h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought it was best to make a conversaton about this. It would happen sooner or later anyway. And I thought we could use it to create an entry where people from both sides could come and rethink their beliefs.

So, anybody got any good arguments to why Creationism is right?

As far as I'm concerned anyone who believes in creationism seriously needs electric shock therapy as there is seriously something wrong.

Is it just by chance that Chimps are 99% genetically identical to humans, is it just by chance that you can see animals actually evloving in some fossil finds.

Quoting Bill Hicks on creationism, "If that is true you would think that dinosaurs would have been mentioned in the bible. And Adam and Eve were chased out of the garden of Eden by a big brontosaurus".
These tend to be the same people who believe that the world is 70,000 years old, how was this worked out..... they added up all the ages of people in the bible. How scentific!!!

Tee hee,

to quote the aforementioned Mr. Hicks,

'Fossils were put here to test my faith'.

DUOTWR

This question popped up in the "God" conversation, after I mentioned that there was (and still is) an article on the New Scientist website about Creationism, and quite distubing it was too. In some states of America, Creationism was mandatory on the school curriculum up until June 1999 (I think), Evolution came secondary! Now I think (as it's a long time since I read the article) the students have a choice. It seems disgraceful in this day and age that this was taught as standard in schools, but then again, it wasn't that long ago really that black people (apologies for not remembering the right politically correct term) were allowed to vote in their own country.

Well there goes Niz again with his egotistical view, he's right and anybody that disagrees is stupid or insane and in need of shock therapy.

First, the bible was written to convey who and why, not how and when. To use the bible to try to prove or disprove anything is folly.

Second, it is the THERORY of evolution, evolution has not been proven. There are lots of theories that have been proven and are accepted as scientific fact, evolution is not one of them.

Third, Yes, about 99% of human DNA is similar to apes, 90% is similar to mice. A 1% difference means there are about 31,000,000 differences in the DNA base pairs, this does not take into account how the base pairs are arranged sequentially along the chromosomes which could raise the differences into the trillions or even higher. Although we (humans) have mapped the human gnome we still don't know what most of them do or why they are there. What is it about the 1% difference that separates humans, who can build and create, form apes, who can swing from trees, eat grass and.... and.... and.... What can apes do other than exists?

Now back to the question, why does only one or the other have to be correct? They may both be right on some levels or they may both are wrong. Maybe the ideas of Creation and evolution are so wrong that our descendants may laugh at us for our stupid ideas. But, I guess the real question is, does it matter. Does it matter how we got here? If we knew for sure, what would change? If we knew, could we project what humans will look like in a 100 thousand year, would we care?

IF WE KNEW, WHAT WOULD CHANGE??????????

Mostly

We've finally succeeded in mapping that human gnome then, have we, Mostly Harmless? There's a fascinating development - although I can't help wishing they'd leave the poor fellow alone...

The answer to the question 'Can anybody think of a credible excuse for Creationsim', by the way, is quite plainly 'No'. Maybe evolution hasn't been 'scientifically proven' beyond a shred of a doubt, but then again what theory has? Relativity is just a theory, likewise with quantum physics. What makes them worth taking seriously is the wealth of evidence to support them - as far as evolution goes, for example, Darwin spent nearly 15 years accumulating hundreds of pages of evidence with which to bombard the reactionaries, for this very reason. That's what makes natural selection a humble but convincing theory, whereas Creationism is nothing more than an exercise in hubris by a bunch of people who can't accept their own limited role in the universe.

Right then.

On one hand we have a 2000 year old book of stories written by people who didn't even know what stars were (primative people by our standards).
The other hand scentific enquiry into the origins of living things which has been looked into by some of the most intelligent people of the last 100 or so years.

Although being an athiest myself I think that evolution or indeed any scentific theory, has nothing to do with the existence of a diety.

Lear,

A theory is a theory because it hasn't been proven. The theory of a black hole, proven. The theory of other planets out side of our solar system, proven. The theory of other galaxies, proven. The theory of atoms, neutrons, electrons, protons and other sub-atomic particles, proven. Albert E's theory of Relativity, well some parts have been proven wrong. The theory of evolution, not proven.

I'm sure that the scientist of yesterday, who theories we now laugh at also had hundreds of pages of evidence to prove their theory. Ptolemaus said that the earth was the center of the universe, Aristarchus said that the Sun was the center of all heavenly bodies, Copernicus, Aristotle, all had pages of evidence to prove their theory. They were all wrong.

Until evolution is proven, I will keep an open mind. Will you join me in having an open mind and embrace the possibilities of evolution, Creation and other possibilities that we have not even imagined yet? This is an invitation to all of you to open your mind to other possibilities, not just the ones molding in your minds. Take out your ideas, smack them around, look at them from different view points, take an honest look at them, test them, and open your mind to the possibilities that it might be right, it might be wrong, and it might only be partially right. As for me, I WILL.

Mostly

Niz,

Only the New testaments books are roughly 2000 years old. The old testaments books are far older, up 5000 years and maybe even older.

Not bad, a 5000-year-old book still being read.

Mostly

Mostly Harmless,

If I keep an open mind on Creationism then - in the interests of fairness - I must also keep an open mind on all other belief systems, no matter how absurd they may appear. I have to do this because you haven't yet provided me with any criteria for distinguishing between Christianity and, say, Scientology, the belief in UFOs, the belief that Shirley MacLaine is a divine prophet, and (last but not least) my enduring suspicion that I may be the reincarnation of Humphrey Bogart...

Do you really want to encourage such relativism? Surely we have to draw the line somewhere. I think rational thought is as good a place as any to start. I invite you to tell me where it is precisely that you want to draw the boundary between reason and unreason, between thought and faith, between sense and absurdity...

Hmmm, what exactly do you mean by proven?

You're going a bit far, I think, in calling all those things proven. That's not how science works... there are very few absolutes. Still - if you asked a hundred Physicists whether there are extra-solar planets, I reckon all of them would answer 'probably'. Is that proof?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if the people who spend their entire lives studying something in an evidence-based way are of an opinion, I'm not anybody to argue with it. Sure, it might be wrong - but it's certainly more likely to be right than anything I can come up with.

So - ask a hundred geneticists and biologists about evolution... they'll sigh forlornly, and explain for the thousandth time that they're pretty damn certain about the whole evolution thing.

You'd better have some pretty good evidence if you want to claim evolution didn't take place simply on a whim. Sure, if you think it didn't... collect evidence, and present it to the scientific community. If you can prove your theories, you'll be famous, and more than likely rich.

It hasn't be done, yet... I wonder why?

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution, that's why. The evidence is *so* overwhelmingly in favour of evolution that I would stake money that if you got a biologist and a physicist to compare notes, the 'theory' of evolution would come out as more certain than the 'theory' of black holes.

People spent such a long time wondering how we got here... now that we know, why is it that so many people spend so much time trying to convince themselves and others that we don't actually know? It's a mystery to me...

Evolution is a beautiful concept... the idea that simple rules can lead to complex results, through competition... it's an idea which has been proven endless times on a small scale: it is actually possible to *observe* bacteria evolving; they become resistant to drugs, they change what nutrients they rely on, all through the power of evolution. Computer simulations have shown that evolution can be extremely powerful.

There is absolutely no doubt that evolution, as a force capable of producing complex systems from simple rules, exists. The next question is whether it has taken place on earth.

The evidence for this being the case is overwhelming. Fossil records have taught us things about evolution which have been experimentally verified; fossil records follow *mathematical patterns* which are explained in theories of evolution. They could *not* have been created by any process other than evolution (or deliberate forgery, against which there is an excellent argument which I will recount if necessary). Add to that the lack of any plausible alternatives to evolution, and it's impossible to come to any other conclusion without throwing reason out the window along the way.

Evolution is *not* unproven, nor does 'theory' mean it's unproven. It's incredible that some people choose to disregard evolution without any evidence besides the fact that the word 'theory' turns up...

Another thing I'm tired of is people citing 'theories have been wrong before' as evidence for 'this theory is not right'. That is complete, utter nonsense. All it means is 'this theory may not be right', which, added to 'this theory has an immense amount of supporting evidence', leads to 'this theory is almost certainly right'...

You might as well use 'I didn't die yesterday' to prove 'I won't die today'. All 'I didn't die yesterday' means is 'I might not die today' - nothing more, nothing less. It would take an examination of the mechanisms involved to use such facts as evidence, and an examination of the mechanisms involved in scientific theories would indicate that most incorrect theories that are considered correct for a long time are incorrect because of basic misunderstandings of the way things work... and if you think we haven't got a good understanding of the way things work, these days, how do you think we sent a rocket to the moon? When it comes down to it, our science works... and theories that are accepted as true, today, more than often are not. Theories that are accepted as certainly true... well, I doubt you could find very many which ain't.

I've argued about all this stuff for far too long on far too many occasions... so I'm not going to get involved in any actual debate unless you're able to provide genuine evidence against evolution.

26199

Oh, and before I go... a favourite quote...

'Keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.'

Keeping an open mind *is* important. It's equally important to understand that this does not mean you have to *believe* everything, just consider everything - to the greatest degree possible.

26199

Lear,

Reread the last half of the last paragraph of posting 8 and then if you still want to believe that you're the reincarnation of Humphrey Bogart, then go for it. No skin off of my nose.

26199,

Yes, we have observed extra-solar planets, so therefore extra-solar planets have been proven. Black holes, we have observed the gases swirling around a black point in space. Have we observed a single cell organism be created out of nothing and evolve into a complex animal, no?

I am not saying that evolution is completely wrong, I just saying that the theory has some major holes in it. For example, where are the fossils of the link between man and ape (assuming we have a common ancestor). We are finding new evidence and discovering new theories every day. To say that evolution is completely correct and putting your complete faith in it, is just as ridiculous as a person thinking that it happen just like it is quoted in the bible/Genesis. Don't be a zealot, open your mind.

Mostly

A quick story...

Two explorers were doing that thing explorers are generally well disposed to doing and were out splorin' inside a forest close to home. It was heavily over-grown and ahead of the pair lay a thick curtain of thick foliage. Pulling it aside, the explorers made a fascinating discovery. For laid out before them was a garden, a small square greenary amid the tumult of the forest. There were rows of flowers and a small pile of rocks down which ran a tiny fall of water.

"Wow!" said the first explorer. "Truly this garden must be tended by a Gardener."

"Oh, I don't know." said the second exporer reservedly.

"No, look at the way the flowers have been set in rows and the arrangement of the rockery with it's waterfall, there is a design to this garden. Do you not agree?" the first explorer replied.

"No I don't." Said the second. The distribution of the flowers could be accounted for by natural process. Just as for the rockery and the waterfall. I see no evidence of a design or a Gardener here."

"Why don't we wait at the edge of the forest, we can set up our tent and wait for the Gardener to return?" Suggested the first explorer.

"Okay then."

And so they sat at the edge of the forest. All day they waited. The gardener did not come and so they went inside their tent and went to sleep. They emerged the next day to find the garden in it's usual tidy state.

"Maybe he'll come today?" said the first explorer hopefully.

Again they waited and as the sun sank, the second explorer turned to the first and said.

"Well that proves it, he isn't coming. I told you so."

"Not so. Maybe he only comes to tend the garden at night?" opined the first

"Fine, we'll take turns." said the second crawling back inside the tent.

The next morning he awoke to find the first explorer still keeping watch on the garden.

"Did he come during the night?" he asked

"No" said the other.

"There is no Gardener." said the second.

"There is." Reiterated the first.

"Well how do you intend to prove that to me we've sat up day and night and the gradener or whoever hasn't come.

"We'll set a trap. Nothing fancy, just some talcum powder down at the entrance. We'll go home get some food, have a wash, come back tomorrow see if it has been disturbed." Said the first.

This they did and when they returned the following day the trap was untouched but the garden was still perfectly laid out.

"There IS a Gardener." Said the first.

"It's just grown this way - there is nothing special about it." Said the second.

"You and your theories. They prove nothing." said the first

"Why do you persist in believing in a Gardener who quite patently hasn't been seen nor left and sign of his visitation?" It is against all reason! What do I have to do to prove this too you? We have sat together and waited for him to turn up, but nothing. We have set traps for him but these have not caught him. You refuse all proof." Said the second.

"It isn't a matter of proof. It's a matter of belief. I belive there is a Gardener who tends this garden and you do not, we see the world in fundementally different way. Why can't you open your mind to this possibility?" Said the first.

=====================================================================

A rather nice allegory, I think. One that one of my teachers once told me to illustrate a debate just such as this. Hands up who belives in a Gardener?

Clive

A quick story...

Two explorers were doing that thing explorers are generally well disposed to doing and were out splorin' inside a forest close to home. It was heavily over-grown and ahead of the pair lay a thick curtain of thick foliage. Pulling it aside, the explorers made a fascinating discovery. For laid out before them was a garden, a small square greenary amid the tumult of the forest. There were rows of flowers and a small pile of rocks down which ran a tiny fall of water.

"Wow!" said the first explorer. "Truly this garden must be tended by a Gardener."

"Oh, I don't know." said the second exporer reservedly.

"No, look at the way the flowers have been set in rows and the arrangement of the rockery with it's waterfall, there is a design to this garden. Do you not agree?" the first explorer replied.

"No I don't." Said the second. The distribution of the flowers could be accounted for by natural process. Just as for the rockery and the waterfall. I see no evidence of a design or a Gardener here."

"Why don't we wait at the edge of the forest, we can set up our tent and wait for the Gardener to return?" Suggested the first explorer.

"Okay then."

And so they sat at the edge of the forest. All day they waited. The gardener did not come and so they went inside their tent and went to sleep. They emerged the next day to find the garden in it's usual tidy state.

"Maybe he'll come today?" said the first explorer hopefully.

Again they waited and as the sun sank, the second explorer turned to the first and said.

"Well that proves it, he isn't coming. I told you so."

"Not so. Maybe he only comes to tend the garden at night?" opined the first

"Fine, we'll take turns." said the second crawling back inside the tent.

The next morning he awoke to find the first explorer still keeping watch on the garden.

"Did he come during the night?" he asked

"No" said the other.

"There is no Gardener." said the second.

"There is." Reiterated the first.

"Well how do you intend to prove that to me we've sat up day and night and the gradener or whoever hasn't come.

"We'll set a trap. Nothing fancy, just some talcum powder down at the entrance. We'll go home get some food, have a wash, come back tomorrow see if it has been disturbed." Said the first.

This they did and when they returned the following day the trap was untouched but the garden was still perfectly laid out.

"There IS a Gardener." Said the first.

"It's just grown this way - there is nothing special about it." Said the second.

"You and your theories. They prove nothing." said the first

"Why do you persist in believing in a Gardener who quite patently hasn't been seen nor left and sign of his visitation?" It is against all reason! What do I have to do to prove this too you? We have sat together and waited for him to turn up, but nothing. We have set traps for him but these have not caught him. You refuse all proof." Said the second.

"It isn't a matter of proof. It's a matter of belief. I belive there is a Gardener who tends this garden and you do not, we see the world in fundementally different way. Why can't you open your mind to this possibility?" Said the first.

=====================================================================

A rather nice allegory, I think. One that one of my teachers once told me to illustrate a debate just such as this. Hands up who belives in a Gardener?

Clive

Accursed contraption, malfunctioning piece of evil technology. *grumble*

The computer wouldn't load the page and so I had to post twice. *Apologies for the rant.* He - he....*sheepishly*

Clive

It seems to me that many people here have the wrong idea of the concept "Keep an open mind". It doesn´t mean believe everything you are told. It means if somebody tells you that Elvis is alive, don´t just ignore him. Ask what evidence he has to prove it, and then decide if he is right or wrong. With Creationism I have looked at all the arguments they have, and I find that not really any of them stand up to further investigation. Also they have a tendency to use their resources on showing Evolution to be wrong. Perhaps they will be able to show that, but it doesn´t automatically mean that the Bible is right. I find their is a large jump from saying you don´t know how it happened to saying it happened the Bible way. Unless somebody found the remnants of Adam & Eve, we really have no reason to believe in that.

Clive: To me it seems the two splorers were talking about two different things. One of them was concerned with wether there was a Gardener or not, and the other just liked the idea of there being a Gardener and not wanting to be ripped out of it and into reality. That is also okay, but it is not a very scientific thing to do.

And to the guy who said we haven´t seen single-cell life become complex, look up on the internet about an animal called the Volvox. Or look at the animals called Blobs. Not the ones from the movie, the real ones.

Somebody said, what does it change wether we know where we come from. Well, the object of science is to learn those things, so just for that sake we could do it. But we could also look at something like the survival of mankind. We used to have a lot of pneumonia around. We then invented the penicillin, and pretty much got rid of it. If we didn´t know about evolution, or did and chose to ignore it, we wouldn´t know that bacterias could mutate and become resistent to the penicillin. So one day we would just be powerless against the bacteria, and pneumonia would flourish again. And hopefully all the creationists who tried to supress the theory of evolution would die from it

BTW the existence of extra solar planets haven´t been proven. The ones we´ve observed could all be a big mass hallucination. It´s all a matter of how paranoid you are. That is also why we haven´t proven evolution yet. The fossils could all have been made by a clever hoaxer.

ho hum. I've given up on these conversations as producing meaningful dialogue, so instead I'm going to sit here and have fun laughing at people. And asking and answering inane questions.

Mostly: "Well there goes Niz again with his egotistical view, he's right and anybody that disagrees is stupid."
Mostly: "To use the bible to try to prove or disprove anything is folly."
[editorial note - one synonym for 'stupidity' is 'folly']

Mostly: "What can apes do other than exist?"

Since you ask, they appear to be self-aware, have language skills, planning, conjecture, and so forth. They can hold a conversation with humans - badly. They also have the standard array of humanlike emotions - love, hate, fear, jealousy, etc. They happily use tools - though they tend not to hoard tools, but rather recreate upon need.

ho hum. I've given up on these conversations as producing meaningful dialogue, so instead I'm going to sit here and have fun laughing at people. And asking and answering inane questions.

Mostly: "Well there goes Niz again with his egotistical view, he's right and anybody that disagrees is stupid."
Mostly: "To use the bible to try to prove or disprove anything is folly."
[editorial note - one synonym for 'stupidity' is 'folly']

Mostly: "What can apes do other than exist?"

Since you ask, they appear to be self-aware, have language skills, planning, conjecture, and so forth. They can hold a conversation with humans - badly. They also have the standard array of humanlike emotions - love, hate, fear, jealousy, etc. They happily use tools - though they tend not to hoard tools, but rather recreate upon need.

My two cents worth....that's all.

Xanatic, I was shooting for profound and interesting but I couldn't think of anything really worthwhile to contribute to the forum. Instead, I puzzeled about it a bit longer when I suddenly remembered that story (it was from one of my teachers) and I thought I'd stick it in literally as an interlude between the postings and see how it went. I didn't mean it to make any serious points although I take your point about the 'splorers. What I took the story to represent was...hmmm *how do I put this?* the hardening of oppinion? No not really I think more just the way it is very hard to reach a kind of consensus in these debates. *Ho-hum* That's not very clear is it?

I'm going to go away now and hopefully I'll come back with something more meaningful for Lucinda (Don't despair, I'm trying my best! )