blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Spawned from the Political/Current Events Random Pics and Videos Thread thread starting here

Some background reading:

Cliffs: Argument about "Evolution cannot be proven. Speciation cannot be demonstrated or observed. Hence Evolution is just a faith."


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

There are hundreds of instances of observed speciation. In the above links, there are literally dozens of hard studies with references available to those that want to find this out.

Now, what I actually wanted to post on:

I'm a hobbyist aquarist. I breed fish for fun. One of the lines I spent a very long time breeding is no longer able to breed back with the base stock (This actually creates a problem for me with respect to genetic diversity...) due to various anatomical reasons with respect to fin structure and size.

I've personally caused speciation with a line of fish of mine. Anyone here can reproduce it if they are able to spend enough time on a strain and understand how to ensure virgin females in each new brood, as well as understand how to breed traits in and out of fish. However, this is with respect to anatomical inability to breed. With that said! Genetic inability to breed is referenced quite frequently in the above links, and it is observed as well.

Your ball, Jared.

JasonC SBB

"The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book...

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

You know, it is, although some parts are not fully accurate anymore. But it's still a great book nonetheless. And this inspired something I remembered.

Even creationism posits that natural adaption can happen.

Natural adaption over a sufficient amount of time is speciation/evolution. If you allow for natural adaptation to happen, you allow that given time, speciation/evolution happens.

Creationism, as a result, has a very necessary need of the 6,000 year old earth*. If they allow for natural adaptation, which can be very easily observed, and an old world, they by default allow for evolution.

But there's one giant flaw. China has historical records and documents dating back 8,000 years ago. Not "extrapolated numbers". Not "oh, but carbon dating is wrong" or "geological processes can take place faster", or any of the other arguments Creationists trot out. It's human records, from human civilization that can be accurately tracked before the date Creationists claim God created the world, which even if you assume all of our science is wrong about dating the world, blows a hole in the "But no humans were there to experience it!" argument.

Anyways, just some background on the whole reasoning behind people wanting to argue that evolution and speciation is a myth for those who are interested, and why it is so critical to creationists that the world is 6,000 years old.

*: Interestingly, the Christian belief that God once created the world a long time ago does not conflict with evolution. It's only the creationists that are in conflict with evolution.

UrbanFuturistic

The six thousand year old earth idea, I believe, is a small amount of creationists though. I went to a private school (read:Parochial school) , and they never once taught us this. So I couldn't believe my ears the first time I heard this.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

The theory of evolution doesn't contradict non-6,000 year old earth creationism.

On the other hand, origin of life hypothesis' do contradict it. But those are merely hypothesis' and aren't actually intrinsically tied into the theory of evolution.

JasonC SBB

I don't understand this 6,000 year thing - do any people who believe that God exists, believe that evolution is real?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Actually, a surprisingly large amount.

With respect to Christianity, evolution only contradicts the 6,000 year creationism doctrine and in general the Bible is the Literal Word of God and Everything in the Bible Is As it Really Was.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...mans-evolution

It's hardly unusual.

JasonC SBB

I mean, why assume that the bible is accurate?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I don't know. I would recommend asking a creationist, however.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/...g-leading.html

If you really have to know, although apparently there are also a 10,000 year old earth sect too, oh boy. Basically, this is why creationism doctrine contradicts evolution and it's such a big deal. If evolution is true, it means all of their beliefs are a pack of BS. However, this is the only belief system, as mentioned prior, where this is true. The standard "god created the earth a very long time ago" belief does not contradict it.

(Edit) Lolol, apparently creationism recently changed it from the earth was created at 4004BCE (Yes, seriously. They are/were THAT specific.) to "it is around 10,000 years old" because there is human written history 8000 years old.



A youtube video on creationism, cross-linked from religion.

JasonC SBB

I'd do the young one!

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ve-births.html

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I evolved from the Diplidocous.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

the 6,000 yr old thing goes like this
tis was aprox. 2k yrs from Adam to Abraham
aprox 2k yrs from Abraham to Jesus
and obviously aprox 2k yrs from Jesus til now


simply put
nobody as of now can say factually how we cam to be
way i see it is it is a matter of choosing what to believe

now for some reading

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

We can disprove the 6,000 year old thing right now.

Chinese historical records exist that are provably, factually, beyond a doubt ~8,000 years old.

We can factually say that humans have records dating back at least 8,000 years.

So, creationism cannot be true based on the "logic" used to try to justify creationism. The line of thought that God created the earth a very long time ago is not in conflict with evolution (It only conflicts with origin of life hypothesis', which are only hypothesis' and aren't in any way, shape, or form central to evolution. They are merely applications of the theory of evolution.)

Of which has been noted before. It's just creationist beliefs (Earth is 6,000 years old!) vs. scientifically proven facts. Evolution is up there with the Theory of Gravity as being scientifically proven. Yeah, Gravity is "just" a Theory too.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i wasnt trying to say the 6000 year thing was fact
i was just explaining why the six thousand year thing is the six thousand year thing

though i would like more info on the chinease records
and the translations of the calendars used to date this or whatever

but for me that would be nothing more than an interesting read
you have two ancient cultures that say two different and opposing things

i don't understand how eithor would be proof
why believe one over the other?

and for the evolution/creation thing.
i literally just now started reading the links

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

No "ancient culture" has said anything about 6,000 years of age.

6,000 years of age was primarily a creation of James Ussher, who calculated that the earth was created in 4004BCE at around 1654AD. The 6,000 year belief is only ~350 years of age. Based on significant research on this topic, once the Chinese writings were accurately dated to ~6000BCE, an updated belief of approximately 10,000 years came about as well. YMMV, but a belief system that can suddenly go from "The earth was created at exactly 4004BCE!" to "The earth is somewhere, about, approximately 10,000 years of age" once conflicting data comes about is iffy - especially considering it is this belief system, and only this belief system that contradicts evolution.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I find this statement to be emblematic of the sort of philosophy which is responsible for most of the major "anti-religion / anti-evolutionism" arguments which I've seen.

Creationism does not in any way require a 6,000 year old earth. It is true that there is a large segment of those of the modern Christian faith who make this assumption (so-called Young Earth Creationists), however I see no reason why a belief in both Christianity and the basic idea of creationism must be in conflict with either the model of evolution or the many and varied sources which place the age of both the earth and the universe at many orders of magnitude greater than 6,000 years.


On creationism vs. evolution:

At no time does the Christian bible (or the analogous texts of the other major Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam) describe the exact physical process by which God created the universe or its contents. It is often and fancifully supposed that God simply said "let there be X" at which point X magically came into being, however this is not directly supportable. I don't find it at all difficult to imagine that an omnipotent God might have wanted to do things with a bit of flair, such as concentrating all matter into a singularity and then releasing it with a Bang.

Moreover, the order of operations listed in the creation story of Genesis 1 is roughly analogous to the order in which an atheist might also suppose life on earth to have come into being (universe springs into existence, stars and planets coalesce, atmospheres and topographic distinctions form, vegetation comes into existence, animal life starts in the seas, then moves on to land, and finally we get man.)



On the age of the earth:

This, according to the Young Earth crowd, has its basis in the aforementioned Genesis story, wherein God creates everything in six days. Such an interpretation precludes an acceptance of the age of the universe and its contents being measured in billions rather than thousands of years. The basic problem I have with such an assumption is that nobody was standing around with a videocamera (or even a stone tablet) recording things as they happened.

At best, we have an account (actually multiple accounts) of the Origin of Everything written after the fact, presumably as a (possibly indirect) result of divine revelation. And there's the rub. What is not commonly understood is that Genesis contains two separate accounts of creation, in chapters 1 and 2 (The second account begins in chapter 2 verse 4) and that moreover, these accounts are directly contradictory as to the sequence in which events unfolded. In order to accept this while still maintaining a "Christian" faith system vis-à-vis a fundamentally creationist viewpoint, the only possible interpretation is that these accounts are allegorical in nature. It's not at all difficult to imagine a single creation story, passed down through many generations in the oral tradition, undergoing some degree of forking and distortion before finally being committed to paper by different authors at different times.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

from what i understand the six thousand year thing has nothing to do with the age of the earth and everything to do with the age of man

as i posted above
2k from adam to abraham
2k from abraham to jesus
2d from jesus til now

i have been trying to figure out how these numbers were calculated with no luck

and no the creation of the earth was not part of the six days of creation that the creation of man was a part of

in genisis 1 it says in the beginning god created the heavens and earth. then it goes on to discuss the six days of creation and the creation of the heavens and earth are not part of that

edit: there is no specification of time between the creation of the heavens and earth and how long after that it was before the six days of creation started

then don't forget in 2 peter 3:8 it says a thousand years is like a day to god

therefore some translate the six days as six thousand years

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

My argument has been fairly forthright about limiting it to 6,000 year (Or 10,000 year, or whatever) creationism, Joe.

Other than that, your post is :full of awesome: and explains in great detail what I've been getting at. As you have wonderfully illustrated, the anti-evolution mindset stems from one very specific belief system (Creationism, or if you insist, Young Earth Creationism. The two are largely synonymous in usage now unfortunately.)

Jared: That gives the earth an age of 12,000 years. Yet another number.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

wait what?
what i posted gives the earth no age whatsoever
only an age for man
edit: and perhaps an age for other creations on earth