Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Hi, here's a thread for evolution vs. intelligent design discussion

Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
10-10-2005 10:58
Posts suggesting one is interested in driving the notion of a creator from others who hold such a belief is solid evidence of a bias towards the possibilty of a creator. To suggest one can be sure there is no creator is to have faith there is no creator(please don't compare a creator with santa, it's silly). The fact life and the universe is so complex clearly suggests to a thinking mind that there was a plan that placed the heavens and the Earth in perfect harmony to allow for the developement of life.

We know the Earth, moon and sun are in perfect harmony. We know that the Earth has everything life needs to survive in perfect balance. If the Earth was farther or closer to the sun by a relatively small amount life couldn't exist here.

This(the urge to convert believers in a creator) is evidence the teaching of evolution has caused otherwise intellegent people to a close their minds to all possibilties. The reason most who subscribe to the theory of evolution accept it as a truth is because they can't fathom any other alternative. As Chip has said, this is the best(albeit weak) theory of where all this diversity of life came from. He said that if I can produce a better theory(without pointing to a creator, he would listen). In other words, the idea of a creator, no matter how obvious it may be to the majority of people, will never be accepted by the scientific community until God comes down and smacks us on the head.

Thanks for the fun :)
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
10-10-2005 10:58
From: Neehai Zapata
I've managed to convert quite a few people. I owe my success rate to my ability to give incredible blow jobs. (seriously)

I have converted:
- Jehovah's Witness (the hardest of all. I was so proud of myself)
- Mormons, numerous (those young guys didn't stand a chance, and they come right to your house!)
- Baptists (kinky bastards, easy to turn to the dark side)
- Methodists
- Lutherans (tougher than you'd think)

And many many more!


I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole....
_____________________
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
10-10-2005 10:58
From: Kendra Bancroft
Frankly, I'd rather teach children how to question things than what they should question.


Amen!

From: someone
If we are to get at the heart of "faith" we must consider that the "original sin" in judeo-christian religion is the excercise of free will by human beings. It would seem to me that the strongest message given in the bible then, is that it's wrong to think for one's self. It's wrong to question dogma, It's wrong not to obey the Godhead.


Hallelujah!

From: someone
No thanks. Faith to me is simply trying to vomit up the apple.


Can I get a witness!!
_____________________

My other hobby:
www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
10-10-2005 11:06
From: Seth Kanahoe
What is the difference between social and political ideology, and religious dawgma?

From: Chip Midnight
One involves an imaginary man in the sky. The other two do not :)


Hmmm. But my imaginary friends in the sky - Yehovah (the Tetragrammaton), Aquinas, Augustine, Abelard, Luther, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, Soren Kierkegaard, Adam Smith, and Sigmund Freud, disagree with you.
_____________________
Jake Reitveld
Emperor of Second Life
Join date: 9 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,690
10-10-2005 11:08
From: Kevn Klein
Posts suggesting one is interested in driving the notion of a creator from others who hold such a belief is solid evidence of a bias towards the possibilty of a creator. To suggest one can be sure there is no creator is to have faith there is no creator(please don't compare a creator with santa, it's silly). The fact life and the universe is so complex clearly suggests to a thinking mind that there was a plan that placed the heavens and the Earth in perfect harmony to allow for the developement of life.

We know the Earth, moon and sun are in perfect harmony. We know that the Earth has everything life needs to survive in perfect balance. If the sun was farther or closer to the sun by a relatively small amount life couldn't exist here.

This(the urge to convert believers in a creator) is evidence the teaching of evolution has caused otherwise intellegent people to a close their minds to all possibilties. The reason most who subscribe to the theory of evolution accept it as a truth is because they can't fathom any other alternative. As Chip has said, this is the best(albeit weak) theory of where all this diversity of life came from. He said that if I can produce a better theory(without pointing to a creator, he would listen). In other words, the idea of a creator, no matter how obvious it may be to the majority of people, will never be accepted by the scientific community until God comes down and smacks us on the head.

Thanks for the fun :)


To a zen Buddhist like me there is no transcendent divine entity. Thus no thinking creator, thus no intelligent design. For billions of humans, Christ, God, Genesis and creationism don't form any part of the cultural framework. The insult hubris of christianity is its assumption that these people are all wrong and the that the Christian mythology should be the defining mythology. I wonder how many Christians there are in other solar systems.

The precision of the univers is entirely random. In an infinite universe, everything is possible. The postiion of the earth to support live is cosmic dumb luck. That being said we are all part of the whole and all of the unverse is contained within my thumb. If there is any aspect of the divine it lies within the essence of each one of us to unlock. We need elightenment, not salvation.
_____________________
ALCHEMY -clothes for men.

Lebeda 208,209
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
10-10-2005 11:12
From: Kevn Klein
please don't compare a creator with santa, it's silly

Why, exactly, is it silly? They're both mythical beings (along with the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and I'm sure many others) that noone can see, touch, smell or prove or disprove the existence of. To me, they're all in the same bucket - it's just that most of us stop believing in most of them when we're kids.
_____________________
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
10-10-2005 11:17
From: Kevn Klein
Posts suggesting one is interested in driving the notion of a creator from others who hold such a belief is solid evidence of a bias towards the possibilty of a creator. To suggest one can be sure there is no creator is to have faith there is no creator(please don't compare a creator with santa, it's silly). The fact life and the universe is so complex clearly suggests to a thinking mind that there was a plan that placed the heavens and the Earth in perfect harmony to allow for the developement of life.

We know the Earth, moon and sun are in perfect harmony. We know that the Earth has everything life needs to survive in perfect balance. If the Earth was farther or closer to the sun by a relatively small amount life couldn't exist here.

This(the urge to convert believers in a creator) is evidence the teaching of evolution has caused otherwise intellegent people to a close their minds to all possibilties. The reason most who subscribe to the theory of evolution accept it as a truth is because they can't fathom any other alternative. As Chip has said, this is the best(albeit weak) theory of where all this diversity of life came from. He said that if I can produce a better theory(without pointing to a creator, he would listen). In other words, the idea of a creator, no matter how obvious it may be to the majority of people, will never be accepted by the scientific community until God comes down and smacks us on the head.

Thanks for the fun :)


Many people have personal evidence of a creator in their lives that can not be called scientific. Your son being healed after prayer is not scientific. Your good feeling when you go to church is not scientific. In order for you to use science to create a model that includes the Christian God as existing, you would need to have some set of experiments th suggest that the same God the Jews called God has created everything that existed, exists in a higher dimension, is all knowing, is all powerful, allows people to live after death, and intervenes in worldly affairs based on prayer. Do you have any suggestions of how these God experiments could be conducted to make it scientifically obvious that God exists. It is one thing for God's existence to be obvious through faith, it is another thing all together to try to make God seem obvious through science.

God is something that can not be absolutely proved or disproved through science, so why bring him into science in the first place. His very nature is supposed to be the being who can't be observed by man.

The point of science, Evolution, Physics, Chemistry, etc. is not to disprove God. Scientists aren't saying believe in my writings and have faith in the anti-God. They are saying I did this experiment that had this result, does anyone else get that result? If others do get this result, perhaps the world might work like this. It isn't about conversion. It is about a method of observation to try to understand the way the world works.
Dark Korvin
Player in the RL game
Join date: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 769
10-10-2005 11:32
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
I actually think it goes well beyond fear of death, Chip. Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that humans have evolved the ability to spontaneously form shared belief systems (just like language), as it provides a comparative advantage over humans which do not. What's interesting is that according to evolutionary psychologists, the scientific method and the catalog of theories which are encompassed by science, are thus a shared belief system which serves the exact same purpose as religious dogma.

To me, what causes one group to adopt a shared belief system that is logical, testable, and repeatable versus another group which adopts a belief system that is untestable mythology is the real question. I assume it's due to one's exposure to various belief systems at youth by one's parents, as well as natural analytical abilities.

~Ulrika~


I think part of what lets humans survive is their pattern seeking. A human that can recognize patterns to avoid dangers and seek benefit can help immensely in its survival. Religion has the added benefit on top of encouraging pattern seeking of causing humans to join together for the cause of their culture. Those under one religion fight with a ferocity and determination for resource dominance that has been seen throughout history. Those that more violently believe in their God, will be more likely to explode in population. The Muslims had all the excuse they needed to spread throughout Africa, Southern and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. The Christians had all the excuse they needed to spread through the entire globe with the excuse of conversion of the savages.

I think the one thing evolution lacks is the ability to rally people to control resources. Scientist might believe in survival of the fittest, but has there ever been an outcry from these scientists to wipe out another culture to increase the numbers of the culture that believes in evolution. It is odd that a belief that only the strongest will survive does not lead to a cultural dominance of others. Yet the belief in a God considering one culture as special seems to lead to the strongest surviving.

Note: I realize that those that use religion to advocate violence contradict the purpose of the religions they use. It is clear that these people did not understand their religion enough to seek peace with their neighbors, but that has not stopped many leaders from using religion as an excuse to conquer and thrive through united warfare against the "evil."
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
10-10-2005 11:33
From: Kevn Klein
Posts suggesting one is interested in driving the notion of a creator from others who hold such a belief is solid evidence of a bias towards the possibilty of a creator. To suggest one can be sure there is no creator is to have faith there is no creator(please don't compare a creator with santa, it's silly). The fact life and the universe is so complex clearly suggests to a thinking mind that there was a plan that placed the heavens and the Earth in perfect harmony to allow for the developement of life.

We know the Earth, moon and sun are in perfect harmony. We know that the Earth has everything life needs to survive in perfect balance. If the Earth was farther or closer to the sun by a relatively small amount life couldn't exist here.

This(the urge to convert believers in a creator) is evidence the teaching of evolution has caused otherwise intellegent people to a close their minds to all possibilties. The reason most who subscribe to the theory of evolution accept it as a truth is because they can't fathom any other alternative. As Chip has said, this is the best(albeit weak) theory of where all this diversity of life came from. He said that if I can produce a better theory(without pointing to a creator, he would listen). In other words, the idea of a creator, no matter how obvious it may be to the majority of people, will never be accepted by the scientific community until God comes down and smacks us on the head.

Thanks for the fun :)


Where to begin? (A question I'm sure God must have asked himself In the Beginning.)

First: science does not (not) rule out the possibility of a sentient creator (btw, that's the proper word - sentient - not "intelligent", God save us from people with narrow agendas who want to sound "intelligent";). That possibility always exists, and anyone who believes otherwise should read some of the wonderful speculative novels by Greg Bear and Frederick Pohl. It's just that the current state of science admits cosmological explanations without having to resort to a supernatural First Cause - vacuum genesis, modified many universes, and oblate compacted string theory are three possibilities. To say that science proves there is no "God" is silly. To say that "God" is the obvious causal point of origin - given the current state of science - is equally silly.

Two: "God" has already "smacked" us in the head. That "smack" - you might say - created the contemporary universe - which may or may not be purposeful in creation, but is definitely accidental in design. If you would like to know more about the dynamics of cosmology, as well as the origins of temporary ordered systems such as life within the cosmological maelstrom, take a look at the physics and chemistries of high energy disruptive states - explosions. According to current science, the universe is a disruptive event, and it is in the nature of such events that complex and surprisingly ordered systems are created, destroyed, and created again. No need for a supernatural God here; but then again, no eternal proofs that such an entity did not have a Hand in the Genesis.

Three: nothing is in harmony, including "Earth, Moon, and Sun". There exists near-infinite potentials for eroding balances, but such balances are temporary, and quickly (by cosmological standards) disappear. The Aristotelian idea of "perfect spheres in the perfect heavens" is a concept that Christians and Muslims cannot seem to reject, in spite of the need in the modern world to come to terms with science.

Four: Those who claim that the "perfection" of local harmony and systems (Earth, Moon, Sun; life on Earth, etc.) definitively indicates an Ulterior Hand, are not aware of the terrible complexities, awesome vastness, and near-infinite potentials of the universe. It's a question of perspective - and to argue that "God must have created all of this" is to show a narrow, parochial point of view. Contemplate the vastness of the universe a little more - something that - currently - science actually does better than religion, IMO. Yes, God might have. No, he did not "must have".
_____________________
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
10-10-2005 12:41
From: Seth Kanahoe
Where to begin? (A question I'm sure God must have asked himself In the Beginning.)

First: science does not (not) rule out the possibility of a sentient creator (btw, that's the proper word - sentient - not "intelligent", God save us from people with narrow agendas who want to sound "intelligent";). That possibility always exists, and anyone who believes otherwise should read some of the wonderful speculative novels by Greg Bear and Frederick Pohl. It's just that the current state of science admits cosmological explanations without having to resort to a supernatural First Cause - vacuum genesis, modified many universes, and oblate compacted string theory are three possibilities. To say that science proves there is no "God" is silly. To say that "God" is the obvious causal point of origin - given the current state of science - is equally silly.

Two: "God" has already "smacked" us in the head. That "smack" - you might say - created the contemporary universe - which may or may not be purposeful in creation, but is definitely accidental in design. If you would like to know more about the dynamics of cosmology, as well as the origins of temporary ordered systems such as life within the cosmological maelstrom, take a look at the physics and chemistries of high energy disruptive states - explosions. According to current science, the universe is a disruptive event, and it is in the nature of such events that complex and surprisingly ordered systems are created, destroyed, and created again. No need for a supernatural God here; but then again, no eternal proofs that such an entity did not have a Hand in the Genesis.

Three: nothing is in harmony, including "Earth, Moon, and Sun". There exists near-infinite potentials for eroding balances, but such balances are temporary, and quickly (by cosmological standards) disappear. The Aristotelian idea of "perfect spheres in the perfect heavens" is a concept that Christians and Muslims cannot seem to reject, in spite of the need in the modern world to come to terms with science.

Four: Those who claim that the "perfection" of local harmony and systems (Earth, Moon, Sun; life on Earth, etc.) definitively indicates an Ulterior Hand, are not aware of the terrible complexities, awesome vastness, and near-infinite potentials of the universe. It's a question of perspective - and to argue that "God must have created all of this" is to show a narrow, parochial point of view. Contemplate the vastness of the universe a little more - something that - currently - science actually does better than religion, IMO. Yes, God might have. No, he did not "must have".


First: I didn't say science proves there is no God. Read my post again, I said some people are bragging they converted believrs to become atheists, appearantly by their scientific information(or disinformation). I know there is no way to prove or disprove God scientifically. Most of the greatest minds believed or believe in a god or creator of some sort. To point to "the current state of sceince" as a reason to reject the notion of an intelligent creator(yes, I said intelligent, my choice of words, ty vm) as the "casual point of origin" is silly. To which part of "the current state of sceince" are you pointing?

Two: I don't know if you have experimented with explosives, I have. I can tell you from experience, explosions are not creative, but rather destructive. The only time an explosion is creative is when it is used by intelligent(said it again) beings. Edward Conklin said "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." The possibities are absolutely 0. No matter how many times one blows up a building, it will never fall into an organized pile, much less a living being in a perfect environment.

Three: Everything surrounding life as we know it is in perfect harmony. When any of the perfectly balanced parts of an ecosystem fails, the rest of the system is harmed or even destroyed. Why you keep referring to the Christian God is beyond me. I have yet to invoke any specific deity. I point to a creator, which could be the God of any of the major religions or a god of no reliions, or even a group of gods, or aliens, or whatever has the ability to line up planets perfectly to protect the Earth from massive meteors, to be able to set up a perfect environment to support and protect life so fragile it can't survive if removed from it's perfect environment.

Four: Those who can't see the fact this is the only place in our universe we can observe, even with "the current state of science" where life is allowed to exist, should open their eyes to what we can see. For some reason this World is perfect for life in every way. The reason why isn't something science can explain. If one wants to believe in omnipotent chance, that's fine, but it's a substitute for a real god :)
Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
10-10-2005 13:07
From: someone
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

Interesting analogy.

So the divine intervention that created this rock capable of life is also responsible for the creation of language, the written word, printing shops and dictionaries?

If so, then it seems just as likely that your example would be true as well.
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
Seth Kanahoe
political fugue artist
Join date: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,220
10-10-2005 13:16
From: Kevn Klein
First: I didn't say science proves there is no God. Read my post again...


I didn't say you did.

From: Kevn Klein
To which part of "the current state of sceince" are you pointing?


Physics, astronomy, chemistry, molecular biology, geology, etc., etc. - as well as the mathematics that unites them, poorly in some instances, better in others.

Oh, and music theory. That's important, too.

From: Kevn Klein
Edward Conklin said "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." The possibities are absolutely 0. No matter how many times one blows up a building, it will never fall into an organized pile, much less a living being in a perfect environment.


Sorry, you're wrong. Here's what you don't take into account: Your explosion modalities are based on very small, very limited, midline samplings in creation - a building, a dictionary. When you take such modalities to the extreme ends of creation - the Planck limit on the one hand, or the "foam structure" of the universe on the other - it's perfectly possible to see organization arise from destruction as a result of chance. This is not speculation - it's science, observed, verified, and repeated in various experiments since Michaelson-Morley in the late nineteenth century.

From: Kevn Klein
Three: Everything surrounding life as we know it is in perfect harmony.


Wrong again, I'm afraid. Harmony works well as a philosophical or religious concept - and as a convenient mathematical state. But it does not describe anything yet observed in the physical universe. Temporary harmony, a limited stasis achieved by a cessation of decay rate is possible, but that is not what you're talking about.

From: Kevn Klein
Why you keep referring to the Christian God is beyond me. I have yet to invoke any specific deity. I point to a creator, which could be the God of any of the major religions....


I'm simply responding to others on their own terms. It's interesting to note that the issues that Buddhists, Hindus, and other world religions have with evolution and cosmology do not mirror those of Christians and Muslims. Why? Because the cosmologies and the methods of these religions are different, and admit different points of view. Which is, for example, one of the reasons why nations with strong Hindu and Daoist components have so readily and successfully embraced modern science and technology into their cultural venue.

Attempting to group together various religions into a "front", all with similar issues with science is misleading; this is largely a problem between Christianity, Islam, and modern science.

From: Kevn Klein
For some reason this World is perfect for life in every way. The reason why isn't something science can explain. If one wants to believe in omnipotent chance, that's fine, but it's a substitute for a real god :)


This world is not perfect for life. Science has identified many scenarios for worlds "more perfect" for life - including worlds in which climatological cycles were not so abrupt and chaotic, and worlds in which mild mutagens are more prevalent, and thus species can structurally have a better chance of adaptation and development. The reason for life on this planet - as I observed in my previous post - can be attributed to natural factors quantified by mathematics, without an appeal to a First Cause or Ulterior Hand. Or it can be attributed to a God with a purpose. Your choice. If you choose the Ulterior Hand, you're choosing on the basis of your religion. If you choose the possibility of an Ulterior Hand or "chance", you're choosing on the basis of science.

If you choose to get upset, then you're choosing on the basis of too little information. ;)
_____________________
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
10-10-2005 13:52
From: Kevn Klein

Three: Everything surrounding life as we know it is in perfect harmony. When any of the perfectly balanced parts of an ecosystem fails, the rest of the system is harmed or even destroyed. Why you keep referring to the Christian God is beyond me. I have yet to invoke any specific deity. I point to a creator, which could be the God of any of the major religions or a god of no reliions, or even a group of gods, or aliens, or whatever has the ability to line up planets perfectly to protect the Earth from massive meteors, to be able to set up a perfect environment to support and protect life so fragile it can't survive if removed from it's perfect environment.

Our planet is not prefectly balanced or protected - we periodically get nailed by large meteors - check out the Chicxulub crater. At 112 miles wide, it must've wiped out a large portion of life on the planet. This is not a unique event, it happens with regular frequency.

Also, if everything was in 'perfect harmony', would the sun still run out of hydrogen and turn into a red giant - causing it to become so massive it will expand beyond our orbit?


From: Kevn Klein

Four: Those who can't see the fact this is the only place in our universe we can observe, even with "the current state of science" where life is allowed to exist, should open their eyes to what we can see. For some reason this World is perfect for life in every way. The reason why isn't something science can explain. If one wants to believe in omnipotent chance, that's fine, but it's a substitute for a real god :)

I think your 'fact' has been, or is about to be, proven wrong. Pretty amazing that the first planet we explore has signs that life existed on it at some point.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_life_050216.html

http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/marslife/photos.htm

http://mars.astrobio.net/news/article35.html
_____________________
Jake Reitveld
Emperor of Second Life
Join date: 9 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,690
10-10-2005 14:25
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

um given that the universe is infinte, then ther are infinte possibilities. Given the mechanics of the universe and what we understand about science I would the the probabilites are a damned sight better. after all we know life occurs in certain definable conditions, we may not yet know with precision what those are, be we grow closer and closer in our understanding.

We certainly don't need god to explain and cheeseburger, nor do we need a god to explain the origin of life. What we do noed is a better appreciation for the world around us. As the man said, it is not the same to talk of bulls as to be in the bull ring.

So go sit under a tree and observe, you'll learn a lot in a hour.
_____________________
ALCHEMY -clothes for men.

Lebeda 208,209
Selador Cellardoor
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,082
10-10-2005 14:26
From: Dark Korvin
Scientist might believe in survival of the fittest, but has there ever been an outcry from these scientists to wipe out another culture to increase the numbers of the culture that believes in evolution. It is odd that a belief that only the strongest will survive does not lead to a cultural dominance of others.


Natural selection doesn't lead to the survival of the strongest, by any means. It leads to the survival of those who are best suited to their environment. And when that environment becomes inimical, then those who survive might well be the weakest rather than the strongest.

For example, if food runs short, the smaller, weaker individuals might well cope better, and have a lower pre-reproductive mortality rate.

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is universally misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that only the muscle-bound will survive. The word 'fittest' means those who are most fit for their environment. That can mean a multitude of things.
_____________________
Cartridge Partridge
Noodly appendage
Join date: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 999
10-10-2005 14:35
From: Selador Cellardoor
The phrase 'survival of the fittest' is universally misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that only the muscle-bound will survive. The word 'fittest' means those who are most fit for their environment. That can mean a multitude of things.


Yep. Like being a male mantis that won't stop fecundating the female mantis to flee and save his life... giving a good source of food to the mother of his children...
_____________________
aku cinta kamu sepenuh hati, rinaz sayangku.


My short term memory died about 10 years ago.
It's the last thing i remember.
Did i tell you already?

Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
10-10-2005 14:53
I think evolution is a fine lazy man's theory, but I still have holes in it I'd like to see plugged.

They say when something changes by random genetic mutation, if the change is beneficial it remains via breeding.

Now, the lung takes in air, and circulates it round the body. However, a lung is useless without a heart and distributed network of pumps throughout the human body to keep the blood flowing. Which is a good point, blood. You're going to need a LOT of blood to make a pair of these lung things work.

But here's a sticky point, the heart will soon die without oxygenated blood. What's that? Blood that's been through Lungs. Let's see, lungs. Ah yes, needs a working heart and blood. Where is blood made? Hmm, I think that's in the liver or somewhere. Liver? Damn, that's a fourth organ into the mix... Hmm indeed. Well anyway it's a good thing the heart keeps beating. Why does it do that... The brain??? Damn, the brain regularly sends an electronic signal to the heart to tell it to keep beating!

You know what we need to co-ordinate all these organs which are so complex no computer or scientist can yet perfectly or decently replicate them? The conductor of the London Philharmonic Orchestra! Yes, he's a fine chap. Let's get him in here.

Seriously though, all these devices are about as useful as a lawn mower in greenland unless they all happen at once. Now I'm not going to jump in and say this is evidence of God, but I am going to say "Science" is going to have to do better than the weak theory of Evolution to back this up.

And some of you like to laugh at me, saying my beliefs are built on shaky ground. Hmm, try closer to home.
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
10-10-2005 14:58
From: Jake Reitveld
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
Since others are fielding the scientific and philosophic questions wonderfully, I thought I'd hop in and work on terminology and misconceptions. :)

The statement above is true and with it one can rule out all theories which rely on a random process to explain the observed phenomenon known as evolution. The currently accepted theory, natural selection, which explains the change in organisms over time, evolution, is not a random process.

In fact natural selection gives a hint in it's very name that something is being selected. In natural selection, random variations in genotype (genetic structure) lead to variations in phenotype (the form an organism takes) which provide varying levels of fitness in a given environment. Organisms which are more fit are more likely to survive and thus pass on their genes to another generation. Over time a greater percentage of organisms cary these genes, thus leading to evolution (a change in an organism over time).

It is not random. It is selection. :)

~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Neehai Zapata
Unofficial Parent
Join date: 8 Apr 2004
Posts: 1,970
10-10-2005 15:03
From: someone
It is not random. It is selection.

There is no way I was selectd. I am completely random.
_____________________
Unofficial moderator and proud dysfunctional parent to over 1000 bastard children.
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
10-10-2005 15:09
From: Ulrika Zugzwang
Since others are fielding the scientific and philosophic questions wonderfully, I thought I'd hop in and work on terminology and misconceptions. :)

The statement above is true and with it one can rule out all theories which rely on a random process to explain the observed phenomenon known as evolution. The currently accepted theory, natural selection, which explains the change in organisms over time, evolution, is not a random process.

In fact natural selection gives a hint in it's very name that something is being selected. In natural selection, random variations in genotype (genetic structure) lead to variations in phenotype (the form an organism takes) which provide varying levels of fitness in a given environment. Organisms which are more fit are more likely to survive and thus pass on their genes to another generation. Over time a greater percentage of organisms cary these genes, thus leading to evolution (a change in an organism over time).

It is not random. It is selection. :)

~Ulrika~


I respectfully suggest my post, post 167, leaves this theory very lacking.
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
deep, unbiased agendaless questions
10-10-2005 15:10
Some enlightened soul in this thread steadfasly refuses to read the relevant literature while simultanouesly calling those who haven't looked at the shit that he considers to be the basis for his belief intellectual cowards and dogmatists.

Here are the cited "refutational" questions which I will let speak for themselves first:
  1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
  2. DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
  3. HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
  4. VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
  5. ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
  6. PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
  7. DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
  8. MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
  9. HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
  10. EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
With my painstakingly researched replies thusly:
  1. These are questions about elemtary textbooks which are but glosses for the benefit of readers who by definition have below a 12th grade reading level. Such textbooks are as representative of the scientific field as "Health Education" classes are about what fucking is really like in practice. It also contains the presupposition "the origin of life remains a mystery"
  2. A gross misunderstanding of fossilization and yet another conclusion unsupported by anything other than assertion "the origin of life remains a mystery"
  3. The wildly wrong and boring "evolution is tautological" assertion.
  4. One blatently false, unsubstaniable assertion followed by a pulled-out-of-my-ass "the drawings are faked".
  5. Restated: why do I think that X is used to show Y even though it isn't?
  6. Another false assertion "moths don't normally rest on tree trunks" which can easily be disproved by anyone with access to trees and eyes, followed by another ass-extracted "all the pictures have been staged"
  7. Everything said before...
  8. ..just in a different way
  9. A question about artists.
  10. A misunderstanding of the definition of "fact" which doesn't matter because the regardless of the definition "many of [evolution's] claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts".
If this is what the enlightened poster accepts as basis for belief, then he'd be better off just citing the two mutually contradictory stories of creation at Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:20 and be done with it. That the widely unknown NCSE - which seems to be mostly a vehicle to get speaking engagements for the folks who run it - bothered to answer the questions at all is pretty weak basis for assuming that the vacuous questions even warranted response. You are invited to read more of the referenced work, but it only gets more self-serving, less factual, and more presumptive without any substantiaion.

See some of us do read so-called opposing viewpoints, we just get tired of refuting the endlessly repeated, tired, non-arguments to an audience that already "knows" the answers.
Cartridge Partridge
Noodly appendage
Join date: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 999
10-10-2005 16:43
From: Jsecure Hanks
I respectfully suggest my post, post 167, leaves this theory very lacking.


Sorry, but lungs, like any complex body part, didn't pop all of a sudden as a mutation. Usually a mutation is just about having a new protein.
That obviously will have an effect on the new being. And usually the effect will be minimal. Even so, the new protein will have a chance to be (even if very very slightly) useful to that being for surviving and then have heirs.

What many people usually don't realize is that good mutations, under natural selection, are cumulative. This fact, and the HUGE number of generations, can have amazing effects.

Things like lungs, heart and blood are part of a system. All of them have a story, meaning that every LITTLE change happened on a previous version of them. It's pointless trying to study only one of those things, thinking that it just popped out in a new being as a result of just ONE mutation.

The process of evolution works at molecular level. Single genes, proteins. And it's cumulative. And the number of generations is HUGE (people usually understimate this).
_____________________
aku cinta kamu sepenuh hati, rinaz sayangku.


My short term memory died about 10 years ago.
It's the last thing i remember.
Did i tell you already?

Liona Clio
Angel in Disguise
Join date: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,500
10-10-2005 16:59
Golly. There's a lotta spirited discussion going down. It seems to me that it all boils down to two distinct statements:
  1. Creationism cannot be proven by science.
  2. Evolution cannot disprove faith.
Now, it's fairly evident that faith is not a part of science. Science is about proving. Faith is about believing without proof. In my view, though, both sides could learn a little respect. Intelligent design isn't science, it involves faith...it's the latest ploy by overzealous creationists to discredit evolution. However, it seems to me that the big reason why creationists are so hot under the collar about evolution is that there is a rather smug portion of the evolutionists who want to say that thier theory disproves the divine.

Maybe if the creationists could keep thier chocolate out of the evolutionist's peanut butter, and vice versa, we could all narrow down what is scientific fact, and leave faith to the broadness it is meant to have.

I personally believe that God created the universe using the laws of nature, which evolution is a part. I have no illusions as to which part is fact and which is faith. More people need to understand the difference.
_____________________
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle."
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
10-10-2005 17:08
From: someone
The process of evolution works at molecular level. Single genes, proteins. And it's cumulative. And the number of generations is HUGE (people usually understimate this).
Another thing that popular accounts of evolution usually fail to mention completely is the amazing effects that embryologic changes and the expression of the existing genes have. This is probably skipped as it is hard enough getting people to understand biology at all (cf. this thread).

As a simple example, if there is a single base change of a regulatory protein that controls the expression of a Hox gene, your offspring now has one more or one fewer vertebra and all the associated muscles, nerves, blood vessels, ribs, etc. So a single point mutation on one single non-somatic gene results in what everyone would call a significant change to the body plan of the offspring and not a single gene that is responsible for building a body need change. Put another way, what people would call a macromutation with their eyes can be the result of the simplest change. Modern species of snakes have widely different numbers of vertebrae and these changes almost certainly happened in one generation.
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
10-10-2005 17:15
From: Liona Clio
...However, it seems to me that the big reason why creationists are so hot under the collar about evolution is that there is a rather smug portion of the evolutionists who want to say that thier theory disproves the divine. ...
I agree with your statements and beliefs utterly and thank you for bringing such a succinct statement.

The one thing I would take exception to is the bit quoted above. I've never known anyone who seriously believes that; indeed, the only people I have ever seen erect that straw man have been creationists just before they tear it down. If you know of someone who does think that (and has had the audacity to write it down) I'd love to have my belief revised. Thanks.
1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12