Scientific Creationism?

[jwoodie]

Just as Seven Day Creation should not be taken literally, neither should gradual "evolution" of species be accepted with little or no evidence in the archeological record to support it. What the record does show is "explosions" of species in certain periods (e.g., Cambrian) of the Earth's history. A similar situation arises with respect to the relatively recent emergence of Homo Sapiens as a new species, qualitatively superior to all which preceded it.

An alternative which seems to be shunned by both sides of the traditional argument is some sort of interventional event(s) which fundamentally altered the otherwise leisurely pace of life on this planet. For example, it is widely postulated that a huge asteroid/meteorite collision may have caused the end of the dinosaurs. Is it not equally possible that some other interventional event may have enabled human beings to establish dominion over other life on Earth?

We may or may not be able to solve this question in the future, but it does provide a potentially less contentious approach which allows for individual beliefs and theories as to how and why we are here today.

 

[FA_Q2]

Creationism is not science and that should be the end of it. It is faith. There is noting wrong with that.

It is true that we certainly do not know why those explosions happened - particularly after such long periods of time without much change. It is also true that we have no idea where life actually came from - science has been completely unable to fill that gap. You may fill that with faith, take the scientific approach of not knowing or even reject what science has discovered because it may disagree with your faith but they are not the same thing. One is science and the other is a matter of faith.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Just as Seven Day Creation should not be taken literally, neither should gradual "evolution" of species be accepted with little or no evidence in the archeological record to support it. What the record does show is "explosions" of species in certain periods (e.g., Cambrian) of the Earth's history. A similar situation arises with respect to the relatively recent emergence of Homo Sapiens as a new species, qualitatively superior to all which preceded it.

An alternative which seems to be shunned by both sides of the traditional argument is some sort of interventional event(s) which fundamentally altered the otherwise leisurely pace of life on this planet. For example, it is widely postulated that a huge asteroid/meteorite collision may have caused the end of the dinosaurs. Is it not equally possible that some other interventional event may have enabled human beings to establish dominion over other life on Earth?

We may or may not be able to solve this question in the future, but it does provide a potentially less contentious approach which allows for individual beliefs and theories as to how and why we are here today.

Just another spin to a very old argument, nothing new. The variations to this argument are limitless. This has been kicked around for centuries, and no doubt that it'll be kicked around for many more centuries. It all boils down to what one believes to be correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwoodie almost gets it and then founders.

Look to Bacon and Newton for scientific creationism as they attempt to understand deity and their universe.

 

[Hollie]

Just as Seven Day Creation should not be taken literally, neither should gradual "evolution" of species be accepted with little or no evidence in the archeological record to support it. What the record does show is "explosions" of species in certain periods (e.g., Cambrian) of the Earth's history. A similar situation arises with respect to the relatively recent emergence of Homo Sapiens as a new species, qualitatively superior to all which preceded it.

An alternative which seems to be shunned by both sides of the traditional argument is some sort of interventional event(s) which fundamentally altered the otherwise leisurely pace of life on this planet. For example, it is widely postulated that a huge asteroid/meteorite collision may have caused the end of the dinosaurs. Is it not equally possible that some other interventional event may have enabled human beings to establish dominion over other life on Earth?

We may or may not be able to solve this question in the future, but it does provide a potentially less contentious approach which allows for individual beliefs and theories as to how and why we are here today.

There's nothing scientific about ID'iot creationism.

And you're wrong about biological evolution. There is overwhelming evidence for the processes of evolution as the reason for the diversity of life on the planet.

You spend lots of time at the Disco'tute, right?

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

Scientific creationism is an oxymoron!

 

[Old Rocks]

Just as Seven Day Creation should not be taken literally, neither should gradual "evolution" of species be accepted with little or no evidence in the archeological record to support it. What the record does show is "explosions" of species in certain periods (e.g., Cambrian) of the Earth's history. A similar situation arises with respect to the relatively recent emergence of Homo Sapiens as a new species, qualitatively superior to all which preceded it.

An alternative which seems to be shunned by both sides of the traditional argument is some sort of interventional event(s) which fundamentally altered the otherwise leisurely pace of life on this planet. For example, it is widely postulated that a huge asteroid/meteorite collision may have caused the end of the dinosaurs. Is it not equally possible that some other interventional event may have enabled human beings to establish dominion over other life on Earth?

We may or may not be able to solve this question in the future, but it does provide a potentially less contentious approach which allows for individual beliefs and theories as to how and why we are here today.

It is not the archeological record, it is the geological record. As for Homo Sap being that superior, not really. They were little superior to Neanderthal, and only a bit to Homo Erectus.

Were we really Sapient, we would not be creating the mess that we are on our only planet. A species that destroys it's environment is little better than bacteria in a petri dish.

The evolutionary explosions were what happened when life evolved enough to enter a new environment, or increased it's ability to utilize energy more efficiently.

And, given that we are positing an all knowing and powerful deity, why would said deity have to diddle with his perfect creation to get it right? Seems to me that deity would just set the rules, and start things rolling. The Founders of this Nation were mostly Deists and that was their belief. That God set things to rolling, and then the rest was up to us.

 

[abu afak]

Just as Seven Day Creation should not be taken literally, neither should gradual "evolution" of species be accepted with little or no evidence in the archeological record to support it. What the record does show is "explosions" of species in certain periods (e.g., Cambrian) of the Earth's history. A similar situation arises with respect to the relatively recent emergence of Homo Sapiens as a new species, qualitatively superior to all which preceded it.

An alternative which seems to be shunned by both sides of the traditional argument is some sort of interventional event(s) which fundamentally altered the otherwise leisurely pace of life on this planet. For example, it is widely postulated that a huge asteroid/meteorite collision may have caused the end of the dinosaurs. Is it not equally possible that some other interventional event may have enabled human beings to establish dominion over other life on Earth?

We may or may not be able to solve this question in the future, but it does provide a potentially less contentious approach which allows for individual beliefs and theories as to how and why we are here today.

Of Course evolution is not perfectly gradual or exactly spaced in time.
The mutations generation to generation are probably near clockwork, but what SURVIVES (as 'new') depends on whether conditions have changed.
Evolution calls for adaptation to Changed conditions.
IOW, Comet hits the earth, it's gonna speed up.
Mini Ice age drops in for 10k-30 years, the same.

That's why Gould and Eldridge came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium', saying Just what I have described. Relative stability until environmental conditions 'suddenly' (in Geologic time), change.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Utterly consistent with adaptation/evolution.

There is NO Comparing the Idiotic and impossible 7 day creation, to the Overwhelming evidence for evolution getting a tweak/wrinkle.
You Disingenuously try to make Both Religious beliefs, as many religionists do.
Evolution has just been tweaked, 7 day creation is Totally assinine. (and not 9 days, or 9 million, either).
[Unlike evolution] there is No evidence of any Divine creationism of ANY time frame.
Ergo, NOT analogous.
`

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Just as Seven Day Creation should not be taken literally, neither should gradual "evolution" of species be accepted with little or no evidence in the archeological record to support it. What the record does show is "explosions" of species in certain periods (e.g., Cambrian) of the Earth's history. A similar situation arises with respect to the relatively recent emergence of Homo Sapiens as a new species, qualitatively superior to all which preceded it.

An alternative which seems to be shunned by both sides of the traditional argument is some sort of interventional event(s) which fundamentally altered the otherwise leisurely pace of life on this planet. For example, it is widely postulated that a huge asteroid/meteorite collision may have caused the end of the dinosaurs. Is it not equally possible that some other interventional event may have enabled human beings to establish dominion over other life on Earth?

We may or may not be able to solve this question in the future, but it does provide a potentially less contentious approach which allows for individual beliefs and theories as to how and why we are here today.

'Explosions of species' are relative explosions. They happened slowly, but relative to the lifespan of the planet (billions of years,) happened 'quickly' as with "only" a few million years.

Not sure how 'superior' homo sapiens is seeing as how in the lifespan of life on earth we're the only species destroying our own habitat and rapidly approaching the means of destroying the entire ecosystem on the planet. That's not my idea of superiority.

 

[jwoodie]

LOL, what a small-minded crowd! I did not advance any religious explanation, but merely questioned the orthodoxy of gradual evolution. The vituperous response to the suggestion that interventional events may have played an important part in our development indicates an emotional, rather that rational, attachment an outmoded theory of statistical predestination. Hear, see and speak no evil, eh?

 

[JakeStarkey]

vituperous is the new word of the day.

Give us a break.

Gradual evolution can be question, but if one wants to suggest 'intervention events' one better have the evidence behind it.

 

[jwoodie]

vituperous is the new word of the day.

Give us a break.

Gradual evolution can be question, but if one wants to suggest 'intervention events' one better have the evidence behind it.

Sudden extinction of dinosaurs comes to mind. Also, for those who believe we are not alone in the universe, extraterrestrial visitation is not only a possibility, but a statistical probability. Just ask Carl Sagan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

vituperous is the new word of the day.

Give us a break.

Gradual evolution can be question, but if one wants to suggest 'intervention events' one better have the evidence behind it.

Sudden extinction of dinosaurs comes to mind. Also, for those who believe we are not alone in the universe, extraterrestrial visitation is not only a possibility, but a statistical probability. Just ask Carl Sagan.

Good, those are suggestions. Can you offer evidence how they influenced gradual evolution?

 

[jwoodie]

Good, those are suggestions. Can you offer evidence how they influenced gradual evolution?

Meteoric collision/atmospheric change speaks for itself. As for extraterrestrial intervention, there is the same amount of evidence as there is for a trilobite gradually evolving into another species.

 

[FA_Q2]

Good, those are suggestions. Can you offer evidence how they influenced gradual evolution?

Meteoric collision/atmospheric change speaks for itself. As for extraterrestrial intervention, there is the same amount of evidence as there is for a trilobite gradually evolving into another species.

No, there is not. There is literally zero evidence for ET intervention. There is a LOT of study on specie divergence.

The basic misunderstanding here is that lack of evidence or holes in a particular theory DO NOT lend credence unto a competing theory. A theory must stand on its own evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good, those are suggestions. Can you offer evidence how they influenced gradual evolution?

Meteoric collision/atmospheric change speaks for itself. As for extraterrestrial intervention, there is the same amount of evidence as there is for a trilobite gradually evolving into another species.

No, there is not. There is literally zero evidence for ET intervention. There is a LOT of study on specie divergence.

The basic misunderstanding here is that lack of evidence or holes in a particular theory DO NOT lend credence unto a competing theory. A theory must stand on its own evidence.

Absolutely.

 

[jwoodie]

No, there is not. There is literally zero evidence for ET intervention. There is a LOT of study on specie divergence.

Interesting that you cite a lack of evidence for external intervention, but do not hold "specie divergence" to the same standard. Isaac Newton spent much of his life studying alchemy, but that didn't make it true. If you are going to base your argument on what you believe to be true, perhaps you should place it in the Religion forum.

P.S. There have been millions of species on Earth. How many examples of "specie divergence" can you cite? How about dogs? After 5,000 years of intensive differential breeding, they are all still dogs. Isn't this equivalent to 5 million years of gradual evolution? Why no new species?

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwoodie, you are only speculating without any evidence, while evolution is accepted by those who understand the science.

I would love to see an ET. You got one hidden somewhere?

 

[FA_Q2]

No, there is not. There is literally zero evidence for ET intervention. There is a LOT of study on specie divergence.

Interesting that you cite a lack of evidence for external intervention, but do not hold "specie divergence" to the same standard. Isaac Newton spent much of his life studying alchemy, but that didn't make it true. If you are going to base your argument on what you believe to be true, perhaps you should place it in the Religion forum.

P.S. There have been millions of species on Earth. How many examples of "specie divergence" can you cite? How about dogs? After 5,000 years of intensive differential breeding, they are all still dogs. Isn't this equivalent to 5 million years of gradual evolution? Why no new species?

There are examples mostly in micro biology. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them is irrelevant. Why no new species in dog? Likely because the term 'species' is a relic that is utterly meaningless. Genetics has replaced the old concept of species and families. It is a matter of drift. And no, 5000 years is NOT equivalent to 5000000 and even that is not on the scale that we are talking about. The time frames that we are talking here are difficult to imagine - many many MANY times that of the entire human history.

Tell me, what, exactly, makes one animal a different species from another? The answer - nothing. There is no clear definition that makes one animal one specie and another animal another specie. The simplest way is to see if one can interbreed but then again you have horses and donkeys - defined as two species and they are capable of producing offspring - offspring that I might add are not of either kind. Generally unable to mate themselves this is also not always the case. Tigers and lions are another example and there are MANY more. Even with dogs - they are considered a separate species from wolves and yet fully capable of breeding with them.

The same thing IS happening in dogs by the way - beagles and setters do not seem to be capable of breeding. Over many attempts I believe they have managed to get only 2 pups overall and in a few more generations those breeds are likely to be incapable of breeding. I doubt that all the combinations have been tested (it is expensive and would require artificial intervention for many species) as well so there are likely more combinations that do not work.

I am not basing this on what I 'believe' to be true - I am basing this on factual testing and science as well as a basic understanding of genetics. Just because you don't like the answers does not mean that what I place here belongs in the religious forum.

 

[Thanatocoenosis]

... there is the same amount of evidence as there is for a trilobite gradually evolving into another species.

This is my area of expertise. The trilobites are monophyletic; they were an evolutionary dead end that left no descendants. The evidence is clear, however, that evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact.