of time you can calculate the age of it based on the amounts of decay products. It is probably not reasonable to expect a pure starting point though. I have yet to read a plausible estimate of the starting ratios.
If we were to measure a sample that only contained 1 microgram of uranium and predictable ratios of the various decay products, calculations might indicate that the age of our sample is x million years old. What if that sample was simply a mix of decay products that were formed only 1 thousand years ago?
I'm suggesting this possibility based on the reasonable assumption that the materials that make up all the rocks of this planet are , must be the same age. To talk of a rock being younger than another based on when it was ejected from the core via a volcano is a pure nonsense. A uranium (half life) clock would not start ticking the moment a rock cools.
Either the Earth is as old as it is or this bit of it is this age, and that bit of it is some other age, and that is a nonsense.

I agree and once again ask my favorite question; how old was Adam when he was created?

 

[Ghid]

Ghid, I am sure you mean well, but why are you posting these?

For clarity. The scientific view of change of species has many legs. Remove any leg, and the table falls down. From a scientific point of view, the legs are strong, and they are getting stronger.

However, so far I have not found anything that even hints that Genesis 1 is wrong. So the question becomes: why is it an issue?

And for most Christians there is no issue between Genesis 1 and natural selection. So the question should be why does one group of Christians (and also Muslims) have an issue?

Why would anyone even post the question? Maybe the question should be: Why is the Catholic view of this better than the Baptist view? Or the other way around.

 

[HisManySongs]

For clarity. The scientific view of change of species has many legs. Remove any leg, and the table falls down. From a scientific point of view, the legs are strong, and they are getting stronger.

Of course scientists will do what they need to make their case stronger. IMHO their case doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If one really looks at what they are asking us to believe, they have no case.

The process they refer to as evolution moves forward using small changes over vast periods of time to generate totally new species such as fish to amphibian to reptile to bird.

Consider all the systems within a given organism which must undergo a RADICAL change to 'evolve.' In order to produce a new organism which can survive, ALL the changes MUST occur simultaneously. If just one change occurs, there is no guarantee, and even a greater chance the change will be undone.

Remember, evolution relies on mutations 99.999 % of which (by their own admission) are detrimental. Time works against any series of small changes combining to 'evolve.' The odds of this possibly happening would be astronomical.

Complex systems cry out for a creator. God's handiwork is clearly evident in His creation. Those who don't see it are either deceived or blind.

 

[aha]

The Rational Animal.

Evolutionist can only reconcile their imagination with the physical attributes….

They have still had no idea how to reconcile it with man, being the only, with a rational mind.

 

[aha]

Even the Physical basis:

Premise: Physical attributes are the same.
Therefore: common ancestor.

I think that is still a big jump* of imagination of a conclusion.

If that "ancestor" means dust, earth element of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus, no issues with me : )

*jumping disagreeing valid premises, and jumping to what they want to believe

 

[aha]

Why would anyone even post the question? Maybe the question should be: Why is the Catholic view of this better than the Baptist view? Or the other way around.

Here is from Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm
Catholics and Evolution
The theory of evolution vs. Darwinism
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are by no means equivalent conceptions.
The theory of evolution was propounded before Charles Darwin's time, by Lamarck (1809) and Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire. Darwin, in 1859, gave it a new form by endeavouring to explain the origin of species by means of natural selection. According to this theory the breeding of new species depends on the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence. The Darwinian theory of selection is Darwinism—adhering to the narrower, and accurate, sense of the word. As a theory, it is scientifically inadequate, since it does not account for the origin of attributes fitted to the purpose, which must be referred back to the interior, original causes of evolution. Haeckel, with other materialists, has enlarged this selection theory of Darwin's into a philosophical world-idea, by attempting to account for the whole evolution of the cosmos by means of the chance survival of the fittest. This theory is Darwinism in the secondary, and wider, sense of the word. It is that atheistical form of the theory of evolution which was shown above—under (2)—to be untenable. The third signification of the term Darwinism arose from the application of the theory of selection to man, which is likewise impossible of acceptance. In the fourth place, Darwinism frequently stands, in popular usage, for the theory of evolution in general. This use of the word rests on an evident confusion of ideas, and must therefore be set aside.

Human evolution vs. plant and animal evolution
To what extent is the theory of evolution applicable to man? That God should have made use of natural, evolutionary, original causes in the production of man's body, is per se not improbable, and was propounded by St. Augustine (see SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, under V. Augustinism in History). The actual proofs of the descent of man's body from animals is, however, inadequate, especially in respect to paleontology. And the human soul could not have been derived through natural evolution from that of the brute, since it is of a spiritual nature; for which reason we must refer its origin to a creative act on the part of God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm
Evolution (History and Scientific Foundation)
General conclusions
The most important general conclusions to be noted are as follows:—

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4. There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.
5. Most of the so-called systematic species and genera were certainly not created as such, but originated by a process of either gradual or saltatory evolution. Changes which extend beyond the range of variation observed in the human species have thus far not been strictly demonstrated, either experimentally or historically.
6. There is very little known as to the causes of evolution. The greatest difficulty is to explain the origin and constancy of "new" characters and the teleology of the process. Darwin's "natural selection" is a negative factor only. The moulding influence of the environment cannot be doubted; but at present we are unable to ascertain how far that influence may extend. Lamarck's "inheritance of acquired characters" is not yet exactly proved, nor is it evident that really new forms can arise by "mutation". In our opinion the principle of "Mendelian segregation", together with Darwin's natural selection and the moulding influence of environment, will probably be some of the chief constituents of future evolutionary theories.

 

[Abdicate]

I agree and once again ask my favorite question; how old was Adam when he was created?

In my chronology I started with Adam's age when he had Seth, 130, and subtract 130 years to start Creation counting. Anything before that is speculation, i.e. the fall, Eve's creation, Cain and Abel's birth, and Abel's death.

 

[HisManySongs]

In my chronology I started with Adam's age when he had Seth, 130, and subtract 130 years to start Creation counting. Anything before that is speculation, i.e. the fall, Eve's creation, Cain and Abel's birth, and Abel's death.

Actually, it's a trick question. He had no real age, but appeared to be some age. This leads to the concept of apparent age.

 

[Abdicate]

Actually, it's a trick question. He had no real age, but appeared to be some age. This leads to the concept of apparent age.

He was 130 when he had Seth. So he could have been made a man of 30, lived 130 years and had Seth at 130, but looked 160. But the real question is, did he have a belly button? I don't think so

 

[calvin]

He was 130 when he had Seth. So he could have been made a man of 30, lived 130 years and had Seth at 130, but looked 160. But the real question is, did he have a belly button? I don't think so

That is something we can never truly know. He was created with nipples for which there is no known use other than to be there to be duplicated in Eve when she was formed.
Getting back to the belly button, Eve would either have had one or not depending on if Adam had one. If Adam was created with a useless set of nipples, then he could easily have been created with a useless belly button. At the very least, his kiddies would look like little versions of mom and dad or 'chips off the old block'.
As for Adam's age at creation, my personal speculative guess would be somewhat short of puberty, but old enough to be able to harvest food when hungry and so on. Likewise Eve would have been prepubescent when formed.
But who knows?

 

[Ghid]

Of course scientists will do what they need to make their case stronger. IMHO their case doesn't have a leg to stand on.

If one really looks at what they are asking us to believe, they have no case.

The process they refer to as evolution moves forward using small changes over vast periods of time to generate totally new species such as fish to amphibian to reptile to bird.

Consider all the systems within a given organism which must undergo a RADICAL change to 'evolve.' In order to produce a new organism which can survive, ALL the changes MUST occur simultaneously. If just one change occurs, there is no guarantee, and even a greater chance the change will be undone.

Remember, evolution relies on mutations 99.999 % of which (by their own admission) are detrimental. Time works against any series of small changes combining to 'evolve.' The odds of this possibly happening would be astronomical.

Complex systems cry out for a creator. God's handiwork is clearly evident in His creation. Those who don't see it are either deceived or blind.

This is two examples of lack of clarity.

“Of course scientists will do what they need to make their case stronger.”

The real advances in science come when somebody finds that an idea is wrong. Phlogiston, spontaneous generation, vitalism, Newtonian mechanics, plate tectonics, young Earth, and natural selection have all been abandoned or modified. Proving that an idea is correct is something like second place in a race. Nobody remembers.

“The process they refer to as evolution moves forward … “

Natural section has no forward or back. An organism fits into a niche or not.