Evidence supporting creationism ?

[SoundMaster]

The theory of evolution has been whipped and abused by the West's current anti-knowledge predilection.

Many of it's detractors argue that creationism should be taught in schools, etc.
But is there any proof supporting creationism / intelligent design?

 

[Kenneth R.]

in short yes, there is. and some of it coincides with evolution. still other evidence also exists... there is enough of it to keep such theories from being disproved at this time, much like macro-evolution. though neither is concrete enough to be considered more than theory.

 

[the alumnus]

creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, because it isn't a scientific theory. intelligent design is basically taking scientific findings and saying "god did it", without creating any hard science like biology is doing.

schools should teach science in science classes, just as they should teach math in math classes. currently biological sciences have such advanced knowlege of the mechanisms and evidence of evolution that to deny evolution is lunacy.

 

[RookParliament]

in short yes, there is. and some of it coincides with evolution. still other evidence also exists... there is enough of it to keep such theories from being disproved at this time, much like macro-evolution. though neither is concrete enough to be considered more than theory.

Proof please.

 

[kmik]

Creationism is not scientific because it does not predict anything, only provides a supernatural explenation for events. For a theory to be scientific there has to be an empirical test that could falsify it and there is no such for creationism.

Creationism is still intelligent in comparison to old earth or flat earth (!!) creationism, though.

 

[spaffe]

Proof please.

One thing that I've come across as a proof is the exmaple of fishes which clean the mouths of predators. In short: How can such a strange behaviour come to be in the first place? The first fish who tried doing it would either be eaten or sucessfull getting a nice free meal. Getting killed would obviouly get him or his fish mates nowhere, but if he pulled thriough he would then be utterly unable to communicate this knowledge to other fishes or let its knowledge be inherited for later generations. But still this behaviour is a fact.

Then there's also a lof of talk about the infinitesimal odds for certain crucial parts of the crudest and supposedly first lifeforms spontaneously joining in a functioning whole.

It's all pretty convincing but to quickly come to the conclusion that the creator is the one talked about in the bible is something that to me feels pretty rash.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

One thing that I've come across as a proof is the exmaple of fishes which clean the mouths of predators. In short: How can such a strange behaviour come to be in the first place? The first fish who tried doing it would either be eaten or sucessfull getting a nice free meal. Getting killed would obviouly get him or his fish mates nowhere, but if he pulled thriough he would then be utterly unable to communicate this knowledge to other fishes or let its knowledge be inherited for later generations. But still this behaviour is a fact.

This is nothing more then an example of symbiosis. The big fish doesn't eat those fish because the minimal nutrition it would get from them isn't as benifical as getting its mouth cleaned, which improves its health quite a bit. In return the little fish get food. Because these fish never attack or agress towards them there is no reason for them to fear them in the first place.

As far as the infintesimal odds of the first lifeforms go, one has to figure with the massive size of the universe, something of this nature was bound to happen eventually. Even if the chances are one to the trillionth power, one must assume there are so many phenomenma that hold that probablity that at least a few of them were bound to happen. Pherhaps life on Earth is just one of these times.

 

[spaffe]

The big fish doesn't eat those fish because the minimal nutrition it would get from them isn't as benifical as getting its mouth cleaned, which improves its health quite a bit. In return the little fish get food. Because these fish never attack or agress towards them there is no reason for them to fear them in the first place.

I highly doubt that the big fish in question understands that the smaller fishes are doing something that is good for it in the long run. If a smaller fish swims into its mouth it doesn't require any effort to close the mouth and swallow it, hence the small amount of food it gets is justified by the minimal effort. And there's also the problem of the smaller fish "learning" that the mouth of a predator is a good source for food, such a behaviour needs to be based on an instinct since the fishes cannot teach eachother anything; and from where stems that instinct?

As far as the infintesimal odds of the first lifeforms go, one has to figure with the massive size of the universe, something of this nature was bound to happen eventually. Even if the chances are one to the trillionth power, one must assume there are so many phenomenma that hold that probablity that at least a few of them were bound to happen. Pherhaps life on Earth is just one of these times.

In this case I can only refer to the text in question, my knowledge of odds and such things is pretty limited. Anyway the author claimed that the chances of such a thing happening was so small that it could be disregarded even on a cosmic scale. And that was just the beginning of the simplest life forms, the odds of them in time turning into us ought to be pretty staggering. But as I said, I'm in the dark here and only speculating. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject (I can't recall the term for this fireld of science) can shed some light.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I highly doubt that the big fish in question understands that the smaller fishes are doing something that is good for it in the long run. If a smaller fish swims into its mouth it doesn't require any effort to close the mouth and swallow it, hence the small amount of food it gets is justified by the minimal effort. And there's also the problem of the smaller fish "learning" that the mouth of a predator is a good source for food, such a behaviour needs to be based on an instinct since the fishes cannot teach eachother anything; and from where stems that instinct?

The reason the big fish doesn't eat the small one? I'm sure the ones that were more inclined to eat the little fish died often of mouth infections, while the ones that weren't inclined to do so would be more likely to live longer. For the little fish its the same story. Those that were inclined to stay away from the abundance of food in the big fishe's mouth were more likely to starve while those that were willing to go in were more likely to live.

 

[the alumnus]

on the subject of cleaner fish; cleaning parasites from fish is more involved than simply cleaner fish. as you can imagine, having a parasite on your skin is uncomfortable. fish then go to great lengths to remove them, and from unlikely sources. the gigantic sun fish of the pacific ocean will often maneuver to the surface in order for birds to peck the parasite out of their skin. in this case the birds have not evolved any sort of parasite cleaning symbiosis with the fish.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

But then again, what reason do the birds have to NOT pick the parasites off the sunfish? Its not like the sunfish can attack the birds...

 

[Kenneth R.]

One thing that I've come across as a proof is the exmaple of fishes which clean the mouths of predators. In short: How can such a strange behaviour come to be in the first place? The first fish who tried doing it would either be eaten or sucessfull getting a nice free meal. Getting killed would obviouly get him or his fish mates nowhere, but if he pulled thriough he would then be utterly unable to communicate this knowledge to other fishes or let its knowledge be inherited for later generations. But still this behaviour is a fact.

Then there's also a lof of talk about the infinitesimal odds for certain crucial parts of the crudest and supposedly first lifeforms spontaneously joining in a functioning whole.

It's all pretty convincing but to quickly come to the conclusion that the creator is the one talked about in the bible is something that to me feels pretty rash.

these are a few of the things i was referring to.

 

[the alumnus]

But then again, what reason do the birds have to NOT pick the parasites off the sunfish? Its not like the sunfish can attack the birds...

what reason do they have to pick out parasites instead of flesh?

 

[infoterror]

Creationism vs evolution is insane; evolution is the method, creationism describes the motivic force. Another pointless masturbatory argument.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

what reason do they have to pick out parasites instead of flesh?

The little fish are not capable of picking through the scales of a big fish.

 

[Silver Incubus]

It is also possible that an Alien Race created humans. But who can prove that?

 

[spaffe]

The reason the big fish doesn't eat the small one? I'm sure the ones that were more inclined to eat the little fish died often of mouth infections, while the ones that weren't inclined to do so would be more likely to live longer. For the little fish its the same story. Those that were inclined to stay away from the abundance of food in the big fishe's mouth were more likely to starve while those that were willing to go in were more likely to live.

Nothing wrong with some fish psychology I guess, lets go on for a few more posts until it becomes too absurd.

Let's say a big fish for some reason decides not to eat the smaller one cleaning its mouth. Since I'm certain that fish aren't smart enough to figure out that the little fish' actions are good for it in the long run it has to be some sort of instinct telling it not to swallow. I also doubt that that instinct can be so specific so as to tell the predator not to close its mouth when a smaller one is buggering around in a certain manner in there, therefore the passiveness must be goverered by a more general instinct; perhaps something making it less aggressive, less prone to try to get nutrition from any source possible, less receptive -- in short, all explainations I can think of that are based on an instinct that would cause it to tolerate the smaller fish would make it less competitive in the ordinary race for survival.

And also if mouth infections where such a serious problem as to cause death, it would lead to the death of the fish less capable of handling such an infection (since the helpful behaviour of the smaller fishes which you talk of to come to exist on a larger, relevant, scale, would require an immense amount of time, whereas a new infection could arise comparatively quickly), hence making the entire species stronger and more resistant to said infections. In other words, mouth parasites are more likely a nuisance, not something that would cause a natural selction dependent on the job of the cleaning fishes.

Your argument regarding the small fish I can accept to some extent, though it seems an utterly unnatural foodsource and way of acting, something that would only be tried in extreme conditions under which animals would logically move somewhere else or simply die.

 

[the alumnus]

The little fish are not capable of picking through the scales of a big fish.

yes, but we were referring to birds.

 

[Xorv]

argh! enough with the fish!

Anyays, Creationism shouldn't be taught in school. It's a religious theory not a scientific theory. Keep evolution in schools, and creation in churches. Let the kids decide on their own.

 

[milkman]

Nothing wrong with some fish psychology I guess, lets go on for a few more posts until it becomes too absurd.

Let's say a big fish for some reason decides not to eat the smaller one cleaning its mouth. Since I'm certain that fish aren't smart enough to figure out that the little fish' actions are good for it in the long run it has to be some sort of instinct telling it not to swallow. I also doubt that that instinct can be so specific so as to tell the predator not to close its mouth when a smaller one is buggering around in a certain manner in there, therefore the passiveness must be goverered by a more general instinct; perhaps something making it less aggressive, less prone to try to get nutrition from any source possible, less receptive -- in short, all explainations I can think of that are based on an instinct that would cause it to tolerate the smaller fish would make it less competitive in the ordinary race for survival.

And also if mouth infections where such a serious problem as to cause death, it would lead to the death of the fish less capable of handling such an infection (since the helpful behaviour of the smaller fishes which you talk of to come to exist on a larger, relevant, scale, would require an immense amount of time, whereas a new infection could arise comparatively quickly), hence making the entire species stronger and more resistant to said infections. In other words, mouth parasites are more likely a nuisance, not something that would cause a natural selction dependent on the job of the cleaning fishes.

Your argument regarding the small fish I can accept to some extent, though it seems an utterly unnatural foodsource and way of acting, something that would only be tried in extreme conditions under which animals would logically move somewhere else or simply die.

I don't understand how the concept of evolution is so difficult for you to understand. Fish that are alive today are doing things that help them survive (obviously). If they did differently, they wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce. Remember, evolution does not fulfill a need. It simply happens.. it's self regulating.

Also, your arguments are too broad. You can't simply say that obviously, the fish would be resistant to parasites because of the prevalence of parasites when we are dealing with hypothetical situations.