Creationism: The Only OptionEssay Preview: Creationism: The Only OptionReport this essay“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day.” Genesis 1:1-5
Because of recent discoveries, the science world and the Christian world have clashed, and are caught in the middle of a war of beliefs. Scientists are throwing evolution, the big bang theory, common ancestor and much more at traditionalists who believe otherwise. Nobody can deny that our world is changing, that we are changing, but that doesnt mean that we came from either a small single celled organism or evolved from monkeys. Why are there so many disputes between these two sides? Everybody has the exact same facts; its in the interpretation of the facts where things get fuzzy. The theories of evolution and the origin of the world according to scientists are very confusing and contradictory, and much of their theories go against numerous laws of science.
[quote=Pete_T]For me, the most important thing is the idea of an evolutionary process and that you evolve as a result of it.
An evolutionary process is defined by a particular process of evolution taking place (the event that took place). If I just took one of those events from some other event, it would start all over again as I walked from one generation to another.
[quote=Omar_D]I don’t understand why we are so obsessed with the origin of our world. Is this too hard to understand? Is anyone else in the humanist community doing the same? The only way you can understand this is to start from the one event and then take that event from there. Or at least I would hope not, because that is when we should use different mechanisms. But if we don’t use different mechanisms, we really do get all confused, I think.
[quote=Omar_D][quote=Omar_D]It is true that the scientific community has never been totally unified, but I believe this is because there are always certain things in which you can disagree. We have a really bad example when many different people came from different cultures.
[quote=Omar_D]This is just as true of science in general. The scientific community doesn’t really understand anything, as long as it has come up with new ideas and strategies, such as new mathematical or genetic theories. Science is great and people should really try and learn what scientific theory is not supposed to teach, and why it is wrong.
[quote=Omar_D]The main problem with evolution is that it takes the ideas of natural selection in the body of organisms to explain their behavior. However, if the idea of the evolution for some living being is the same idea as natural selection for all life on this planet, this may simply be bad science, but it’s true that the science world knows that evolution takes place. [quote=Omar_D][quote=Omar_D]There is the whole concept of natural selection which has so many very different things that scientists will all learn different things.
[quote=Omar_D]You can just ignore their theory, but it’s also true for many more very different things which scientists could learn from natural selection.
[quote=Omar_D][quote=pike_t]I agree.
The evolution of the universe is a very difficult problem to answer, but as a physics student, I can’t help but admire that fact, because the very basic idea is very very well held. We have that principle and then how to deal with it: The same thing happens with the evolution of our world. That’s the core of your question here. Your question is about natural selection. The basic answer to the question you are asking is that all living things are evolving from some other evolutionary process, or some combination
[quote=Pete_T]For me, the most important thing is the idea of an evolutionary process and that you evolve as a result of it.
An evolutionary process is defined by a particular process of evolution taking place (the event that took place). If I just took one of those events from some other event, it would start all over again as I walked from one generation to another.
[quote=Omar_D]I don’t understand why we are so obsessed with the origin of our world. Is this too hard to understand? Is anyone else in the humanist community doing the same? The only way you can understand this is to start from the one event and then take that event from there. Or at least I would hope not, because that is when we should use different mechanisms. But if we don’t use different mechanisms, we really do get all confused, I think.
[quote=Omar_D][quote=Omar_D]It is true that the scientific community has never been totally unified, but I believe this is because there are always certain things in which you can disagree. We have a really bad example when many different people came from different cultures.
[quote=Omar_D]This is just as true of science in general. The scientific community doesn’t really understand anything, as long as it has come up with new ideas and strategies, such as new mathematical or genetic theories. Science is great and people should really try and learn what scientific theory is not supposed to teach, and why it is wrong.
[quote=Omar_D]The main problem with evolution is that it takes the ideas of natural selection in the body of organisms to explain their behavior. However, if the idea of the evolution for some living being is the same idea as natural selection for all life on this planet, this may simply be bad science, but it’s true that the science world knows that evolution takes place. [quote=Omar_D][quote=Omar_D]There is the whole concept of natural selection which has so many very different things that scientists will all learn different things.
[quote=Omar_D]You can just ignore their theory, but it’s also true for many more very different things which scientists could learn from natural selection.
[quote=Omar_D][quote=pike_t]I agree.
The evolution of the universe is a very difficult problem to answer, but as a physics student, I can’t help but admire that fact, because the very basic idea is very very well held. We have that principle and then how to deal with it: The same thing happens with the evolution of our world. That’s the core of your question here. Your question is about natural selection. The basic answer to the question you are asking is that all living things are evolving from some other evolutionary process, or some combination
Evolution according to Websters Dictionary is simply the gradual process of development or change, and the theory that all forms of life originated by descent from earlier forms. The second part is the kicker; the part most people do not agree with.
On the other end of the spectrum is creationism, the belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. I believe that this is the more accurate explanation, not only because Im Christian, but also because the theory of evolution is full of holes.
Scientists thought they had figured out how life evolved and became what it is today, but they had one problem – how did the first living organism get here? To answer that question they came up with the Big Bang Theory, which was poorly constructed and breaks many scientific laws known as the Laws of Thermodynamics which consist of the law of conservation of mass, and the law of entropy. The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. According to scientists, the big bang theory says that a big ball of nothing, floating in a vast vacuum, suddenly had a massive, random explosion creating an endless universe and life. But that doesnt make any sense. According to the very science that made this absurd theory, that is impossible. If there is no matter in this cloud of nothingness, then there would be nothing to cause an explosion, and no matter would be created. But, even if there were somehow gases in the universe, the possibility of a massive explosion creating the entire universe is very improbable. The law of entropy has to do with the concentration of energy. It states that energy would disperse unless something was holding it in. For example if you have a highly pressurized bottle of air with even a tiny hole, the air and energy would try to escape and spread out. In a vast never ending universe, why would all the particles come together to create a massive explosion? According to the law of entropy this wouldnt happen, the gases would simply spread out away from one another. These laws are true everywhere, not only on earth. Even if there was an explosion, there would be no way to push everything outwards, because according to the laws of physics it takes energy to do work, and there is no energy in nothingness. If space is a total vacuum, then there is no way to expand or compress it. So with all these facts, it is easy to see that the big bang theory is not completely accurate. So in knowing this, two questions are raised: If everything wasnt produced by the big bang where did it come from? And if scientists are wrong about the big bang what else could they be wrong about?
First off, scientists really dont know nearly as much as they think they do. They constantly find new “evidence” that makes them rearrange their whole theory. Scientists constantly contradict other scientists, and the “facts” are being changed. The phylogenetic tree has been changed many times since it has been created. Animals that scientists thought were very similar, were later proven to be very different. Some organisms were proven to have come after another organism even when the polyogenetic tree says they have come before. The system that scientists use to push the idea that we have all evolved from a single organism fluctuates too often, and is lacking credibility. The mere change tells me that scientists dont have all the answers, and that they are not quite sure themselves if their information is accurate or not.
Everything in the world is so complex, that there is simply no way that it can all be a coincidence. Life is so complex, and so exact. The human body has 206 bones, and one bone is stronger than a pound of reinforced concrete. There are nearly fifty trillion microscopic cells in the human body. Those cells replicate approximately 27,778 times a second. The human retina is drastically more sophisticated than even the most advanced computers. There are an estimated 10,000,000,000 calculations each second before the information reaches the brain. The brain and retina together can processes 500 non-linear differential equations 100 times in ten milliseconds. A man-made silicone chip resembling the retina would be 10,000 inches cubed, and weigh over 100 pounds. It would take 300 watts to power it. The Retina however is .0003 inches cubed and .02 grams, only requiring .0001 watts. Life is a delicate balance and if any one thing was missing life would not be able to survive. I find it very hard to believe that all of this, everything, every animal, every cell was created by mere chance, and fit together as perfectly as it does. According to www.evanwiggs.com the number of nanoseconds, which is one billionth of a second, in 20 billion years is 10 to the 26 power, and the probability of the random combination of a 40-chain amino acid is 1 in 10141 . If a recombination occurred every nanosecond, only 1026 chains would have been made in the 20 billion years, leaving 10,115 chains undone. On top of that, the average protein chain is made of not 40 but 500 amino acids, which makes the odds even more unlikely. Dr. Morowitz, a theoretics expert from Yale University, deals with “the laws of large numbers and probabilities.” After studying the protein and taking all the atoms in the world and how they would fit together to make a protein into consideration, he concluded that the probability of life being just chance is 1/10236.