A Question for Creationists

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 17:30

In what way would the world appear different if evolution was true? In other words, if you set two worlds side by side, one in which evolution took place and one in which "creation" took place how would you be able to tell that evolution took place in the one where it did and in what ways would this world differ from our own? Please be specific.

On the other side of the fence us "evilutionists" can think of quite a number of ways that the earth would look very different if creationism had indeed taken place. For example we have the fossil record and the light of stars that we know are quite a lot farther than 6000 light years away hitting the earth. This asymetry is quite striking if you look at the debate for a while as I have...

Sprayber · May 27, 2002, 17:31

I thought this was Urban Ranger's signature thread?

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 17:34

Well he'll be appearing shortly I should think

I'm not terribly good at the science of the issues like he is but I've done two research papers on the creationist movement so I can at least hold my own

Aeson · May 27, 2002, 17:57

I'm not a creationist, but most of my family is. I've had this discussion with several family members several times, and will present their argument.

It is somewhat different than most creationist's claims. A lot of it is based off of writings by Joseph Smith, considered a prophet in the LDS (Mormon) religion. Joseph Smith supposedly was given revelation by God to translate the Bible back into it's original form. The Mormons use the standard King James version of the bible, with notations from Joseph Smith further explaining certain points.

One of the most important items is that the term used for creation in the Bible is better translated as organised. God didn't create the universe or matter, but rather had spiritual children and formed the earth (and countless others) so that his children could recieve physical bodies and perform the nessesary tasks to become like Him.

God is viewed as a being who has achieved perfection, but was once just like us, the offspring of another God, in an infinite progression backwards. The goal for members is continual progression until they too can achieve this perfection.

I'm not sure how much is actually LDS doctrine, but evolution (as a process, not theory) is supported by my family. They just view the whole process as organised by God. Ocham's razor would view this as unecessary, but doesn't actually disprove that it couldn't have happened. In effect, God is just added to scientific explaination. There really would be no percievable differences if it had been this way.

red_jon · May 27, 2002, 18:01

Only Mormons go to heaven.

Do you live in a mormon area? Must be wierd. Not very religious in south east Blighty.

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 18:18

There's a range of stances on evolution within the Mormon Church, although I think there's at least on creationist on the thingie that runs the church (its a handful of people, forget its name).

Aeson · May 27, 2002, 18:22

Actually Mormons don't believe that they are the only ones who can go to heaven. They believe that everyone will be given the opportunity to accept Christ. Baptisms are done for just about everyone, in case those who died before getting that opportunity will later accept the religion. Also there is no Hell in the LDS doctrine, just 3 levels of salvation (all much better than life currently here on earth) and a special "outer darkness" that isn't really defined, but reserved for those who have a perfect understanding of Christ and still reject Him. There really isn't much about outer darkness, from what I've read it means a dissolution or death of the soul.

I live in Utah, and it is somewhat weird. I grew up going to church, and didn't really seperate myself from the religion until I was 19 or so. I have a lot in common from a moral standpoint with Mormons (and Christians in general) so it isn't a big culture shock. I do feel rather left out of the community to be honest, but that's not such a bad thing. I prefer to be somewhat of a loner anyways.

The worst part is dating, because I know that every good mormon girl is looking for a return mormon missionary, which I most decidedly am not! And being brought up with the morals I do have, a good mormon girl is what I'm looking for. It's a paradox, as to convince her to marry me would be to corrupt her and maker her other than what I'm looking for.

Aeson · May 27, 2002, 18:26

There's a range of stances on evolution within the Mormon Church

That's definitely true. It's a highly subjective area, and the official LDS church doctrine doesn't cover it very extensively.

Guynemer · May 27, 2002, 18:27

I knew a nice Mormon girl once... take my advice. Some of them are just bursting at the seems with sexuality... all it takes it just a little (and I do mean a little) patience.

Aeson · May 27, 2002, 18:32

Yah, but the whole point is I want one who isn't that way... It's not a very helpful desire, but it's there.

Lung · May 27, 2002, 19:34

This thread again!!

The creationists were beaten from pillar to post last time, so leave them alone!

CapitanGarlic · May 27, 2002, 20:24

Hmm... I personally like to believe in both of them. I'm a practicing Christian, and believe that God created the Earth. I also believe that evolution has taken place, and continues to do so. Essentially: God created the world and then it evolved.

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 21:44

CapitanGarlic: that = theistic evolution
mmmmm garlic, love the stuff just put huge amounts of it in the jamaican peas (ie beans) and rice I just made

Sarxis · May 27, 2002, 22:17

Ughhh!!

DaShi · May 27, 2002, 22:23

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
In what way would the world appear different if evolution was true? In other words, if you set two worlds side by side, one in which evolution took place and one in which "creation" took place how would you be able to tell that evolution took place in the one where it did and in what ways would this world differ from our own? Please be specific.

Well, the creationist world would be pretty simple. Just look out your window. Whoop!, there it is!.

Now, the evolutionist world simply wouldn't exist. One, even if random molecules came together to form some semblance of life, it would still the ability to reproduce. No DNA, or other information carrying molecules. Even if such molecules existed, the machinery to translate them randomly appearing and working efficiently to maintain life randomly appearing would be improbable. Then, of course, there is the soul. Or that intangible essence that we all carry that can not be identified, categorized, or analyzed by science. Such a thing does just randomly appear, and evolution gives no explaination for it.

On the other side of the fence us "evilutionists" can think of quite a number of ways that the earth would look very different if creationism had indeed taken place. For example we have the fossil record and the light of stars that we know are quite a lot farther than 6000 light years away hitting the earth. This asymetry is quite striking if you look at the debate for a while as I have...

The fossil record is accurate. The Bible speaks of a time before man. Of creatures that walked the Earth long before Eden, when the planet was vile and untamed. This is all under that fact, that although the Bible is translated now as the world being form in seven days, it is not really accurate. The 'days' may have been millions or billions of years. There is no exact way to tell. Though the seven is accurate and holds much significance in Judaism and Christianity. Of course, I think the time of the dinosaurs was before the Seven Days, but I'm not sure. It's been along time since I talked with anyone who believed this stuff.

Sorry, Zhu, I tried. I'm usually on the other end, but one must expand his horizons. Not to so blindly turn away the ideas of others because they seem absurd, but to look carefully at them. Try to understand the reasoning behind them and why they are so valuable to those who believe them. All people's ideas have merit in that they are thoughts of man themselves, true or not. Except communism, which is just a load of malarkey.

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 23:06

One, even if random molecules came together to form some semblance of life, it would still the ability to reproduce. No DNA, or other information carrying molecules.

Don't quite follow you here, are you saying that proto-life wouldn't have the ability to reporduce? If so you're wrong since there's a number of quite simple self-catalyzing cycles.

Even if such molecules existed, the machinery to translate them randomly appearing and working efficiently to maintain life randomly appearing would be improbable.

Right, its fairly improbable but if you've got enough pools of mud and enough hundreds of millions of years (let alone billions and billions of planets) then all the improbables add up fast, especially since the simplist self-catalyzing cycles are much simplier than DNA.

Also albiogenesis (sp!) (ie the creation of life) is a different topic from evolution (ie the change of life), so none of what you said applies to evolution per se.

But am I correct in saying that there's you percieve there to be no physical evidence on the earth that argues against evolution, just that evolution is a logical impossibility, right?

The Bible speaks of a time before man. Of creatures that walked the Earth long before Eden, when the planet was vile and untamed.

Also, unless I'm mistaken there's no death before the Fall? Thus there wouldn't be fossils.

DaShi · May 27, 2002, 23:11

Sorry, Zhu. I tried. I ditched all my fanatical Christian friends. . .well for being fanatical Christians so that's as much as I've heard.

Self catalyzing cycles? That's interesting. How does that work?

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 23:22

A catalist (sp?) is a chemical that makes a chemical reaction happen, in some cases one of the products of of this reaction is itself a catalist that in turn creates another reaction and this keeps on going (don't know how many step exactly) until you get the origonal catalist being produced again. Thus these things can basically reporduce indefinately as long as there's the things that the catalist catalyzes around for "food," they're simple enough that they can form accidentally fairly easily, and they can even mutate by having some of their components knocked around.

DaShi · May 27, 2002, 23:28

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
A catalist (sp?) is a chemical that makes a chemical reaction happen, in some cases one of the products of of this reaction is itself a catalist that in turn creates another reaction and this keeps on going (don't know how many step exactly) until you get the origonal catalist being produced again. Thus these things can basically reporduce indefinately as long as there's the things that the catalist catalyzes around for "food," they're simple enough that they can form accidentally fairly easily, and they can even mutate by having some of their components knocked around.

Sounds like a regular enzyme. An enzyme could act indefinitely as long as there is enough substrate. But I've never heard of an enzyme catalizing a reaction that eventually creates an identical version of itself. I may look it up a bit tomorrow morning.

Bosh · May 27, 2002, 23:38

Take a look at thingies called ribozymes, I think they're the sort of thing I'm talking about

Urban Ranger · May 28, 2002, 00:45

[Deactivates cloak]

Hey Boshko!

/me looks for creationists

/me finds none

[Activates cloak]

nationalist · May 28, 2002, 03:03

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I am a creationist in that I believe that God started the universe with the "Big Bang". However, I don't believe in the 6 days creation story. I don't see why the universe couldn't be billions of years old. The bible doesn't even say the age of the universe is 10,000 years. I think that evolution is true, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a God, or even that he didn't design the universe. Evolution may just be his creation mechanism. I guess you can call me a deist in my creation beliefs.

Joe R. Golowka · May 28, 2002, 05:22

A creationist is someone who believes in the 6 days creation story and that the Earth isn't much older then 10,000 years. What you are, nationalist, is a theist. Most forms of theism is compatable with evolution and other scientific theories.

-=Vagrant=- · May 28, 2002, 05:55

I thought that there were three different categories of creationists.
1)Old Earth C
2)Young Earth C
3)and the combination of those two.

Ethelred · May 28, 2002, 06:40

Originally posted by Aeson
I'm not sure how much is actually LDS doctrine,

That was all pure LDS from the BOM or other LDS writings. Not much of the Bible in it. The Bible is NOT better translated as orginzation since its pretty clear about Jehovah creating life out nothing or clay at the most. Of course clay has the just about the perfect chemistry for NOT supporting life but that is another issue.

Now the Bible can be construed, if you ignore stuff and make some unusual interpretations, into saying the Earth and the water came from preexisting material but there is no way to force fit the creation of life that way.

Mormons are into saying "The Bible is true when it is translated correctly." This protects the BOM a tiny a bit from all the mistakes that Joseph Smith when created his bogus testament. However it has nothing to do with the Bible since it is readily available in the original language. The Jews for instance have never used anything but the original language.

Ethelred · May 28, 2002, 06:43

Originally posted by Aeson
The worst part is dating, because I know that every good mormon girl is looking for a return mormon missionary, which I most decidedly am not! And being brought up with the morals I do have, a good mormon girl is what I'm looking for. It's a paradox, as to convince her to marry me would be to corrupt her and maker her other than what I'm looking for.

You could move out of the State. How would ex-porn star Brandy Alexandre do. She is an ex-mormon from Utah. Probably a bit too old for you though.

Ethelred · May 28, 2002, 06:48

Originally posted by DaShi

Sounds like a regular enzyme. An enzyme could act indefinitely as long as there is enough substrate. But I've never heard of an enzyme catalizing a reaction that eventually creates an identical version of itself. I may look it up a bit tomorrow morning.

Well it there are some that can come close to that.

Here is a link for a ribozyme that can partly copy RNA helixes.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01n.html

Can't really copy itself but very interesting anyway.

Robert Plomp · May 28, 2002, 06:51

I cannot answer this question since it's not specific enough.
Do you mean a planet at the 'supposed' age of 'earth' ?

In that case the 'evolution' planet wouldn't contain inteligent life forms. (read the book 'rare earth' by 2 evolutionists) that's a sure thing.

but in fact the difference would be bigger.

- created world: as it is today. (unless mankidn wouldn't have fallen)
- evolved world: still nothing. ('something' would still be waiting to pop out of nothing

)

Ethelred · May 28, 2002, 07:12

Originally posted by CyberShy
In that case the 'evolution' planet wouldn't contain inteligent life forms. (read the book 'rare earth' by 2 evolutionists) that's a sure thing.

Two idiots. Unless of course you are making false claims for the book. Which apears to be the case. They only say the odds are low. Which is a highly speculative claim since they only have one planet to base their thinking on. Bad science is what that is.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...721106-7807247

Its not exactly unheard of for a creationist to distort things like you just did.

but in fact the difference would be bigger.

- created world: as it is today. (unless mankidn wouldn't have fallen)

Not true. A created world would not have

Layers of sediment billions of years old.

Fossils of species that are close to but not the same as they are today and deeper down species a little less close and then deeper still even less close.

Genes that are clearly decended from other genes via mutation.

Light from stars that took longer than the universe has existed unless of course you think the creator deliberatly created the universe to look deceptivly old. Not a nice or trustworthy entity that sort of creator.

Lots more differences if we are talking about Jehovah. Like evidence for an alleged Flood that left no evidence in our world.

- evolved world: still nothing. ('something' would still be waiting to pop out of nothing

)

False. That is not evolution. That is the beginning of the Universe. There is fairly good physics and mathematics showing how a universe could indeed have popped out of a non-universe or even a pre-existing metaverse that had spawned universes for all eternity.

Provost Harrison · May 28, 2002, 07:28

Originally posted by Zhu Yuanzhang
Take a look at thingies called ribozymes, I think they're the sort of thing I'm talking about

Ooooh, very good, self-catalysing nucleic acids. I like that little argument myself. But the question is, why did ribozymes give way to amino acid-based enzymes?

Easy, four homogeneous nitrogenous base pairs, 26 chemically distinct nucleic acids. Allowed a much greater repertoire of catalytic activity. And nucleic acids make a damn sight better storage molecule than catalyst because of it's structure. The interaction of protein and nucleic acid is the complicated bit though, and not understood. How protein and nucleic acid developed the capability of translation (nucleic acid -> protein sequence). Crack that step, throw in lipids and you have the first rudimentary organism. Of course, this was the bit that took the billions of years. The rest is a snowball reaction from thereon.