Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[Jose]

I doubt that anyone could agree that unqualified faith is a good thing. Obviously faith in a false belief system is actually a catastrophic thing. Faith in a dangerous or harmful creed is necessarily worse than no faith at all. I don't think anyone could disagree with that. Are Al-Quaida memebers to be commanded for their undisputably solid faith? I doubt it. Faith in itself is not necessarily a good thing. And faith without reason is fanaticism.

Excellent point. Fanaticism = bending others to the dictates of your own faith, heedless of their faiths or needs.

Besides, evolution CANNOT create many of the things that are in your own body. Their are irreducible, biological micro machines in many cells that without, any one part, would cease to function and hurt the cell. A mutation cannot cause many of these such machines because mutations occur one at a time. Another reason is found in the pathways within any animal or human; the pathways are just insanely complex and no mutation can cause many of these things given 40 million years, or even a googol of years.

Yeah, this is what the ID folks say. If evolution worked the way they pretend that it does, then they might be right. But, they are playing games with people's incomplete view of evolutionary processes, and trying to bend them to their will. The basic premise that micromachines, or complex organs, can only arise by each of their component parts appearing just as it is now is hogwash. We might as well say that a Porsche Boxster had to be created by God because if you take away the microchips or the dynamic suspension system, it fails utterly. Living things, just like cars, have changed through time due to slight changes of prior components. [It's a bad analogy, I know--cars are designed by humans, and some of the components were co-opted from other machines, but the point is nonetheless valid.]

Besides, we know how these cellular micromachines are built, we know how mutations affect them, and we know of many partial or incomplete but functional versions of "irreducibly complex" structures. The ID folks prefer not to mention this, because it shows that their logic does not hold water. Of course they want ID taught instead of science--if science is taught, they lose power; if ID is taught, they gain power. That's what they ultimately want--dominion over others, regardless of their faiths or needs.

Doesn't it seem rather silly, and rather anti-religion, to claim that God's role is merely to create "irreducibly complex" things from time to time, and then let normal, everyday evolution do the rest? Once God created ribosomes a couple of billion years ago, they changed only by minor modifications. There was no more "irreducible complexity" for God to introduce into them. Once God created vertebrate arms and legs a few hundred million years ago, they changed only by minor modifications. Everything in humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, so the intelligent designer--according to the tenets of ID "theory"--cannot have had any role in the evolutionary divergence by which humans and chimps became different. All the irreducibly complex parts had already been created before the time of our common ancestor.

[Aximili23]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

Evidence.

[diciple_of_light]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

Evidence.

There is a lack of evidence for both sides of the argument, so you have to have a little faith to believe in them.

[Titan]

Disciple of light is correct, you can't prove either completely, however one is more logical than the other.

[justanotherperson]

I believe this because of the infinitesimally small probability that evolution

Although I'm certain you've heard this example a million times, the odds of shuffling a deck of cards and yielding a set are 8.065817517 times 10^67 to one against. Regardless, according to what? How did you figure it must be improbable? What equations did you use? Really, I'm honestly curious, because everytime I've seen thus argument thus far the equations I saw were pretty much the equivalent of picking numbers from the air that sounded rather large.

The mathematics are somewhat complex and I don't pretend to understand much of where scientist and physicist get some of their numbers from. I think most physicist and scientist use the simple multiplicity property of probabilities. This means that for example, the probability that my computer will randomly make any two letter word from the alphabet is (1/26)x(1/26) which is = 1/676. Therefore the probability that this sentence is created by random compilations of letters is (1/26)x10^79 which is ridiculously small ~0.

The problem with this property of probabilities isn't really seen in this problem but does come up when applying it to things such as spontaneous composition of molecules into a living, dividing life form. The problem is were do you get the number like (1/26) from the example above. We know to some extant to what power to take it to but what number do we start with. Although even if you just started with 1/2 probability for something to happen- when you take it to a high power which you have to do because of the magnitude of things that have to occur for a dividing cell to appear- you still end up with a extremely small number. That is why: "Yale University physicist Harold Morowitz once calculated the odds of a single bacteria reassembling its components after being superheated to break down its chemicals into their basic building blocks at 1 chance in 10^100,000,000."

Besides, evolution CANNOT create many of the things that are in your own body.

Such as?

I am sure you can probably find some place that will refute this example but I will say: the immune response of your body to an antigen or blood clotting

Their are irreducible, biological micro machines in many cells that without, any one part, would cease to function and hurt the cell.

Such as?

Again, you can probably find arguments that will refute this but I will give the example of a flagellum in a bacteria or the cilia in one of you cells.

Another reason is found in the pathways within any animal or human; the pathways are just insanely complex and no mutation can cause many of these things given 40 million years, or even a googol of years.

Why not? In the locust, the nerves on the little insect spine go through the length of the body before doubling back on themselves to go outside the frame to the wings. Anything designed would of been far easier to simply go through the back of the insect and use half the nerve tissue, however if the insect came first without the ability to fly, it makes sense.

Much less faith is required for a Deity creating than for evolution.

Isn't faith a good thing? I thought you would commend a Christian or anyone of another faith for having a good deal of it?

"

I definitely agree that faith is a good thing, a great thing even. I am just saying it is much more logical for me to believe in intelligent design than in evolution (i do believe in microevolution by the way, I am not trying to refute that.)

[diciple_of_light]

In the locust, the nerves on the little insect spine go through the length of the body before doubling back on themselves to go outside the frame to the wings. Anything designed would of been far easier to simply go through the back of the insect and use half the nerve tissue, however if the insect came first without the ability to fly, it makes sense.

If you believe in intelligent design, then explain this for us please. wouldn't it have been more intelligent, easier for the nerve to have just branched off into the wings instead of doubling back.

[Gollum]

The bacterial flagellum, the eye, blood clotting and quite a few others have been examined and an evolutionary rationalle stated for them by quite a few scientists.

For example:

Bacterial Flagellum

The Eye

Blood Clotting

Most of the "Statistically impossible" arguments represent a misuse of statistics, either by assuming complete randomness or ignoring the fact that apparently impossible things (statistically speaking) happen all the time.

Chemical processes for example, are not random. Just because you have 1000 atoms (for example) does not mean that there 1000! ways of combining them. The energetics of chemical reactions preclude all but a very small number of those theoretical combinations from happening.

For "statistically impossible" consider. I have 100 chairs numbered 1 to 100 and 100 people. There are therefore 100! (or about 9 * 10^157) ways that I can fill those chairs. I therefore speak to the assembled masses saying "OK everybody, find a seat." Once they have done so the result is, by the above statistic, impossible ... yet it happens all the time.

[Nyril]

The mathematics are somewhat complex

I'm in Honors Calc III, try me.

I don't pretend to understand much of where scientist and physicist get some of their numbers from.

I wasn't aware that either were relevant in this conversation. It's the ones studying evolution that have given us this probability that I care about.

This means that for example, the probability that my computer will randomly make any two letter word from the alphabet is (1/26)x(1/26) which is = 1/676. Therefore the probability that this sentence is created by random compilations of letters is (1/26)x10^79 which is ridiculously small ~0.

I'm sorry, it could just be me, but although you did write a great deal, and mention many other probability calculations that are not evolution, I didn't quite see the bit where you explained how your rather large number against evolution came to be.

That is why: "Yale University physicist Harold Morowitz once calculated the odds of a single bacteria reassembling its components after being superheated to break down its chemicals into their basic building blocks at 1 chance in 10^100,000,000."

Evolution doesn't claim that life started as extremely complicated bacteria (an amoeba has more genetic material then us humans), people trying to make evolution look stupid claim that life started as complicated bacteria.

As for the rest of it, I would advise you to read Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter.

I am sure you can probably find some place that will refute this example but I will say: the immune response of your body to an antigen or blood clotting

If I could find some place to refute your example, then why did you bother to post it if you know it's wrong?
Well, you're correct. Here's refutations for both.
Blood Clotting
Immune System

Again, you can probably find arguments that will refute this but I will give the example of a flagellum in a bacteria or the cilia in one of you cells.

Again, if you know people can explain it, why do you continue to use it?
Bacteria flagellum

Regardless

The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential [Matzke 2003]. One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function [Kuwajima 1988]. Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts [Ussery 1999].

[justanotherperson]

In the locust, the nerves on the little insect spine go through the length of the body before doubling back on themselves to go outside the frame to the wings. Anything designed would of been far easier to simply go through the back of the insect and use half the nerve tissue, however if the insect came first without the ability to fly, it makes sense.

If you believe in intelligent design, then explain this for us please. wouldn't it have been more intelligent, easier for the nerve to have just branched off into the wings instead of doubling back.

I have no idea of where I would begin to be able to have an answer like the one you are asking for. One thing though, if Locust evolved from some insect below it, and then multiple species of locust came from that species of locust, why are there not more species of locust (other than the african locust) that have this "genetic flaw." Please correct me if I am wrong, although I am sure everyone will without this statement.

Just because I believe in Intelligent design doesn't mean I can answer all your question about creation flaws.

[Nyril]

One thing though, if Locust evolved from some insect below it, and then multiple species of locust came from that species of locust, why are there not more species of locust (other than the african locust) that have this "genetic flaw." Please correct me if I am wrong, although I am sure everyone will without this statement.

The problem is, there is only a very small handful of things that one can refer to as a locust. That specific african breed controls Central and North Africa, the Middle East, and India.

What is commonly referred to as a locust is the Cicadidae, which has a 13 or 17 year life cycle, which does not exhibit this flaw, on account of it not being a true locust.

TO offers many other instances of crappy design right here.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.