Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

What do creationists make of the Cern experiment today?

160 replies

beansprout · 10/09/2008 13:27

It's getting a huge amount of coverage here in the UK. Is it getting much coverage in the US? What do people with a different viewpoint make of it?

OP posts:
stitch · 11/09/2008 11:12

2.5 billion years isnt enough time to have the massive number of lucky accidents to account for the range and variety of life found on this planet. particularly when you take into account all thelife forms that previously existed and now no longer do. when you factor in the precison of the genetic code and the massive massive number of failsafes built into it.

ShinyHappyPeopleHoldingHands · 11/09/2008 11:13

Very true Stitch

Blu · 11/09/2008 11:14

No, Stitch, I have not personally sailed round the world - but have sailed over the horizon....

And I have not personally observed tigers living in the wild in India, but am prepared to believe people who HAVE that that is where they come from. My own personal observation would lead me to believe that they live in enclosures in Port Lympne Animal Park.

If our understanding of the world lay ONLY with what each of us personally oberves we would still be hunter-gatherers living in furs. Acting only on your personal observations leaves each of us starting fom scratch - or living lives as serial conspiracy theorists!

mabanana · 11/09/2008 11:15

Creationism isn't a scientific theory at all - it has NO evidence for it at all, and overwhelming evidence against. The fossil record for a start!
And nobody says natural selection is about 'accidents' - genetic drift is about accidents. We know now that genetic mutations are constantly happening, but most of them are 'junk' - in the DNA we don't use. Some thrive because of genetic drift, yes, so it seems, but that doesnt' mean natural selection isn't happening.
I think you have an odd idea of 'observable phenomena' if you take to mean 'only things I have personally experienced or seen with my own eyes and not even on a photograph"

stitch · 11/09/2008 11:15

orm, there is no reason on earth why god didnt decide on evolution as the means by which he/she made life.
without the irony, yes, whats wrong with the theory you postulate? it is described in language that people who lived centuries ago would understand. but as a theory, it is as valid as the monkeys on the keyboard.

GrimmaTheNome · 11/09/2008 11:15

"creationism is just as valid a theory as evolution."

Its not a theory. Its a dogma. Theres not an ounce of supporting evidence. Well, I suppose if you're going to invoke a god who can make a world which looks exactly like its the product of evolution over billions of years, but thats really quite silly and not what the creationists believe. 6 days a few thousand years ago? That does NOT fit observable facts. Just doesnt.

There IS evidence for evolution. Not just fossils but written in our genes. 'IMO its mathematically impossible' ... er sorry, your opinion on this doesn't carry much weight versus the serious calculations and peer-reviwed research by thousands of scientists.

mabanana · 11/09/2008 11:16

And given that scientists can create new species of yeast in the lab in really no time at all, I think a couple of billion years is quite a reasonable span of time.

mabanana · 11/09/2008 11:18

lol at Blu. Exactly.
I don't believe deserts, because I've never personally seen one. I do, however believe in desserts, because I've eaten them.

stitch · 11/09/2008 11:18

well said blu.
so because you believe in science, and maths, youtherefore are willing to believe what others have ascertained using these techniques.
i used thae flat earth analogy as an example. obviously it has holes in it, and you have all pointed them out.

natural selection can be observed through written records, and scientific techniques. the fossil record indicates a high probability of evolution occuring. but, to then say that its occurence is a fact, is a leap of faith. not scientific surety.

OrmIrian · 11/09/2008 11:18

OK. I am happy to see the big bang as the starting pistol for a race set up by the Big Man. I can live with that. I don't beleive it but it's acceptable. In fact I think it's unimportant if you don't beleive in God anyway. But there are frightening numbers of people who beleive the Bible retelling in precise detail. Down to the timescale.

CatIsSleepy · 11/09/2008 11:19

the earth is meant to be about 4.5 billion years old
what makes you so sure that that that isn't long enough? I find that an odd point of view...

Blu · 11/09/2008 11:19

By ShinyHappyPeopleHoldingHands on Thu 11-Sep-08 11:13:36
Very true Stitch
By stitch on Thu 11-Sep-08 11:12:51
2.5 billion years isnt enough time to have the massive number of lucky accidents to account for the range and variety of life found on this planet. particularly when you take into account all thelife forms that previously existed and now no longer do. when you factor in the precison of the genetic code and the massive massive number of failsafes built into it.

How can the two of you possibly decide that?

This is bonkers...

onager · 11/09/2008 11:20

I'm not sure how to put this properly, but one reason creationism isn't considered a theory in the usual sense is that it fits anything and everything. Whenever something doesn't add up you can just say "oh god didn't want it to add up. It's a test of faith"
So as a theory it's meaningless.

The point about a scientific theory is that it fits those facts and not lots of others if you see what I mean.

stitch · 11/09/2008 11:20

mabana, there is a world of difference between a yeast a, prokaryote, and ahuman being, a eukaryote.

but tell me more about this creation of new species of yeast. i dont know anyting about this.

seeker · 11/09/2008 11:21

In order to believe in Creationisn, you have to ignore or gloss over observable facts (or say stuff like "Yes, God made fossils too - they only look as if they are 50 million years old)

In order to believe in evolution, you don't.

I go vfor evolution, personally.

CatIsSleepy · 11/09/2008 11:21

and you know it doesn't take that much genetic difference to make different species...
we share 97.5% of our working DNA with mice

LadyMetroland · 11/09/2008 11:22

stitch - on the monkeys on keyboards argument you put forward.

What are the chances of me today putting my left foot on a particular paving stone, on a particular street, at the exact same moment that a ford fiesta goes past, driven woman wearing a pink jumper, with a number plate beginning with P. Simultaneously, a bird shits on my head before landing on a particular gate post.

If anyone had said to me BEFORE all those things happened, that they would all occur at the EXACT same time, the chances would have been in the millions of the million of the million

Pretty much everything sounds incredibly unlikely AFTER the event

CatIsSleepy · 11/09/2008 11:22

yeast are eukaryotes are they not?

mabanana · 11/09/2008 11:26

yes, they are.

Blu · 11/09/2008 11:27

I am committed to a process of finding out. In an empirical fashion. Our exploration of the processes of the devlopment of life is ongoing - if it is found not to be evolution I will be open-minded and interested in that, yes.

I don't think scientists will assert things as 'fact' beyond what can actually be proven. But they can suggest probability (based on observation and empirical exploration and testing) ...and continue to pursue exploration for the fact behind it.

So yes, I am prepared to take the results of scientific exploration as fact as far as it is proven, and be interested in further exploration. That' as much as anyone can say, isn't it?

And it's because I am not prepared to speculate on what did , didn't or couldn't have happened billions of years ago that I am in support of scientific experiments which might, in years to come, help us to arrive at that certainty. I'm human - have an enquiring mind - and I am susceptible to wonder and awe - and 6whatever^ the answer is, it will be amazing!

GrimmaTheNome · 11/09/2008 11:29

Hear hear, Blu!

stitch · 11/09/2008 11:30

cat the earth is 4.5 billion years old. but life didnt appear till about 2.5 billion years ago.
blu i usually find you to be a very articulate person. calling us bonkers for our opinions isnt your usual manner.

TheDevilWearsPrimark · 11/09/2008 11:30

flat earth society

warning - it's heavy physics. God they are strange.

lou031205 · 11/09/2008 11:31

What I find incredible, is that people can look at the human being and NOT believe in a creator.

One single sperm meets one single egg. It rapidly divides, creates 3 separate layers which go on to make specific structures and perform different functions in the body, continue to grow, develop into a breathing, walking, talking, thinking independent person, who is unique from any other. Every individual has unique fingerprints.

But, people would rather believe that this has come about by chance. I find that unbelievable.

stitch · 11/09/2008 11:32

i do not believe evolution to be probable, using the description just given by blu of scientific enquiry.
if it can be proved, i will be happy to accept it.