Topic awaiting preservation: New Creation Evolution Theory (Page 1 of 1)

I have been thinking about the Creation Theory/Evolution Theory debate and have recently stumbled on a theory of mine that might serve to explain the vast differences. In Chemistry a week ago we were discussing Kinetic Molecular Theory. My teacher told us the 5 postulates of this theory. She then explained that these postulates are assumptions made that the whole rest of the theory hinges on. One of these postulates was that atoms did not exert force on other atoms. This postulate was proven wrong by the Joule-Thomson effect: open your mouth wide and blow air on your hand. It is warm. Make a small hole with your mouth and blow air on your hand. It is cold. This difference in temperature is attributed to the difference in speed of the air molecules. This difference is because the air molecules that are being held in the mouth are slowing the air down and producing a lower temperature. From this came a different gas law. There is now Ideal and Real gas laws.
In mathematics there are a multitude of forms of geometry. These are mainly attributal to which postualtes and assumptions you apply, and which you reject.
My theory is that both the Creation and Evolution theories are correct, considering which postulate you adhere to. Whether it is that the Creation story is correct, or the Creation story is wrong. Whether God is real or not. What are your thoughts?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

I understand what you are saying.

A lot of theories you will see coming out in math and physics rely on certain things being true, physics relies a lot on the fact that the rules of quantum physics works. However, were you to find two contrasting postulates you would have a great chance of getting your work published, and I recomend that you make sure to get your Phd while doing this. This is because you will now have a wealth of information to prove either one or the other theories wrong. We can choose to go esoteric and say that the math is wrong, but that would just be throwing out a ton of observable evidence, and there is not much sense in that.

Now there are many ways that you can make Evolution and Creation work out together, and work in conjunction with known evidence. Creation fits into that niche of knowledge that we haven't shown to be emphirically true. It can always hang out there, I have a belief that we will never know everything, and I believe that we will definately not know everything in my life time.

So, yes they can work together, you just plug the holes with your beliefs. The problem with this is as more evidence comes to light you will have to reevaluate your views on creation.

Now, if you are talking about literal biblical creation jiving with science and evolution, you are going to be in for a rough ride, and you will have to forget a lot about science, and reality. For instance, have you ever done the math on how long it would take for man to name all of the species? How about doing this, then being put to sleep, having a rib removed waking up and naming woman. It doesn't look all that promising. Unless you go ahead and bend the laws of physics and reality, and then degrade your whole arguement with exceptions (notice this is something man is doing and not god).

So here we have an impass.

You can fill the empty spaces in science (and in evolution) but once you attempt to muck with the science behind something you have come to one of those areas where either one theory or the other will have to hold true. I bet on the side of the thing that is studied and evaluated as opposed to the words written in a book that oft time contridict themself.

Dan @ Code Town

So are basically saying that if you believe something, it is true....

Nope, that doesn't cut it

Fortunately, we have ways of showing that evolution is reality - no matter what your belief.

Evolution is entirely seperate from the concept of god - god existing has no effect on whether or not the scientific facts behind evolution exist.

Evolution being a factual observable occurance has no effect on whether or not god exists.

This "theory" is both baseless and irrelevant, quite frankly...

So what you are saying WM is, don't get started on that path yet. Learn a whole ton more if I want to try? Well, I guess I will just shuffle that thought away for later chewing. Thanks for the insight.

That was kinda my point DL. With the Theory of Evolution being entirely separate from God, what would happen to it if it were not? Would just changing that one basic assumption give you Creation or would it give you ID or does it matter?

[As a side note I am not debating Creation/Evolution/ID on this thread. This is just happy light theorizing of basic differences in the three that popped into my head. Thank you.]

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

You are very seriously confusing the issue.

Evolution exists whether or not god exists.
there is no assumption involved.

So your scenario becomes something more like -

Evolution exists, God exists
vs.
Evolution exists, God does not exist

Neither example has anything to do with ID, and neither example has anything to do with biblical creationism.

It is possible you have a meaningful point somewhere here, but if so, it is quute lost in very poor illustration.

^ Yes, exactly.

Why are you still trying to have one or the other, James? Evolution is seperate from belief. You still don't seem to graps that evolution actually happens and is measured, documented, and proven.

Belief by definition is not.

Now, personally, you can combine whatever you wish, however you wish. You may believe that the Cosmic bubble-eyed Goldfish of Karma is dreaming us, and everything results from such. But if you wish to try to force such a belief on others, then don't react surprised that they not only resist this, but ask some serious questions and demand some facts and explainations (which you will not be able to give).

Evolution says nothing about a creator/creators/lack of such. It merely describes how life functions. It is mostly Belief that has a problem with evolution, because most belief systems include an explaination about how life functions (obviously, or no-one would believe in the system because it would be unrealistic in the extreme!). As WM pointed out, Xianity has had to redefine the way it looks at the world and its Belief because Science has proven certain things that before Xianity said was different (and was wrong about). Other Beleif systems have an equally tough time, as well, depending.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

No, no, no, WS. I have realized and accepted evolution a long time ago, it is the Theory of Evolution I do not personally accept. If something is proven, it is proven. However, there are postulates inside the Theory of Evolution that aren't proven(/disproven)(yet), age of Earth, divine intervention, etc.

Within a theory, there are different postulates or assumptions. The Theory of Evolution is a theory, thus there are postulates. I was wondering if one of those postulates is with/without God, what would the effect be of changing that postulate? Would it result in ID or Creationism?

Are you then saying that there is no assumption of God/no God in the Theory of Evolution? If that were true, why does evolution differ in the eyes of theists and atheists?

I'm just trying to find a reconciliation point within my mind for these two theories of origin. Obviously you can do good scientific research with either thought process, so is it possible for both to be good theories?

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

No, no, no, WS. I have realized and accepted evolution a long time ago, it is the Theory of Evolution I do not personally accept.

---

That is one of the most stupid statements you have made yet.

^ agreed...

quote:

---

James02 said:

I was wondering if one of those postulates is with/without God, what would the effect be of changing that postulate? Would it result in ID or Creationism?

---

We've been through this conversation repeatedly, James.

If you are still confused (which, obviously, you are...), go re-read all the threads in which we've talked about it.

The short version:

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Evolution exists whether or not god exists.

---

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-20-2005 00:42)

Why do you guys keep feeding this dolt?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Are you then saying that there is no assumption of God/no God in the Theory of Evolution? If that were true, why does evolution differ in the eyes of theists and atheists?

---

I just explained that in my post!

quote:

---

It is mostly Belief that has a problem with evolution, because most belief systems include an explaination about how life functions (obviously, or no-one would believe in the system because it would be unrealistic in the extreme!). As WM pointed out, Xianity has had to redefine the way it looks at the world and its Belief because Science has proven certain things that before Xianity said was different (and was wrong about). Other Beleif systems have an equally tough time, as well, depending.

---

James, what is wrong with you? What do you not understand in the words "Evolution exists whether or not god exists." ? Which words are your brains having trouble with?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

James02

Being quite thick when it comes to these things would you please explain to me how ID and Creationism differ??

The real basics:

"Creationism" refers directly to the 100% literal reading of Genesis - everything we know was creataed exactly as depicted in the bible, and that's that!

"ID" is a bit more vague in regard to the how and why, but more specific in its reason: it states that life as we know it is too complex to have developed without the presence of an intelligent designer. It states that the complexity of the universe actually proves the existence of a sentient creator entity.

They can go hand in hand, but are not the same thing.

That's about the skin and bones of it, yeah.

Sorry WS. I think I read through your post too fast and I didn't catch it. Okay, so pre-concieved beliefs are what differentiate organized theism and atheism? Or maybe theism and atheism are too broad. Maybe organized religion and secular humanism. Anyway, so do you think that is why there are such fields as Creation and ID? Are you saying that evolution is effectivly "neutral" in God/no God? It appears to me that DL and the others are correct in saying that evolution happens whether there is a god or not. But origins, is that a compatable platform to add to evolution, or do you have to take the atheistic belief that there is no god to retain evolution? Is it plausible to add the Creation story to the beginning of evolution as a theory for the origin of the earth, or do you need to accept the atheistic versions?

So I guess my quesiton becomes not that of Evolution now, but the theoretical beginnings of the Earth, and how it came to be.

Briggl, the Theory of Evolution entails more than just natural selection and evolution. There are certain postulates upon which it needs to survive. One of which is long periods of time.
[Just as clarification, when I say "evolution" I am refering to animals changing over time due to natural selection. When I refer to the Theory of Evolution, I am refering to evolution, stretched out over long periods of time, with no help from a divine being.]

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Oh, and thanks for helping me out with this stuff. I have been recently having my own preconcieved beliefs shattered as of late, and I am now trying to think on my own. So, sorry if this sounds redundant, but I am pretty much scrapping everything I used to take for granted and am now looking at things analytically and in a new light. Thank you for dealing with me in the past.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

James02 said:

Are you saying that evolution is effectivly "neutral" in God/no God?

---

Yes. It is that simple. Forget all about 'accepting the atheistic version'. YOu can choose to beleive in whatever god you want, and whatever mythology you want.. it has no bearing on the reality of evolution.

quote:

---

Briggl, the Theory of Evolution entails more than just natural selection and evolution. There are certain postulates upon which it needs to survive. One of which is long periods of time.

---

And thankfully, science provides us with a great deal of evidence to support such "long periods of time", and no scientific evidence to the contrary (as we have shown you repeatedly as well). Which makes it a fact, not a "postulate".

Yep, Evolution absolutely don't care about religion/deism/the tooth fairy/karma. The problem some religious zealots have with it is that it goes against their belief in a ~6,000 yo world, and thus open the door to put their complete system of belief at risk. Reality bites.


James02, could you please tell us what "shattered your own preconcieved belief" ?




(Edited by poi on 11-21-2005 22:38)

DL

Thanx for the explanation. I 'almost' get it. But it seems to me those pushing ID are of the genesis mindset and therefore obliged to conclude... god did it.

^ exactly.

ID is merely a method for creationists to try to push their belief system into science classes. Somehow, they feel that 'ID' manages to be scientific - though clearly it is not.

However, it is kept vague enough in its terminology to be disassociated with the actual biblical part of creationism.

It is important to note that ID is not the same as having the belief that 'God' is behind evolution, as many people seem to beleive. ID basically states that the complexity of the universe is scientific proof of god (thereby pushing God into our science classes). *BIG* difference there...



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-22-2005 05:35)

quote:

---

Are you saying that evolution is effectivly "neutral" in God/no God? It appears to me that DL and the others are correct in saying that evolution happens whether there is a god or not. But origins, is that a compatable platform to add to evolution, or do you have to take the atheistic belief that there is no god to retain evolution? Is it plausible to add the Creation story to the beginning of evolution as a theory for the origin of the earth, or do you need to accept the atheistic versions?

---

If you can hold onto that thought, James, then you make the "big" leap in comprehension - Evolution and Belief in God can co-exist, because Evolution does not attempt to answer the question "How did everything come into existance?" - it only answers the question "How did Life get to be like it is now."

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

I myself don't even want the idea of ID taught in public schools. Sure, teach it at home if you want.

I think that by attacking science, and all of it's theories, "ID pimps" have accessed a portion of people who are on the fence in their beliefs, and that benefits them.

Why is it that, ID pimps require a definative answer of science, in order for science to be legit, but those same ID pimps require no such thing of themselves?

Pathetic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

"ID" is a bit more vague in regard to the how and why, but more specific in its
reason: it states that life as we know it is too complex to have developed
without the presence of an intelligent designer. It states that the complexity
of the universe actually proves the existence of a sentient creator entity.

---

I'm quite sure that my most complex and incomprehensible achievements has very little to do with me using my intelligence at the time. Rather the opposite actually...

quote:

---

I'm quite sure that my most complex and incomprehensible achievements has very little to do with me using my intelligence at the time.

---

Including many human inventions as well, like potato chips or teflon. Not to mention inventions that were designed for one application, but turned out to benefit other applications. The creation of "Superglue" was originally intended for the temporarily closure of wounds, for american soldiers. Not a all-stick chemical.

Remember this; [quote]DL-44 said:" It states that the complexity of the universe actually proves the existence of a sentient creator entity."[/b] What a shame upon all things scientific. EVOLUTION does not, nor has ever discounted a higher power such as GOD. If one were a scientist, meaning a person who has studied science, or a person who has mastered the sciences, will forever be surrounded by "facts". A requirement ID is DOES NOT require.

Science without facts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

your explanation of the cold/hot air from mouth phenonema is confuse, and mostly incorrect.

Learn that thermodinamics is no longer a pure physics field, now that it is joined with the mechanical field, through quantum mechanics and statistical physics. Plus, through the learning of fluid physics, you can also grasp that thermodinamics (here minishingly understood as the study of temperature, as function of the attraction between particles) is perhaps not as responsible for the above mentioned phenomena as you were made to believe.

There is only one basic principle in thermodinamics: the tendency to lower free energy <- an observable phenomena.

In geometry/mathematics, the only assumptions you are forced to take are those, you know to be true, or you cannot prove true, or that cannot even be proven true (by godel's theorem).

Speaking on a strict level, creation is not a theory. Evolution is also not a theory.
Neither of them came from observation of the beggining of life. With no observation, or construction based on observation, there is no theory.

But evolution (not as something to explain the beggining of life), is something that happens. And has been observed. Everytime a new virus appears, that is life changing. Everytime something is born, that is life changing. Everytime someone has a new idea, that is also life changing. Whether or not those changes sustain themselves or disappear, and what motivates that process, that is what evolution *theory* tries to explain.

As a theory, it admits as possible, everything that can be possible. That includes the all mighty God creating everything.

But finding something impossible is the hard part...

Anyway , do not extrapolate. You american types tend to do that a lot.

oh! and to anyone who complains i dont explain the stuff i say in full detail: sorry, i'm not that bored.

arthemis, the lovely engineer person

I think Arth, made a joke?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "