Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Human Creation

  1. Jan 12, 2005 #1
    Hello everybody,

    It's my first post here, excuse me if this thread has been opened before or it isn't the right place, I am a newb.

    I am simply asking you guy; how do you think we were created? was it evolution? or we were created like that from the very beginning...etc.

    I would like to hear your opinions and some fruitful discussion here.

    Best Regards;

    Sarah
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 12, 2005 #2
    Too many fruits have gone rotten over this topic before. They were first ripe, maybe a little smelly, and everyone was having a good time...Eating those juicy mellons and grapefruit (with brown sugar, ohh yeah), and then they started becoming more smelly...Before you know it, my good friend, Hubert, picks up what he thought was the nicest fruit in existence. But it was contaminated with herpes, and now we can only pray for a world with less pain, and less herpes.

    I used to believe in creationism, because I had found a website that argued against evolution in such a convincing way...I had also learned about evolution, and it made sense, but I still stuck to creationism (because that old guy was so damn convincing!). But then I realized that microevolution is an indisputable fact (bacteria evolve constantly)...With that, I decided that macroevolution maybe isn't so far fetched. Sure, there's probably mistakes here and there, but the general concept of it makes sense. It's just a bit unbelievable to see how perfect everything is...The earth is in the perfect position relative to the sun, has water to support life, ozone layer to filter UV, other stuff...There's also so few subspecies between species, AFAIK anyway, like...We have monkeys (stupid smelly), then there's bigger monkeys (more ugly smarter) then there's cave people eventually to humans. Not to say that it's not gradual or anything, but when I think genetic mutations and macroevolution...I don't understand how it gets a whole slew of better qualities rather than just a few at a time, which is how I learned mutations happen. Like, you don't get a bigger brain, with a cooler spine, and some nicer genitals...you get maybe a little bit bigger brain, and that's it, and it will survive IF it's reproduces...And who's to say that it doesn't get bad mutations with it? If it does, it's screwed...

    but this is over the span of so many years, so I guess it gets a lot of time to correct itself or whatever.

    Another thing I never understood is how different species are able to breed. So we got our monkey man and the next one, less-monkey man...The less-monkey man was born from the monkey man and his *****, and he's the result of a mutated gene that came from his parents. And he has something like more massive and pleasurable genitals, so he's going to grow up to be quite the stud, like his dad, the monkey man. Blah blah, so less-monkey man wants to bang some monkey women, but will his sperms still be compatable with the monkey women? Like, I guess for it to work, the difference in the DNA can't be so extreme that they're not compatable?

    WHY AM I STILL AWAKE?!

    ...
     
  4. Jan 12, 2005 #3
    That's Exactly the reply I needed.

    Please, somebody move the topic to philosophy section or something
     
  5. Jan 12, 2005 #4

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums, Chemical Sis.

    Check through the older topics...there are several on the creation-evolution debate. Hopefully you're looking for some more discussion to the questions/thoughts listed above. There is a lot to be considered. I'll try to check back when I have more time.

    Given that this is a science forum, you'll find that most people here are on the evolution side of the debate (including me) althrough there's a whole spectrum of variations to those beliefs.

    In general, the overall beliefs of Americans are reflected in this Gallup poll...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2005
  6. Jan 12, 2005 #5
    Thanx Phobos,
    That was helpful, I am not so backed up myself to talk about it, I was only aiming to see what other people think.

    I'll start looking in old topics then.
    thanx again.
     
  7. Jan 12, 2005 #6

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    45% :bugeye: really? in the Netherlands that number would be very low
     
  8. Jan 12, 2005 #7
    It could be true…in past month in my country we had, for some reason, few on national level discussions on this topic, on many popular and national TV stations. Professor teaching molecular genetics on my university, also was teaching in USA for a long period of time, had same experience, and he has roughly noted the same numbers. At first, I thought that it must be some kind of mistake, but it seems that it isn’t (and it tells few things about average American). And I agree with Monique in my country that number is quite low.
     
  9. Jan 12, 2005 #8

    DocToxyn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I was surprised by that number as well. What can we potentially attribute this to? People haven't been (or currently are not) exposed to enough evolutionary theory...they have seen it and aren't convinced by the evidence...they refuse to believe because of some religious conflicts?
     
  10. Jan 12, 2005 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Hey, even in the Bible belt most people can't name the four gospels. I am afraid to say it; the American people are just bone ignorant about everything except celebrity divorces.
     
  11. Jan 13, 2005 #10
    The vadility of the bible is not being questioned but the idea of creationism.
     
  12. Jan 13, 2005 #11

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    scary, eh?
    it's a pretty consistent result from various public polls on the topic
     
  13. Jan 13, 2005 #12

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    some guesses...
    - see what selfadjoint said (science education is still considered nerdy by many...& the quick/bumper-sticker explanations of Creationists are easier to accept than the complicated explanations provided by science)
    - strong religious faith in the US (~90% of the population is religious)
    - growing number of evangelical/fundamentalist Christians
    - a long list of creationist organizations including ICR, AIG, etc. spending millions of dollars every year in promoting Creationism in the public media and to school boards in every state
    - most people only get introductory biology in school, which does not get into the details of evolution
    - the Creationist myth feels more reassuring to the layperson than the scientific theory
     
  14. Jan 13, 2005 #13

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    True, but many creationists (especially the Young Earth Creationists) take evolution as questioning the validity of the Bible.
     
  15. Jan 13, 2005 #14

    DocToxyn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If I were to read it as I do any text I am trying to obtain factual information from and I find some of it to be false or misleading that tends to give me less confidence in the veracity of the work as a whole. No real bias associated here, just logic. Its a similar rationale to the point that Phobos makes.
     
  16. Jan 13, 2005 #15
    I don't think there is much difference in "difficulty" between evolutionary biology in high school and creationistic thoughts. If one would pursue a non-science degree and question evolutionary theory just like everything else, couldn't the arguments in principle quite easily swing over?

    Btw, a friend told me about a study that concluded that the level of education had nothing to do with the likelihood of believing in some pseudo-scientific explanation about something... Go figure...
     
  17. Jan 13, 2005 #16

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Perhaps that's why the U.S. population is split almost 50-50 on the issue (given that most people are non-scientists). At a high-school science level, it's hard to tell the difference (unless students are in advanced placement classes in which case the evidence is better presented).
     
  18. Mar 8, 2005 #17

    Janitor

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I listened to the radio program 'Truths That Transform' with Rev. Dr. D. James Kennedy at lunchtime yesterday. He claims that Stephen Jay Gould (now deceased) himself said that in the last hundred major debates of creationism vs. evolution, the creationism side won. Kennedy quoted some scientist as saying something close to this: "We can only take evolution on faith, because there is not one single piece of evidence for it." At the close of the program, the promise was made that donors would receive a book written by Ken Hamm, showing that dinosaurs and humans overlapped in time.

    I mentioned the dinosaur bit to a co-worker. My co-worker said, "Creationists always take the attitude that if they can poke a hole here and there in the theory of evolution, that in and of itself proves that Genesis is the literal truth."

    I remain unconvinced of creationism, though I will continue to listen to their arguments.
     
  19. Mar 9, 2005 #18
    There is a growing field called synthetic biology and one of its aims is to understand what consitutes a minimal organism. That is what are the minimal number of genes needed to sustain a reproducible organism. Most early estimates of this is no fewer than ~150 genes. Macroevolution may seem plausible from a naturalistic worldview but once you get down to the so-called 1st organism, even the most ardent evolutionist is at a loss as to explain how that organism could have come into being. And so it is often said that you have take evolution upon faith just as creationism is taken upon faith.
     
  20. Mar 9, 2005 #19
    I once heard an interview of a renowned biologist. He exlaimed that the formation of even an RNA spontanously is as impossible as the formation of a boing 777 from a junk yard full of scarp metal
     
  21. Mar 9, 2005 #20
    It's interesting that you bring up RNA because there are quite a number of scientists who believe in the RNA World that RNA (not protein or DNA) was the very first biomolecule that came to being. The reason being that RNA structure allows it to have the dual function of catalyzing reactions (like enzymatic proteins) and also store genetic information (like DNA). But even if such an RNA were to spontaneously evolve and were somehow enveloped in a membrane, it would still fall far way short of the so-called minimal organism.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Human Creation
  1. Creation Science Fair (Replies: 27)

  2. A Human or Not? (Replies: 2)

  3. Human Evolution (Replies: 5)

Loading...