Evolution vs. Creation - Which - if any - is right?

[Garcian Smith]

I thought I'd kick off the Debate Hall with one of Nate's suggestions, namely:

Evolution vs. Creation

For those who are not in the know, Evolution concerns itself with the genetic make up of life, and how - via the process of Natural Selection - certain species' prevail and adapt, whilst others become extict. The process was made famous by Charles Darwin an English naturist who lived during the 19th Century - in fact, the study of Evolution is often called Darwinism.

On the flipside, Creationism is the belief that a 'supreme being' (for example, the Christian God, and the Genesis chapter of the Bible) is the sole reason as to why we exist, and life itself is dictated by this being. Creationism has been adopted in school teachings, and despite scientific 'proof' of Evolution many people still believe the Universe's origins lie with their representative Diety.

My Opinion:

I have always found it difficult - even as a small child - to believe in the Story of Creation. Despite being told it at Primary School, my upbringing by my Athiest father made it clear to me that Creation was always more likely to be a simple story, rather than that of truth.

Naturally, I am an Athiest myself - Science has always provided me with more answers to how our world works and how creatures have existed or ceased to than any religious text, and when people try to explain that they believe in the Story, I treat it with extreme cynicism.

Evolution simply makes the greater sense. Natural Selection is perhaps the most important scientific theory - I must stress it is still a theory - ever produced. It is possible for many species' existance to be explained by it, and also helps aid how we - the Human Race - think and act towards our fellow man.

Now, up until now I have written on the basis that the Story is the definitive account for religion. That is, of course, not the case. It is entirely possible that Evolution itself is an act of God. That the course of genetic history is the will of a supreme being.

I would never disregard someone's opinion on Origin if said opinion was based on religion, and I hope you who follow this up would also abide by that (or visa versa). I know that there are already rules in the Debate Hall page, but please, show respect.

Go!

[hot564231]

Evolution, becasue it's more believeable

[ewanlaing]

i vote evolution. i think it makes sense that the human body adapts over millions of years, just as it adapts to a hot environment in a matter of minutes, and a dark room in matter of seconds. adaptability is evident throughout our lives.
the other reason for this opinion is that i simply cannot be convinced by any religious text or teaching so far, as i find them to be either too vague or too specific. the protestant faith alone has probably hundreds of variations in belief. the main argument i see between two protestants I know is whether the bible should be taken literally or metaphorically in places. one believes that every word of it records an actual event (with the exception of some of the parables). the fact that the bible doesn't TELL us whether it is literal or not, makes me believe that it is false.
but then, i am a cynical human being ;).

[Mad Scientist]

A good debate indubidably, and one i will add to in the course of its lifetime. However, first i would just like to add a small, humerous anecdote that relates to darwin and creationism. It concerns two radio presenters, broadcasting from the heart of the american mid-west bible belt. This was recorded from one of thier shows:

Host: So Jerry, what do you think about evolution? Should take notice of any of Darwin's theories?

Jerry: That Darwin guy didn't get a nobel prize, did he? If he's so great, how come he don't get no nobel?

Host: I think you have a very good point there Jerry.

My quibble is not that they support creationism, but how they are arguing their point. Because they are not thinking about it.

Consider, who awards the Nobel prize? Its a panel of respected scientists. As scientists are well known for generally being in support of darwin, and taking his theories to be extremely important, it makes no sense that scientists would not award him the nobel prize. So evidently there is a flaw in jerry's reasoning. In this case it is that Darwin had been dead 19 years before the first Nobel prize was even awarded.

Ladies and gents, debate whatever point of view you wish, but always remember to think beforehand.

[Flarty]

who are we to say? like garcian said, evolution could be an act of god.

[DarkFlood]

I'm in firm support of evolution. Creationism just makes absolutely no sense.. We didn't just appear out of thin air - to which I might add would break all laws of physics.

No, we started out in a puddle of primordial ooze billions of years ago. Need I remind you that the same people who believe in creationism are the ones who also believe that earth is only 6,000 years old.

Religion is nothing but a shield from the truth for the ignorant masses.

[Flarty]

dark flood to be fair, i wonder how many times the law of physics have been re-written

[DarkFlood]

Matter still can't "poof" out of nowhere, and that is essentially what creationism is saying.

[Flarty]

before stephen king prooved the big bang theory, it was widely believed that everything had allways been here, there was no begining there would be no end, and this is like up until the 70's,
now to be fair but creationism sounds more believable than that

[grega t]

Evolution simply because its explained more in-depth and is easier to relate too...

[Ares]

Evolution:

With all the weight of science behind Evolution, I can't possibly swing my ideas over to creationism. Any "major faults" found with Evolution that Creationists find are either outdated portions of the theory, completely trivial matters, or ones that arise when they only look at a very thin spectrum of science, instead of every portion's impact.

[redgrassbridge]

With proof in a plethora of scientific domains, including archeology, biogeography and anatomy, I support evolution.

Besides, in a purely opinionated way, I feel that the concept of evolution far better glorifies God and fits with the worldin which we live than creationism ever has.

[marrow]

i'm a firm believer in evolution guided by a "higher power". i like to believe that humans didn't come into existance through totally random cell mutation millions of years ago.

my dad (an intelligent retired medical doctor) claims he believes humans were "created" despite his strong scientific education- makes for some interesting, ahem, discussions around the meal table when i go back to visit my folks.

[ewanlaing]

as a little aside, one of the biology teachers at my school was is a church minister.

[Dr.Aaron]

Evolution make alot more sence, which you can see is proven by monkeys, and one day we will become so evolved that we will be able to ascend just like the ancients!:P

[e-freak]

Why people always wanna split it? Evolution is a biological process has taken place. Creation as told in the bible is a story to manifest that mankind is in charge for the world (though mankind isn't doing a good job at all...)

[geekofalltrades]

Wow, I just came back after a few weeks off the forums... and this thread WINS.

I must say god does exist. I'm going to use a much smaller piece of (for lack of a better word) "evidence" for my argument than the entire universe: I'm going to use life. Anyone with a detailed knowledge of biology knows that evolution is not a theory (as argued by creationists), but a fact, which throws creationism out the window. However, anyone with said knowlege of biology also knows about the systems that make life work: DNA and the universal genetic code, at the fundamental level. DNA consists of a double helix connected in the middle by "rungs," and each "rung" of the helix consists of two complimentary units.

Here's where it gets into complex biology. DNA is, in total, completely composed of only four different units: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine (commonly notated as G,C,A, and T). The double-helix, as previously mentioned, is made up of pairs of these units (called base-pairs or nucleotides). On the helix, G is only ever across from C, and A is only ever across from T. (See this crappy figure)

A-T
C-G
C-G
G-C
T-A
A-T
etc.

This same pattern extends for millions and billions of units in a single DNA chain. The purpose of the DNA chain is to build proteins, which all life forms are made up of. "Genes" are regions of a peice of DNA that code a specific type of protein, like the cartilage in your earlobe. A gene is further broken down into units of three nucleotides, each of which codes for a specific amino acid. These units are called "codons." Through a process that would take pages to describe, amino acids are assembled into polypeptide chains, which are then assembled into proteins. If you remove philosophy from the picture, then this is the purpose of life: to make these protiens.

The point I'm getting at is that life is really very simple and very complicated at the same time: DNA is made up of an alphabet that consists of four letters and three-letter words, and yet this alphabet has given rise to all known life.

So, in a theory/philosophy that mushes creationism and darwinism together, I ask: can a process that is this brilliantly simple, and yet at the same time so incredibly complex and capable, have possibly occurred by chance in nature? I propose that god originally created all life, and that He gave it the ability to evolve upon its creation.

Ported this straight over from the "Does God Exist" thread, bolding the most relevant bit. (It's me.)

BTW, as is alluded to in the above quote, evolution is not "just a theory." It is a fact. It has been proven hundreds of times over that species evolve.

[El]

to which I might add would break all laws of physics.
You seem to forget that deities are supposed to be able to do that.

Invalid reasoning!

Matter still can't "poof" out of nowhere, and that is essentially what creationism is saying.
Sure it can! How does spontaneous combustion occur? And besides, your reasoning is still faulty, the whole idea of God is based around "poofs" and miracles.

EDIT:@Geek, I believe about the same as you.

[Kester]

Spontaneous combustion is not matter appearing out of nothing, it's the state of something changing and then catching fire. Matter, being the building blocks that everything is made up from, (we can use particles such as electrons and protons as an example here) cannot just appear from nothing, with the exception of a few different areas of string theory, but they must be repayed almost straight away and therefore are a moot point here.

I, like with other debates on a similar subject side towards the scientific stance, purely because science asks a question and then tries to find an answer, then if at a later date new evidence comes to light, it's not afriad to scrap everything and start again.

Also, creationism just sounds like a fanatical story created out of stupidity.

[amd2800barton]

Ported this straight over from the "Does God Exist" thread, bolding the most relevant bit. (It's me.)

BTW, as is alluded to in the above quote, evolution is not "just a theory." It is a fact. It has been proven hundreds of times over that species evolve.

technically it is a theory, and that is why all the religious zealots want to tear it down and teach creationism beside it. however, what they fail to accept is that there is a big difference between a literal theory, as in their religious ones, and a SCIENTIFIC ONE.

A scientific theory is founded in fact, tested by hundreds if not thousands of independent scientists. And comes from close observation.

That is where creationism falls. Theres nothing wrong with the idea itself, because it requires faith for it to work. I don't share this faith so i dont believe this is true. However, you don't have to put faith in evolution. The evidence that it is the case is there weather you believe in it or not. Creationists have no evidence to back up their ideas, just beliefs of men. Not observable, reproducible, scientific fact.

Evolution for the win.

[matto]

Humans, and all other creatures, are EXTREMELY compliated things. The human body is so intricate with how many billion cells all working at a level which we can't even see. I doubt we came about simply by evolving, we're far too complicated to have just 'developed' over time.

[amd2800barton]

thats the argument im tired of. "The likelihood of us being here is low. That proves god created us and we didn't evolve"

it doesn't prove anything about god. the only evidence there is that the probability of an ecosystem/body/life on earth as it is today is very low because it is so complex only proves that there is a low probability that would be here.

that doesn't prove creationism or support it in any way. it merely suggests that it is difficult for life to evlove to be as complex as us in the universe. however, consider just HOW MANY planets there are in the universe. The hubble space teliscope stared at a patch of sky that Your eye percieves to be smaller than 1mm square, and it saw over 10,000 GALAXIES. Galaxies contain hundreds of thousands of stars. Many of which have planets circling them. Due to the vastness of the universe, that incredibly low probability will eventually be met. Theres just too many solar systems out there for one to say "due to the very low probability of complex life forming, it couldn't have happened"

[natedgreat3]

People have calculated the chance of life forming by itself. I suggest you take a look at my post in the Does God Exist? (http://forums.gamernode.com/showpost.php?p=107554&postcount=60) thread regarding this. The research sources I used for that post are all evolutionary.

[Lupus]

Evolution for me, pretty much because I've seen much evidence supporting it and it just makes so much logical sense. I haven't seen evidence supporting creationism.

Though belief in deities does make sense to me (not that I believe in one), it fits with nature.

People (and animals) fear the unknown, which makes sense. Better than "Oh, look at that thing twice my size with big pointy teeth and mad look in it's eye. Is that it's stomach growling? I'll give it a prod and see what it feels like....<chomp>".

Nature can be very harsh, you could have a farmer (from long ago) workign on his field, doing his thing then a freak storm comes out of nowhere and destroys everything he's worked for. Back then there was no scientific understanding of most things, so to him the reason would be totally unkown. By believing a deity caused it, it is no longer unknown (in his eyes anyway) WHY it happened. By believing that doing what the deity wants, he believes that bad things such as this won't happen, making the reason for the disaster known.
So it went from "WTF mate?!? Where did my land go?!? **** I hope it doesn't happen again". to "Damnit, I must have done something wrong and am being punished. I'll be good now and it won't happen again." or "God works in mysterious ways." Which is often said after tragedies. Though I agree that if there is a god we wouldn't be anywhere near capable of understanding things they way it does, nor it's reason for doing things.

I've just not seen any evidence to actually support the existence of one. You could say replace "god" in stories/descriptions with "powerful aliens" or "giant, spectacled space squirrel" and there is no more or less evidence supporting it.


As for "Intelligent Design"....no place at all in science class. Science is about coming up with a theory as to why something happens and performing experiments to see if they support/disprove the theory and then modify it, aiming to figure out the actual cause. Intelligent design says that, but then adds "God created it all to begin with" which does not have evidence (over other theories) and cannot be tested, therefore isn't science. You could just aswell say "But the Predators from the movies are real and came down, creating life here and they watch from space in their ships. No you can't see them because they are invisible. No you can't test for them because their technology is way beyond ours and we can't pick them up."

Note. I don't believe that is the case :)

But of course we are human, therefore fallible and just because we believe something, doesn't mean it is true, be that faith, science or Kester's nipples being pierced. And 'knowing' just means 'believing with conviction'.

[DKR1138]

Ha I laugh at this topic... and sorry to be bluntly critical... but I must point out that.

A) Creationism isn't a science, it naturally can't be proven right or wrong, because Faith doesn't occur within the realm of Factual evidence, it occurs in the realm of believing through superstition.

B) Evolution is the only one out of the two which is scientific and has data, theoretics and evidence to support its claim.

C) a topic as such could never find a victor, for those of science Evolution wins outright, though because of spiritual faith Creationism becomes infallible through its believer.

D) I will contradict myself by setting a challenge. Prove GOD exists to a man of science without using faith and I will withdraw my Evolutionary claims and concede to Creationism.

:D

[Lupus]

That's the main problem I have with believing in a god, it generally seems to come to "prove he doesn't exist". You can come up with almost anything and say prove it doesn't exist. Prove that God isn't the moon, prove that life wasn't created by the intergalactic space squirrel (tm) that sneezed, placing our building blocks of life on our planet.

Describe something, describe it in a certain way and no one can ever prove you wrong.

[DarkFlood]

Creationism is wrong not only for being a flawed idea, but they also fail to see how old the earth really is.. As I said before, most creationists still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

However, The earth's first lifeforms were simple strands of RNA over 4 BILLION YEARS AGO. That is a very long time. So long, in fact, that few would actually be able to concieve this.

I believe that 4 billion years is enough to create complex organisms. If I remember my dinosaur age correctly, the first life to crawl from the ocean was in the last 100 million years of that.

So essentially it took us 3,900,000,000 years to get to land.. And then it took an extra 65 million years to get to humans. Of course the figures are rough estimates.

[El]

A scientific theory is founded in fact, tested by hundreds if not thousands of independent scientists. And comes from close observation.

And how often are these proven wrong?

EDIT:@DarkFlood: Perhaps time is represented. When (in Genesis) the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth, etc in the first day" millions, billions of years could have been represented with the words "one day"

[Mad Scientist]

And how often are these proven wrong?

Not that often really. The average time for a paradigm shift is about 200-300 years. Not only that, but they are becoming less and less frequent, which implies that we may be getting closer to the truth (if it could even be said to exist). Of course i could be wrong on that, because science doesn't claim it is unilaterally right. It claims, it should be treated as though it is right, but PLEASE feel free to disprove whatever you can.

That is why i tend to support scientific arguments rather than faith based ones. I have heard people argue in the past that science and faith are both beleife systems, and therefore either can be considered correct from different people's points of view. This is true, aside from one major flaw.

Science cannot be considered a beleif system. True it is a system of knowledge that a person must have some faith in to accept as true (although the more you learn about it, the more you see that even the most complex theories are based upon observations and simple concepts that anyone could make and understand), but there is a single reason why science does not qualify as a beleif system. It misses, and indeed, goes totally against one of the crucial components of a belief system. A belief system requires that those who follow it, do not question it, that they accept it on faith (e.g. from the bible "THOU SHALT NOT PUT YOUR LORD TO THE TEST". Please do not ask me for an exact referance). This is why science is not a beleif system, because not only does it not ask that "followers" question its fundamental theories and tennets, but it activly THRIVES upon it. The greatest thing a scientist can ever hope to acheive is to disprove what was prieviously considered a stable and unchangable theory.

This is why, you can argue against scientific theories, and still be within the bounds of scientific reasoning. The same cannot be said for many, if not all, religions.

Therfore, evolution is NOT scientific fact, but it has a lot of evidense, and is looking harder and harder to overturn. The more we look around, the more we see it in areas that we would not expect to find it. As for my beliefs on evolution itself...they will have to wait a little.

[Vivo]

Are you telling me that none of you believe in God? How do you know that God did not create the known universe because of this God works in mysterius ways so that people dont their whole life in his hands. Evolution is scientifically true, but some things can't always be explained, just maybe that God wanted us to think that he did't excist because he was testing your faith in him.

The fact is that people today are so concerned with polotics and money that you loose sight of the importance of our life. God wants us to live a happy peacful life, just consider the number of people that have been seriously injured then somehow survived without no possible explanation.

Like i said science is true, but who created everything else......God of course. Believe what you want, but when the time comes when you die you will wait at the gates of heaven to be judged by God himself. When my dog was hit by a car and seriously injured I prayed for God to help my dog recover, my dog recovered months later and was able to come back home and be my pet once more, I thank God for this.:happy:

Conclusion
Their is Evolution and Their is our Creator, I have my miracles and you have yours, you just haven't noticed them yet. Everyone goes to heven as long as they live a truthful life, those who go to Hell have lived and Sinful life and will be punished for eternity.
I am a Christain and I will not be persuaded to change my beliefs.

[amd2800barton]

You have to be careful, and make sure that you understand that that is only your faith that god saved your dog. There was/is observable scientific evidence that could suggest that he was saved by medicine, good helth, or whatever. Now weather or not you believe that god was working through those methods depends on your faith. Basically, its between you and god. However, a viewpoint that is along the same lines as creationism would say that god simply "magicked" your dog back to life. He was sick, "poof" healthy. The similair viewpoint to evolution would suggest that your dog was operated on by trained veternarians who understood animal physiology, and knew what had to be done to ensure your dog had to recover.

Nature can be very harsh, you could have a farmer (from long ago) workign on his field, doing his thing then a freak storm comes out of nowhere and destroys everything he's worked for. Back then there was no scientific understanding of most things, so to him the reason would be totally unkown. By believing a deity caused it, it is no longer unknown (in his eyes anyway) WHY it happened. By believing that doing what the deity wants, he believes that bad things such as this won't happen, making the reason for the disaster known.
So it went from "WTF mate?!? Where did my land go?!? **** I hope it doesn't happen again". to "Damnit, I must have done something wrong and am being punished. I'll be good now and it won't happen again." or "God works in mysterious ways." Which is often said after tragedies. Though I agree that if there is a god we wouldn't be anywhere near capable of understanding things they way it does, nor it's reason for doing things.

HOLY CRAP! its like you read my mind. That is an explanation for god that i give all the time. Weather or not there is actually a god/higher being than Humans, i honestly don't know. But i do believe that for most of human existence, the purpose of god was for human beings to have more control over their lives.

A simple farmer barely more inteligent than a caveman 100,000 years ago could not have known what he needed to do to water his fields. He did not understand the world around him, so to gain more control over it, he invented god. A more powerful being capable of watering his field when he could not. How could this not understandable feat be done? Who knows - its the ways of the gods. To gain control of God, he creates rituals-dance around a fire, kill a virgin female with a goats bladder, piss on your mother in laws grave at sundown, etc. basically, when human beings cannot control one thing, they invent something else to control it, which they can control, anc can control that first thing.

Some will say "now i cant control god" and such, but often its sub concious. You don't actively think that when you pray to god he listens to your prayers and saves your pets, helps the poor, grants you life in heaven after death, but those are things that you cannot control, and you turn to god to control them for you. You control him through various means... Primairly Religion - do these rights, and god will favor you......


And how often are these proven wrong?

EDIT:@DarkFlood: Perhaps time is represented. When (in Genesis) the Bible says "God created the heavens and the earth, etc in the first day" millions, billions of years could have been represented with the words "one day"

Yeah, i've heard that before. But if you want to suggest that the time scheme is open to interpretation, perhaps the " God CREATED....." part is also open. You can't pick and choose what fits and what doesn't. Don't say "well, this is open to interpretation on the time scheme because i know that theres more than 10,000 years since the creation of the earth, but then turn around and say "but god definately Created The heavens and earth and humans, and didn't let them evolve /change in any way" The creation part is also open to interpretation.

Really i don't see how creationism is even compared to evolution. Its not a matter of science, its a matter of Faith. Just because you believe that God created things doesn't mean that you cant also believe in evolution. You just can't suggest God playing a hand in evolution and expect it to be considered a SCIENTIFIC theory without evidence. You can believe he worked through evolution if you want, but don't suggest it to me as a theory without evidence, and i Know you have none. I will draw my own conclusions from observations and the evidence at hand. Evolution is how human beings came to be. People just need to accept that the way that they do the earth is not flat.

[Kester]

Are you telling me that none of you believe in God? How do you know that God did not create the known universe because of this God works in mysterius ways so that people dont their whole life in his hands. Evolution is scientifically true, but some things can't always be explained, just maybe that God wanted us to think that he did't excist because he was testing your faith in him.That sounds like a cop out to me. How do you know he does exist, there is nothing to prove that he does, and a lot to say he doesn't.

The fact is that people today are so concerned with polotics and money that you loose sight of the importance of our life. God wants us to live a happy peacful life, just consider the number of people that have been seriously injured then somehow survived without no possible explanation.But that is just the point, our lives aren't important, at all. In any way whatsoever. People pull through illnesses for all manner of reasons, you cannot attibute these to god.

Like i said science is true, but who created everything else......God of course. Believe what you want, but when the time comes when you die you will wait at the gates of heaven to be judged by God himself. When my dog was hit by a car and seriously injured I prayed for God to help my dog recover, my dog recovered months later and was able to come back home and be my pet once more, I thank God for this.:happy: I refer back to a previous point of mine, why did everything have to have been created. We only see things with a beginning and end because that's how we experience things. It doesn't mean everything must have a beginning and an end. You tell us believe what you want, but you don't believe what you want. You believe what you have been taught by your upbringing. I would really like to see how the world would turn out if everyone was allowed to make up their own mind, based on their own research rather than have their parents make the decision for them.

I was given that choice, and I've chosen my own belief, that of being agnostic. I wish other people had the same opportunity.

Conclusion
Their is Evolution and Their is our Creator, I have my miracles and you have yours, you just haven't noticed them yet. Everyone goes to heven as long as they live a truthful life, those who go to Hell have lived and Sinful life and will be punished for eternity.
I am a Christain and I will not be persuaded to change my beliefs.While I respect that you honestly believe there is a god, I take some offence in this comment. I haven't noticed my miracles yet? Probably because I attibute these things to science and not random happening based on faith. Also the part on me being punished for eternity if I am sinful. Who defines what is sinful? I'll live my life how I choose and when I die I'll be dead and rot, you may go to heaven, as that's what you believe in, but I will die and that will be that.

[MickyD]

Hello everyone, long time watcher of BM first time poster I saw this thread and couldn’t resist.

I would like to point out one simple fact about this whole "god" thing. The idea of god is a creation of man in itself, the only proof we have a "god" is based off of text thousands of years old which has been changed time and time again to suit the needs of those in power. not to mention the fact that when you refer to god it seems many people here are referring to only the Christian god when in fact there are dozens of other religions many which have been around far longer then Christianity.

So for the sake of argument lets assume that Christianity is the only religion, we know Jesus was real, we have proof from roman accounts. However the only thing we know is how he died and that he taught various teachings which now exist in the bible. As far as anyone knows he may have simply been a philosopher who taught life lessons. This brings me to the next fact that during this time the Roman Empire was falling apart, and as such its leaders were desperately trying to keep things together so to speak. Organized religion is a perfect control tool, you can argue this if you want but history speaks for itself as thousands of people have and still do unspeakable things that go against common sense for the sake of "god". These leaders had many other religions to choose from but Jesus already had a large following and thus would have made it easy to sway the crowd if they adopted these beliefs as their own.

all in all this is more or less the same for any religion, someone started the ideas, and those ideas are based solely on ancient writing or even word in some cases which no doubt in my mind have been changed throughout history. History is written by those in power and for much of history that power belonged to the church.

now by the time you get down to this part I really haven’t proven anything other then put more questions out on the table, but really that’s all we can do. There really is no way to prove or disprove a god. But what you need to understand is that it doesn’t really matter, we have free will, whether or not that was given to us by a god or we developed it on our own. People always talk about going to hell for sinning, if god didn’t want us to sin he/she wouldn’t have given us free will now would he/she? Whatever conclusion you come up with does it really change your life at all? If you suddenly woke up this morning and discovered god was real, would you alter you life? I know I wouldn’t, I live by my morals and that’s good enough for me, if something’s waiting at the end of my life well then I have no one to blame but myself.

[Vivo]

"I was given that choice, and I've chosen my own belief, that of being agnostic. I wish other people had the same opportunity."

You wish others had to opportunity to choose what to believe in? Hasn't everyone chosen a belief?

The most common argument I've heard against Creation is "If God created everthing, who created God?" I have a theory on that.

You know how when something is so cold it burns? It's the same concept. In the Beginning, there was Nothing. But there was such complete nothingness, there was in fact, Everything, which is God.

And for those arguing about the physics of Creation, how about the physics of the Big Bang? The speed at which matter would have to transform and move to create the universe as we know it exceeds the speed of light, which physics says is the fastest speed at which matter can move.

Also, age of the earth: What is it now? It's changed a few million in the past few years. :rolleyes: Anyway, that doesn't matter a whole lot for my next point. If the sun is shrinking at 5 feet per hour. This has been noted by many observatories. Now, if you do the math, the radius of the sun would be larger than 93 million mile distance from the earth to the sun. So, earth would be inside the sun and therefore not exist.

Also, on a side note, when a cell reproduces it splits into two identical copies of itself. That's some of the very basic science of cells.

[Thinkin' Lincoln]

Now that is just getting ridiculous. Your hot and cold theory sounds like stylized nonsense.

[Raminator]

You wish others had to opportunity to choose what to believe in? Hasn't everyone chosen a belief?No. Many people are brought up under the doctrines of one religion without having a say in it. That hardly constitutes "choice" by any definition of the word.You know how when something is so cold it burns? It's the same concept. In the Beginning, there was Nothing. But there was such complete nothingness, there was in fact, Everything, which is God.This makes no sense whatsoever. Being burnt by extreme temperatures in either direction has only one characteristic in common: pain. How you've drawn the creation of the universe from that fascinates me.And for those arguing about the physics of Creation, how about the physics of the Big Bang? The speed at which matter would have to transform and move to create the universe as we know it exceeds the speed of light, which physics says is the fastest speed at which matter can move. Really.Also, age of the earth: What is it now? It's changed a few million in the past few years. :rolleyes: The earth is currently estimated to be around 4.6 billion years old. This number, as with any measurement, is subject to change depending on the methodology and resolution of the testing procedure. Anyway, that doesn't matter a whole lot for my next point. If the sun is shrinking at 5 feet per hour. This has been noted by many observatories. Now, if you do the math, the radius of the sun would be larger than 93 million mile distance from the earth to the sun. So, earth would be inside the sun and therefore not exist.Expansion and contraction of the sun's diameter do not follow a linear trend. Also, on a side note, when a cell reproduces it splits into two identical copies of itself. That's some of the very basic science of cells.Not really. Even so, I fail to see what that has to do with anything in this discussion.

[Kester]

Ram, why do you have to be awake when I sleep? I was going to say all that, pretty much exactly =[

[MickyD]

technically the belief that you cant move faster then the speed of light is just that a theory, i have read articals that may disprove that theory. as all things in science go everything is subject to change, people never thought we could fly and it was deemed impossible yet we did it.

also about the big bang, thats also just one of many theories of how the universe came to be.

as far as the cold/heat goes, ice can burn you because its actually killing the cells in your tissue, pain isnt dependent on whats causing it, it simply is.

[Raminator]

Ram, why do you have to be awake when I sleep? I was going to say all that, pretty much exactly =[I'm Kester in absentia.

[Lupus]

I think the issue of 'cold burns' really just refers to drying. When you get burned either way you lose a lot of moisture, and tissue doesn't like being very dry.

As Ram said, some people have beliefs (of any sort) shoved down their throats when they are very young (religion, views on race, jobs etc.) and kids absorb a hell of a lot. Same with science in some cases, however science teaches you to question it whereas religion (as taught by many) says you should not question it. So people are ingrained to believe something and that questioning it is very wrong. Obviously not all are like that (my parents believe in God, but not in religion, a priest at my dad's school when he was a kid used to question stuff all the time), but there are many people/places that are.
Look at that bunch over in the US, can't remember the name. They are so against homosexuality that they even protest at the return of dead soliders, saying that God killed them because of homosexuality (even though the soldier was straight). Some of those people have ingrained their hatred into their kids (and from the interview I saw, I doubt many of the kids even knew what sex was, as a few shown seemed to be about 7). Yet when questioned, they also hated.

And on cells, mitosis splits cells like that (more or less, DNA does have errors, some fixed etc.), but meiosis splits cells into two, each with half the chromosomes. Such as egg and sperm cells.

[amd2800barton]

Ram, why do you have to be awake when I sleep? I was going to say all that, pretty much exactly =[

i was going to say what Ram said, then i was going to say what you said :( where does it end?

how can someone honestly believe that the world is only 6000 something years old? freakishly ridiculous.

[Winged One]

Bah, Creation?! Pfft.:dry:

Evolution is way more believable, explains similarities between every living thing on Earth, and isn't some simple story that says "We are all here because, one day (one out of seven, actually) God got bored, and He said so and, POOF, we all appeared!" Besides that story being a run on sentence, it just seems like a simple story created to explain something that couldn't at the time.

[mike016256]

Religion is nothing but a shield from the truth for the ignorant masses.

Amen.

[MickyD]

Honestly I don’t even really believe that the idea of god is a bad thing, if something gives people hope, and something to work towards then you can’t really call it bad even if it’s based around something that may not exist. what I do think is bad is religion, this is mostly because it can and is used as a tool to control people and while it may bring people together it also tears them apart and tends to cause more trouble then good.

For most of history religion has been the cause of many of the worlds problems, wars have been fought simply because someone high up on the religious ladder said so. One of the best examples of just how much trouble organized religion has cause would be way back during the time of ancient Greece. This was quite possibly the "golden age" of the world, war was actually controlled (Olympic Games which lead to a 2-4 year period of peace) it wasn’t too long after this that the church became a leading power. After the fall of Greece the dark ages began under the rule of the church, education was suppressed as well as science; those who thought outside of the box were labeled heretics and executed or exiled. It wasn’t until people begin to learn for themselves through the invention of the printing press that things started to change. Technology improved, people began to live longer through medicine (where as it was believed that demons were the cause of illness) and the church slowly began to lose its power once common sense was returned to the people. In a sense the whole basis of religion is fear, why is it people live according to the laws that the church has proclaimed? For fear of damnation, fear of god, fear of judgment.

now its certainly not nearly as bad as it use to be but many people still live so closely by the churches teachings they are willing to die or even kill for them. When a person has become so brainwashed they can no longer think for themselves that’s when I draw the line as to something being bad. I am all for you believing in something if that’s what you really BELIEVE but don’t say something is right because the church says so, believe in something because its what YOU believe in.

[Ares]

Anyway, that doesn't matter a whole lot for my next point. If the sun is shrinking at 5 feet per hour. This has been noted by many observatories. Now, if you do the math, the radius of the sun would be larger than 93 million mile distance from the earth to the sun. So, earth would be inside the sun and therefore not exist.

Wow. A classic example of something I've noticed religion loves to do in a debate, they take a small portion or theory or whatever small part of a scientific belief, and "disprove" it by using "science" itself. You can't look at small parts of science like this. Science is something that must be taken in as a whole. There are too many processes that are balanced out elsewhere, sometimes in almost unimaginable ways.

[amd2800barton]

that, and as Ram pointed out he assumes that the sun is always changing at this rate.

what he doesn't consider is that the decrease in the sun's radius may increase sometimes, decrease sometimes, and remain constant at others.

imagine if we used this logic for a police officer - "well, this suspect is going fourty miles per hour and hes slowing down by 5mph every minute. therefore 10 minutes ago he was going freaking 90mph FTW"

the first derivative of the sun's radius is not constant, nor is the second derivative. they change often.

[THRRRPT]

In my opinion, some of the greatest evidence for evolution comes from the fossil record. Some 50 million years ago, there lived a strange creature called Ambulocetus. This animal resembled a large, mammalian crocodile. Studies of what fossils have been found of ambulocetus show it has remarkable simularities to modern whales, especially in the shape of the skull.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Ambulocetus_four_legs.gif

Around 38 million years ago there was another animal called a Zeuglodon (originally named Basilosaurus). This prehistoric whale is thought to be a direct decendent of Ambulocetus. It also exhbited one of the most remarkable examples of vestigial organs ever observed. The Zeuglodon had fully functional back legs. However, given it's aquatic habitat and the fact that the legs were only two feet long (the Zeuglodon was around eighty feet long) they could do nothing to aid in locomotion. They were therefor left over from the animal's terrestrial ancestors when the creature gradually evolved into an aquatic species.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Basilosaurus_hind_limb.gif

[irockyou]

There is no debate. We know for a fact that evolution occured, and there is no denying it; the evidence is overwhelming beyond recognition. Saying evolution never happened is admitting you know absolutely nothing about the way science works and that you are a close-minded fundamentalist that deserves to live in Iraq with the other terrorists.

An interesting debate, however, is evolution vs. evolution spurred on by God. The following is my opinion, that cannot be proven/disproven:

There was never any God. The universe is fully capable of naturally coming into existence, continuing existence, and coming to a conclusion on its own, without the help of a divine creator. I ask you: which is more likely, universe, or universe plus a divine being that has never been witnessed, that supposedly exists outside of time with the power to create the universe on pure will and exist forever.

Good day.

[Mad Scientist]

Be warned this post will be somewhat extensive.

I think its time i cited a little bit about evolution, that may clear up a few misconceptions people have stated earlier in this thread.

:) MAD SCIENTIST SCIENCE LESSON:)

Firstly, i would like to state the most FUNADMENTAL tennents of evolution, and how they appear to apply to everything around us. Including more than just biology.

In order for a system to evolve:

1. The system MUST be capable of self reproduction.
2. The reproductions must have some hereditory mechanism, namely that the reproduced system will be similar to the original
3. However, The reproduction MUST NOT BE A PERFECT COPY, and must experience slight, randomised changes with each reproduction.
4. Characteristics affected by this hereditary/imperfect reproduction must affect the systems ability to reproduce in relationship to the enviroment the system is placed in.

And that is all. ANY system that has these characteristics will evolve in time. Below i will cite a few examples.

Biological systems: About a decade ago, a little known experiement was carried out by a pair of european scientists. It shows fairly conclusivly that evolution does happen in biological sytesm. What did they do?

First, they took 20 canisters, and filled them with a nutrient solution and a type of bacteria. The bacteria would inevitably consume the nutrient, untill it was exhausted, and they would die of starvation, however there was sufficent nutrient to keep the bacteria alive (given the known growth rates of the bacteria) for several weeks. Next, into these canisteres, they introduced a tiny amount of a posionous substance (i believe it was based on a slow acting cyanide based hydrocarbon, but i am not certain). This poison, would slowly kill all the bacteria, however, the bacteria would still have sufficent time to reproduce a few hundred generations, before the poison began killing off large numbers of the bacteria. Finally, all these canisters were buried halfway into the concrete sheild wall of a nuclear reactor core. This was done so that any random mutations of the bacteria would happen at an increased rate. After a couple of weeks, the scientists came back, and took a look at the canisters. Although the results were hardy astonishing, they were still very interesting.

The bacteria were still alive and thriving in all but two of the containers. This was well after the period that the bacteria should have died out through poisoning. Why was this? Taking samples of the bacteria recovered, the scientists subjected them to higher and higer concentrations of the poison. The bacteria were able to survive concentrations that would have instantly killed bacteria that had not been exposed ot these conditions. This showed catagorically that the bacteria had become resistant to the poison.

So what had happened? The bacteria put in at the start were NOT resistant to the poison. However, if by some random mutation caused by the nuclear radiation, or by other mutagenic factors, some of the reproduced bacteria happened to become ever so slightly resistant to absorbing or responding to the poison, those bacteria would have a slight advantage. They would survive longer than their less resilliant brethren, and so they would reproduce more, giving rise to more slightly resistant bacteria. And when these bacteria mutated further, they would out breed the older generation and so forth untill the only bacteria left in the containers were very resistant to the toxin.

This is a fairly simple example that show evolution does occur in biological organisms. However, this is very rarely questioned. My points reguarding that will have to be relegated untill a later post. Anyhow, biological evolution is nothing new. What IS new is electronic evolution.

A scientist was testing evolutionary theory electronically. He came up with a simple experiment. Firstly, he had a seires of silicon chips constructed. These chips were very general and simple in construction. They consisted of several hundred logic gates (the average computer contains MILLIONS of these gates), all wired up so that a software program could effectivly designate which chips would be used in a circuit, and how they would be inter connected. Then, he set a simple task for the chip. The chip would have to destinguish between a signal put into it at two different frequencies. At the higher of these two frequencies, the output would be 15volts, at the lower, 5 volts. He then had the software RANDOMLY wire up the chip in several hundred different ways, and fed the signal in. Not suprisingly, nothing happended. Most of the configurations were not viable, a couple would return a flat output no matter what signal was put in. The scientist disreguarded the systems that didn't do anything, and kept the ones that did. He then produced several different modifications of these with random logic units added or subtraced. Again, many failed, some had no change, and some started giving the input signal as the output. So he repeated the proccess, getting rid of the circuits that failed, keeping and modifying the ones that got closer to the goal. he also began to increase the selection criteria, to disregaurd the circuits that used the most logic units.

The end result was a small circuit that perfectly accomplised the intial goal, whilst using only 20-30 logic units. Considering that a human engineer would have designed the same circuit with a far greater level of complexity, involving clock systems, and the comparison chips, to be able to do no more than this simple circuit is something very interesting. The chip produced by this method did not function intuitivly. Some of the logic gates appeared totally disconnected from the main cirucit, yet if they were removed, the whole thing failed to function. It is believed that magentic forces create otherwise un-predicted links.

There is no magic in this system, despite the fact it can do a better job at electrical engineering than a university proffesser. There was no input by the scientist once the whole thing was set up. The selection criteria was all managed by a blind computer program.

What does this show? It shows that very simple principles can evolve to accomplish fairly complex goals. The reason behind this is that evolution acts like a sort of "change valve". Any positve changes to a system are allowed to persist, wheras negative ones are weeded out. The only difference between this system, and the natural world is that the natural world has a different selection criteria. Next evolutionary morsel:

Social evolution: Have you ever considered, why there are no well developed anarchic societies in the world? It is simply because anarchy is not conducive to the stability of a society. If a society is unstable, and fragments, then any new societies that form from the fragments would would retain what elements of the society were beneficial, but would also modify what they didn't like. The resulting principles are percisly how evolution works. Societies Will change over time, constantly evolving twoards what is better for thir inhabitants. This is the reason why very few societies in the world today condone this such as murder or theft.

I would elaborate on this more, however this post is getting long enough as it is. There are other areas where evolution is theorised to work as well. For example, it has been postulated that the entire univers may be an evolving system, as some equations suggest that any singularity that forms in this universe results in the creation of a new ajacent universe, with similar characteristics of our own. IF this turns out to be the case then universes would have a tendancy to evolve their structure and physical characteristics to generate mor black holes. Those that do this would produce more ofspring, wheras those that do not would not have many progeny.

It is even likely, that sentient, technologically advanced species, are an evolutionary advantage to a planatary biosphere. Currently, humanity is the only force on this planet that could intentionally deflect and inbound asteroid, or could attemt the neccisary global engineering required to prevent such catastrophies as supervolcanos, multispeices pandemics or other such disasters. It may be a natural consequnce that any bioshpere will evolve a sentient, technologicaly potent species, as those that are not capable of doing so get pulverised by the next asteroid strike, thus culling their chances. Of course, this time, the evolutionary proccess may have not got it quite right. Humanity may not be quick enough, or it may be too agressive amongst its own members.

Either way, the more we look around us, the more we find evolutionary proccesses at work. Almost all of them are even more complex than the systems i have outlined above. The evidense for evolution is near overwhelming. It MAY still be disproved of course, however i would personally rate the chance that it will be disproved somewhere near the chance of finding out that all elephants are actually sausages, and we just havn't realised it yet. How this relates to my beliefes in reguard to creationism will have to wait.

[amd2800barton]

thank you mad sci, that was a wonderful read. However, i don't think that anyone is debating so much weather or not evolution can and does happen today. I think the greater issue here is weather or not humans evolved from a "lower" animal. I personally believe that far enough back, my ancestors were not human.

[Viktor Berg]

Well guys, I want to add my 2 cents:

I have no idea as to which way is the genuiene way, I'm more inclined towards Evolution. There are, however, many flaws within the Darwinism. As such:

1. "When did a boneless one give birth to a one with bones?" (I'm not sure about the phrase, but it states everything it should). The first creatures with bones appeared a few hundred millions ago (200 I guess). But the weirdest thing is - they all appeared almost at once! Hundreds of different species of creaures with bones suddenly flooded the planet, without any "development" stage or anything! Any explanation will be rewarded with a cookie!

2. Generic "sudden" evolutions. We have today very many different kinds of animals, insects and plants on Earth. But almost all of them have a huuuge difference from each other. A hen doesn't fly nor does it swim - but it does have some extra growth on it's head. If Darwinism were as correct as is stated by our schoolbooks, we would nowadays observe some peculiar "mutants" around us: a duck with a dozen claws, to protect it's ducklings. A crocodile with huge ears, to hear it's prey better.

Discuss, anyone?

[irockyou]

1. "When did a boneless one give birth to a one with bones?" (I'm not sure about the phrase, but it states everything it should). The first creatures with bones appeared a few hundred millions ago (200 I guess). But the weirdest thing is - they all appeared almost at once! Hundreds of different species of creaures with bones suddenly flooded the planet, without any "development" stage or anything! Any explanation will be rewarded with a cookie!

I think bone began to form as tiny, little, brittle pieces to give structure, and began to evolve into stronger bits to hold together multiple cells. I bet there was a "development" stage, we just didn't find it yet. It's not like we have every bone from every time period; or even a lot.

2. Generic "sudden" evolutions. We have today very many different kinds of animals, insects and plants on Earth. But almost all of them have a huuuge difference from each other. A hen doesn't fly nor does it swim - but it does have some extra growth on it's head. If Darwinism were as correct as is stated by our schoolbooks, we would nowadays observe some peculiar "mutants" around us: a duck with a dozen claws, to protect it's ducklings. A crocodile with huge ears, to hear it's prey better.

Mutations?

Cookie please :)

[amd2800barton]

Yeah... the argument of "how did some stuff come to be" i see the most is "the eye could never have evolved." "each of those seperate parts is useless.

this in fact, is not correct. it is believed that eyes began as cells which had a simple sensitivity to light. They could tell when light radiation was hitting them. these cells eventually evolved into retinas, and the rest of the eye evolved around that - lenses to focus and such.

[Mad Scientist]

And don't forget, the evolution portrayed by these questions is looking at a single part of the organism, and is assuming not only that the rest of the organism remains unchanged, but that the entire ecosystem remains unchanged. Remember, evolution is a dynamic proccess. Organisms, can end up in an evolutionary arms race as they develop to out compete each other, speeding up evolution by many generations. The increased potency of one organ may result in a slight side effect elsewhere that results in a new evolutionary system. With the simple experiments i outlined above, we can make simple predictions and simplications of scenarios. However, if you throw the whole thing into a system with sevral million different dynamicly evolving entities, in a way that means the entire ecosystem evolves as well, then the proccess is very difficult to predict.

As a result, such a complex system never quite behaves as one would expect. However, this does not mean that we will never understand it. Nearly that we need more proccessing power to model it better.

[Vivo]

haha! i found evidence that God does excist u homo! follow this site and it will show u the light. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4472004596147265716&q=God

This proves God excists because he gave man huge bananas (if u know what i mean^-^. I stille think God excists though, i just found this on the internet and decided to post it.

[MickyD]

me and my roomate (who is christian) found that to be one of the worst examples of gods existance of all times, i feel dumber just for watching it.

funny how the guy sitting next to him is trying not to laugh the whole time.

[irockyou]

Is that a serious video? I was laughing my ass off watching that! :rofl:

[your evil twin]

I am a Christian - or at leat, I consider myself a Christian! - and I have absolutely no problem with believing in Evolution rather than Creationism.

I find much of the Old Testament to be questionable, but Genesis in particular is pretty ridiculous. The science of the world described in Genesis bares no relation whatsoever to the world we see around us.

I believe that life itself - the original sparks of life in the primordial soup or whatever... that is down the God. I do not believe that chemicals can naturally become self-replicating and self-sustaining and evolve without an extra initial push. Of course, some scientists will disagree - it is very much a matter of faith/belief.

God imbuing chemicals with a "spark of life" seems a "reasonable" belief - there's no scientific evidence for it, but there's nothing to refute it either. Unlike the idea of the whole world and the animal kingdom and humanity all being created in 6 days. That is holding onto a belief despite a flood of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps God had a role in evolution - giving it a nudge here, a nudge there, and seeing what happens. Christians usually assume God is totally all-knowing, but perhaps God is just fantastically powerful and intelligent, but still able to "experiment". Alternatively, if God is all-knowing, then God could pre-determine exactly how evolution was going to go.

I think there is no denying that evolution is real. Humanity has evolved from apes, apes have evolved from other things, everything started out as single-celled organisms. This is FACT. Now the question for religion is what God's role is in this marvellous process. I think evolution and natural selection are amazing... the ingenuity of the whole system seems to speak of God's greatness, not undermine God's existance.

[Mad Scientist]

I do not believe that chemicals can naturally become self-replicating and self-sustaining and evolve without an extra initial push.

Yet we can witness this all the time in simple experiments that we can perform. Does that mean God is reaching into every scientists beaker who performs these experiments and twiddling with the amino acids?

There is no "spark" to life that anyone has ever found. Life is merely a very interesting byproduct of chemistry. Doesn't mean its not special (merely that "special" is a title granted by us, rather than a god), however we do not need a deity to set it off.

There are many arguments for Gods existance, however the concept of general revalation based on scientific principles is not one of them. The theories do not require someone in the drivng seat, or even someone to set the ball rolling. In that sense they are complete. It may be there of course, however, science neither proves nor disproves Gods existance, in any way, shape or form. At the end of the day, a beliver will look at the universe, and see the glory of god in every star, and a non-believer will look at the universe, and marvel at the millions of years of physical, chemical and biological evolution that have gone on to produce this. What you beleive defines how you think the universe was created, and life arose.

However, there is one anaomaly that mathmatical science has yet to solve in reguard to the underlying principles of how we got where we are. This anaomal does not prove god's existance, as it may be explainable one day, however it does show a possible chink in the theory as it stands. I'm not going to say it now, however, i would be very interested to see if someone can find out what it is.

[Thinkin' Lincoln]

I believe in evolution, however I believe humans will never evolve. Why do I believe this? Simply put, the act of natural selection has been eliminated from our society. Anybody can survive in our world without fear of being eaten, or killed by a person with more fortunate genetics. Even a person with a mental disability can survive, although perhaps not reproduce. Medicine and Scientific advancements have made life possible for almost everybody. A person may be born with a genetic mutation that could possibly benefit him or her, however he or she will not require it for survival.

[DarkFlood]

That is what humans are about.. Instead of growing what we need to adapt, we can instead mold the land to suit ourselves. The main part of our body that will definately evolve is our brain size, as we move towards a more intelligence-based society.

[Mad Scientist]

Its not quite true that humans are no longer evolving. The pace and direction of evolution has changed, but not the act of evolution itself. Remember ANY genetic factor that results in an increase or decrease of its carrying organism's rate of reproduction, will have an evolutionary effect.

However, technological change is FAR more rapid than evolution, and as a result, although we are still evolving, it is immensly slow compared to the changes in our society. As a result, the factors that are evolutionary desirable one generation (eg. the genetic disposition to wear flared trousers) will not be desirable to the next. As a result evolution in humans tends to be rather complex, and somewhat haphazard.

However you are right that intellegence is, generally speaking, on the increase. Its just too usefull a trait in modern society.

[natedgreat3]

I'm going to put forth a ridiculous statement to all of you. And then I want you to give me examples proving otherwise.

Every mutation that has been observed to occur has resulted in a loss of information.

Now before you jump all over this, mutations are whats needed for evolution to differ from natural selection. Natural selection (not the mod, the concept haha) is an undisputed fact. Natural Selection is just "survival of the fittest." I think that, sometimes, people confuse natural selection with evolution.

Lets take an example. A particular winged beetle type lives on large continental areas, and the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.

What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the ‘wing-making’ information is lost or scrambled in some way.

The damaged gene is then going to be passed to all that beetle’s offspring, and to their offspring, as it is copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.

If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, it will have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by "survival of the fittest" before it can leave offspring.

However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that only those of this new wingless variety survive, which have therefore been "naturally selected."

Evolution requires an addition of information to work. This, while its beneficial to the species, is NOT evolution, its Natural Selection. Lets suppose that the same beetle-eating species on the mainland got transported over to the island, and the wind stopped blowing. These wingless beetles would once again be at a disadvantage. Could a mutation happen where a wingless beetle would be born with wings? If so, THAT would be evolution in action. An addition of information to benefit the species.

Do we have any examples of this happening? If so, show me B)

[Raminator]

However you are right that intellegence is, generally speaking, on the increase. Its just too usefull a trait in modern society.A quick visit to the Steampowered user's forums shoots that notion full of holes. :haha:

Do we have any examples of this happening? If so, show me B)I don't remember the species name, but I remember reading about something similar in a type of moth in England. The wild-type phenotype has pale pigmentation that blends in with the bark on birch trees, while the mutant phenotype is much darker, almost black. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the wild-type moths were selected for seeing as they had the better camouflage from predators. However, during and after the Industrial Revolution, the increased pollution and deposition allowed the mutant population to flourish at the wild-type population's expense. They were the dominant population until recently, where stricter emissions control laws and regulations have lead to a cleaner environment that therefore suited the wild-type better.

[natedgreat3]

A quick visit to the Steampowered user's forums shoots that notion full of holes. :haha:
Or facepunch B)

=====

Ahh yea, the peppered (black) moths example. I actually had that typed up before I decided to switch to wingless beetles. Its basically the same concept... before the industrial revolution there was genetic information for dark and light moths. They weren't mutations, they were just another variety that was much rarer.

People thought they were sudden mutations because the black moths hid under leaves in the treetops so as not to be eaten. No one noticed them until they started flourishing. We now know they were always there. Most evolutionists hold this story as a good example of natural selection, but not evolution.

[Mad Scientist]

My dear Raminator, infering that intellegence is on the decrease because of the members of the steampowered forums, is akin to claiming that the number of chavs is on the decrease based on a survey of the patrons of a fine art gallery.

However, waht the man says about the moths is trure. Remember that predictions relating to one aspect of an organism, or just one species rarely prove themselves accurate, because the entire system evolvs as well. It is only in controlled experiments where other factors are eliminated, that we can make predictions with an extremely high degree of accuracy.

Evolution requires an addition of information to work.

This is a common misconception. on a genetic level, there is next to no difference in the mutation to produce a certain chemical/protien or to stop producing it. Indeed, the human body is littered with such instances of past mutations in varying degrees. Sometimes, when the body needs to stop the effects of producing a particular enzyme, it simply stop produces that enzyme. Other times, it continues producing the enzyme, but instead it now produces a different additional enzyme to break down the first one. At a biochemical level, many instances of the human body display this trait where it appears to have MILLIONS of evolutionary throwbacks and vestigial organs that no-longer make sense, yet are a continuing presence in the body because they do not grant a particular disadvantage that evolution will get rid of.

And i'd like to point out that by saying "natural selection is not evolution" is only a half truth. Evolution is the proccess whereby creatures change and adapt to fit their enviroments and conditions over many generations. Natural selection is the means by which they do it.

[natedgreat3]

Since this thread is about Creation vs. Evolution, most Creationists, at least that I know of, support Natural selection very heavily as a means by which species adapt. But they don't support the addition of information, which is where evolution differs from creation. So yes, you are correct that natural selection is half of evolution, but its also half of creation lol.

The statement "Evolution requires the addition of information to work" should probably have been clarified lol. It was meant as a general statement for the theory of evolution, for instance bacteria eventually evolving into a whale. Obviously that will require the adding of information :P

On the human body, the number of actual vestigial organs has been reduced from hundreds to about 3, as we've discovered uses for each one. Now if your talking on a cellular level, I must admit I don't know enough about that to have an educated discussion.

But, since mutations happen in humans and every human is born with some mutations, we can reasonably conclude that, due to the loss of information, our bodies don't function as well as they're supposed to in some areas, perhaps especially on a cellular level. But I would dispute the presence of whole organs or minor body systems that are just useless.

[Mad Scientist]

I'm afraid the idea that you need to add information to get from a bacterium to a whale isn't quite right. It may seem common sense that a whale is more complex than a bacterium, but it doesn't fit all the facts. Indeed, there are many animals far smaller, and apparently far simpler than a human (for example) that contain a great deal more encoding base pairs in their genome.

Look at it this way. Have you ever heard of the concept of phase space? The phase space of a system is defined as all concievable states that that system can occupy (this is a simplification, but for our purposes it will do). For example, if we take the simplified phases space of a tossed coin, it is heads and tails (we say simplified because the true phase space involves edges, and every possible orientation of the coin as well). The simplified phase space of a die is numbers 1-6. The simplified phase space of a pair of dice is numbers 2-12, with their associated probabilites. The phase space is a mathmatical tool for analysing complex systems.

Now i am going to drawn an analogy here, of likening DNA to the english language, because the latter is something we are all familliar with.

Now suppose i take an interval of the phase space of the english language to include 13 characters (every letter, punctuation mark, and even spaces are included). This limited phase space is every possible combination of 13 characters i could have. If we look at one possible example of this, we could have "wojfyn4hego2dj" for example. Evidently, this means very little to us. Now let us suppose we limit this phase space again to the phase space of the english language character set, only including encoding words. This time we would probably get an example like "tableagunsbob" in that individual groups make sense, but there is still no long range order. In limiting it once more to known words, and systems that are syntactically and gramatically correct, we may have someting that we are more familiar with, eg "thecakeisalie".

This is very similar to DNA, (although as usuall, there are places where the analogy breaks down). In evolution, We are not so much "adding" information, as removing possible combinations from the theoreticall phase space of DNA.

The phase space mathmatics are a tool that is becomign ever more usefull in science, as it allows us to look at scenarios that do not currently exist, and examine why they don't. If you look at the phase space of a system, then ask why the system is as we observe it, rather than a different configuration. In the case of biological entites, the phase space is vast, so we have to ask ourselves what limites it. The only observable phenomena that we can see doing this is evolution through natural selection. Indeed, if a person claims to believe in natural selection, without believing in evolution, they have not understood the two terms as they are commonly defined. It would be analogus to believing in rivers aproaching cliffs, but not believing in waterfalls.

most Creationists, at least that I know of, support Natural selection very heavily

In my experience, most creationists DO NOT support natural selection. They support thier own system, that would be more acurratly named "divine selection" and assume it is natural selection at work.

[natedgreat3]

In this phase space concept you speak of, you are basically making a point that as long as you have enough "space" to hold all the DNA necessary for a species, then no information really needs to be added, just rearranged. Correct?

[Mad Scientist]

Partialy, however in the case of this particular system, the size of the available space is defined as how large a genome can become before it can no longer be viably read. As i do not believe such a limit exists (as far as i know there is no upper theoretical limit on the length of a genome then the space is infinate.

However if there is a limit, then tell me the maximum number of base pairs, and i will calculate the size of the phase space for DNA for you.

[natedgreat3]

lol well that wasn't quite what I had in mind, but thanks for the offer :) Due to my lack of knowledge in this field, as before stated, I can't discuss in detail the principles of this phase space. But, I just want to make sure your saying that evolution doesn't necessarily require any addition of information. Because I think that goes against basically the core idea of evolution. Even if a bacterium posessed the correct "instructions" to form a human, that doesn't mean it will be able to.

[Mad Scientist]

That is why i had to clarify the basic tennets of evolution earlier on. Darwinistic natrual selection is rather different from modern evolution, and another paradigm shift may alter it again. The basic tennets are the same, but alot of the more indepth mechanisms are more intresting than we initally thought. They are not neccisarily more complex, but the implications are.

You see the key thing that many theists believe is that complexity cannot emerge out of simplicty. It sounds like common sense, yet it is infact utterly wrong. Not only does complexity evolve out of simplicity, but we can even see it happening, in a way that leaves little unanswered questions. For example, here is an extremly simple mathmatical scenario that gives staggering complexity:

Its called langton's ant. Imagine a plain two dimensional grid, like a chess board, but all white. On this chessboard we have a little "ant". The ant is given a very simple set of instructions that anyone can understand:


If you are on a white square turn 90 degrees left, change the colour of the square to black, and move forwards

If you are on a black square turn 90 degrees right, change the colour of the square to white, and move forwards.
As you can see, the rules are indeed very simple. If you had a very large grid, you could even do this experiment yourself.

With simple rules, and no extra information added, such as making a random pattern of black and white squares, we would expect very simple and boring behaviour right? You would be excused for thinking the ant would probably just make simple mathmatical shapes such as a circle, a figure of eight, wandering off in a zig zag path or another simple figure. Instead, we get something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/MulticolorLangtonsAnt.gif

Although this is with three ants rather than one, you can see how weird the behaviour is, even before they start interacting with one another. Here we have extremly complex behavior from extremly simple rules. We say that complexity is "emergent", meaning that you will tend to get a very complex scenario even from very simple rules, in most cases. Indeed, our universe has rules that are often very simple to understand the basics of (humans have only been around a few thousand years, and look how far we've got), yet they yeild this incredibly complex structure.

If you want the technicalities behind this, the basic reason behind this is that classical information, is non conservational. You can copy information as much as you want, (as anyone with a computer knows), and it does not require new information to be put in the same way conserved quantities such as mass, and energy do. As a result, information and order can effectivly generate itself, and its own complexity, as langton's ant demonstriats.

Its the same principle with evolution. Simple rules. Complex outcome.

[natedgreat3]

This example is another one I haven't heard of B) However, once again, I am still confused on what your trying to tie this very interesting analogy to. I think, like you said, your trying to demonstrate that complexity can arise from simplicity.

Obviously this is the case, someone estimated that DNA instructions for the entire world can be contained in something the size of a pill.

Once again though I reiterate, unless you're wishing to change the subject which is fine lol... Has a mutation ever been observed that has ADDED information to the DNA strand? The core set of instructions.

Lets just try and clear this up and I'll tell you my understanding of evolution.

In a previous debate thread I explained the chances of even the simplest form of life getting started. All evolutionist documents and theories that I've read grant that the first form of life was extremely simple. They explain that over time, mutations resulted in the addition of information to the DNA, and through millions of years of bad mutation and natural selection, the organisms became gradually more and more complex, eventually evolving into humans.

Now, unless there's something wrong with what I just laid out, I'm simply asking for examples of any mutations we've observed that have added information :)

[-58]

The entire purpose of Mad Scientist's post, I believe, was to shoot down anyone who proposes that "simplicity cannot breed complexity", an oft-used anti-evolution argument. I think it demonstrates this quite well.

[maty]

Off the previous point:-

What I find rather frustrating is that many creationists use the argument that 'evolutionist' are too solidy focussed on their view - yet Darwin himself said if there was anything to proove his theory wrong, he would accept it. He even proposed how he could be proved wrong. o.O

Besides, the official Roman Catholic teaching is that evolution does happen.

[Mad Scientist]

Sorry Nate, but your post doesn't seem to make any sense. I can't understand what your trying to get across. I've already explained that "adding" information doesn't make any sense given what we know about evolution. You use phrases such as "core" instructions as though DNA is like a tree, where the trunk is fixed and only the branches change. DNA is more like an old tape reel. There is no "core" that can bee added two. Every part is as important as every other part.

Your understanding of the basic principles of evolution as you have laid them out is generally correct (altough there are a HELL of a lot of other complexities), except this concept that information must be added, in the same way as more complex blue prints can give more complex machines. It is a common misconception that DNA is a set of blue prints for an organism. DNA cannot, and DOES NOT specify the location of every protein in an paramecium bacterium. Nor does it specify the location of every neuron in the brain. What it CAN do is chemistry, and through chemistry, it can specify the underlying fractal pattern that creates these structures.

This goes back to waht i was saying about complexity being emergent from simplicity. The DNA structure for a human and a banana can be relativly simple (there is some difference, but relativly speaking not much. It is a well known fact that humans share over 50% of their genetic code in common with the aformentioned banana), yet these codes, although simple in principle can lead to varying levels of complexity. Information need not be added, otherwise evolution would not be possible at all. HOwever, information does not NEED to be added, as even the smallest alterations to genes in the right place can lead to staggeringly different levels of complexity.

[TheTaxidermist]

I'm a creationist and yes I guess according to you guys that classifies me as an "idiot" or a "terrorist". Does it make any sense that a "big-bang" would actually create and not destroy? Ever seen an explosion create? I sure as hell haven't. We see how the universe has order in it (the orbiting of the planets is a key example), but an explosion has never created order. And if we evolved from a lower form, please show me the half man-half monkies that exist today. Hell there are still monkies? If there was some need that would make them change over time, wouldn't that have wiped the ape population out? There's a re-occuring theme in the evolutionary theory, the original animals that were evolved from, are no longer around. Obviously there was no important trait that was that important that it wiped out the ape species. I hope you unterstand what I mean. I can't explain it exactly the way I would like. Let me put it in these terms if you didn't understand:

Old Crocodile evolves into new crocodile
Old crocodile wiped out over time.

Old fish evolves into new fish
Old fish wiped out over time.

Old apes evolve into humans
Old apes are still around.

I hope that clarifies it. Oh and I don't believe the earth was created in a little 7 day 24 hour period. I believe the creation as referred to in the Bible was over a much longer period of time.

Yes, I know I'll be ridiculed by evolutionists because they think I'm an idiot for not believing in evolution. Well that's fine by me, go ahead and think that because you won't EVER change what I believe.

Well that's my two cents. Let the hate-mongering against me begin!

[DKR1138]

It was an explosion, an irregular explosion of mass, an ever expanding and non coruptable universe of to what we can gather no end, it will expand and expand... One point in our dramatic future that we can't even imagine, the Galaxys inhabiting our universe won't even be seen by the naked eye and space will look blank, and expansion will do that.

I can't respect creationism at all, the Universe is too uniformly random and explosive to be created by anything but a explosion itself. We're randoms in a miracle of perfect conditions.

Creationism is the spawn of not being able to think big, to inhale the fact of the dramatic complexity of our Universe and the evolution of life... Creationism from its beginnings has been tested by its claims time after time; and time after time its altered its faithful theory to fit its factual enemy Evolution and Science to make it seem more plausable...

There was a time when the world was flat, the world was only thousands of years old, when the earth was created in days and the earth was the center of everything... Science disproved Creationisms biggest claims and in time Creationims accepted them, yet never altered its main theories... Evolution is a factual theory, and don't take the word theory likely in this case because it might as well be fact... Creationism as ive said time and again is a theory based on Faith and faith can only be fact in the eyes of the faithful.

Its a dead end. Nothing in the world can dispute faith other than fact, even then faith remains in the faithful. So its a matter of what you want to believe. Factual science or see fact in Faith.

[Mad Scientist]

Yes, I know I'll be ridiculed by evolutionists because they think I'm an idiot for not believing in evolution. Well that's fine by me, go ahead and think that because you won't EVER change what I believe.

Well that's my two cents. Let the hate-mongering against me begin!

I don't think your an idiot for not believing in evolution. Classifying intellegence based on what a person believes is highly judgmental, and not something i subscribe to.

However, i don't particularly respect the fact that you've not done much research. You descriptions of both the big bang and evolution just arn't correct. Indeed, not only are those theorys that you have discribed not supported scientifically, but they never have. Indeed, those descriptions are so far from the currently scientifically accepted theories that i would have to devote a great deal of time and effort to describing how they actually are. I can understand you confusion, as the "big Bang" is a hideously inaccurate namne for a far more elegant theory. It may intrest you to know that the name was created by one of the theories key detracters as a way of ridiculing the inflationary universe theory. For some reason, the name has stuck, suffice to say that thinking of the big bang as just that: a large explosion, is extremly far from the actualities of the theory. If you want i will explain what the current theories on the big bang , so that we may debate this topic on even terms.

However, just one little point: your examples of old creatures is just nor right. So many people seem to forget this fundament of evolution.

It is constant.
it applies to all the systems i have described in the previous MSSL in this topic all animals.

In orther words, creatures don't just evolve into new creatures and then dissappear. Evolutionary paths in species will diverge over many generations untill the point where they are no longer the same species. Its not a case of crocodile version 1.0 gives way to crocodile version 2.0. Its more like a tree thats budding new branches off new branches. The "older" crocodile is still around (although i hesitate to call it "older" as the terminology is inexact), but it is still evolving. It will bud off new species over generations, untill the branches on the "tree" become so fine and numerous that you cannot say that one particular branch is the "old" crocodile.

To clarify, i've nothing against believing in creation over evolution. What a person believes is their choice, and i would not be an arrogant evangelicalist in trying to take their theories beliefes away from them. However, the descriptions you have given on two scientific theories are grossly inaccurate, so i feel i must correct them.

[TheTaxidermist]

In orther words, creatures don't just evolve into new creatures and then dissappear. Evolutionary paths in species will diverge over many generations untill the point where they are no longer the same species. Its not a case of crocodile version 1.0 gives way to crocodile version 2.0. Its more like a tree thats budding new branches off new branches. The "older" crocodile is still around (although i hesitate to call it "older" as the terminology is inexact), but it is still evolving. It will bud off new species over generations, untill the branches on the "tree" become so fine and numerous that you cannot say that one particular branch is the "old" crocodile.

To clarify, i've nothing against believing in creation over evolution. What a person believes is their choice, and i would not be an arrogant evangelicalist in trying to take their theories beliefes away from them. However, the descriptions you have given on two scientific theories are grossly inaccurate, so i feel i must correct them.

First off I want to applaud you for not being one of those bigot evolutionists. Second, one of my biggest problems with evolution is that there is no missing link. Sure fossils may have been found that suggest that there was some kind of missing link but then they usually turn out to be a hoax.

Here is my argument as to why God exists. As regards the flat earth theory, even the prophet Isaiah knew the earth was round. Read Isaiah 40:22 where it mentions God was dwelling above the CIRCLE of the earth. Nobody else thought this way and there was no way for Isaiah to know it was a circle without some kind of guidance. Take for another example, the Israelites used practices to keep their camps clean such as burying feces which was a practice that was not known to ward off diseases until much later. Same thing with not touching dead bodies. There was no way for them to know these things without some kind of all-knowing being telling them this.

[Mad Scientist]

Here is my argument as to why God exists. As regards the flat earth theory, even the prophet Isaiah knew the earth was round. Read Isaiah 40:22 where it mentions God was dwelling above the CIRCLE of the earth. Nobody else thought this way and there was no way for Isaiah to know it was a circle without some kind of guidance. Take for another example, the Israelites used practices to keep their camps clean such as burying feces which was a practice that was not known to ward off diseases until much later. Same thing with not touching dead bodies. There was no way for them to know these things without some kind of all-knowing being telling them this.

I'm not going to debate this here, but if you wish to bring this up in the "does god exist" thread, i'll happly go head to head on it. Remember this thread is about evolution versus creationism, not the question of god's existance. They are obviously rather inter-twinned, but i would still make an effort to keep them seperate.

First off I want to applaud you for not being one of those bigot evolutionists. Second, one of my biggest problems with evolution is that there is no missing link. Sure fossils may have been found that suggest that there was some kind of missing link but then they usually turn out to be a hoax.

Forgive me if i'm not reading this correctly, but you are saying that the FLAW of evolution is that it is complete and contains no missing links? I fail to understand how completeness in this sense is a flaw.

However, if you are saying that the theory is incomplete, and that there is not sufficial evidense to give a blow-by-blow account of the evolution of every single creature on the earth, and that this is a porblem than i can understand.

However i do not agree. Evolution, although evidentially incomplete, still has far more observable evidense than any other theory, including creationism. Look at it like this. We may not see a murderer kill someone, but if we know they were in the room at the time of the murder, that they had motivation, and that the bloodied weapon had the murderers finger prints on, then i would find it hard to believe that the murderer did not do it. It is the same with evolution. The amount of evidense for evolution is overwhelming. It may not be enough to prove it beyond all shadow of a doubt, but then nothing can do that. Every single element of human knowledge has doubt in it. Given all the evidense for evolution, it seems the most believable option.

Also, your point that all "missing links" turn out to be hoaxes is incorrect. Some do, but the overwhelming majority appear to be valid. Only in recent years, was a fossile of one of the first amphibious cratures to have developed legs discovered.

[John Clabo]

Mad Scientist, I couldn't disagree with you more, but I'm busy so later tonight I'll post a better responce hehe.

[Jon]

Gods were invented by humans.

Humans are often stupid.

Gods = stupid.

Evolution = B)

[Mercer]

The reason there is not a blow-by-blow account of evolution is that it is very rare for a lifeform to be fossilized. Especally those dwelling on land, as a result there is a much better record of ancient sea life than for terrestial organisms.

Due to the fact that evolution is very slow and fossilization is rare, a "missing link" may never be found! But, in fact, there are such examples of past hominids who have both human and primate details. It may also be noted that humans did NOT evovle from TODAYS apes. Today's apes are well suited to their own evironments and are a different branch from the disjonited "lineage" that led to homo sapien.

I have a great little illustration of Lucy (the famous homo erectus) but no scanner available. But clearly Lucy's hips and leg bones are very much formed like ours. but from the midsection up she is more like a primate today with less cranial volume and a ape-like face. This can clearly show that there are examples of so-called missing links, but no one ever does their reseach. Also, refain from calling evolution a "theory" as it is fact. Only the mechanisms (such as natural selection) are the theories...

In the end, I do believe that Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive and can co-exist peacefully.

[Mad Scientist]

Sorry mercer, but remember that ALL scientific knowledge is a theory. Even basic newtonian mechanics (which has since been proven innaccurate) is still a theory, because that is how science works. As Einstien once said "no amount of experimentation can prove me right, but it only takes one to prove me wrong".

In other words scientific experiments seek to disprove wrong theories, rather than prove right ones. However, take comefort, that because something is "just a theory" (a claim often used by detractors) it doesn't make it any less close to the truth than theories that are so well known that they are rarely questioned. All knowledge is based on theories and concepualisations, however, this doesnt make it any less elegant or some how imply it is uncertain or wrong. As i have said before, the visible evidense for evolution is overwhelming. It is true that evolution could be proved wrong, however, i would rate the chances of this happening as a similar probibility to scientists discovering that elephants are actually sausages.

[TheTaxidermist]

Gods were invented by humans.

Humans are often stupid.

Gods = stupid.

Evolution = B)

Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously?

Your post = Stupid

[DarkFlood]

Jon is right you know.

Religion was only created as a means to explain the unexplainable. But now that our intellect has matured since then, we don't need religion to "hold our hand" we can go out and discover our dynamic and ever-changing world... Instead of clinging to our stagnant, ancient, and many times disproven relics of the past.

[Jon]

Do you actually expect anyone to take you seriously?

Your post = Stupid



OH LOOK THE easter bunny!!! OMG WARSHIP IT...OMG HATE GAYS because this book says so.

The bible is probably completely different from when the dudes originally wrote it anyway....The priests will have a "It's okay to molest boys" as the commandments in 50 years and everyone will believe it because the mystical dragon in the sky said so.....

[DarkFlood]

Back on topic, the thought that evolution itself is wrong is an outcry of stupidity.

[-58]

That's a scientifically uneducated statement, yes? MadScientist just went over the unprovability of everything, yeah?

As scientifically mature as we are, there are still some inexplicable things - such as where the matter came from in the first place. However, this thread is a debate between evolution and creationism, not the existence or non-existence of God or any other deity. Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive ideas, considering that one is scientific and the other is religious; science, I believe, is defined as an attempt to explain natural phenomena, while religion is an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena, both of which we have in plentiful supply. You cannot compare the two; using the old analogy, it's like apples and oranges, they are two separate entities.

Another modicum of evidence for evolution: During the past three thousand years, humanity suddenly got the ability to process the nutrients in milk longer, apparently a result of agriculture and drinking cow's milk long after being weaned.

[TheTaxidermist]

OH LOOK THE easter bunny!!! OMG WARSHIP IT...OMG HATE GAYS because this book says so.

The bible is probably completely different from when the dudes originally wrote it anyway....The priests will have a "It's okay to molest boys" as the commandments in 50 years and everyone will believe it because the mystical dragon in the sky said so.....


See that just shows how naive you are. You think every priest (which I'm NOT a catholic) molests little boys. So I guess anybody who believes in the Bible must molest little boys too. Please, your attacks do little to show your actual intelligence.

Alright, back on topic. Here's a question let's see if evolutionists can answer. Why are humans born with a conscience?

[DKR1138]

You speak of conscience as if its a material object, the human conscience is a weird thing, see a baby doesn't have much of a conscience to right and wrong as it doesn't know better, and I just answered you're question just then... The human counscience is a stage of knowledge, its a dictation of the morals were were tough and learned to abide.

Conscience is knowledge of the morality department.

See we're not born with it, were born with the ability to learn it as any other animal can. I just hate when people think only humans can have a healthy counscience too. **** ive seen footage of monkeys save human babies and then tend to them... You can't just tell me thats a fluke or an act of Repetition in there own Maternal instincts.

So really TheTaxidermist, your question was like asking, WHY are humans born with a brain. Which is kinda stupid if you ask me.

So let me ask you a question TheTaxidermist... were was your conscience when you more than likely as a baby pissed your pants, making your mum clean it up, clearly someone with a moral conscience wouldn't be such a freaking burdon? hahahhaha (answer: it has to be learnt)

[-58]

Actually, urinating at any time when you feel the urge has less to do with a conscience and more to do with learned social politeness.

I'm rather depressed that no one's examined my post; I'm anxious for someone's opinion on it.

[Mad Scientist]

Patience -58, i need to sleep sometimes you know.



That's a scientifically uneducated statement, yes? MadScientist just went over the unprovability of everything, yeah?

As scientifically mature as we are, there are still some inexplicable things - such as where the matter came from in the first place. However, this thread is a debate between evolution and creationism, not the existence or non-existence of God or any other deity. Evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive ideas, considering that one is scientific and the other is religious; science, I believe, is defined as an attempt to explain natural phenomena, while religion is an attempt to explain supernatural phenomena, both of which we have in plentiful supply. You cannot compare the two; using the old analogy, it's like apples and oranges, they are two separate entities.

Another modicum of evidence for evolution: During the past three thousand years, humanity suddenly got the ability to process the nutrients in milk longer, apparently a result of agriculture and drinking cow's milk long after being weaned.


Indeed, i would largly agree with a couple of exceptions. Namely:

1. Although religion and science aim to explain different things, they are NOT equivilent. The difference with religion and science, is that religion is a belief system, whereas science is not. The reason why is that although both make predictions about existance that are internally consistant (well, most of the time), and both ask that the adherants to these systems accept certain "truths", science is not a belief system because it is the only knowledge basis that ACTIVELY DEMANDS that those who follow it question its fundamental tennets. Religion is activly against this. Indeed, the bible says "thou shalt not put your lord to the test" (do not ask me for the exact passage). On the other hand, the greatest results a scientist can hope to find are ones that overturn the current understandings we have of our universe. Thats the kind of thing the nobel prize is awarded for.

2. I am in agreement that the core of spirtuality ( i differentiate this from modern organised religion), and most of science are not in confliction. However, in modern times each of them frequently oversteps their bounds. The role of science is to explain the world around us as we can observe it, and theorise aspects of physical existance that we can infer from observations. The core of spirituality, gives people's lives a personal meaning depending on what they, as an individual, choose to believe in. However, creationism oversteps these bounds by attempting to explain phtysical aspects of reality from a spiritual standpoint. In this sense, spirituality and science are not in conflict, but organised religion and science sometimes are, and creationism and evolution are flat out at each others throats. This all happens when one beginst to explaining things that come under the juristiction of the other. Altough religion is usually to blame (i have yet to hear of scientists imprisoning priests for thier beliefs), it is not always the case, as with the example of Richard Dawkins. Although i may agree with 90% of everything he says, i detest how he says them evangelically, and how he believes that his veiws are automatically scinetifically justified as the only correct ones, when often he walks in areas where science cannot tread.

[DKR1138]

Actually, urinating at any time when you feel the urge has less to do with a conscience and more to do with learned social politeness.

I'm rather depressed that no one's examined my post; I'm anxious for someone's opinion on it.

To be polite, one needs to understand what consitutes it.... ones conscience, learnt morals would determine what is polite and act accordingly, a very young kid, of course doesn't have any set morals, social politeness or any of those things that constitues an aware conscience. Not until that person BUILDs sets of morals, social standards, and so on does a conscience build/form into what it is as a child, teenager and adult... nor will thats persons set conscience stay they same through each period of there life, they'll learn, they'll go through hardships and there conscience will evolve into what everyone hopes to be, being a very logical, thoughtout person.

Conscience is just morality, and that itself is an evolving concept in every person.

So to rebut what you just said, social politeness, is part of ones morals, part of ones conscience. So you just contradicted yourself.

[Jon]

See that just shows how naive you are. You think every priest (which I'm NOT a catholic) molests little boys. So I guess anybody who believes in the Bible must molest little boys too. Please, your attacks do little to show your actual intelligence.

Alright, back on topic. Here's a question let's see if evolutionists can answer. Why are humans born with a conscience?

Intelligence is overrated :P

Okay I am very ignorant about religion but honestly I still like to say what I believe. I don't care to learn about religion so I'll just step out now. :salute:

[TheTaxidermist]

What I meant with by "born with a conscience' is that everyone develops one. Though some may be a little misguided and it may appear that certain people have "no conscience" but they really do. They just ignore it. And I realize that this argument is futile because everybody is just going to believe, whatever the hell they believed in the first place.

[Mad Scientist]

Actually that is not true. A rich frenchman in the 16th century once had the same idea, that morality was inherant in humans, and therfore any humans would develop some kind of moral code, even when raised in isolation form the rest of society. TO test this he (quite dispicably by todays standards) raised two new-born children in complete isolation form the rest of the world for 10 years. When the two children reached the age of ten, he released them to see what would happen. His expectations were that they would be extremly resentfull towards him and his staff, but to others, and two each other they would have a sense of camaradery and would non the less hold some kind of moral precepts.

Instead he got a pair of brutal savages that refused all attempts of education, even by people who later took them off his hands, and showed them nothing but kindness.

Morality is not a function of intellegence, as some people have said. It is a function of what some have termed "extelligence". Extelligence is a some of all the history and culture that one race has, in a way that culminates it into a sort of "make a human being kit". This is why different societies place differnt values on aspects of morality. WHy some cultures find the death sentance a neccisary punishment, others see it as abhorrent. It is the extelligence of a soceity that results in the propagation of fables and stories that encorage childrent to upohold whatever morals that the society supports. In many cases, extelligences have even given birth to complex miths and ledgends that bear similarities and may even be descendants of today's religions.

And as with the other examples i have given, strong extelligences have a better chance of spreading than weaker ones. Extelligence evolves too.

[-58]

The concept of creationism does not preclude the concept of evolution, or any other scientific creation of the world.

Creationism is, quite simply and in its entirety, the belief that the world was created by a supernatural being. Believing in creationism does not mean believing in a six-day creation, or the universe being sneezed out of the nose of some divine being, or any specifics - it simply means that you believe a divine hand is behind the creation.

Evolution, on the same note, doesn't preclude the existence of such a deity - it pretty much states that creatures adapt to new circumstances over time.

Thus, I propose that the debate between evolutionism and creationism is moot, as there is no contention between the two ideas.

[Mad Scientist]

Ah, if you are defining creationism along those lines than there is no confliction. However, for this thread i have often assumed creationism was meant in the traditional orthodox christian sense, at which case science and religion do conflict.

[-58]

Which is a false assumption.

What you're arguing with is literalism. :)

[Mad Scientist]

As i have said in numerous posts in the past, clarity is important. Whether through my misconprhension or otherwise, my points still stand, and i believe upon them we alre largly in agreement.

[-58]

Yes, well . . . I hope I've demonstrated, in previous posts, that "orthodox Christianity" is not the only, or perhaps even most popular, opinion on the other side of the matter.

[Mercer]

Uh, before it bugs the crap out of me and I can't edit my post...I got some of the genus/species names wrong for the hominids i mentioned. I hate myself :haha:

[Kester]

This thread has always been about evolution against god creating all the life forms we see and know. Not that he had a hand in creating the earth.

If it was that, this debate would have never started.

[-58]

But evolution, as a theory, has no basis against God, since it doesn't attempt to explain his part of the thing. I'll say it again: the theory of evolution and the belief of creationism are not mutually exclusive.

[Kester]

Well then stop debating in this thread.

This thread is for the reasons I stated above.

[-58]

Perhaps a better response would be "start a new thread", since the stated purpose of this thread is to debate between evolution and creationism.

[Kester]

Evolution and creationism are two theories about the same thing. You are taking creationism to a different point which isn't covered in this debate. If you want to talk about your ideology start a new thread.

Is that better?

[Jabode]

The key question I always ask about the creationist debate, the one that always is the one point I don't believe that anyone can argue well is if god created us, who created god?

[Kester]

That has nothing to do with this thread either. Creationism, as taken in this thread, relates to how all the animals, that we know, came to be. Did they, as creationism states, always exist in their current forms, as this is the way god created them, or, as evolutionists say, have all the species we know evolved time and time again from common ancestors into what they are now?

Unless you are going to debate that question please start a new thread.

However to answer you question: You are limiting yourself to a human point of view, we only believe things must have a beginning and an end because that is what we observe. Therefore, God, could always have existed and needs no creator.

[-58]

You were warned about the content this thread relates to on multiple occasions. As you continued to take it off topic you have been issued with an infraction and the content of this post has been deleted.

If you wish to debate Jabode's point, start a new thread.

-Kester

[Tesseract]

I don't think I've seen one solid piece of evidence that would lead to thinking creationism would be possible. And let's not get into the whole "look all around you at all the proof, what more proof do you need"
So far as the Christian belief is concerned it is said that god must have faith to exist and to create proof would nullify his existence...But if we researched this topic, and I imagine some have, don't you think we could bring some findings that we could create a plausible course for the possibility of it even being true?
With common spawning patterns, humans cannot come from 1 gene pool and survive. Scientific reasoning yes...but since there isn't any opposing logical reasoning what else is there?

[TheTaxidermist]

I don't think I've seen one solid piece of evidence that would lead to thinking creationism would be possible. And let's not get into the whole "look all around you at all the proof, what more proof do you need"
So far as the Christian belief is concerned it is said that god must have faith to exist and to create proof would nullify his existence...But if we researched this topic, and I imagine some have, don't you think we could bring some findings that we could create a plausible course for the possibility of it even being true?
With common spawning patterns, humans cannot come from 1 gene pool and survive. Scientific reasoning yes...but since there isn't any opposing logical reasoning what else is there?


If you come across a house in the middle of a desert, are you going to assume that it was a result of some chance occurance that it happened to form all by itself? I would think not. That's just the way I look at it. You may not think about it like that, but I sure do.

[Tesseract]

I would think a person built the house. But you are lacking perspective....may I point out the ol' story of the puddle after a rain storm....I'm not yping it again but it's in these forums somewhere.

[Kester]

Construction and biology are two totally different things, you cannot link them through analogies like that.

[Tesseract]

I THINK he was trying to point out the mentality of human perceptions and how it relates to the true acts. Kinda poorly presented though.

[Mad Scientist]

This is a well known argument, often refered to as the design argument, or "Paleys watch". The original argument runs as follows:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

The argument has been repeatedly rubbished and has numerous flaws. To name but 3:

1.In assuming that the watch had a Creator, we are making a comparison with an uncreated object (in the case above a rock). The argument only makes logical sense, if you can examine a created object, with an uncreated object, and can observe a difference in complexity. However, if we are assuming the universe, and indeed life, is a complex heirachy, WITH a creator, in order for this argument to make sense, we must be able to observe other universes, either with or without a creator. As we cannot do this, the argument is null and void. To extend this to the house in a desert analogy that The Taxidermist brought up, we only know that the house had a designer because we have observed the creation of houses (and similar structures) before, and know that they had a designer, hence we can infer that the house has a designer. However, as we have never seen a universe being created, we cannot infer it had a creator, simply because of details within the universe itself. This is a judgment that can only be made with comparison and experience.

2.The design argument poses the analogy, because it assumes the origin of the watch cannot be explained without the presence of a creator. There is no concievable way in which we can explain the presence of a watch (or a house) without invoking a creator. However, in the case of the universe, we CAN concive of proccesses that result in its formation. Through observation and scientific method, we have a very strong set of theories as to how the universe came about. Does this mean God does not exist? Of course it doesn't, but it does wreck the design argument, as the design argument assumes that the ONLY available solution is one involving a creator. If other viable solutions are available then the argument falls apart.

3.The analogy assumes that a complex thing must have been brought about by an even more complex thing (eg a watch by a human). In this case, the argument is self refuting as a reason for the existance of a creator, as if the argument were to be non contradictory, then the even more complex thing can only have been brought about by an greater complex thing. In this sense it is stating that if there is a creator, then that creator MUST ALSO have a creator. Also, as i have demonstraited in my previous post (http://forums.gamernode.com/showpost.php?p=119691&postcount=72) on the issue of complexity, complexity can be created from simplicity. In other words, the argument is totally ripped apart, because if simplicty, CAN give rise to complexity (as i have demonstraited) then the argument is worthless. And even if it can't, then the concept of an un-created god is rubbished by the argument itself.

It really is a POOR argument for proving the exstance of a creator, and therfore some type of creationism. Of course this does not mean that there isn't one, mearly that this argument does nothing to support such a claim.

[Tesseract]

Your previous post seems to almost delve into chaos theory, and fractals. Meaning that staring with simple iterations repeated very complex systems can be formed, showing even more complex patterns.

[Jabode]

That has nothing to do with this thread either. Creationism, as taken in this thread, relates to how all the animals, that we know, came to be. Did they, as creationism states, always exist in their current forms, as this is the way god created them, or, as evolutionists say, have all the species we know evolved time and time again from common ancestors into what they are now?

Unless you are going to debate that question please start a new thread.

However to answer you question: You are limiting yourself to a human point of view, we only believe things must have a beginning and an end because that is what we observe. Therefore, God, could always have existed and needs no creator.
First, I believe that this is vital to the argument. With the idea of creation, you believe that something had to be do the creating. Most theories involving creationism do involve some sort of god figure. Second, while you are a moderator, unless we are veering way off the discussion topic, it really isn't fair to say if my post doesn't have anything to do with the thread. I was approaching an idea that is part of one of the theories and asked the questions that I thought applied. This is debate hall, therefore, I am debating. We don't need to only have input on the broader question if we have questions about the smaller details.

[Kester]

The point I'm trying to get across is that this thread isn't about the creator, but more how the creation happened.

While it is somewhat related, I have to be very strict about keeping threads on their original topic in this forum. For that reason debating of how a creator came to be is out of the scope of this thread and therefore should be in another thread, for instance in this thread: Does God Exist (http://forums.gamernode.com/showthread.php?t=7438)

[Tesseract]

When debating it is important to remember to keep a focus on debating the topic itself and not debating the arguments given. If you are going to address an argument you must roundabout back to the topic at hand before concluding. This way there is a direction to the debate that can remain linear an un-distracted.

With the level of sophistication we have I don't think we are in any sort of position to take any sort of informed opinion about any sort of creator. Now even if there is a god, which I don't believe (at least not a god in what people would think), I do not think this being would decide to make a foolish decision as to create all species in one was and leave them in such a state as to never change. If this were a case, why would we be made mortal? this would mean that since we will never evolve there is no point to expand as a species, and no point to live or die.

[John Clabo]

Construction and biology are two totally different things, you cannot link them through analogies like that.

Actually, I think he did a good job with that analogy. ;)

[Mad Scientist]

In that case, I suggest you read why the desing argument is horribly flawed.

[TheTaxidermist]

Construction and biology are two totally different things, you cannot link them through analogies like that.

Okay let me use one that's a little more towards biology (that was more towards God creating the earth, not humans, but that's a topic for another discussion). You walk into a room and you see a computer sitting there, you turn it on and it functions like a working computer. You have to assume someone built it and that the parts didn't appear by chance and form into a working computer. Now something like a computer that is not even as close to as complex as a brain is supposed to just come up out of nowhere? Does that analogy work better?

With the level of sophistication we have I don't think we are in any sort of position to take any sort of informed opinion about any sort of creator. Now even if there is a god, which I don't believe (at least not a god in what people would think),

On another note, I would just like to ask (just out of curiosity, not to add to the debate) what would be a god different from what people think of it as now? just curious is all

[Kester]

No it doesn't work Tax, we know computers are hand made, we can make them. However, just because you can't comprehend how something is possible doesn't mean it can't just happen by chance.

[John Clabo]

However, just because you can't comprehend how something is possible doesn't mean it can't just happen by chance.



But if that's true, why cant we just assume it was made by God as well? I just don't understand why so many of you believe that the idea that we were all created by God is so far fetched. :rolleyes:

[TheTaxidermist]

No it doesn't work Tax, we know computers are hand made, we can make them. However, just because you can't comprehend how something is possible doesn't mean it can't just happen by chance.
Sure it works. Something as complex as a computer can't just come about by chance and has to be hand made, why would something even more complex come about by chance? That's the point I was making.

[DKR1138]

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' "'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. "Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God. "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

:)

[Tesseract]

Okay let me use one that's a little more towards biology (that was more towards God creating the earth, not humans, but that's a topic for another discussion). You walk into a room and you see a computer sitting there, you turn it on and it functions like a working computer. You have to assume someone built it and that the parts didn't appear by chance and form into a working computer. Now something like a computer that is not even as close to as complex as a brain is supposed to just come up out of nowhere? Does that analogy work better?



On another note, I would just like to ask (just out of curiosity, not to add to the debate) what would be a god different from what people think of it as now? just curious is all

Well in a matter of scale a grand being would appear to be a god to us. Just as we may appear to be a god to ants or fleas. Therefore our world may have been set in motion by a great set of beings that can hold the power to watch over much of everything the way we to to ant farms and such....in that respect we may be the single celled organism to their respective sci's.

[Mad Scientist]

I take it that The taxidermist is not even bothering to TRY and refute my earlier analysis of the design argument, before trotting out more identical scenarios to his earlier analogy.

[DKR1138]

There only interested in their own interest in a sense when it comes to this topic, Creationists will never adopt Evolution as fact, in so doing will continue spouting analogies, and faith as an approach to water the topic down and thin the line. (which is what started to happen before Kester came in for the save).

If they can provide a lick of evidence to support there claim, then we can talk buiness, but they can't because Creationism is faith, and if faith is proven it is lost.

[TheTaxidermist]

There only interested in their own interest in a sense when it comes to this topic

And Evolutionists aren't?

[Mad Scientist]

Not if their true scientists, no.

This is why science is not a belief system in the same way that religion is. Because scientists are ACTIVeLY TRYING TO DISPROVE THEIR OWN THEORYS. It is only the theorys that they cannot disprove that tend to hang around for any length of time. Thats why evolution has a great deal of creadance in the scientific community. All experiment and observation for over a hundred years has yet to disprove it. And there has been a LOT of experimentation in those years. This doesn't prove evolution is right of course, but it gives it a strong grounding in evidense and reality that creationism cannot match, because it is not a predictive theory.

[Tesseract]

Science is like an evolving set of beliefs that changes when new information is found...and new information is always found because it's being looked for. Not so with many religions, making some seem laughable by modern standards.

[TheTaxidermist]

Let's take a look at the giraffe. A normal giraffe is about 18 feet tall. In order to get blood up that neck, against gravity, it needs a powerful pump. A giraffe's heart is usually about 2 1/2 feet long. So it's a pretty powerful pump. Now when a giraffe bends over to get a drink of water, we have a problem. That powerful pump is no longer pumping against gravity, but with gravity. So now when his heart pumps blood, the force from the blood, blows his brains out. So at this point the giraffe is dieing and must be thinking to himself, "boy I need to evolve or I'm going to keep blowing my brains out!" Ah, but he doesn't blow his brains out, because as he bends there are these little "spickets" in his artery that goes up the neck, little valves that close. But the last pump is beyond the last valve, so it's enough to blow his brains out. But it goes underneath the brain into a "sponge" that slowly expands as blood flows into it. Alright so now he looks in the corner of his eye and sees a lion coming to eat him. So this giraffe jumps up and runs and after about five steps, he passes out. Not enough oxygen to the brain. So as the lion is eating him, he must be thinking to himself "i need to evolve somehow, i got this problem where if I get up to fast I pass out." But this doesn't happen. When he brings his head up, the little "spickets" or valves open back up. That sponge under the brain squeezes the last pump of oxygenated blood up into his brain. There are valves in the vein that go down the neck which close. So at this point, his blood pressure is fine and he's able to run away. How would those things evolve? He needs all of those parts, all there, all at the same time, or he's dead. To me this points that a giraffe was "designed".

[Tesseract]

I think you are mis-understanding how evolution is supposed to work. Animals don't decide to evolve. It's a survival thing. Bodies of animals change over time because the ones with certain characteristics are more able to survive and breed, and so these characteristics are carried on to the next generation...and so one...kind of like how pumpkins are bread to be large...

[TheTaxidermist]

The point of what I was saying is, if in order to survive it had to evolve, it would be dead, because a giraffe without any of those traits I talked about, would be dead and not able to reproduce, and thus no giraffes would be around because none would have those traits. It's like saying a warm-climate creature would be able to survive in a cold-climate area if the animals migrated there, because of evolution. The warm-climate creatures would all die off if they attempted to go into the cold-climate.

[Tesseract]

Did you read my post?
As creature evolve the traits become more exaggerated. It's like how if it started out humans were various sizes in early years. but only taller ones could reach the healthier food on trees. eventually humans would all be taller because the taller ones would have more chances to breed and tall people would breed with tall people and make even taller people.

[rtanger]

It's a horridly flawed argument, the giraffe example you give.

It's not like the giraffe woke up one day and had a longer neck, and then needed to evolve a way to deal with the larger heart to pump blood up the longer neck.

Evolution isn't exclusive to one trait at a time,it's a gradual change of the entire system, not just one component.

[TheTaxidermist]

It's a horridly flawed argument, the giraffe example you give.

It's not like the giraffe woke up one day and had a longer neck, and then needed to evolve a way to deal with the larger heart to pump blood up the longer neck.

Evolution isn't exclusive to one trait at a time,it's a gradual change of the entire system, not just one component.

Yeah you're right. It isn't like the giraffe woke up one day and had a longer neck, because it was created that way. And saying that he gained a longer and longer neck over time is false thinking. You can not pass on acquired traits through your genes, such as if you lose an arm. So how would the neck of a giraffe continue to get longer and longer and longer over millions of years, if you cannot pass on acquired traits? In order for a giraffe to have as long of a neck as it does now a previous giraffe would have to have just as long of a neck. Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Tesseract]

Yeah I see you going the wrong way.

a physical loss of a limb doesn't compare with a genetic trait. I have blue eyes just like everyone in my family used to have. that's a genetically passed on trait... If I lose an eye though if I had children they would still have blue eyes.

cutting your arm off is different from evolving.

Also I'm not saying they weren't just born this way but show some evidence....

[TheTaxidermist]

Yeah I see you going the wrong way.

a physical loss of a limb doesn't compare with a genetic trait. I have blue eyes just like everyone in my family used to have. that's a genetically passed on trait... If I lose an eye though if I had children they would still have blue eyes.

cutting your arm off is different from evolving.

Also I'm not saying they weren't just born this way but show some evidence....

But how can you account for these major physical changes such as a much longer neck? And from what I hear some scientists believe giraffe's evolved from something that was much like a horse. Also a lot of people like to view natural selection as a creating force for creating new species. But in all reality natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested.

Here's an illustration as I know you all love apparently. You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control, you make sure the cars work like they are supposed to. You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won't happen.

If you are saying "that's a stupid illustration that's flawed" maybe you need to take a bigger look at theories such as speciation. Yes, even though slight changes may occur in an animal, it is still the original animal! In order for a cat to be born a certain color, there has to be a cat in his bloodline somewhere that was that color. Genes don't just magically appear out of nowhere.

[Tesseract]

you are confusing construction methods versus natural progression for survival.

[John Clabo]

making some seem laughable by modern standards.

But see that's the problem Tess. So many people think that they're too smart for God and/or religion. HOWEVER, I do agree though that some religions out there are so far fetched that it's almost like they're trying to make you laugh.

Where I get upset is when people (like some of the people in this thread) make fun of Christians, making it seem as if their faith is a joke and science is the right way to go no matter what. They act as if they've found facts proving God and Jesus Christ never existed. All they have is theories...and that's all they'll ever be. The big bang theory will remain just that, a theory. I believe in natural selection while I strongly disagree with the idea that we all came from apes and that the planet has been around for billions of years.

Like I've said before, you believe what you believe in, and I believe in Jesus Christ my lord and savior. I doubt this Evolution vs Creation debate is going to change anyone's minds. :salute:


~ John

[Tesseract]

I do find many religious mythologies interesting but there are parts of the Dogma that dictates many religions quite upsettingley out of touch with humanity.

[Quasar]

No it doesn't work Tax, we know computers are hand made, we can make them. However, just because you can't comprehend how something is possible doesn't mean it can't just happen by chance.That's a fair assumption, and one that I once held until I looked at some mathematical numbers. Basically, it boils down to this: if you take the simplest of life forms, which basically contains over 6 billion letters in DNA code, and these letters have to be absolutely in the right sequence, there just isn't enough time in the universe for even one life form to evolve from pure chance. Yes, the possibility exists, but when you consider that there are literally millions of different life forms here on earth, this makes the acceptance of life coming about by chance even more astonishing. So is the other possibility God, a creator? That is a personal decision and thought process, but essentially, the "chance scenario" was what drove me to look into other avenues of explanation regarding the creation of life, and eventually, everything we see here on earth and in the universe.

[Mad Scientist]

Just a question:

and that the planet has been around for billions of years.


If you disagree with this, how can you reconcile with the numerous amounts of evidense to the contrary? For example, radioisotope dating demonstraits that the earth is alot older than the bible takes into account. Its very hard to disagree with radiocarbon dating, as the same partical analysis, and mathmatical theorys also allow us to construct computers. As computers clearly work (as otherwise this particular debate would not be happening), then i don't understand how a person can logically support one axiom of a theory, but not another.

As i said, i'm not trying to convert you or a similar evangelical task, i'm just curious as to how a person can accept one fact, as true, yet not accept a second fact which must also be true in order to support the first.

[John Clabo]

Just a question:



Its very hard to disagree with radiocarbon dating,

Why is it hard to disagree with something made by man though? Nothing we make is perfect, and while I don't understand how a radiocarbon dating system works, I can honestly say it wouldn't be hard to disagree with something that's man made.

[Mad Scientist]

Radioisotope/radicarbon dating is a simple and infallible system of deterimining how old something is. As there are minute traces of radioactive isotopes in eveything, and these isotopes decay into other elements at a known rate, then by knowing the amount now, we can work out how old something is to a reasonable degree of accuracy. It is a common technique used in hundreds of industies and accademic studies today. It also allows us to demonstrait that the universe is at least several million years old. It is based on simple observation, so i find it hard to understand how one can disbelieve the evidense of our own observations, in favour of scriptures that have been shown to contain numerous errors on many occasions.

[John Clabo]

Radioisotope/radicarbon dating is a simple and infallible system


So you are suggesting that a man made system is perfect and cannot be denied as absolute fact?

[jambo]

...so i find it hard to understand how one can disbelieve the evidense of our own observations, in favour of scriptures that have been shown to contain numerous errors on many occasions.
It's called blind faith Mad Scientist.

[DarkFlood]

So you are suggesting that a man made system is perfect and cannot be denied as absolute fact?

And you are suggesting that religion, which is also a man made system, is perfect?

[John Clabo]

And you are suggesting that religion, which is also a man made system, is perfect?

Well I don't believe religion is man made so that solves that argument doesn't it? :P

[DarkFlood]

Religion was created by man. Man wrote the bible, and who knows, maybe the founder of whatever religion just had an idea and everyone seemed to like it. Religion in and of itself is a means of controlling the ignorant masses. And as with scientology, there is definite proof that you don't need a 'god' in order to have a religion for people to follow. Your religion could just be a complete and utter joke and people will still follow it.

Back to the topic, Creationism is just another weak attempt at religion to preserve its distorted 'truth'.

[Tesseract]

So you are suggesting that a man made system is perfect and cannot be denied as absolute fact?

Carbon dating is a man made system. But the aging of something is natural. The carbon dating is simply an observation of this. So as many things in nature, it is almost flawless.

[John Clabo]

Religion was created by man.

Religion in and of itself is a means of controlling the ignorant masses. Back to the topic, Creationism is just another weak attempt at religion to preserve its distorted 'truth'.All of a matter of opinion....

[Tesseract]

It's a correct opinion actually. Every religion believes itself to be correct and thus the differing was the creation myth is put forth is always a distortion of truth to someone in some way...it's all a matter of perspective.

christian and buddists have differing opinions of creation so each must think the other is distorted.

[DarkFlood]

Religion was created by man is true.

Human beings created the bible - It didn't just fall from the skies. And how are you so certain that an angel/god/whatever appeared to people and told them "This is god's will" For all you know it could just be a regular person. But religion distorts everything and twists it to support their cause.

[John Clabo]

Religion was created by man is true.

Human beings created the bible - It didn't just fall from the skies. And how are you so certain that an angel/god/whatever appeared to people and told them "This is god's will" For all you know it could just be a regular person. But religion distorts everything and twists it to support their cause.

Ok well it's an opinion but lets move on. What does Christianity distort or twist in order to support their cause? I believe in everything that's within the King James Bible and I attend a baptist church. What does KJV bible distort or twist to support it's cause? I guess that's where I'm confused.


Also, understand that:

A) These are my opinions and beliefs and not the opinions and/or beliefs of my employees or GamerNode, Inc.

B) This is simply a friendly discussion. I'm not trying to upset anyone here. I enjoy kindly discussing these things on our boards. :)

[DarkFlood]

Well, they have creationism, which they distort with illogical and untrue facts to make it look scientific, then they call it "intelligent design" to make it sound scientific for one. And also, we can't prove or disprove whether or not Jesus's miracles were real or made up, as most history back then was recorded by the church.

And while the miracles may not have existed, Jesus as a person did exist.

[TheTaxidermist]

People who deem the Bible flawed and incoherent have never even picked up the book. If you'd actually read all 66 books of the Bible, the most surprising thing about the book is that all the of the books are coherent and build on one another. All of the Bible has been proven to be chronologically correct and how can you deny the amazing accuracy of prophecies in the Bible coming true and say that they are just "coincidence". I think the ignorant masses you speak of are the ones blindly led to believe evolution is the only viable option for the creation of life and led to believe that no God exists. So you see how opinion affects different views don't you?

And I believe in natural selection, but natural selection is no explanation for how speciation occurs.

[Tesseract]

Speciation?
Chronology isn't proof of anything, nor even applies to debate. What prophesies are accurate to the point of amazing that someone who is subtle and forward thinking couldn't replicate something similar? Also, the bible's coherency is entirely based on the translation accuracy vs. the original intent. And are you saying those that desire to gain knowledge to better understand our world are ignorant. Or that people who accept writings that they know very little of the evolution of(in general) are less ignorant? If, for example, religion isn't corrupt we should start to look at them under a bit more of a microscope? I shall focus on Christianity, as it is the only one I have enough knowledge of to discuss. Why would the writing believed to be Jesus' words not be released by the Vatican, despite having great evidence by many within the high ranks of study in Catholicism believed it to be genuine, and when some spoke out to this effect they mysteriously died? That sounds like self preservation to me. How can anything released after this be taken for the word of god?

[Mad Scientist]

People who deem the Bible flawed and incoherent have never even picked up the book. If you'd actually read all 66 books of the Bible, the most surprising thing about the book is that all the of the books are coherent and build on one another. All of the Bible has been proven to be chronologically correct and how can you deny the amazing accuracy of prophecies in the Bible coming true and say that they are just "coincidence". I think the ignorant masses you speak of are the ones blindly led to believe evolution is the only viable option for the creation of life and led to believe that no God exists. So you see how opinion affects different views don't you?

And I believe in natural selection, but natural selection is no explanation for how speciation occurs.

I HAVE read the bible, considering that before i changed my faith, i used to be a strict Church of England Christian. I even served in my local church. I have seen both sides of the religious divide, and i've made the desicion what i wish to believe in. Indeed it was a bible passage that caused me to question my faith in the first place.

Equally, i given from the number of times that tess and myself have had to correct you about what evolution actually is (leaving aside whether it is true or not), we can also turn the argument around, and say that many people who deny evolution, have not actually read up on what it is.

So you are suggesting that a man made system is perfect and cannot be denied as absolute fact?

What you are saying makes little sense. As Tess has stated, radioactive decay is a natural proccess, that we are merely observing. To claim that this is a man made proccess, is akin to claiming that by measuring the height of a mountain, that mountain becomes man made. In a subsequent post, i may explain the exact workings.

The reason i brought this entire section of the argument up, is that it nicely contrasts the veiws of the different sides of the argument. John here, appears (at least to my impression, so correct me if i'm wrong), to be willing to ignore, or overrule evidense that is collected in the world around us. A scientist on the other hand (providing they were a good one) HAS to accept all available evidense, EVEN if is disporves their own theory that they have been working on for most of their life. Indeed one of the lecturers in crystallography at our university, had that very thing happen only last week.

There is overwhelming evidense that the age of the universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old. There is overwhelming evidense that evolution is occuring. THAT is why these are currently part of scientific theories. Not because of any long standing beliefe, or because scientists lock away anyone who disagrees, but because everything that our senses tell us is pointing in the direction of these theories. Now of course, if new evidense was revealed tommorow, that proved beyond all reasonable doubt that evolution was incorrect, then after a period of peir review, evolution would be conisdered debunked, and thrown on the trash heap of failed theories, along with the flat earth theory, and the "plum pudding" model of the atom. And The best theories of all are the ones that predict things with staggering accuracy, even when we wern't looking for the outcome. To this wit, i would like to tell a little story. It relates to the big bang (which is a closly related topic to creationsim, so kester can put away his "Off topic Ban Stick).

In the 40's and 50's, intriging evidense was surfacing about the origins of the universe. What is intriging is that the scientists weren't actually looking for evidense to do with the origins of the universe. They were simply measuring the speeds and directions that stars and galaxies were moving in. You can do this kind of mesurment yourself if you have a telescope, and understand a bit about geometery. What they found was that, as a general rule, galaxies all appear to be moving away from each other. Whats more, the farther away they were, then the faster they are moving. This is rather unuusall, and not what they were expecting at all. Indeed, the leading theory of the time as to how the universe was here was called the steady state theory. It said that the universe had been around forever, and that matter just drifted in and out of it. However, this evidense proved that this couldent be true. For, if you take a computer (or graph paper and pencil for that matter), and plot in it, all the locations of the galaxies, and the speed and directions they are moving, then you get a simple model of how the universe is expanding. IF you then run this simulation BACKWARDS, then it demonstraits all the galaxies flying towards each other. At some point in the past, all the matter in the univese was in one increadibly hot, dense mass. From this, everything exploded outwards.

Of course we didn't know how that mass got there untill stephen hawking showed that black holes exist. For you see, at the formation of a black hole, matter effectivly dissappears, as the laws of physics undergo boundry condition breakdown (please do not debate this UNLESS you have read up on the subject. In reality it is a bit more complex than this). And whats more Hawking's equations are what we call "Time reversible". In other words, it is perfectly viable to run them backwards and get matter being created out of nothing. In reality it is a little more complex than this, so if you wish to debate this point, then i urge you to read up on it first.

So, we had the evidense that the universe was expanding, and we also had the theories that showed this was possible. At this point, the big bang theory was gaining favour in the scientific community, but it lacked a crucial test. Prediction.

A scientific theory MUST be able to predict things. I must be able to say, "if i hook this bulb up to this battery, then because i understand the theories of electricity, then i predict the bulb will light up". If we carry this out, and the bulb lights, then its a good indication that the theory is correct. If it doesn't then we need to check the equipment, and if repeated experiments don't fit the prediction, then we have to scrap the theory.

With the Big Bang, It was predicted by a physicist that there would be a LOT of radation left over. This is the electromagnetic equivilent of the noise of an explosion. THIS is a prediction we could test. Indeed, the predictions even gave a range of frequencies that we would expect this radiation to be at.

And then, something quite remarkable happened. A pair of scientists named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were designing microwave anntennas (as in anntennas that recieve microwave length electromagnetic radiation) at Bell laboratories in New Jersey. There researching had nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang. This is what happened.

In 1964, on building their most sensitive antenna/receiver system, the pair encountered radio noise which they could not explain. It was more energetic than the radiation given off by the Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way), and it was isotropic (meaning it comes from every direction you can point the anntena at) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic), so they assumed their instrument was subject to interference by terrestrial sources. They tried, and then rejected, the hypothesis that the radio noise emanated from New York City (otherwise it would be weaker if they pointed the anntenna away from NY, which it wasn't). An examination of the microwave horn antenna showed it was full of pigeon droppings (which Penzias described as "white dielectric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric) material"). After the pair removed the guano buildup, and the pigeons were shot (each physicist says the other ordered the deed), the noise remained. Having rejected all sources of interference, the pair published a paper announcing their findings.

This was taken from wikipedia, because i couldn't be bothered to type out the whole thing from my physics text book. If you doubt the validity of this, look it up.

The two had no Clue what they had just found. Indeed, only after rigorous testing, did they assume the phenomena was not due to faulty equipment. What they had found was this cosmic microwave background radiation, that the big bang theory had predicted. We know it is, because the frequency they measured corresponded to the frequency predicted by the theories. This was a fantastic find, mainly because of HOW it was found: because they were not looking for it. If a scientist is looking for a specific phenomena, then a bad scientist, may make mistakes, and then ignore small amounts of contrary evidense if they want to prove their own pet theory. Hoever, if a phenomena is found by people who have no intrest in proving a theory right or wrong, then we can be sure there were no errors. Especialy because this observation was repeated time and time again, and the validty of it was only accepted once the other options had been eliminated. This was a defining moment in cosmology, when both theory and observation lined up perfectly, and independant of one another. This remains one of the strongest peices of evidense for the big bang hypothesis, as after being kicked around for 42 years, nobody has been able to disprove it.

That is why i tend to dislike creationism. It makes no predictions, it seeks no proof, it corroborates no evidence and it accepts no critisicm. If it made testable predictions about phenomena we have yet to observe, AND THEN WE INDEPENDANTLY OBSERVE THOSE PHENOMENA. Then, and only then, would creationism have logical credibility. Untill then, it is EVERY BIT as likly as the creed of the church of the flying spagetti monster.

[TheTaxidermist]

I do know what evolution is, but you always seem to misunderstand my point. And tess, please read what I posted in the "Bible - infallible" thread about the Isaiah prophecy:

All I have to do is look at the prophecies in the Bible to believe what it says. I'll cite one example. Isaiah wrote finished his book in 732 BCE. The first 6 chapters of his book dealt with the judgement of Judah and about how they bowed down to "valueless Gods" or idols. It wasn't enough for Isaiah to fortell being led into their captor's hand, but he also fortold of salvation and release from captivity by Babylon. As we read in Isiah 44: 26 - 45:1:
"who confirms the word of his servant, and fullfills the prediction of his messengers, who says of Jerusalemn, "It shall be inhabited," and the cities of Judah, "They shall be rebuilt, and I will raise up their ruins." who says to the deep, "Be dry... I will dry up your rivers." who says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd, and he shall carry out all my purpose", and who says of Jerusalem, "It shall be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid." Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him, and the gates shall not be closed."

Here's how the actual destruction of Babylon went down. Cyrus dried up the river Euphrates to allow for crossing in the shallow waters of the once mighty Euphrates. Low and behold, the Medes and Persians get across and the gates to the city have been left open! This was in 537 BCE, nearly 200 years after Isaiah penned those words. Not only did he prophecy the name of the ruler that would take Babylon (Cyrus), but it also revealed how Cyrus would go about getting into the gates of Babylon. These kinds of prophecies are enough for me to view the Bible as infallible. How can someone who is just "forward-thinking" come up with this kind of prophecy in that great of detail? Please explain that to me.

And with me saying people who believe in evolution were ignorant, I was merely using your point, seeing as for some reason you think i'm a part of the ignorant masses that blindy follow the Bible (those of who I know and understand claim to follow the Bible but are anything but devout Christians). I have studied the Bible in and out and I am not blindly and ignorantly following what some religion is telling me.

And you still have yet to explain where speciation comes from? How do new species arive out of nowhere? And sorry, natural selection does nothing to prove your point on speciation.

[Tesseract]

That is pretty weak and general. Would you have been convinced if someone predicted that there would be a world war 2 and england would be attacked from overseas.....WELL OF COURSE IT WOULD! THAT"S THE ONLY LOGICAL WAY IT COULD HAPPEN!
I don't feel this proves the bible to be remotely true. I also don't think this does anything to support creationism. you can take snip its of a huge book anywhere and make it seem like it predicted something way in advance.

[TheTaxidermist]

How is that the same??? Not only did he describe in exact detail what would happen, but he named the person who would do it, Cyrus! Someone who wasn't even alive at the time! If someone in the year 1800 predicted that Hitler would attack Britain using airplanes and would use a blitzkrieg tactic to conquer Europe, I guess that wouldn't mean anything to you. Because it's so easy to predict things like that.

[Mad Scientist]

I would also like to point out that the bible has been edited numerous times (as gnohstic gospels and the dead sea scrolls prove). It is fully within reason that during one such editation, an over-zealous priest would decide to make minor editations to update things a little. Even if that is the case, the events are somewhat general in description. Where does it say, that BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, that this is a description of the fall of babylon? There are some intriging components, but non that are beyond the scenario i have laid out above. As for your earlier post:

I do know what evolution is,

I would be most gratefull if you could elucidate to us what you think evolution actually is. As you have claimed that it cannot explain divergence in spieces (which it does quite handily), there is likly some part of it you either have missed or do not know of.

[Tesseract]

Yet again I must re-iterate that even if true doesn't mean creationism is correct.

That name could have been placed in in a later translation, in fact this is likely. I would also like to point out the name was gained through heredity....so it's very predictable. and mentioning key points of a battle doesn't mean that it is exactly predicted. Davinci also designed planes and flight devices based on sound principals way before 1800's...so things such as this are predictable to a certain degree with some aspects ending up being accurate.

[TheTaxidermist]

yes, the idea of natural selection can explain variation within species, but your ideals of evolution can not explain why new species supposedly arrive. And how do I know it was talking about Babylon? Simple, right before that it discussed the Jews returning to their homeland, and what other place that Cyrus decimate that would fit the description of that prophecy. Not only that, but Daniel makes reference to the prophecy, since he had the hope that Isaiah's prophecy WOULD be fulfilled and that the Jews would return to their homeland and rebuild the temple, which is another thing that was predicted in Isaiah.

[Tesseract]

That hurt your own point though. If this prophesy was known, wouldn't it be likely that they decided to use this prophesy as their plan of entry...?
Maybe I missed something though.

[Mad Scientist]

yes, the idea of natural selection can explain variation within species, but your ideals of evolution can not explain why new species supposedly arrive.

You are totally and utterly incorrect, which is why i would like to know precisly what you mean when we talk of evolution. Indeed, the original work by darwin is entitled The origin of the species by means of natural selection. This is one of the oldest questions that evolution has answered.

So i ask again, kindly explain what YOU understand when you hear the word evolution.

[John Clabo]

That is pretty weak and general. Would you have been convinced if someone predicted that there would be a world war 2 and england would be attacked from overseas.....WELL OF COURSE IT WOULD! THAT"S THE ONLY LOGICAL WAY IT COULD HAPPEN!



Bad example Tess. :P

[Tesseract]

Why is that? It was the only example I could think of at the time though.

[DarkFlood]

And it is simple and straightforward.

Clarity FTW.:tongue:

[Quasar]

Radioisotope/radicarbon dating is a simple and infallible system of deterimining how old something is. As there are minute traces of radioactive isotopes in eveything, and these isotopes decay into other elements at a known rate, then by knowing the amount now, we can work out how old something is to a reasonable degree of accuracy.Actually, carbon 14 dating is not bullet proof according to real life tests of the process. The first problem concerns the assumption that the C-14 isotope has been in a constant and steady supply since the formation of the earth. Although all living creatures have C-14 in them, conditions for the formation of C-14 have constantly changed, and no once can prove that C14 has always been stable. C-14 can be produced with a simple a method as having fast neutrons reacting with oxygen atoms found in ice.

Carbon dating tests conducted on living snails and old bones no older than a few years indicated that they were millions of years old. All I am saying here is that while the argument against faith usually ends up in a blanket rejection of the entire belief system as unscientific and a case of blind faith, scientific research and processes also begin to take on the form of blind faith as well, without really delving into the real facts behind how certain scientific procedures work.

If such a simple process as C-14 dating can be distorted into being complete fact, what of the theories of evolution and other related topics? I am not against science, because I am fascinated by many of its branches, but I also realize that the dividing line between science and faith are often blurred. Sometimes the only distinction is that one believes in the personality of God, while another believes in a faceless science as their 'god."

[Tesseract]

Isochron dating trumps your carbon dating (carbon dating isn't used for anything over 50,000 year actually. That is why it isn't used when talks of evolution are going on...

LINK (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html)

[TheTaxidermist]

According to the theory of evolution, all contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus, according to Evolutionists, the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth

The thing is, evolutionists try to use natural selection to prove that different species evolved to become new species through natural selection. The whole idea behind the argument FOR evolution, is that evolution caused the variation in species.

[DKR1138]

No natural selection just determines the life on earth, by how these creatures battled it out and what was left over, SEPERATE from Evolution, dammit.

Evolution is the slow change in creatures that occurs based on need. The best example of an evolution state that is occuring now Taxidermist can be found no further than from our own bodies... the Human populations increase in fatty foods in our diets is slowly changing our makeup on how the body tolerates it, in a century or so, the body will tolerate these fats differently, more than likely people will stop getting fat from it entirely.

That is evolution, its a system of the organism adjusting to needs or current overly done actions, which the body has to adjust to through the generation leaps of continued action.

So say if everyone stopped eating junk food tommorow, you'll find that everyone would be healthier, energy rates higher and the bodies need to adjust to junk food would be no more, which might interupt or even sease the bodies need to adjust (evolve) to those conditions.

Get it yet? its not theory, its happening.

[Mad Scientist]

Isochron dating trumps your carbon dating (carbon dating isn't used for anything over 50,000 year actually. That is why it isn't used when talks of evolution are going on...

LINK (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html)

True, but i didn't want to overcomplicate matters, and thats also why i mentioned radioisotope (i believe uranianium/lead ratios are fairly usefull for geological era timescales) dating, as opposed to just radiocarbon. Either way, radiocarbon dating DOES prove that the earth is older than the biblical value, which i believe is given at somewhere near 6000 years.

Sometimes the only distinction is that one believes in the personality of God, while another believes in a faceless science as their 'god.

You raise interesting questions, but as for defining science as a beliefe system? PLEASE read some of my earlier posts.

The whole idea behind the argument FOR evolution, is that evolution caused the variation in species.

Incorrect. The whole argument FOR evolution is based on the wealth of evidense that has been gathered to support it. It is the theory itself that explains the diversety between species.

[Tesseract]

At any rate the age of any formerly living object CAN be observed.

[TheTaxidermist]

No natural selection just determines the life on earth, by how these creatures battled it out and what was left over, SEPERATE from Evolution, dammit.

Evolution is the slow change in creatures that occurs based on need. The best example of an evolution state that is occuring now Taxidermist can be found no further than from our own bodies... the Human populations increase in fatty foods in our diets is slowly changing our makeup on how the body tolerates it, in a century or so, the body will tolerate these fats differently, more than likely people will stop getting fat from it entirely.

That is evolution, its a system of the organism adjusting to needs or current overly done actions, which the body has to adjust to through the generation leaps of continued action.

So say if everyone stopped eating junk food tommorow, you'll find that everyone would be healthier, energy rates higher and the bodies need to adjust to junk food would be no more, which might interupt or even sease the bodies need to adjust (evolve) to those conditions.

Get it yet? its not theory, its happening.

Please explain how evolution is responsible for the birth of life. After all, that's the argument this thread is trying to prove.

[DKR1138]

Mad Scientist can probably explain this better, but life is created from complete mixures and conditions of substances (mostly carbon) and after who knows long spawn microrganisms... this on earth occurs not just in one place, but multiple places, these microrganisms thrive, and evolve, as the become more complex species start to evolve out of need of the organisms based on there habitat... and Evolution beings.

Life can start without life, it just takes time, good conditions and the right substances.

[Mad Scientist]

That is pretty much correct.

Firstly you need some chemicals. Very simple ones called amino acids to be precise. Amino acids are organic molecules that can easily form in conditions prevalent both today, and millions of years ago. The only elements you need to form them are carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (from water), and nitrogen (from the atmosphere). Yiou also need a handfull of trace elements, but these are present in rocks and the air in the quanitities required.

Now, if you put amino acids together under the right conditions, you get an interesting effect happening. You get a polymerisation reaction. This is a reaction, where an acid will attach to another acid, and another acid will attach to that, several hundred thousand times to make a long chain of acid compounds. This is exactly the same kind of reaction that we use to make plastics today, such as nylon. Its a VERY rapid reaction, and once it gets started, it pretty much runs by itself. We can test this easily.

This chain of acids is a protien, and protiens are the (although i hate to be cliche and use this phrase) the building blocks of life. Think of them as like lego bricks that can only fit together in a certain way, defined by their structure (which is inturn defined by what acides they are composed of).

Now, imagine i have a giant tumbledryer filled with lego bricks. If i turn it on for a while, then it is likly i will have found a couple have lego bricks will have stuck together. If i run it for longer, then i will likly find that even more have been stuck together. Protiens are very similar, in that they are thermodynamically and entropically more stable when stuck together. As a result, if you have a variety of protiens, then it is a natrual consequence that you will get structures forming in them.

Many of these structures will have little purpose, but there are trillions of protiens to keep recombining. If you wait for long enough, you WILL get something interesting forming. What do you need to get? all you need is an arangment of protiens and other chemicals, that can make more protiens from natural elements. After that, life is inevitable, because you have created what is effectivly a self replicating structure. Once this structure is off and going, you have all the neccisary fundaments for evolution, namely:

1. The system MUST be capable of self reproduction.
2. The reproductions must have some hereditory mechanism, namely that the reproduced system will be similar to the original
3. However, The reproduction MUST NOT BE A PERFECT COPY, and must experience slight, randomised changes with each reproduction.
4. Characteristics affected by this hereditary/imperfect reproduction must affect the systems ability to reproduce in relationship to the enviroment the system is placed in.

As a result, evolution kicks in, and you get ever more complex structures with each successive iteration, untill you end up with primitive microbes. Once you get to microbes a human is only a few billion generations down the line.

[Tesseract]

Bingo. Many people believe that because our planet just so happens to have the perfect balance of all the traits needed for these initial steps of creating life nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and the amazingly simple hydrogen. when combined with the balance of minerals found in earths soil can lead to why life sprang up so very quick from it's initial beginnings. Everything to create life was right at hand.

[Mad Scientist]

Very true, and not only that, but pre-supposing that carbon, or even electrochemical based life is the only form that can exist is another common mistake. There are some intriging results coming i have seen that it may be possible to base an organic system on sulpher and acid, rather than carbon and water. This is an extension of the anthropic principle in a manner of speaking. For example:

Suppose i have a greenhouse, that has tomatoes growing in it. The theistreasoning would be, "As tomatoes grow in the greenhouse, the greenhouse must have been set up for growing tomatoes". However, another way of looking at it is to say i have a greenhouse with conditions that happen to be right for growing tomatoes in it, therefore it is no miricle that we would expect to find tomatoes there. If the conditions were NOT right for growing tomatoes, we would find something else growing there (runner beans, for instance). Of course this is analogy is accurate ONLY IN SO FAR AS DESCRIBING CONDITION AND EFFECT. Nothing more.

[TheTaxidermist]

you do realize that for all the amino acids and proteins to come together perfectly is a 1 to 10^60 . That's 1... with 60 zeros after it. 1-to-10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000

Scientists have stated that anything above a 1 to 10^50 is a mathematical impossibility. That's just for all the amino acids to come together, that's not including the probability of actually having all of the right conditions for it to actual form something that could create life. You like to use the illustration of legos in a dryer. I like to use the illustration of it having the same probability as putting all the pieces of a watch in a bag, shaking the bag, and coming out with a watch. And now the people who believe the Bible rely on faith more than scientists? And that's where I'm gonna leave this discussion. I've made my points, you've made yours. I'm not changing what you're going to think (not that I'm really trying to, I'm just trying to put out a counter-argument), and you aren't gonna change yours, and I respect that. Good day gentlemen.

[Tesseract]

Where did you get these stats?

[TheTaxidermist]

I wasn't going to comment anymore on this, but since you asked where I got my sources, I thought I'd be nice enough to post it http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html

and

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bube.html

[rtanger]

Our universe is impossibly large, allowing many opportunities for impossibly improbable things to happen, several times, in multiple areas comepletely isolated from one another. To what extent a certain outcome is "impossible" depends on the size of the sample and an assumption of time to find all possible outcomes.

The analogy as it stands seems to suggest that there's one watch in one bag- our earth in our solar system. You may not throw a watch into a bag and get a whole watch, but throw 1 million watches one million times into one million large bags, and suddenly you have a series of outcomes so large, that all of them cannot be observed.

If you open one bag, and find none of the parts have connected, you cannot simply assume that all one million other bags are empty of complete watches as well.

And your sources aren't holding much perspecacity for me. The first one has your claim, along with a valid refutation in the footnote, (I'm not saying that one or the other is right, but the first article is self-refuting) and the second argues a lack of mathematical proofs with philosophical quandries.

Something I'm not sure has come up in this thread, but I'm curious-
Has there been much discussion on Creation Science- using scientific method and theory to prove creation?

There seems a logical disconnect in that field, one that could very well hurt religion more than help it.

[Tesseract]

Your second link basically says your first link is a load of crap though....?
Why don't you want to participate any longer. I wish you wouldn't stop I enjoy your counterpoints.

[Mad Scientist]

Ho Ho, taxidermist i chuckle at that. Its one of the oldest and most easily rubbished arguments in the book. Many creationists have stated this statistic, likening it to a whirlwind passing through a airplane factory, and randomly assembling a 747. Indeed, this analogy would be true save one excruciatingly important fact that they neglect to take into acount. Construction of these complex structures is iterative and progressive.

Imagine a crystal of common table salt. If we have 55.5 grams of salt then (thanks to the avagadro constant) we have around 12x10^23 individual atoms. The chances that each and every single one of those atoms will manage to find its way to the lattice sites of the two interpenetrating face centered cubic matrices is astronomical (cyrstalography is a subject i find immensly intresting at my university). Yet, we know salt crystals exist. The reason why is because the salt crystal doesn't need each and every single atom to be put in place at the same time. Salt crystals grow, atom-by-atom as each ion vibrates itself into the right position at a frequency of billions, if not trillions of cycles per second.

The same goes for amino acids and protiens. They grow over time, with each next acid slotting into the chain, one after the other. They don't need to be all forced together at once.

[Tesseract]

Can anyone say snowball effect?

[DarkFlood]

I think The Taxidermist is leaving the argument because all of his points on evolution and creationism have been quite easily struck down. Sure there is a tiny chance that things happen, but it happens over time, iteratively, as Mad Scientist said. We also have to take into account that the earth is like an atom of an atom when comparing it to the rest of the universe. There are stars that are over 100,000 times the size of our own. Not to mention well over 10,000 galaxies were found by the hubble telescope recently in a rather small viewing area.

So even though the chances you pointed out are small, we have a HUGE amount of testing ground.. It is like holding a worldwide lottery.. The chances to win it are low, but someone, somewhere will definately win.

[John Clabo]

Guys lets keep this mature and friendly. I dont want to see any jabs at one another.



As I've said before, it all falls upon faith. Scientist believe that their testing methods are correct...they have faith in their methods.

Christians believe the word of God, thats their (our) faith.

[rtanger]

What about using science to test faith?

Where do you stand on that?
My intent isn't inciteful, I'm truly curious.

[DKR1138]

Science isn't faith, because scientists disprove there own theory when either they find out more facts or a better theory with better evidence comes along, Science evolves and it theories become more infallible the more there tested.

Faith can neither be proven or by nature be second guessed and re-written (but that doesn't stop re-iterations being done to the bible ehhh)...

I feel like were going in circles here with the creationists, this point was already brought up and made pages ago.

[Mad Scientist]

Indeed, DKR1138 has reiterated what i have mentioned all along, (however i wouldn't use the word faith, as it encompasses more than merely religion). In my time on both sides of the religious divide, i have observed there are fundamental differences between science and religion. The main one is how a theist and a scientist answer questions about how they understand the world. For example, were i to ask a theist (a christian for example) a question about their beleifs, eg: why should we forgive those who wrong us, or why does suffering occur (i claim no answer to these questions either way), you will get one of two answers

1. An answer based on religious teachings.

2. We don't know, and we probably never will (often spoken as "God works in mysterious ways").

If you ask them to justify an answer you get (Why do you believe that?) there answer may come in a variety of formats but it boils down to roughly the same answer: Because God/Jesus/The bible says it is. Here we have the crux of the matter, for you see, religion is individual in origin. It requires an Individual to have beleif in something that cannot be factually verified. Something that theologists and philosophers term "Special revalation". A biblical example of this is the conversion of saul/paul (i beleive that is his name) on the road to Demascus. One man, had an individual revalation that he should beleive in a God. However, that revalation was individual, and as a result, cannot be accepted as general to everyone. It is a one off experience personal to him. All theists have this revelation. It may not be as dramatic to them, but non the less, there comes a point when they realise "there must be a God!" in a way that only they can understand.


Science is different in that it focuses on general truths. If i were to ask a scientist a question about his beliefs, (eg, why do you think the earth is billions of years old, or why do you think superstring theory is correct/incorrect), you will once again get two answers

1.An answer based on based on current scientific theories

2. We don't know yet, but we're working on it.

Already you have a small difference in that science does not accept there are unaswerable questions, however, this is a small difference compared to the other one. On the outset, answer 1 looks much the same as as the theist position, howere when you ask a scientist to justify this anwser, we get a very different story.

When you ask a scientist to justify an answer, he will probably point out an experiment, that was carried out, and the theories on how we know we can trust that experiment. When you ask to justify these these theories, you get more experimental observations and more theories. You keep on asking these questions untill you get right down to the heart of scientific observation. And at this heart are the simplest an most basic observations, that anyone can make with their own eyes, ears, noses, tongues and hands. Things like "water flows down hill", "a dropped object falls to the ground", "the sky is blue", "sunshine and showers gives you a rainbow" etc. These are the simplest observations of all, that nobody seems to disagree with. THAT is why science works on "general revalation". Its observations require no personalised epiphany. They are universal because anyone with working sense, no matter where they come from, or what they believe can make them. They are general.

Indeed, this is why many theists who disagree with evolution, and other issues, still attempt to prove science wrong with more science. Because science is general for everyone. Because it doesn't matter who you are, YOU can have the justification behind a scientific theory explained to you right down to the point where you can prove the basic tennets of it yourself. You can't do that with religion, because it requires that special revelation. Without that revelation religion seems like little more a collection of rituals held together by mysticism.

Science is in a way like a giant pyramid, with it's blocks as theories/observation, and its mortar as mathematics. Each block is supported by many others below it, going right down to the foundations of simple observations. If you wish to claim that one block is false (reguardless of whether it is supposedly "man made" or not), you need to yank that block out, something thats hard to do near the bottom, as all the other blocks are pressing down upon it, and locking it in place. At the top, things are rather shifty, and the mortar hasn't set yet, this is why scientists rarely try to defend things like superstring theory to the death. However evolution is pretty far down the pyramid. Its supported by many blocks below, and held in by the many blocks above. You may be able to yank it out, but only if you've built a lot more blocks to take its place, something that seems unlikly at the moment. And in this case, theres a LOT of weight holding it down. Science has come along way since the first ancient greeks hit upon the idea of basing theories on what they can actually see, rather than what they can't (indeed, this idea has persisted alot longer than their religions). Over the course of recorded history exabytes of data has been gathered on the universe around us. Millions of trillions of numbers and facts have been gathered down and woven into this great artifice. A person may claim that it is man made, hence, it is fallible, however if they do they are missing the point. OF course its fallible. The pyramid may collapes at any point. Equally, they may get hit by a metorite tommorow. Claiming a theory MIGHT be wrong with little or no evidense is a pathetic debunking attempt indeed. One might as well decline from crossing roads because you may get hit by a car. We have to take risks, sometimes.Indeed, the fact that I, a humble student, can travel faster than 80mph, can fly to distant parts of the world, can instantaniously communicate with practically anyone i choose to (assuming they want to talk too), that i have a life expectancy just under 4 times what my early ancsetors had, that Iown a machine that stores the equivilent of two fair sized libaries worth of information, as well as can proccess millions of numbers a second, Showsthat the risks are worth tremendous rewards. As time goes by, science gets reinforced by more observation and stronger mathmatics. Sometimes, a crumbling brick has to be mericlessly torn out, and replaced with something stronger, and occasionally (indeed, VERY occasionaly now a days), we have to knock down a big chunk of the pyramid and rebuild the lot. However, ALWAYS, observation is key. Every block must be kicked around the peer reveiw circuit for about 20 years and have all those observations varified before it gets put down in text books.

By contrast, creationism would be a pyramid, not supported by foundations of observation, but by a single, magically levitating block.

I will NOT tell people what to beleive. At the end of the day, a scientist could trot out every observation, and logical reasoning in the world, and then someone could just refuse to accept them and claim the world runs on magic. However, i get rather annoyed when people say that science and religion are different aspects of the same thing. Science and philosophy, maybe, but not religion.

[Quasar]

Indeed, DKR1138 has reiterated what i have mentioned all along, (however i wouldn't use the word faith, as it encompasses more than merely religion). In my time on both sides of the religious divide, i have observed there are fundamental differences between science and religion. The main one is how a theist and a scientist answer questions about how they understand the world. For example, were i to ask a theist (a christian for example) a question about their beleifs, eg: why should we forgive those who wrong us, or why does suffering occur (i claim no answer to these questions either way), you will get one of two answers

1. An answer based on religious teachings.

2. We don't know, and we probably never will (often spoken as "God works in mysterious ways")....

Science is different in that it focuses on general truths. If i were to ask a scientist a question about his beliefs, (eg, why do you think the earth is billions of years old, or why do you think superstring theory is correct/incorrect), you will once again get two answers

I will NOT tell people what to beleive. At the end of the day, a scientist could trot out every observation, and logical reasoning in the world, and then someone could just refuse to accept them and claim the world runs on magic. However, i get rather annoyed when people say that science and religion are different aspects of the same thing. Science and philosophy, maybe, but not religion.It's odd, actually, because where you have been on both sides of the "religious divide," as you put it, I can identify somewhat with what you are saying, but with some decidedly different conclusions that you have made as far as how a scientist and a person of faith sees the world. In the case of Christians, not everyone who claims to be one is one, just as people who proclaim to know about scientific theories and facts often do not possess all the elements of facts and truth associated with the various topics of science.

People who hold science in high regard repeatedly make general assertions such as "The bible is full of errors," or "There is no God." When asked for specific examples, it usually breaks down into generalizations so far from the real truth that they are as guilty as those who proclaim a faith in God are.

You have mentioned that science focuses on general truths. And if I may extend your thoughts, you take this to mean the general truths related to the laws of the physical universe. In the same way, the belief system of those who believe in God, specifically those of the Christian faith, (excluding the pulpit pounders and phony evangelists, of course), believe that the bible proclaims the general truths as it relates to the spiritual world. So, you can instantly see that the two belief systems---science and the spiritual world, are at odds with one another. If you believe in science, you believe that everything we see is explainable by the physical laws of nature, while those who believe in God, believes that everything physical was made and created by the spiritual, and not the other way around.

One way to get around this seemingly contradictory set of circumstances is to do what you have avoided--meld the two systems into a synergenic relationship. As odd as it may seem today in associating scientific pursuits with faith, this was quite the norm in the early days of science. Greats such as Newton, Galileo, and others saw their discoveries as a blueprint for order in the universe, and as an indirect way to know the mind of God. Even present day scientists such as George Smoot, who headed the COBE project to find the background noise from the Big Bang asserted that discovering the radiation was like "looking into the face of God." Einstein's often quoted words as to his believe that quantum mechanics couldn't possibly exist because, "God does not play dice with the universe," has been a touchstone for people who also believe that the order of the universe is a direct link to intelligent design.

Speaking personally, as a great fan of science and many of its branches, I know that there will always be contradictions and problems associated with trying to understand the universe with a scientific approach and with the eye of faith. But take this into consideration. If we are all surrounded by discoveries which continue to point to intelligent design, we can draw two conclusions: it was merely a happenstance of pure chance, or something else. That something else, some would say God, while others, especially in the scientific community, will say, "We don't know, but it isn't God."

Scientific method dictates that in order to prove a theory correct, one must be able to set up experiments which can prove or disprove the subject at hand. If science tries to prove the existence of God, just how would such an experiment be conducted? You see how something like this can be a can of worms. The premise of science is that everything is explainable by natural laws. There is no room for spiritual content because it is assumed that there is no such thing, at least for today's scientist.

So what we are left with is a personal decision and revelation about our acceptance of the spiritual world as being a viable force in the universe. How can this be proven? People who believe in the spiritual world have to utilize a spiritual quality named faith. This substance has no physical attributes, nor does it have mass or measurable volume. But just because something cannot be seen, does not mean it does not exist. We cannot see gravity waves. We cannot see the nuclear force in subatomic structures. We cannot see quarks. What we can see is the effects these forces have in the physical world. We see objects stick to the earth through gravity. We see the vapor trails of subatomic particles as they annihilate one another in cloud chambers. So even though we cannot actually see these physical things, we see the results of what they can do. In the same way, while we cannot necessarily see the spiritual world, (God, heaven, hell, demons, sin, forgiveness, love, the afterlife), we can still see the results of these things by people who have substantiated the happenings of miracles, answered prayers, changed lives, and personal communication with God.

Basically, it boils down to how much we actually know about everything. If we, as humans, only know at best, 1% of everything there is to know in the universe, we are short the other 99%. And in that 99% which we are not attuned too, the possibility exists that God is in that portion of knowledge we do not have.

[MarineXGEN]

I am religious but I also believe that we HAVE evolved over time.

i'm a firm believer in evolution guided by a "higher power". i like to believe that humans didn't come into existance through totally random cell mutation millions of years ago.

QTF.

[John Clabo]

I am religious but I also believe that we HAVE evolved over time.



QTF.

I believe in natural selection personally as well.

[DKR1138]

But likes like having your cake and eating it too... if you were a devout Christian what you guys are speaking here is blasphemous and anti-Christian. IMO you really can't have it both ways because Science presents facts over and over that disproves your bibles teachings, but thats just me.

If you were really faithful in the word, Science fact wouldn't be adopted over your religious faith. But it is. Doesn't that tell you something about which is the more plausable.

[John Clabo]

But likes like having your cake and eating it too... if you were a devout Christian what you guys are speaking here is blasphemous and anti-Christian. IMO you really can't have it both ways because Science presents facts over and over that disproves your bibles teachings, but thats just me.

If you were really faithful in the word, Science fact wouldn't be adopted over your religious faith. But it is. Doesn't that tell you something about which is the more plausable.

If this was directed towards me, where does the Bible say that natural selection is a sin? Where does it say that science studies are sinful? Just curious....

I don't have a single issue with science. I don't agree with it all, but I don't believe it's the work of Satan. Some scientist even believe in Christ and all that good stuff believe it or not. :happy:

[DKR1138]

Its doesn't but it does tell you how things were created, and to disagree with it, makes the very book you believe in fallible, to disprove gods word is to undo the infinite, and I haven't seen that happen yet, thus negating his existence right?

[Tesseract]

How very Douglas Adams of you DKR.
Certain things about science is very hard for Religious mythology followers to argue because it seems to have all bases covered, and where it doesn't there is a second method that in tandem would help support the theory. I think it's time many religions accept their past possible faults and acknowledge that flaws in them are human flaws. They can still have their belief, but they must evolve it around what seems pretty obvious to be the result of either miscommunication, or human error. using humans as the messengers for religion causes human errors and to admit this SHOULDN'T destroy a faith. maybe science could have a place in religion...but it seems religion seems to be afraid to cast research into it's origins and theories, which can be taken as a sign as an inability to cope with reality and to allow yourself to be wrong in the name of ones own faith.

[John Clabo]

Its doesn't but it does tell you how things were created, and to disagree with it, makes the very book you believe in fallible, to disprove gods word is to undo the infinite, and I haven't seen that happen yet, thus negating his existence right?


Ok...where did I say I agreed with the big bang theory? I still don't see where I agreed with anything that the bible goes against. I believe in natural selection amongst many other things, but natural selection obviously doesn't contradict the bible and it's messages.


EDIT: And Tess, that's the best post I've seen you make in this thread ...fyi. ;)

[DKR1138]

Im just going to put it out there, but you did say were does it say science is sinful and such... well no it doesn't directly say it, but science does contradict the bibles told of events, and isn't that itself a sin, to contradict the bibles happenings. Just sayin.

What Tess is saying is correct, but im saying the above for the arguements sake, with two firm and very different sides.

[Mad Scientist]

@John: Remember what i was saying about Science being like a pyramid? Its not a pick and mix bag you know. If you agree that science is correct about the explanations of SOME things, then you likewise must also accept the inferrals of those things. If you accept that cars work, you have to accept that engines work as well. This doesn't mean that you have to take the whole thing at face value, but some theories are so inextricably intertwinned with one-another, that you cannot logicaly disprove one without disproving another.

Evolution is a direct consequence of natural selection. The two go hand in hand, and are theories in a mutual synergistic relationship. If evolution is true, then natural selection is true and vice versa.

maybe science could have a place in religion...but it seems religion seems to be afraid to cast research into it's origins and theories, which can be taken as a sign as an inability to cope with reality and to allow yourself to be wrong in the name of ones own faith.

meld the two systems into a synergenic relationship.

I'm afraid i have to express my doubts that sceince and religion can ever be melded together, or accepted by one another. My reasons for this are as follows.

First, i wish to make a couple of definitions. I am assuming a monotheistic attitude here. Collectivly, i refer to these as numinous systems:

Spiritualism: is defined as the level of belief that a person has about the exstance of a deity and/or afterlife that is beyond the observation of humankind.

Moral Spiritualism: Is the belief that our actions during our lives are effected by a deity, and that this deity will reward or punish individuals (in this life or an afterlife) based on thier adherance to a moral code.

Organised religion: A heirachical system that is similar to moral spiritualism, but is accepted by a group of people, who accept their beliefs on the basis of faith. Also incorporates the explanation of natural effects/phenomena as due to the actions of a deity.

Science: A system of knowledge that requires predictive theories be formulated and tested by experimentation and observations of the universe around us.

The reason why i believe that science and religion are incompatible, is that they step on each others territory. Science explanes things about the universe around us. Beyond that, a scientist will be the first to say that he's the wrong person to pose a question to. Therefore, spiritualism and science do not conflict. I would have no problem with a spiritualist arguing his casue if a scientist told him that his beliefs were scientifically unsound. Indeed, i believe this was what quasar was saying in his earlier post. The existance of a deity is not something that science can prove or disprove (no matter what richard dawkins may say), and neither should science try, unless said deity becomes unilaterally apparent in our universe (although i admit i would be intrested to clad Richard Dawkins and the Pope in copper armour and stick them both on a high hill during a thunderstorm). Spiritualism is beyond the remit of science. Hence the two do not conflict, and a person can be both spiritualistic, and scientific.

I chose moral spiritualism as a halfway point between spiritualism and organisied religion. Moral spiritualism is very similar to spiritualism. If we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existance of a deity, then we certainly cannot prove or disprove that said deity endorses a particular moral system. Indeed, it only begins to come into minor conflict with science on one point. That point is in the brackets of the definition: the words "in this life". Here we have something that is begining to encroach on the dominion of science. If a numinous system, claims responsibility for the explanation of an observable phenomena, then it WILL conflict with science. For example, Suppose a moral spiritualist claimed that the astronauts on the challenger space shuttle died in a horrific accident because they were not moral by the standards of a deity. At this point a scientist would say that they died because a rubber o-ring on one of the solid rocket boosters failed. The moral spiritualist would reply that his deity made them fail. The scientist would reply that they failed because the cryogenic fuels on the shuttle lowered the temperature of the polymer based o-ring below its glass tranisition temperature, causing it to become brittle instead of flexible as it was required, causing a catastrophic failure. The moralistic spiritualist would reply the deity made the polymer become brittle, resulting in its failure. THe scientist would then retrieve a rubber ball, and bounce it on the floor, demonstraiting it is meant to be elastic, before dunking it in liquid nitrogen and watching it shatter when he tried to bounce it again (i have done this experiment myself), replying that morality has nothing to do with supercooled plastics becoming brittle, unless the ball was harbouring sinfull bacteria. The moralistic spiritualist would reply....

You get the point. When a numinous system attempts to explain natural phenomena, we get conflict with science. Indeed, this is why Organised Religion is so often at odds with science. It attempts to explain physical phenomena such as the origins of the species. Unless science stops explaining the physical world (which is kind of what its meant to do. To demand this would be to destroy science), or religion stops trying to explain the physical world, then there will be conflict between the two. In such a conflict, i know which side of the line i stand on, however i have no problem with the core of religions - the part that is purly spiritualistic, simply because it does not conflict with science.

[Ares]

... if you were a devout Christian what you guys are speaking here is blasphemous and anti-Christian.

Actually, I believe the Catholic Church allows belief in creation by both Intelligent Design and Natural Selection.

[Mad Scientist]

Yet natural selection and evolution are mutually coexistant. If natural selection is true, then evolution is true as well. When the catholic church says "natural selection" they really mean "divine selection".

[Flarty]

lets put it in perspective with the words of the late great Bill Hicks, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&NR


P.S Bill Hicks was a christian

[John Clabo]

lets put it in perspective with the words of the late great Bill Hicks, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk&NR


P.S Bill Hicks was a christian

That man is brilliant! :rolleyes:


P.S. Many Christians stop being Christians. :(

[Mad Scientist]

Any reason why?

[Tesseract]

My guess would be resistance to pressure the religion holds. Personally I stopped being a Christian soon after it stopped feeling correct to me, around the time I started doing research into it. I'm not sure what I am now...nothing....or a type of agnostic (is that the right term?)

I think if religion were less of a taboo subject people would be a little more accepting many of the ideas they have behind them. Religion should also remove the pressure ( yeah I'm stuck talking about pressure again) and aggressive tactic used in gaining constituents. Pushing people into thinking or trusting something is why many fight it so hard I think. My last thought is that religion should try to make itself a little more practical. Focus on the important ideas of their system instead of the folklore and mythology and instead focus on the ideas the represent and maybe intelligent people could get their own ideas on how this has and does effect their world, and the world they never knew in the past (ie-history, past, and during creation).

[Chrispy]

Well, I'm (understandably) too lazy to read through the entire thread, so I'll respond with what clearly is not an answer of any kind, but something that has always gotten me thinking; it's a voiceover from the beginning of an episode of X-Files.


We call it the miracle of life. Conception: A union of perfect opposites--essence transforming into existence--an act without which mankind would not exist and humanity cease to exist.

(Image of an ova in a cold blue environment. A medical probe pierces it, allowing a chosen sperm to enter.)

Or is this just nostalgia now? An act of biology commandeered by modern science and technology? Godlike, we extract, implant, inseminate... and we clone.

(The zygote splits and replicates its chromosomes.)

But has our ingenuity rendered the miracle into a simple trick? In the artifice of replicating life can we become the creator? Then what of the soul? Can it, too, be replicated? Does it live in this matter we call DNA? Or is its placement the opposite of artifice, capable only by God.

[Atomic Waffle]

How about A powerful singularity based entity that humans called "God" created evolution?

Comprimise is what I do in subjects like Science Vs. Religion.

[bu11eTJuNkiE]

Well, the universe and everything in it had to come from somewhere, obviously otherswise nothing would exist :P, but when i think of it that way, i think, "oh well there must be a God." Then again where did God come from then? People tell me that God just "was". Tis' confusing and something we will never know for sure til were dead, maybe.

[Eien]

If there is a god I wouldn't want to piss him off, so all I'm gonna say is maybe.

[Ares]

Guess I'm resurrecting a thread here, but that's OK.

After talking to a friend about this subject today, the famous Creationist line came up:

"Considering how complicated the human body is, what's the probability that over a span of time, we reached the perfect working balance for everything in our body to work?"

Here's my response to that:

First of all, life has been evolving for at least 3 billion years. For around 2 of those 3 billion years, Life has existed as single-celled organisms. Fact: Most simple, single-celled organisms have very fast reproduction rates. Let's say a new generation of bacteria occurs every hour (by all means a possible rate). This means that over a course of a day, there will be 24 new generations of bacteria made, 8760 new generations over the course of a year, and a bit shy of 9 million generations every thousand years. Keep in mind that life evolved as single cells for TWO BILLION YEARS! Keep in mind that each time a new generation is made, mutation is possible, and those with bad mutations will die off, and those with good mutations will reproduce.

With as many tries as those bacteria got, I'm actually not too surprised that they eventually got some combination right that ended up being the human body.

[Lopez]

Quite right Ares. The problem with many of the people I know who believe in creation is that they have a closed opinion on the matter and are unwilling to accept new information, for example evolution. I believe in evolution because science points away from the likely hood of a 'greater being'. If there is a god then hey I'm obviously going to burn in hell but that doesn't bother me at the moment.

[grega t]

The main thing that stops me beleiving in creation (if the bible is to be beleived) is that i'll be sent to hell and have hot coals shoved up my ass just for not believing what some ancient book has to say...

And if God does exist, assuming he is omnipotent, why is he dissapointed when we "Sin" if he knew fine well it was going to happen? Also why did he create us in the first place? For his own amusement? or am i supposed to believe in this all powerful human like guy who resides up in the skies and created us to feel like some sort of father?

I'm placing my money on evolution because it makes much more sense and will only make more sense as time goes on and we learn more.

[Ares]

^That's the point where someone religious will say, "God works in mysterious ways."

I agree with all of what you said though...

[Carbon14]

Guess I'm resurrecting a thread here, but that's OK.

After talking to a friend about this subject today, the famous Creationist line came up:

"Considering how complicated the human body is, what's the probability that over a span of time, we reached the perfect working balance for everything in our body to work?"

Here's my response to that:

First of all, life has been evolving for at least 3 billion years. For around 2 of those 3 billion years, Life has existed as single-celled organisms. Fact: Most simple, single-celled organisms have very fast reproduction rates. Let's say a new generation of bacteria occurs every hour (by all means a possible rate). This means that over a course of a day, there will be 24 new generations of bacteria made, 8760 new generations over the course of a year, and a bit shy of 9 million generations every thousand years. Keep in mind that life evolved as single cells for TWO BILLION YEARS! Keep in mind that each time a new generation is made, mutation is possible, and those with bad mutations will die off, and those with good mutations will reproduce.

With as many tries as those bacteria got, I'm actually not too surprised that they eventually got some combination right that ended up being the human body.

Good points, I must also point out something that I pointed out to the last creationist I was speaking to, even though they didn't really grasp what I was saying.

In an almost infinite number of possibilities on an almost countless number of planets the reason we can look back on ourselves being the way we are is because we were the set of set of chances that game together to make us. If some of those random mutations hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to witness ourselves. Yes our existence is probably highly unlikely how we turned out but somewhere out of all the possibilities it did happen and since it did we can witness it because we are looking back on ourselves. Hopefully you understand what I mean, the last person I was talking to didn't O.o

and yes I believe evolution is correct, hell some smaller creatures evolve practically before our eyes, there is simply no way its not correct and that cant even be said for all parts of science.

[Wasabi]

And if God does exist, assuming he is omnipotent, why is he dissapointed when we "Sin" if he knew fine well it was going to happen? Also why did he create us in the first place? For his own amusement? or am i supposed to believe in this all powerful human like guy who resides up in the skies and created us to feel like some sort of father.

The answer? God is a malevolent dick.

[1337_Byte]

Evolution is most definately true, but it doesn't mean that god can't exist.

[intooblivion]

Does god wonder why he exists?

[7ty714]

Evolution is most definately true, but it doesn't mean that god can't exist.

No but common sense means he doesn't exist.

[Blairyfairy]

I'm a firm beliver in when i see it ill belive it lol

[intooblivion]

Evolution and Creation are all wrong. We aren't actually here at all... LOL MATRIX

[TheTaxidermist]

But how did we get here before we were trapped by the machines?

Oh and blairyfairy, I guess you don't believe much in wind either, or poisonous gases.

[Manbearpig]

You can see gas, its a shimmery. Any way I think Blairy means if you nhave evidence.

[Kester]

I'm a firm beliver in when i see it ill belive it lol
So you're agnostic.

[TheTaxidermist]

No she means if she can't see God, she won't believe he exists.

[Manbearpig]

I think your taking it too literally, Taxidermist.

[Kester]

Actually seeing an object, and seeing signs of its existance are different.

Although I can't see the air we breathe, I can see signs of its existance. I can run scientific tests on it and the such. God however, I cannot see, nor can I see evidence of his existance.

[brokenfridgehinge]

Sorry to spoil the party guys, but life is really just a massive MMO...:P

[TheTaxidermist]

Although I can't see the air we breathe, I can see signs of its existance. I can run scientific tests on it and the such. God however, I cannot see, nor can I see evidence of his existance.

Well it's all how you look at it.

I look at the Earth and see a marvelous creation, something well designed and I view that as evidence of a creator.

But that's just me and you probably think I'm stupid for feeling that way.

[Ares]

^Well if you want to take that stance, if the Earth and human body are so brilliantly designed to work together by an all-knowing, all-powerful being:

1: How come I get headaches every time the barometric pressure changes rapidly?

2: How a ton of people have back-problems?

3: Why is my body susceptible to such meager things as Germs?

4: Why do so many people have allergies?

5: If the Earth was designed to be the perfect home for humanity whenever God created it, why are the landmasses, climates, and just about every trait in every corner of the world constantly changing? I guess God could be trying to shift it for the better, but since he's all-knowing and powerful, that'd make it kind of hard to overlook something that you'd need to change later...

By all rights, I could guess you could see intelligence in the creation of all of this if you were to look at it as art, but unfortunately my brain favors the sciences much more than the arts.

[Wasabi]

Yes, either God doesn't exist, or he's having a huge laugh at our expense.

[Manbearpig]

I'm sick and tired of people of faith saying that we athiests look at the universe in a dismal light. Nothing could be further from the truth, by realizing that there is no "allmighty creator" I've realised that there are so many wonders, things to know and power to gain out there, justing waiting for us to discover.

[Kester]

I totally agree, Manbearpig. Just because I have accepted that I will most likely rot when I die, doesn't mean I'm not going to try and enjoy my one chance at life.

[TheTaxidermist]

Okay so people who believe in God don't get to enjoy life?

[NavMan]

You can also put it this way: If God doesn't exist, then ok, all the time spent in my life to secure a place in heaven would have gone to waste, but hey, who cares? I'll be dead and won't be able to regret it. But if God does exist, the sinners are screwed, whereas the believers aren't.

[Mercer]

Evolution and Creation are all wrong. We aren't actually here at all... LOL MATRIX

LOLLERMATRIX?

[Manbearpig]

People of faith can enjoy life just fine, I just hate it when they say we athiests see everything in a dark light and so on.
Oh and just incase god is real I hope I can get into purgatory.

[Kester]

Okay so people who believe in God don't get to enjoy life?No one ever suggested that.

[Manbearpig]

Ok guys your not going to believe this, I was reading a youtube responses (I know they're bad but its just a masochistict habit of mine)and one person was saying "Darwin thought up evolution on a boat and you start to think up of crazy things when your on a boat so he doesn't deserve any credence" Unfreaking believable huh?

[Kester]

Maybe he was insane and thought of it on a whim. But it doesn't mean that all the years of research since then is rendered false.

[Mad Scientist]

Well thanks to that astonishingly astute critique, i will make provision that any scientific discoveries i chance across will not be made on a ship, forestalling any future criticism.

Seriously, it doesn't matter if historical research suddenly proved that Darwin was actually, an insane midget who escaped from an asylum, and was high on a mixture of LSD and crack when he wrote the Origin. The theory works, and the evidence for it is not hard to find. Regardless of how the theory came about, it works, and until proved otherwise, it is here to stay.

[Manbearpig]

I wasn't the one who said it, it was an idiot on youtube and posted it because I thought it was hilarious and I thought it would be some good food for thought, in the way on how idiotic he was.