FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Who All Believes In Evolution?






So, do you believe in evolution?
Yes
83%
 83%  [ 26 ]
No
16%
 16%  [ 5 ]
Not sure if I do or don't.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

JessieF
I have seen several post talking about evoltion in certain topics.
I just sat there staring at the posts, wondering how the could believe in it.
Yes, it's probably best to look on both sides here. And, obviously, they are not Christians, because the bible is completely saying something else about how us humans, and animals got here.
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that we evolved from apes!! Shocked

Look at the animals. Some of them look the same, yes, but they are different animals. So those who believe in evolution, obviously will think it is some different way an isolated species evolved. But I don't believe that. I am not exactly a Christian. I can't really call myself that since I hardly go to church and I hardly pray. I have prayed before, and recieved what I've wanted before. I prayed that I could win a camera in this school contest. It was an easy one. Just get perfect attendance, and get your name drawn from a box! I won, obviously, as I have hinted above!

I believe in God, and I believe in the bible. I am able to look at it from my point of view, but I look at others, and even though I understand you have different beliefs, other than God, I still can't see how you believe in evolution.

A scientist has done some kind of research before, I forget exactly how they were doing this experiment, but it proved evolution absolutly CANNOT happen. If I remember what they did, I'll modify this and put it right here:

Today, scientist are finding even more proof that the bibles' stories are completely true.
So how can you still believe in evolution?
blackdragon666
Well, I am not a christian, but I do respect your religion, and I also believe that most of what is stated in the Bible is true. I am with you on this one, in my religion (wiccan if you must know) we have two "gods" (actually a god and a goddess) that created everything. Also, if you want to speak to a non-religious person (if they have the intellectual ability to understand evolution): if we evolved from primates, then why are there still unevolved ones? Wait, I know, those are the social outcasts. No one told them about the big "evolution party" so they missed out and are doomed to pick the lice out of family member's heads for the rest of eternity. Twisted Evil
OutlawSpirit
humans are always evolving...
noexes89
Quote:
And, obviously, they are not Christians, because the bible is completely saying something else about how us humans, and animals got here.

I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian and I can totally reconcile the first part of Genesis as being a simple collection of symbols of the Jewish faith and not a factual account.

And evolution is not as impossible as it sounds. Simple glitches in the genetic code, a attuggttu changed to attuguttu and whatnot, has been shown to cause surprisingly big mutations (Sickle-cell disease comes to mind, but larger ones are implied). That's not to say that there aren't many things about evolution that we don't understand, like most of the things that ID people bring up all the time as reasons Darwin was wrong. But simple flaws in have yet to disprove it. Once again I think that there is probably more going on her than just "survival of the fittest", more than even he writers of Genisis 1 knows, but for scientific purposes evolution is as factual as anything else.
jspapp
I guess I would be half-Christian, but I believe in evolution. There are still unevolved primates because they don't need to evolve. An animal won't evolve if it doesn't have a reason to. A turtle won't grow a longer neck to reach higher plants if it doesn't need to reach higher plants because theres plenty of lower plants.

Also, I guess you could think of cancer, because it is a cell mutation, which is pretty much what evolution is except evolution is a positive change usually.

And yes, they are proving that things in the Bible are actually true, but yes evolution is real. There is fossil evidence and many other things that support evolution. I hope this helps with whatever we're arguing about. Wink

(I would also like to say that I don't mean to say "This is that" or "That is this", but that is what I believe.)

ALSO: Sorry I jumped from topic to topic like that. Rolling Eyes
thiamshui
Evolution is real. It is a natural process of mutation and natural selection which causes organisms to evolve to survive better on Earth.
Scott
I don't think you can deny evolution entirely, because evidence of evolution is everywhere. The peppered moths for example, are quite famous. While humans may not have completely come from evolution, there is no doubt in my mind that what we are today is in big part a result of evolution.
SuperMonkey
I believe in evolution. I think it is a totally logical thing to believe in, as the creatures on any planet need to change as their environment changes, be it to access food (the turtle example given by jspapp), or to survive climate changes, or lack of water (camels with their hump/s).

I think evolution has made people what we are today, and I would not be surprised if we did evolve from apes, seeing as we are so similar to them in many ways. I think that the "un-evolved" apes that are around are just from a different species of ape that lived in a different climate and surroundings that didn't require any further evolution from what they had. and that humans evolved from apes that spent more time on the ground, where they no longer needed a tail and where the feet needed to be flatter and less hand-like (as they didn't need to hold branches and other things with them).

From my point of view I find it very very hard (almost impossible) to believe in any of the stories in the bible, and even harder to believe that the earth was created in 7days (or whatever) by some godly being, and that all creatures have remained un-changed since the creation of earth Confused

Smile languages and cultures are a great example of evolution, the way they have changed over time, adapted to other languages and cultures, I also believe that learning is a form of evolution Smile

So, while you ask... How can you believe in evolution? I ask how can you believe in creationism? Rolling Eyes


But anyway, these are my beliefs and I am not trying to impose them on any one, nor am I trying to destroy any one elses beliefs. Sorry for the huge post Smile
denggi
Without imposing my belief on anyone, I seriously believe that evolution is real. It has been proven over and over and over again...look at the mutation of viruses that are getting more and more deadly like the bird flu.

People who can't comprehend evolution must think beyond the normal pattern of thought...just because we are so different from apes (or so they say) doesnt mean that we couldnt evolve from a common ancestor. It's not within a million years....it's a process of hundreds of millions of years. There are tribes in africa that have mutations in their gene and as a result.....they have only 2 toes!!! It's like a freakin peace sign all the time.

I think that humans evolved into their current state because of the intelligence and spirit of helping each other. Why else would we be so weak so incapable of surviving in the wild but still prosper? It's because we have used our brains to change the environment to suit OUR needs. Humans are long overdue for evolution...biologically.

People who are so against being compared with animals have a superiority problem. There's nothing so great about humans man...in the end we're all just fighting for food and to plant our seeds around.
EVILSKAAP
OKAY, evolution is the only logical way we could have gotten where we are today! And im not a Christian at all, but do you need to be a non Christian to believe in evolution? HELL NO, my grandfather was the minister of his church and he believed in evolution! Also TIME once had on their cover "will we ever stop evolving?" if i track that down i will post more!
budazz
i hope we wont evolve back to monkey...
Rolz
I don't really know... this evolution stuff seems kinda weird to me. I mean, we humans are too complicated to be just made from a big explosion. Meh.

My dad says we are just a part of a big "test thing". It's like, the dinosaurs were the first tested things, but they didn't "work" well, so the testers sent a meteor to clear them all out, and start a new test.

Well, I don't really care about this stuff.
SilverDogg
of course i believe in evolution. everything around me, and even i, evolve all the time.
silvermesh
evolution is about as debateable scientifically as whether or not grass is green. If you want to see it, go into any lab studying a virus. virii evolve CONSTANTLY right before our eyes. If evolution didn't exist, they wouldn't have to come out with new flu shots every year. In fact, without evolution we would cure all disease and live in perfect health for the rest of our lives within a year(but we would have already done so by the seventies).

and guess what cancer is folks. thats minor variation in the genetic code. thats evolution.

humans did NOT evolve from apes. Humans evolved in a similar fashion as apes. monkeys are our distant cousins, not our grandparents.

Look at a housecat, then look at a Tiger. can you deny that they look similar? can you deny that they are related? at the same time, can you say that they are exactly the same? It is clear that a housecat it related, but different to a tiger. The only way that one species can change is evolution.

almost all the major christian religions support evolution.
The Bible isn't seen as a history book, it's seen as a religious text.
You don't HAVE to be closed-minded to be faithful to God. In fact I'd imagine Gods not a fan of closed-mindedness.

heres another one. In the bible, man created two people. Adam and Eve. If it all started with two people, how did we get so varied? Look around, look at how many colors, shapes, and sizes of humans there are in the world. If it all started with Adam and Eve, the only way to explain all the variation in the human race is via evolution.
silvermesh
jspapp wrote:
I guess I would be half-Christian, but I believe in evolution. There are still unevolved primates because they don't need to evolve. An animal won't evolve if it doesn't have a reason to. A turtle won't grow a longer neck to reach higher plants if it doesn't need to reach higher plants because theres plenty of lower plants.


actually, It very well might. Evolution does not happen in response to stimulus. It is the random chance of genetic variation, mutation. when a species is on the verge of extinction, the gene pool gets very small, because it's the same familial lines just breeding back and forth. when inbreeding happens, mutation is far more likely to happen. so, if the turtles have limited food, turtles are more likely to mutate, because there are so few of them they must inbreed. that turtle might grow a long neck, but not because there are high plants, but out of sheer random chance. it might also develop some other mutation, perhaps a way to get food out of the ground, or fins on it's feet for swimming, so that it can eat waterborn prey. The mutations are not designed to do something, it's just that if the mutation proves useful, that animal will be able to use it to increase it's chances of living. That is evolution. Mutation doesn't require a small gene pool, so even if the turtle isn't dying out, a longer-necked turtle might come along that has an advantage because he has more options for food than the short-necked. He didn't need to be born, but the mutation happened, and since hes better for the environment, sooner or later his species takes over that area.
Bondings
JessieF, evolution belongs to science while a belief belongs to religion. You can't compare the two of them. Saying that you don't believe in a scientific theory because it seems far-fetched in your eyes, while you have no knowledge about it is simply something you shouldn't be doing.

The evolution theory is science best guess of what happened. If you find a proof that the theory is wrong (no scientific theory is completely right) then a new theory will be created which isn't in contradiction with your proof. And every time this happens, the theory will get better and better and will get closer to reality.

I won't be giving you a ton of proofs for the evolution theory. There are millions of proofs, you can find them on the internet or learn them in biology lessons. The fact is that some people rather believe in one book and then ignore all possible proofs you may give them.

Have you ever thought of the implications of no evolution theory? Without the evolution theory, viruses wouldn't mutate. You aren't going to tell me that viruses don't mutate, right? Why are people then so afraid from the chicken flu?
<Edit: silvermesh already used that arguement while I was posting this>
Mark999111
How can evolution not happen?

In general, we get smarter and faster than our previous generation; may not be major but itis evolution in itself. Now if were getting smarter and faster every generation, imagine show much could change in say a million years?

As the enviorment around us changes, so do we. If that isnt true then ask yourself why we dont see giraffes living in the artic. Exactly! The giraffes began to grow longer necks as the trees got taller and taller.

Im not trying to undermine your religon, but its impossible to think that all the animals in our world will stay the same forever. My sister is a christain and drives it into me a lot, she says the world is only 6000 yrs old. If so, what the hell happened to the dinosoaurs???

Think about it
bsimpsn05
I am a believer in evolution, but at the same time I'm a strong supporter of religion. Evolution is an animals ability to adapt to changes in the environment, and there is strong evidence supporting it. Being the son of an archaeologist I was raised in a home where evolution was accepted as fact. And something like 95% of all scientists accept evolution as fact. On the other hand, I think religion is great. While I'm not a believer, I think it does a lot to help better society. religion teaches morality and respect and I think thats very important.
Jack_Hammer
I believe in evolution, lets start from the beggining with Darwin (You should really listen to Mark Steels Lectures on Evolution but...) Darwin investigated and found how these birds seem to have evolved differently to suit the enviroment on each island, so when Darwins theory came out by being pushed from one of his friends writing to tell him about his theory (which was almost the same) made Darwin dcome out with his theory, but when it came out people questioned him (Mainly mocking him in saying) 'If monkeys evolved from mice then wheres the half monky half mouse?' and similar questions in jest, but even to this day the missing evidance in darwins theory are still being found nearly 20 years later. I would explain in more detail and I know this probably doesn't make much sense to you but I wrote it hurriedly.
abone
How the humans always evolve,I think this is Rubbish!.do you accept that your ancestors don't look like you.Could you accept they look like to an animal.
Very Happy

OutlawSpirit wrote:
humans are always evolving...
JessieF
SuperMonkey
Quote:
languages and cultures are a great example of evolution, the way they have changed over time, adapted to other languages and cultures


That is because in the bible, God split the world apart, and divided the religions, and race, and languages. It talks about how in Saudia Arabia where there are different Arabic languages, they couldn't understand each other, when once they were able to.
But I guess if you looked at thinks more scientifically, you would belive some major earthquake happend, and split the world apart.

Silvermesh
Quote:
In the bible, man created two people. Adam and Eve. If it all started with two people, how did we get so varied? Look around, look at how many colors, shapes, and sizes of humans there are in the world. If it all started with Adam and Eve, the only way to explain all the variation in the human race is via evolution.


I am not exactly sure where, but it talks about Adam and Eves son meeting a woman some where.


If you people would read the bible, you would find a lot of answers. You don't have to believ in everything, but it may help you out someway, somehow.
Donutey
science is the HOW.

religion is the WHY.

evolution and christianity aren't in conflict. the church has always been a little slow excepting scientific explanations of the world around us. (inquisition would be a good example) but in some ways thats a good thing, because it keeps scientific explanations in check. however, this whole evolution v ID is just plain stupid. do you hear the pope calling for id? no. this is just a small group of uninformed and somewhat pitiable people who don't realize that what they are against doesnt contradict what they believe in.

a theory is an explanation of many observations and experiments using the scientific method.

anyway my 2c and free speech for the day... Rolling Eyes
Jack_Hammer
Basics: EVERYTHING LEARNS BY TRIAL AND ERROR, just like we made computers 'evolve' we have evolved every animal is currently evolving I believe that we evolved from single cell organisms and then split and tried to envelope (eat, digest) another so they all evolved prey and preditor unto the various animals we have today and we are still evolving, if you don't believe in evolution how can you explain the growth of our human stature over the last 200 years, because our spine straigten outs (along with other reasons) and why is our spine not straight in the first place?, because we used to move on all fours, all abvious conclusions to even the most dim-witted of people.

Ian Johnston wrote:
We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.


Yes I know this is huge but it is mainly to state my point.
Jack_Hammer
Another BIG point here is to make, Christians (and the religion) used to believe in no question that the univers revolved around the earth and that the sun was a few inches high, but we know as scientific fact that this is not true, now you don't here christians still stating it as a fact, why because the proof is infalable there is no debate on whether or not it is true christians just have had to accept that this is wrong, not only this but we know how quickly and dramatically religions change (C of E) for example we know how dramatically one person changed the whole religion just for his own means to an end, and how do you know that someonelse hasn't done the same and the same before that untill the whole religion is infact fals if it wasn't in the first place. second we know that there are hundreds of contradicitons in the bible of itself and if we are to take it as fact we know that the bible was written by the deciples years and years after the events in question happened, and those who have any general intelligance or have done phsycology will know how easly your brain and memorys can be manipulated, I would love to go into so much further detail about how the bible is wrong on so many accounts but I really don't have the time but what I don't understand is how you can be confrunted with indesbutable proof of evolution physics et.c and not accept any of it?
supersonic
I'm pretty sure that the theory of evolution has be thrown way out of porpotion. I was watching a really stupid video about what humans evolved from and they said we evolved from sponges(I have no clue how this person got their degree). It is true that we have developed, but evolution isn't really a big thing.
photon
with my respect to all religions, i truly believe that evolution is the only way human beings have to roam upon this earth. even though my religion too opposes it (in the rough sense, cause god is said to be the creator of all). i really dont have an idea how the world came into being, how the earth was created (whether it is big bang or god ), etc but the only way humans have come about it by evolution

i think there is enough evidence to justify this claim. and as for the believers, they are alway free to choose what they believe. just like almost all believed that the earth was the center of the universe. but in the end, it was proved to be wrong. and simlarly, its just a matter of before some conclusive evidence is found, that will make everyone believe in evolution
gonzo
you obviously embrace the grand religion of equivocation and fallacy
odinstag
I believe in evolution. But not in a totally Darwinian sense. I believe that the environment and time has made us evolve all along. But I believe we have reached a stage in our evolution that we are countering the effects of nature and causing the natural world to evolve also.

We have also learned so much that it should be simple to direct our evolution, perhaps towards the stars or the seas?

I don't know. But evolution does take terrific struggle. Which we seem to be lacking these days. Instead of stugggle, people simply sit around and wait to be rescued. The fact that so many stupid people sit around and do nothing and die off because of it seems to re-enforce the theory if nothing else.

The unfit still do not survive at too good a rate when great struggle comes around to test their mettle.
un4saken
First of all im Muslim and nothing happens before Allah wills, nor after He wills. Nothing happens more than He wills, nor less than He wills. Nothing happens in a different manner than He wills. A snowflake does not fall in the arctic except by the will of Allah; a grain of sand does not blow across the desert except by His permission. A molecular mutation in a genetic code does not occur except by His power and control. Allah alone causes life, and Allah alone causes death. Every living thing in the universe has been given life by Allah, and He alone is sustaining every second of its life. If a species survives better than another in a particular environment, it is because Allah allowed it to live more days, and He willed for its progeny to continue.
In practical terms, if we take the theory of Evolution as a means by which Allah diversifies life on earth to show us His majesty and ability, then He alone, for instance, causes a nucleotide base to be deleted or added in a DNA sequence, thereby causing a frameshift mutation, which leads to the birth of a new species, which represents an evolutionary superior to its genetic predecessor, which passes on its DNA to its progeny, which results in a subsequent mutation, ad infinitum. Furthermore, Allah not only starts this process but He also sustains and directs every second of its execution and development.

If I think that Allah created the first seeds of life and then “stepped back” from His creation, I am deluded as to the reality of my Sustainer. As such, I will not be able to worship Him correctly, with the proper level of reverence, and I may even consider there to be powers that act outside of His will. To think that something other than Allah has inherent power and can function beyond His power is a form of shirk, associating partners with Allah – the only unforgivable sin.

i believe in evolution because i believe in Allah.
gonzo
un4saken wrote:
First of all im Muslim and nothing happens before Allah wills, nor after He wills. Nothing happens more than He wills, nor less than He wills. Nothing happens in a different manner than He wills.


Please clarify how your position differs from predestination. Does allah allow us free will like the merciful, loving Father of the new testament indicates? Or not?
windval
i believe in god too

so i do not believe in evolution

i think it is nonsense
Valleyman
I'm an athiest and I believe in evolution (interestingly, however, my dad is a christian and also believes in evolution, in any case). It is currently the best theory out there to explain how humanity came into being. Intelligent Design is just silly (no offense to any ID believers, and if you want an explanation for my opinion I'd be happy to give it) and, as I already said, I'm an athiest which essentially rules out all religious explanations. Besides being the best of the current theories evolution has enormous volumes of strong support for it. Much of it has already been mentioned, but no one has yet mentioned one of the greates pieces of evidence: ring species.

The best way to explain ring species is to give an example:
Wikipedia wrote:
The Herring gull, which lives primarily in Great Britain, can breed with the American Herring gull (living in North America), which can also breed with the Vega Herring gull, which can breed with Birula's gull, which can breed with Heuglin's gull, which can breed with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull (all four of these live across the top of Siberia), which can breed with the Lesser Black-backed Gull back in Northern Europe, including Great Britain. However, the Lesser Black-backed gull and Herring gull are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a ring species.


This shows macro-evoltution. As the herring gull dispersed and spread to different regions, which had different environments, it aquired new traits to better suit its new environment. Finally, when the decendant of the herring gull made it back to Great Britain it was a different species.
gonzo
:sigh:


animals evolve : true

life 'evolved' from non-life : false

Does the self evident nature of that escape you?




edit: size mod
denggi
Well, lets not get into a debate about how life started. This is about evolution. And i just have to say that there are people who dont believe in evolution just because of what they learnt from their religion. They dont even want to consider any other source or info!!
Maybe what one of the earlier guys mentioned was true..bout how god(or some other force of nature..i choose to think of it as chance) was managing evolution, managing the path of evolution.


And..hehe, if adam and eve's son met a woman somewhere. Then adam and eve couldn be the first humans...either that or the woman was the son's sister.
thegamecreator
in my opinion evolution is just a BS way that scientists try and turn people anti religous.
Scott
^I don't know why people need to assume that science and religion are enemies. God and evolution could both exist, easily.
charliehk
Yeah, I don't see why science and religion can't go together. However, I think sometimes we must think again and again before accepting something that science "proved" to be true, since science may later "proving" it to be incorrect, for example, cold fusion, etc.
Jayfarer
Quote:
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that we evolved from apes!!


Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that the Earth revolves around the sun!!

Evolution happens. Any anti-evolution argument you hear from the Intelligent Design enthusiasts, such as irreducible complexity, has been refuted. The problem is that it takes a lot of knowledge and a lot of words to refute it, and isn't swallowed as easily as the quick simple fallacies in the ID arguments.

Check out EvoWiki:
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Main_Page
budazz
thegamecreator wrote:
in my opinion evolution is just a BS way that scientists try and turn people anti religous.


aha?!... so what is your avatar
Indyan
I just finished doing my bio project on Evolution Laughing
RebelYell4x4
Yah i definatly believe in evolution. It is a proven scientifically and it's reacurring everyday with viruses and bacteria. There are many different examples I could give examples to try and convince people but it would be hopeless becasue everyone has their own believes and it is almost impossible to break them if you were raised that way...
JustaMin
Evolution is scientific fact. It's been proven! I have the greatest of respect for people's religions, but for me, the bible (as thats whats mostly being discussed here) is a collection of symbols. It's been translated and reworded loads of times to suit different people's views, it's unreliable as an account of how life strarted imo, whereas science has tangiable, proveable answers.

I used to believe in God when I was younger, and I have no desire to try and dissuade anyone from their beliefs, but for me arguments against evolution are deeply flawed.
atomictoyz
I do not believe in Evolution.

I used to.

Evolution has alot of logic problems, contradictions, lack of evidence, and is unprovable. There is significant amount of conjecture, confusion and over simplification to construct a man made story many people buy into without much personal investigation.

Evolution is taken by faith even more so than most old creationists.

Peace,
Atomic
silvermesh
atomictoyz wrote:

Evolution has alot of logic problems, contradictions, lack of evidence, and is unprovable. There is significant amount of conjecture, confusion and over simplification to construct a man made story many people buy into without much personal investigation.


I've seen this paragraph, almost word for word, at least a dozen times, but I've never seen anyone even attempt to back it up with facts.

it's true that evolution is not scientific fact. the only way to prove evolution would be to discover hard literally BILLIONS of species over the billions and billions of years of earths past. As far as it goes. in science, there is no such thing as hard fact, there is only theory. Evolution is hard theory. What this means is that there is NO better theory put forth.

JessieF wrote:
I am not exactly sure where, but it talks about Adam and Eves son meeting a woman some where.


If you people would read the bible, you would find a lot of answers. You don't have to believ in everything, but it may help you out someway, somehow.

The only reason the bible could possibly be seen to contradict evolution is because of the second creation story in genesis. if there are other people, then the bible doesn't contradict evolution either...

heres one for you. the first creation story in genesis is mistranslated. the word elohim in the original hebrew text should actually be interpereted as "gods". the gods created the people of the world, then Yahweh created adam and eve, and set them apart in paradise.
mceejaydee
I believe in both. Adam and Eve evolved!!!! Until i read this one small bible thing. You know those small ones old guys used to give out
seekerseyes
Hello friends

Abdu´l Bahá, the son of our prophet Bahá'u'llah, said in his talks when visiting Paris in 1911:

Quote:
MAN AND EVOLUTION

Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed, 308 for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet; but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed it was no longer of use, and therefore it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground, and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed; and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue.

The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change, and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterwards. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree.

Secondly, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology, that is to say the knowledge of the composition of the members, records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the 309 redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black, so as to attract the rays of the sun; for if it were another color, that is, uniformly white, it would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known.

Thirdly, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance, and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man; that is to say, an embryo of a man, and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the foetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color, and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.

To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period -- in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in 310 the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species, that is, man, and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, "We will make man in Our image and likeness." He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful, and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener became finer, sweeter, and acquire more freshness and delicacy.

The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God.


What else could I say....
lockwolf
I think that evolution is very possible but I haven't found enough evidence to actually think of it being real. I do believe in Intellegent Design (Being Christian and all) due to the fact that humans are so complex right down to the molecule. I really dont think that over time, we could become what we are today because it is too complex for this to happen.
JessieF
Jayfarer wrote:
Quote:
Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that we evolved from apes!!


Even if you're not Christian, how are you able to think that the Earth revolves around the sun!!



I don't believe that Earth revolves around the sun. I was simply asking how could you believe it.

Just because it's 'normal' or 'expected' doesn't mean that Christians really believe it. 'Normally', wouldn't you think a Christian would believe in the bible? There's Christians here posting that they believe in evolution! While the bible is saying othewise!
You need to stop making assumptions.
gonzo
gonzo wrote:
:sigh:


animals evolve : true

life 'evolved' from non-life : false

Does the self evident nature of that escape you?




denggi wrote:
Well, lets not get into {the horrific flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution} . This is about {focusing on the functional parts and sweeping all diffuculties on the microscopic level or origin questions under the rug}


denggi wrote:
They dont even want to consider any other source or info!!


wow, that sounds familiar. oh, wait, it describes YOUR position.
atomictoyz
silvermesh wrote:

but I've never seen anyone even attempt to back it up with facts.


silvermesh wrote:


As far as it goes. in science, there is no such thing as hard fact


Might this be part of the problem? Facts with no facts Smile

For a hint. A person investigating evolution not only have to do some historital research on how data was collected and interpreted but also how the scientists have struggled. Alot of what ends up in text books as been watered down to be more convincing that it really is. There is also alot of political bias and depending on what year the book was written there are alot of unknown where the scientist released to the media findings that were unsubstantiated.
I have a copy of a reseach paper somewhere that top geneticists through analyzing maternal DNA discovered that Neandertal could not have been in the existing popular lineage. One scientists response was that he did not have the money to "re-do" his exhibits. It would been a cladistical nightmare Wink

This is only the tip of the iceberg mind you. Until popular academia comes out of the closed circuit of self reference for authentication the circle of misinformation will only get worse. The only way for this to happen is to start pulling grants.

I realize that I am fighting against nearly 80 years of dogma but I think it will be well worth it when I am done documenting my work for publication.

Evolution is not the best available, it is the only tolerable one to the materialist.

Have fun with what you believe while you stall can though... Smile

Peace,
Atomic
Valleyman
Well, as long as we are going to ingnore the actual arguments and just take cheapshots:

gonzo wrote:
:sigh:


animals evolve {the theory of evolution} : true

life 'evolved' from non-life {a theory which is different form evolution}: false

Does the self evident nature of that escape you?



You might want to read this, to inform you as to what you're arguing about.

Even if you do want to argue about the origins of life I have here a perfectly valid counter argument:

You honestly think that life 'evolving' from non-life is less likely than a great man in the sky conjuring it out of nothing, since that is what you're advocating.
gonzo
Valleyman wrote:
Well, as long as we are going to ingnore the actual arguments and just take cheapshots:

gonzo wrote:
:sigh:


animals evolve : true

life 'evolved' from non-life : false

Does the self evident nature of that escape you?



You might want to read ...to inform you as to what you're arguing about.

...perfectly valid ...

.. less likely than .....


Speaking of cheapshots.. you might actually want to check my posts for assertions before decrying my position. Apparently the concept of 'summarizing' similarly escapes you.

Zero is not a degree of likelihood any more than a broken arm makes you more capable. You might yourself want to brush up on the distinctions between semantics and sophistry -- the latter of which you apparently enjoy employing.



Rolling Eyes
Davidgr1200
Personally I am impressed by a God who can start a universe and by using some (relatively) simple rules, sit back and relax whilst evolution takes place. That, I think, is a far more powerful God than one who has to go in and build all the components manually.
Also I think we have to distinguish evolution from Darwinism. Evolution is a proven fact, Darwinism is the best theory we have to explain how evolution works. "Intelligent design", on the other hand, denies the facts of evolution. If it was an alternative explanation to Darwinism and could explain evolution, then it might be taken seriously.
Yjaxygames
I believe in Evolution. Maybe some things in the Bible are true, but I think God is not real. Maybe people just thought there was something out there that made everything because they didn't know what it was and called it God. We don't know where we will go after we die, so we think we go to God. We don't know if we evolved or where we came from, so we think God created us. I think we will never know if we evolved and Evolution is true, or that God created us. I hope I didn't insult any of you guys.
atomictoyz
Davidgr1200 wrote:
Evolution is a proven fact, Darwinism is the best theory we have to explain how evolution works. "Intelligent design", on the other hand, denies the facts of evolution.


A majority of the data used by the Intelligent Design scientists is the same data used by Evolutionists. Alot of the Intelligent Design theory never dicusses theology. Dr. Micheal Behe in Darwins Black box discusses the biochemical limitations to evolution. His book is scientific and layouts the problems in a very easy to understand manner. I read Dawkins response and couldn't believe how incorrect he was. In fact I am quite frustrated that the "scientific" community does not even try to challenge their own research to see whether it meets the criteria of science.

Curious?
How is evolution a fact?

Peace,
Atomic
webapp
I do believe in evolution......As a matter of fact don't we think we all evolved from Ape..lol
Bondings
atomictoyz wrote:
Davidgr1200 wrote:
Evolution is a proven fact, Darwinism is the best theory we have to explain how evolution works. "Intelligent design", on the other hand, denies the facts of evolution.


A majority of the data used by the Intelligent Design scientists is the same data used by Evolutionists. Alot of the Intelligent Design theory never dicusses theology. Dr. Micheal Behe in Darwins Black box discusses the biochemical limitations to evolution. His book is scientific and layouts the problems in a very easy to understand manner. I read Dawkins response and couldn't believe how incorrect he was. In fact I am quite frustrated that the "scientific" community does not even try to challenge their own research to see whether it meets the criteria of science.

Curious?
How is evolution a fact?

Peace,
Atomic

So that book is talking about biochemical limitations. There is no way you can prove those things. "Too complex" really funny as a proof. Everything is possible, certainly on a few billion years. Nature will always find a way around problems.

What would you say if you work your whole life on something and you're really good at it and when you finally achieve something unique after 15 billion of years, people just tell you that it's impossible to be made by you, that it's way too complex? How can they possibly know that while you have been working on it for so long testing all possibilities which they would never even find out, not in a million years?

The difference between the two theories is that scientists try to explain what happened based on all proofs they find (yes, of course they make mistakes from time to time), while creationists/intelligent designers are searching for arguments to support their holy theory that there must be some kind of god designing it. Instead of asking themselves how nature created something, they are simply saying that God made it.

Intelligent Design is just an attempt to make religion look like science.
atomictoyz
Bondings wrote:
So that book is talking about biochemical limitations. There is no way you can prove those things. "Too complex" really funny as a proof. Everything is possible, certainly on a few billion years. Nature will always find a way around problems.


The proof is not what he said, but in the experiments that proved there is no functionality of many of the sub-sysyems in a complex organism. He took apart organisms until there was nothing left but a pile in non-functioning individual components and compared those to natural existing processes. If you cannot observe the process and are left to rely of "giving enough time" as your answer then you are no better than creationists.

Not everything is possible with given unusually long and unmeasurable time periods. Nature does not always find away around a problem, hense the term extinction daintily adds more unknowns.

Just because a human makes a chart of "logical morphological progression" does not mean that the chart reflects reality. Cladograms are often void of biochemical relationships but are constructed from long ago, Lamark imagined something and painted a picture by simply connecting dots according to similarity of various things to his choosing. It's a tool that really has no real link to the real world. Molecular Biologists are trying to create computer programs to reduce the workload and possibility of error, but the input is still human.


Bondings wrote:

What would you say if you work your whole life on something and you're really good at it and when you finally achieve something unique after 15 billion of years, people just tell you that it's impossible to be made by you, that it's way too complex? How can they possibly know that while you have been working on it for so long testing all possibilities which they would never even find out, not in a million years?


The problem lies again with the ability to observe. If there is no way to observe the testing then you are again stuck in the position of speculation.

When you compare real observable processes you will not see a single one to support the "anything can happen over time hypothesis. There have been experiments for decades to try and reproduce the known process with minimal human intervention.

The number of people who believe in evolution compare to those who have actually spent time experimenting and observing is quite small. Evolution is taken upon faith after reading a book or an article without 1st person knowldege. This is a charge levied against most religious people but rarely does one recognize the hypocrisy of such allegations.



Bondings wrote:

The difference between the two theories is that scientists try to explain what happened based on all proofs they find (yes, of course they make mistakes from time to time), while creationists/intelligent designers are searching for arguments to support their holy theory that there must be some kind of god designing it. Instead of asking themselves how nature created something, they are simply saying that God made it.


Well, simply saying "evolution did it" is a metaphysical explantion because there is no current observable process. "Must have" is metaphysical. You might start counting the number of times the words "Could have" appear in scientific literature. It's a dead give away there are no supporting data, observation or facts.

Have you seen with your eyes, life as we observe it, coming from a non-living concoction of known molecular structures? Stanley Miller and many since have tried without success. But it MUST have happened if what we want to believe is to be considered factual.... right.



Bondings wrote:

Intelligent Design is just an attempt to make religion look like science.
Actually it isn't. Many of the work is completely void of
religious intervention. Many of the scientist came to the conclusion by looking for what Dawkins called tooling marks. Evolution is losing it's ground with alot of scientists because simple oberservation is slowly proving the predicitons to be wrong.

The most vocal and nutty people out there are doing more harm than good on both sides of the debate.

Ever read The Biotic Message? Not internet threads but the actual book?

Buy it...Read it... It's amazing what evolutionists have said about thier own "sacred" theory.


Sorry to bother you.

Peace,
Dennis
Bondings
The first characteristic of science is that it will never be able to explain everything. The thing is that something we can't explain today, will be explained tomorrow, just more questions will arise. You will always find one component for which science doesn't have an explanation yet. That doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong. It's not because you can't make or explain something at the moment or just don't have the means to make it, that it is not possible. Let's give you an example; cloning was thought to be impossible for animals till a few years ago, now it has been achieved.

Quote:
Have you seen with your eyes, life as we observe it, coming from a non-living concoction of known molecular structures? Stanley Miller and many since have tried without success.

Science doesn't have a good theory about how the first living things were created. This is a very interesting topic, but isn't even needed to explain/prove the rest of the evolution theory. They could have come from a comet coming from another planet/thing with other temperature/conditions. They could have been formed on earth. They could have been put here by some magician called God by some people or aliens by other people. Wink

Just kidding about the latest part, but nobody ever claimed that creating life would be easy. By the way, only one time would have been enough.

Quote:
Evolution is losing it's ground with alot of scientists because simple oberservation is slowly proving the predicitons to be wrong.

So you observe that something is too complex to be created by nature and a few years later a valid theory is found. Just name a few arguments that were named in the past and I can tell you, most of them should easily be explained by now.

Quote:
He took apart organisms until there was nothing left but a pile in non-functioning individual components and compared those to natural existing processes. If you cannot observe the process and are left to rely of "giving enough time" as your answer then you are no better than creationists.

The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible.

Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible
I hope you understand what I mean with this.

Quote:
Molecular Biologists are trying to create computer programs to reduce the workload and possibility of error, but the input is still human.

Neural networks are actually something I am studying a bit. They are simple, but yet amazingly intelligent systems consisting of interconnected neurons able to learn. The learning curve is giving it input and perfect output (like msn search does) or more complex; observing with a huge amount of input and not-so-perfect output. Such systems (don't really know how to call them) are able to drive cars on highways and even in busy cities without any given human input during the ride on a different road then where they learnt to drive! It is exactly as humans learnt it. In the soon future (maybe even less than 10 years, machines will easily be able to translate texts from one language to the other, just by learning different languages and write short stories themselves.

By the way, your post seems to put a lot of attention to the 'creativity' of humans. One of the reasons (evolution theory) why we became the dominant animal is because we are a copy-paste animal(look at this forum for a proof, you'll easily find identical posts, by the way please report them Wink ), the same as monkeys. Everything we do is an exact copy of something we did before or someone else did before, just with a very small modification/improvement. Just look at simple examples of walking, talking and writing. You are not able to walk without the reflexes/copying of the movement by trying to move your leg up and down and lean forward and then put your feet forward. It's simply impossible as your balance is regulated by, again, the learnt/copied reflexes/movements.

The Intelligent Design doesn't take into consideration the fact that evolution isn't linear at all and also very complex. Going from New York to Washington might seem impossible. But nature went from New York to Mexico, to Antarctica, to Australia, to Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to Australia, back to Asia, to Alaska and then finally to Cananda and Washington. If nature is in New York, it doesn't want to go to Washington, it just gets more complex an changes and then by natural selection including a lot of luck, a few characteristics get added. Some useful, some not and a lot of them even lethal. However, for evolution all changes are useful and will keep it going.

Take the example of the human tail bone. It's what is left over from the tail of our ancestors. I won't say that evolution didn't find another way function for it, but at least it's not very useful at the moment. However, one day it will either completely disappear or be used for something completely different.

An example function could be a future cable connection for humans to get data. (please excuse me for the funny example, but I couldn't find anything better) Of course you will then say that it was always meant to be used that way, but I hope you get the point. A tail could be used for something completely different.

Or take the example of the thumb. The xbox/psp generation now has developed much bigger thumbs, especially the right one. If this continues, then evolution will find a way to make this a new characteristic of humans; a big and muscled thumb. Idea
jaro
Evolution is the only theory that has any amount of scientific proof to back it up. Creationism seems just like all the other already ruled out ancient theorys like for instance the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, and so on. How can you put blind faith in an old fable?
SuperMonkey
I'd like to just point out that people have been saying that there isn't enough/any proof of evolution... Ummm well excuse me but I don't think I or anyone else can find any proof of a god or gods, or any proof that the world and life were created by a god Confused

The proof of evolution can be found in bacteria which is constantly evolving and in fossils, comparing them to the creatures of today.

you can't say there is no proof of evolution (I know someone is gonna say "you can't say there is no proof of creationism" Rolling Eyes) well at least there is physical proof of evolution and that the world has been around a very long time (several billions of years) and I have to say that is a very long time for creatures to inhabit a planet and it is also a very long time for evolution to take place. Just because we are unable to observe life over billions of years, that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is false. If that was the case then the ID/creationism theory and the idea of a god are just as false (if not even more so) as there is no one that saw the creation of the earth and/or life, and there is no one that has seen god.

Evolution is taking place right in front of us, and it has done so since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so until the end of time (if there is an end Smile)
Lamp
You know in the Bible where it says 6 days? (don't we all?) Well I believe that during those '6' days, it was really around 4.6 Billion years in human mindset. when God said to write down 4.6 billion years, it may of gotten tranlated into something else~6 days? Or it may have just been what it seemed like to God. So I believe in what is scientifically proven and what my religion supports. A Crevolution if you will.
Bondings
Lamp wrote:
You know in the Bible where it says 6 days? (don't we all?) Well I believe that during those '6' days, it was really around 4.6 Billion years in human mindset. when God said to write down 4.6 billion years, it may of gotten tranlated into something else~6 days? Or it may have just been what it seemed like to God. So I believe in what is scientifically proven and what my religion supports. A Crevolution if you will.

Make it that god planned the creation of the universe and it took 14.6 years to take place, just like science/evolution explains it.
atomictoyz
Bondings wrote:
The first characteristic of science is that it will never be able to explain everything. The thing is that something we can't explain today, will be explained tomorrow, just more questions will arise. You will always find one component for which science doesn't have an explanation yet. That doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong. It's not because you can't make or explain something at the moment or just don't have the means to make it, that it is not possible. Let's give you an example; cloning was thought to be impossible for animals till a few years ago, now it has been achieved.
The entire premise of evolution is that life came about from non living matter via natural processes. The natural processes to get from point A to point B have never been observed; therefore it is speculation and not science. Maybe someday holds as much weight scientifically as the “Hopeful Monster” SJG wrote about.


Quote:
Have you seen with your eyes, life as we observe it, coming from a non-living concoction of known molecular structures? Stanley Miller and many since have tried without success.
Bondings wrote:

Science doesn't have a good theory about how the first living things were created. This is a very interesting topic, but isn't even needed to explain/prove the rest of the evolution theory. They could have come from a comet coming from another planet/thing with other temperature/conditions. They could have been formed on earth. They could have been put here by some magician called God by some people or aliens by other people. Wink

Just kidding about the latest part, but nobody ever claimed that creating life would be easy. By the way, only one time would have been enough.


Where something comes from is very important to the discussion. But a good theory based upon observation is/should be able to make predictions that do not contradict the premise of the theory. I really enjoy theories but when someone tries to tell me the theory is something more I have to go farther and investigate whether it deserves being elevated to Law. I’ve come of with a lot of theories myself and debunked a good portion of them by trying to. I observe change in nature but I do not attribute change to being a synonym to evolution. Change can happen for a lot of reasons, but nowadays every change is automatically labeled evidence of evolution without trying to disprove it. If scientists want to reduce it that far and then go ahead and say water evolves and dirt evolves. Dead things evolve and even maybe there is no such thing as non living.


Quote:
Evolution is losing it's ground with alot of scientists because simple oberservation is slowly proving the predicitons to be wrong.

Bondings wrote:

So you observe that something is too complex to be created by nature and a few years later a valid theory is found. Just name a few arguments that were named in the past and I can tell you, most of them should easily be explained by now.
No. The problem is not that something is too complex, the problem is observation. If you observe a limit to functionality it does not matter what your theory or imagination thinks is possible or impossible. There are a lot of arguments about processes but most of them still are only theory without observational data to back it up.

Quote:
He took apart organisms until there was nothing left but a pile in non-functioning individual components and compared those to natural existing processes. If you cannot observe the process and are left to rely of "giving enough time" as your answer then you are no better than creationists.

Bondings wrote:

The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible.

Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible
I hope you understand what I mean with this.
I understand what you mean. But the same argument could be used in support of creationists. “We know God exists scientifically even though the technology and knowledge to prove it does not exist yet”

Irreducibly Complex means simply that there is a level of complexity in which a system can no longer function. The level of functionality is difference for every system of systems and we can readily observe these limitations. For your network to be hacked you network requires a minimum number of components to be called a network. If all the Cat5 cables, routers, cards, silicon chips and electricity were in separate boxes, you may have parts of a network but not a functioning network. How long could those components sit in their boxes before they begin to interconnect themselves into a functioning network? What processes would cause the router to unwrap itself and jump of the shelf to go interconnect with a host? How long would one have sit in Circuit City before observing such activity?

Quote:
Molecular Biologists are trying to create computer programs to reduce the workload and possibility of error, but the input is still human.

Bondings wrote:

Neural networks are actually something I am studying a bit. They are simple, but yet amazingly intelligent systems consisting of interconnected neurons able to learn. The learning curve is giving it input and perfect output (like msn search does) or more complex; observing with a huge amount of input and not-so-perfect output. Such systems (don't really know how to call them) are able to drive cars on highways and even in busy cities without any given human input during the ride on a different road then where they learnt to drive! It is exactly as humans learnt it. In the soon future (maybe even less than 10 years, machines will easily be able to translate texts from one language to the other, just by learning different languages and write short stories themselves.

A learning Neural Network implies intelligent intervention. It also implies creative intervention because even if we ignore how a silicon chip could come about via natural processes you still have to deal with where cars and highways come from without intelligent intervention. We have not observed programs being written and executed without some level of intelligent input from man. Your analogy actually gives more credence to Intelligent Design than unguided evolutionary processes.

Bondings wrote:

By the way, your post seems to put a lot of attention to the 'creativity' of humans. One of the reasons (evolution theory) why we became the dominant animal is because we are a copy-paste animal (look at this forum for a proof, you'll easily find identical posts, by the way please report them Wink ), the same as monkeys. Everything we do is an exact copy of something we did before or someone else did before, just with a very small modification/improvement. Just look at simple examples of walking, talking and writing. You are not able to walk without the reflexes/copying of the movement by trying to move your leg up and down and lean forward and then put your feet forward. It's simply impossible as your balance is regulated by, again, the learnt/copied reflexes/movements.

Copy and Pasting is proof of Intelligence. “Knowledge transfer” is an interesting subject
because we keep reinventing the wheel right? Copying and Pasting also proves that deleterious mutations are diluting the gene pool. No new information but a lot of watered down misinformation. Creativity is a sign of intelligence.


Bondings wrote:

The Intelligent Design doesn't take into consideration the fact that evolution isn't linear at all and also very complex. Going from New York to Washington might seem impossible. But nature went from New York to Mexico, to Antarctica, to Australia, to Africa, to Europe, to Asia, to Australia, back to Asia, to Alaska and then finally to Canada and Washington. If nature is in New York, it doesn't want to go to Washington, it just gets more complex an changes and then by natural selection including a lot of luck, a few characteristics get added. Some useful, some not and a lot of them even lethal. However, for evolution all changes are useful and will keep it going.

You mention “want” and ” luck”. It’s interesting that you mention words that have been banned by scientists when discussing evolution theory. After accidentally invoking those words in the late 70’s to explain evolution that had to quickly redefine evolution to something simple and bullet proof.


Bondings wrote:
Take the example of the human tail bone. It's what is left over from the tail of our ancestors. I won't say that evolution didn't find another way function for it, but at least it's not very useful at the moment. However, one day it will either completely disappear or be used for something completely different.

Vestiges are an offshoot of Lamarckism’s recapitulation theory where “man” tries to determine the function of something he doesn’t fully understand because lack of investigation. Even recently I was told by a Doctor that my Uvula was useless and should have it removed. Yet the insurance company nurse informed me that it performs great during acid reflux incidents.

Bondings wrote:
An example function could be a future cable connection for humans to get data. (please excuse me for the funny example, but I couldn't find anything better) Of course you will then say that it was always meant to be used that way, but I hope you get the point. A tail could be used for something completely different.
The tailbone is the main anchor point for the muscles for the diaphragm in the lower abdomen. Ask your doctor is you can have your tailbone removed and see what he/she says.

Bondings wrote:
Or take the example of the thumb. The xbox/psp generation now has developed much bigger thumbs, especially the right one. If this continues, then evolution will find a way to make this a new characteristic of humans; a big and muscled thumb. Idea
One of the difficult ideas to get most biologists to grasp is how to separate parametric functions from new specialized formations. Virus’ and bacteria use parametric functions to adjust to various conditions. It was only until recently that scientist’s redefined (again) the definition of speciation and sub species to show new super bugs were a problem to humans. Resistance to antibiotics is no different than being resistant to the natural immune system in the basic sense. Both are hostile to the bug and the bug in real time starts to counter the hostilities by changing its access code parametrically within predetermined boundaries. I know it’s an oversimplification but it is quite an amazing thing.

I like that you are trying to use analogies to help sort out and relate to the subject. Analogies are very useful tools for helping or killing a concept. Scientist often use them to describe a thought in common terms. For me, analogies are how I kill most theories.

Keep up the good work.

Happy Thanks Giving! Gobble Gobble


Peace,
Dennis (aka Atomic)
Bondings
Bondings wrote:
The issue of irreducible complexity, well here I go. My argument of giving it enough time was not meant to prove that it happened - certainly not, but only to prove that proving that something is impossible is very hard, if not impossible.

Let's compare it to a very complex (and important financial) computer network where somebody claims that it cannot be hacked because a million hackers tried to hack it without success. Now, after functioning thousands/millions/billions of years (just a lot compared to the testing period) some information was changed/money was stolen. A few of the options are that either someone hacked into it or that it came from inside. I am not able to hack it either, but I am able to tell you that you never can exclude that the computer network was hacked. Of course, hacking it myself would be quite an evidence. But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible
I hope you understand what I mean with this.

atomictoyz wrote:
I understand what you mean. But the same argument could be used in support of creationists. “We know God exists scientifically even though the technology and knowledge to prove it does not exist yet”

No, that's not true, the same argument would be that you can't prove that god does not exist. I was using this as an argument against ID instead of an argument for evolution.
Jayfarer
Quote:
Irreducibly Complex means simply that there is a level of complexity in which a system can no longer function. The level of functionality is difference for every system of systems and we can readily observe these limitations. For your network to be hacked you network requires a minimum number of components to be called a network. If all the Cat5 cables, routers, cards, silicon chips and electricity were in separate boxes, you may have parts of a network but not a functioning network. How long could those components sit in their boxes before they begin to interconnect themselves into a functioning network? What processes would cause the router to unwrap itself and jump of the shelf to go interconnect with a host? How long would one have sit in Circuit City before observing such activity?


This is quite the metaphor you guys have got going here.

But basically, what most scientsists say, is that the purpose of the Cat5 cables, routers, etc. wold not necessarily have always remained the same. Their importance in being part of the network has evolved over time. Their function has changed over time until it is as integral as we see it today.
atomictoyz
Bondings wrote:
But a lack of knowledge and means doesn't prove that something is impossible.


This is the main point of what you were trying to say.

You were saying that ID is wrong because it points to the impossible as evidence against evolution without intelligent intervention. But you aretrying to downplay impossible by using the hopeful monster technique which refers to some future knowledge revealing that the impossible is quite common.

My point is that irregardless of what the future may hold it's still is not science until then. Evolution and ID cannot refer to future data as fact.

The metaphor I used for the networks is the same metaphor used in convincing people the transition from micro to macro. The metaphor works because there is no data and no observation of small to large changes. It is quite evident on the other hand from breeding and hybridization experiments that most changes beyond a certain point are fatal. The number of non-viable offspring in these experiments are astoundingly high.

But even though the data says no, scientist jump to some future possibility or revelation without dealing with the reality of the data.

Science is about what you can prove and not what you can imagine.

Nobody has ever seen a functioning network come about from "observing" the IT section in Best Buy.

If you want to do a scientific experiment for your self then go buy a router, cat5, server, host, and power supply and throw them into a kiddy pool. Stir it, shake it, burn it but do not touch the boxes once inside the pool. Let me know by email when your server is up. You can't refer to enourmos amount of time passing because that isn't science that is speculation. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions but they have to be proven.

For a fun part of the experiment you have to drive to best buy blinfolded and pickout the parts blindfolded.

Lets go eat some turkey.


Peace,
Dennis
dydx
You know it is so weird that you mention this because NPR just had a special podcast the day before yesterday on the development of the theory of evolution. One major point that they guest speaker made was that people often confuse the notions of evolution and those of natural selection. There are still many scientists who believe in evolution but disagree with evolution through natural selection - which explains how one could plausibly believe in creationism and evolution; nature could have been created through intelligent design and then simply evolved into varying species, as opposed species beginning from microscopic origins and "fighting" their way to the top and once reaching there, evolving into even more advantageous and well-adapted species relevant to their environment.

I'm pretty skeptical about the whole intelligent design bit, but I have to claim ignorance when it comes to the evolution controversy, seeing how I am pitifully informed compared to scientist and religious figures who have been studying and debating the issue for a greater part of their lives.
Bondings
atomictoyz wrote:
You were saying that ID is wrong because it points to the impossible as evidence against evolution without intelligent intervention. But you aretrying to downplay impossible by using the hopeful monster technique which refers to some future knowledge revealing that the impossible is quite common.

The only argument I know that is used for Intelligent Design is that life is too be complex to be made by evolution. I'm not really referring to future knowledge, I'm just saying that there is completely no way to prove such a claim.

The problem with your network metaphor is that you imply that evolution would be linear. It isn't. First of all, evolution never created a computer network. If it would create one, it would look way more complex and be much less efficient if you compare it with its complexity. If you think evolution takes a head, two hands, ... and stir it till a human comes out, then sure I agree that it isn't possible. Just read a science book about evolution not written by someone who supports ID and no, not the bible. Unlike human inventions, body parts have several functions which change over time. To get back to your network metaphor, a cable could easily switch into two separte cables and become a router over time.

Also, you never mentioned a specific example of why life should be too complex to be formed by evolution. I'm sure I can find an answer on most of those examples.
solomagos
I am not a Christian AND I believe in evolution. Have you read Charles Darwin??? You should. The bible tells many things that are uncertain, and other are just an explanation that society needs. The more-than-2000-years-ago society didn't know many things that we know know, like the Earth is not flat. That society wondered where did they come, and tried to solve that question by saying "we came from nothing". But think that something can't come from nothing. Just looking at the phisics, "enery doesn't create nor destroy, it only transforms". We and the whole world is enery. Matter is just a type of enery. It think that that creation thing was ok for that society, but not for ours, because we have more knowledge about our world than then.

I also wanted to tell you just an example about an uncertain thing that the bible says. It says that Herodes told someone to kill Jesus, and the truth is that Herodes was dead by the time Jesus was born. AND THE CHURH HAS RECOGNISED IT!!! You just can't believe what a book says without any proofs of it. Modern science have proofs. Get informed.

Love, Lena
dpsthree
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/wackyevolutionists.html

--------------------------------------------------------]
"Lord protect me from your followers"
meretyping
i know that a lot of people have said this already, and i truly don't want to offend anyone, but i believe in evolution too. i know that the argument against evolution is that god created all life, and so if you believe in evolution you don't believe in god.

although i'm an atheist/agnostic, i have no problem with religious people and many aspects of religion. however, this makes no sense to me. the only reason that the bible doesn't mention evolution is that the people who wrote it (yes, i do believe that people wrote the bible, and put down all they knew about their god) didn't know about evolution yet!

think about it. can't our beliefs change [evolve, as it were] just as people do? just because god didn't dream up everything doesn't mean there can't be one!

again, this is just what i think, but doesn't it make sense?
Bondings
dpsthree wrote:
http://objectiveministries.org/creation/wackyevolutionists.html

--------------------------------------------------------]
"Lord protect me from your followers"

I first didn't realize you named it "The craziest website ever". Wink

Anyway, this is what they tell about "Evolutionism Propaganda":
objectiveministries.org wrote:
However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

Laughing
hac
Well, I do believe in evolution. Its logical that organisms tend to change to dapt with their surroundings. Immunity can be considered to be a very minute level of evolution. (If there are any medi freaks here, don't get mad at me!). But I'm still doubtful about how the first organisms started. Yeah the sci dudes claim that they were forme from complex compounds but in the end there has to be some... some intelligence that put them together. Hmm.. maybe we'll know one of these days.
ekingisrael
I believe in Evolution,I believe that the human race has developed just like every other life form,cuease we adapted to the nature and to the conditions arround us,I don't know if we came from the monkeys-but i do know that we were not as developed as today,we're developing all the time.. Idea Wink
iluvszilardnemeth
From an English perspective, most people here who hear about the whole "divine creation" idea and God creating heaven and earth and humans coming about through the Adam and Eve philosophy... well, they think it's a pile of rubbish.

To be honest, i think the internet isn't the correct medium for academic discussion on the matter, because it is dominated by people who use technology and are therefore scientifically minded.

There are two groups in general - there are those who are scientific-minded, who believe in the "Big Bang" theory or perhaps some other scientific theory on creation and evolution and, as such, do not advocate the "God creates all" philosophy.

And then there are the religious types - not just Christians or extreme religious Americans may i add, but also others from across the religious spectrum. They tend to advocate for a greater being creating all etc.

I think (and this is my opinion) that the correct theory is directly in the middle; is it really too hard to believe that God created the possibility for the Big Bang to happen? That way, both Scientists and the Religious are correct!

The bible is incredibly unlikely to be accurate, but so is the opinion of a generation of scientists trying to comment on something that occurred so many billions of years ago, and going on a few bone samples to declare where and how things evolved.

God created evolution - that seems a happy medium to me!
atomictoyz
[quote="Bondings"]
atomictoyz wrote:

Also, you never mentioned a specific example of why life should be too complex to be formed by evolution. I'm sure I can find an answer on most of those examples.


Bondings it isn't about complexity in the sense that your thinking.

Irreducibly complex doesn't mean too complex. Linear or nonlinear.

Irreducible complex means lowest level of functionality. For a network to function as a network it requires a minimal number of components. Scientists know from observation that all living things have a minimal number of components for that living thing to reproduce and live.

As Michael Behe noted, when you pull apart an organism there are a number of irreducibly complex systems working together that we do not see working apart from each other. If scientist could show through observation, functioning subsystems that defy irreducible complexity then Behe and other would have to concede they need to re-evaluate thier theory. But science must be testable. When we get into certain aspects of theory we have to admit that somethings are not testable.

Where both ID and Evolution fall short is testability of the origins of life. But until you can prove via the scientific method the origin of life you cannot without speculation say for certain that all things have a common ancestor.

I spent most of my life as an evolutionist. I received my first 15 volume set of science books at the age of ten. I have a pretty significant library of books dating back to the 60's. I have college text books from the 70's and used to spend alot of time at TalkOrigins. I did not start reading about creationism until the early 90's and even then I was skeptical. But as I became more critical of one I became more skeptical of the other as well. I saw that science was being put aside and ideas were being touted as factual. Dawkins wrote the Blind Watchmaker, and his idea about "Intelligent Design" caused me to start evaluating the data through my designer brain. My specialty is reverse engineering complex designs and trying to resolve flaws and redesign "stuff". The first part of that process is remove fact from fiction which both are almost always is intertwined with eachother in everything published. Not a skill alot of people have anymore I guess cause I always get stuck with it.

One interesting point is that Darwin noted that Breeders had an exceptional eyes for spotting the slightest variation in a breed and wished that he had a similar ability. Yet his works on finches are based upon his inability to spot these slight variations.

My Final Thought.

I personally do not study creationism because it's doesn't have to explain anything. It is also historical, meaning it cannot be tested with science because it is a singular event and therefore not observable. The Big Bang theory is very similar to creation because scientists say ther laws of physics prior to the Big Bang "had" to be different than what we observe today. String Theory is another possibility and shows Some promise.

I like ID because I'm a design specialist and the field is wide open where I get to sort through historical data and see if it makes sense. I have had coorispondence with some of the people like Walter ReMine where many of my approaches to data resolution are certainly on the bleeding edge. Many scientists I've met really have a difficulty breaking out of the traditions and dogma built in from being indoctrinated years ago. Being a person who was indoctrinated into evolution I am probable more broadbased that a creationist or an evolutionist. Dual biased Wink

One interesting twist. If evolution is true, and religion is a "natural" resultant of evolution would it be wise to tamper with people's faith knowing that it is a beneficial mutation that a majority of the world human population shares whereas no other species on this planet does?

I've said too much already.

Believe what you want.

Peace,
Dennis
Cash
silvermesh wrote:
evolution is about as debateable scientifically as whether or not grass is green. If you want to see it, go into any lab studying a virus. virii evolve CONSTANTLY right before our eyes. If evolution didn't exist, they wouldn't have to come out with new flu shots every year. In fact, without evolution we would cure all disease and live in perfect health for the rest of our lives within a year(but we would have already done so by the seventies).

and guess what cancer is folks. thats minor variation in the genetic code. thats evolution.




Well, we need not argue over it, some evolution is true and some is not. What we christians and evolutionists need to realize is that there is a balance point for EVERYTHING in life, (including evolution!). Wink


Be well...



Cash Very Happy
JessieF
Bondings wrote:
Lamp wrote:
You know in the Bible where it says 6 days? (don't we all?) Well I believe that during those '6' days, it was really around 4.6 Billion years in human mindset. when God said to write down 4.6 billion years, it may of gotten tranlated into something else~6 days? Or it may have just been what it seemed like to God. So I believe in what is scientifically proven and what my religion supports. A Crevolution if you will.

Make it that god planned the creation of the universe and it took 14.6 years to take place, just like science/evolution explains it.


There is no such thing as evolution. That is my belief.
There is proof that evolution cannot happen. I am just not that scientifically minded, so I wouldn't know how to explain it. I'll have to find something on it.

In heaven it said to be timeless. You stay exactly how you are when you die. It is sort of ageless.
So maybe it only seemed like 6 days, but on earth it was more than 6 days.
Kestrel
JessieF wrote:
Today, scientist are finding even more proof that the bibles' stories are completely true.
So how can you still believe in evolution?


Okay... if "God" created everything and "God" wrote the bible, where in there does it say anything about the Mesozoic Era? Dinosaurs were here before humans. How could "God" have created dinosaurs if he himself did not exist?

Anyway, I do believe in evolution. But as an alternative, I also believe that everyone is a robot and life as I know it is just a game being played against me. But who knows.

*Edit*
A bit off-topic, but I really wish all Christians would get over the abbreviation of Christmas being XMas. Saying it's "Crossing out Christ." I cannot stand it when someone says that. It just makes me furious. Just because someone writes down "XMas" instead of "Christmas" does not mean they're "crossing out christ." They're simply trying to save time and resources.
nanjundamurthy
I believe in the theory of evolution.It offers a scientific and logical reasoning as to how life on earth came into existance and how it continues to evolve into new forms.It is unreasonable to accept that we came into existance from "nothing".Energy and matter are always conserved.They cant be created or destroyed.
David_Pardy
One post from me on this topic.


Problem #1: Evolution is 'logical'.

Evolution is NOT logical. Evolution requires that order comes out of chaos, yet you look at ANY system in modern society - whether biological or otherwise - and it moves to CHAOS from ORDER, not the other way around. Therefore, Evolution is NOT logical. Please do not try to use this argument.

Natural Selection is NOT unique to Evolution - it is a concept that works in almost everything we do daily. For example, if you have a species of white rabbits and black rabbits being hunted by wolves, and in this imaginary scenario they live on white sand dunes, the black rabbits will be easier to spot and will most likely be hunted own much faster - Natural Selection.


Problem #2: DNA denies Evolution.

DNA has built-in error checking. It will literally repair any errors to a certain extent to prevent damage to the DNA code. This function alone completely denies the possibility of Evolution having ever occurred - especially being as any damage to DNA that cannot be repaired only causes problems - eg. Cancer.

The scientist who discovered DNA also said himself - and he is NOT a Creationist - that there is NO WAY that DNA simply 'formed' even over BILLIONS of years - it is that complex.


Problem #3: Chromosome numbers deny Evolution.

Species with different amounts of chromosomes cannot mate, or the probability of a successful mating occurring is incredibly small. This is a scientific fact. Let's assume that one species had a birth DEFECT, causing it to have an extra chromosome. How can this species pass on the information to offspring if it cannot successfully mate? Not to mention that conditions such as DOWNS SYNDROME are caused by having an extra chromosome. This also proves that Evolution is NOT possible.


Problem #4: Scientists have NEVER been able to create life.

Scientists have only been able to DUPLICATE life - in the sense that a cell will duplicate itself. Scientists have simulated the theory of the origin of life which sparked ALL life across the earth - involving a bit of ammonia, methane, etc, and electricity.

Now let's see here - if a bit of lightning randomly hit a pool of ammonia, causing it to spring into life (instead of being scorched by the immensely high power and voltage from the lightning), then how come scientists with all their modern technology cannot duplicate this?

Theoretically, if that was how life originated then it would be pretty easy to do this.

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/atmosphere.asp and http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=77


Information on how Dinosaurs existed alongside Humans:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325rbcs.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp


The biggest problem is that people are indoctrinated to believe what the Evoultionists say. If you simply take a look at the bible, and then look at the science with the right viewpoint (from a young earth perspective), MANY questions are answered instantly.

To all those who call themselves 'Christians', yet disbelieve Genesis - Shame on you. Revelation 22:18 says "I warn every one who hears thew ords of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

This does not just apply to Revelation - this applies to the ENTIRE bible. You cannot just pick and choose what you want to believe - if you denounce any part of the bible you are calling God a liar.

Stop believing the LIES that Evolutionists spread and turn to the TRUTH.

If you have any further questions, just visit www.answersingenesis.com - you'll find any information you need right there.
Kestrel
David_Pardy wrote:

To all those who call themselves 'Christians', yet disbelieve Genesis - Shame on you. Revelation 22:18 says "I warn every one who hears thew ords of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

This does not just apply to Revelation - this applies to the ENTIRE bible. You cannot just pick and choose what you want to believe - if you denounce any part of the bible you are calling God a liar.


I denounce the entire bible. But I'm not calling "God" a liar. I'm calling Christians a bunch of propogandists. If, by chance, there WAS a God, how the hell could he have written the bible? They didn't have pens and paper. Do you think that every bit of the bible was somehow inscribed into rocks? Or perhaps dirt? And then someday in the future, when we have pens and paper, someone discovers these records, perfectly intact, and writes them down? Yeah, that's a bunch of bull. The bible was written by some crazy guy who wanted to give mankind something to believe in (and wanted to make some money). I'd suggest not believing this propoganda, but it's your choice.
CMA
I'm an atheist, and yes, I believe in evolution. Though this has been said countless times already, I really can't understand why some people say that science is against religion. Even a friend of mine, who's a Jeovah and was a bit offended on a class we had about evolution because of something my teacher said, believes evolution is real. Whatever...

About men evolving from apes, why not? I honestly do believe that. If we look back a few thousand years and look at our ancestors we see that the more we go back in time, the more our ancestors look like apes. Keep in mind that a human being isn't a virus: our own evolution, just like all other animal's, takes thousands of years to make small changes. Don't simply expect your son or grandson to have a brain twice as large as yours or your great-grandfather to be covered by hair! A virus is a lot more simple and it's a parasite to boot, so its evolution is rather fast. If it didn't evolve it wouldn't survive, as we wouldn't have to research for new vaccines for influenza every year.

Be glad when someone tells you that you're an evolved form of an ape and not an actual ape. It's not an insult to your intelligence, now is it? Wink


(EDIT: typo, lol)
PatTheGreat42
I fully believe in evolution. Vive la machinistic view!

I believe that religion once had a purpose; it served to explain the natural world before communication and science could spread the real answers. Now that we have an explanation for the world that doesn't rely on impossible outside forces, it is time to abondon religion.
David_Pardy
Kestrel, there are many documents from thousands of years ago. They had ink, and they also had paper-like substances to write on. The bible was not written by 'a crazy guy', it was written by several different authors and if you have ever even read the bible (which you obviously haven't) then you would realise that a 'crazy guy' certainly did NOT write the bible.

All you have to do to realise the bible is the truth is apply it to your life.
Kestrel
David_Pardy wrote:
Kestrel, there are many documents from thousands of years ago. They had ink, and they also had paper-like substances to write on. The bible was not written by 'a crazy guy', it was written by several different authors and if you have ever even read the bible (which you obviously haven't) then you would realise that a 'crazy guy' certainly did NOT write the bible.

All you have to do to realise the bible is the truth is apply it to your life.


Actually, I have read the bible fully (which most Christians can't say). And I know that it was supposedly written by many people. But hell, I could write a lengthy book, say that it every word in it was put in there by someone different, but I'd be lying.

And you say the Bible is the truth? Can you prove it? No. You just assume it's true because that's the sterotypical person these days. If they don't have something to believe in, then they automatically think they'll be doomed to live a shitty life and go to this supposed "Hell." This is fine that they do this, but keep it to yourselves. Don't try to push your way or belief on someone else. And before you say I was trying to push my belief on to everyone here, I was not. I was expressing my way of thinking as was asked in this topic.
gh0stface
To add more fuel to this fire, here's an interesting google video of penn and teller about God. I found it pretty amusing and interesting watch.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3593866248238036452&q=a+hepful+hand

The professor from Western Michigan didn't do a good job of convincing...
JessieF
Kestrel wrote:
David_Pardy wrote:
Kestrel, there are many documents from thousands of years ago. They had ink, and they also had paper-like substances to write on. The bible was not written by 'a crazy guy', it was written by several different authors and if you have ever even read the bible (which you obviously haven't) then you would realise that a 'crazy guy' certainly did NOT write the bible.

All you have to do to realise the bible is the truth is apply it to your life.


Actually, I have read the bible fully (which most Christians can't say). And I know that it was supposedly written by many people. But hell, I could write a lengthy book, say that it every word in it was put in there by someone different, but I'd be lying.

And you say the Bible is the truth? Can you prove it? No. You just assume it's true because that's the sterotypical person these days. If they don't have something to believe in, then they automatically think they'll be doomed to live a shitty life and go to this supposed "Hell." This is fine that they do this, but keep it to yourselves. Don't try to push your way or belief on someone else. And before you say I was trying to push my belief on to everyone here, I was not. I was expressing my way of thinking as was asked in this topic.


Kestrel, before you judge the religion, how about you try it out. Talk to god, and actually get involved. Don't talk about how much you know about the religion when you obviously don't truly understand it.

Even if you try it, and you still don't believe in this 'propoganda', the least you could do is be nice to people. It doesn't take much effort to be nice.

And if you have read the whole bible, just look at every story in it. Find the differences, and similarities in the way it was writen. Now, ask yourself, 'Was this written by one person, or by many people?'.

People see things differently. So, say you don't see much difference. Now you have real proof to back yourself up on whether you believe the bible was writen by one or more people. So now you can 'think', in your point of view, that since it was writen by one person, it must be a lie.
Which now you can believe evolution is real.

Which to me is mostly a load of bull.
bedakilla
I believe evolution is real. Although this can really depend on whether you have a belief or not. Everything including the life around us is always evolving, and humans also have evolved from last few millions of years.
Srs2388
about 3 weeks ago i did a speech.......(in speech class) for something alot like this
I dont believe in evolution
i believe in creationism as a firm beliver of God...
like i have said before.....
but, i dont want to offend anyone at all.......
jongoldsz
I believe in evolution because life probably wouldn't exist if our ancestors didn't evolve to survive the ice age.

Also, wouldn't we find human bones that date 500 million years, just like the the trilobyte fossils that have been discovered.
JessieF
I don't believe one species can evolve to another.
I believe in adaptation to survive, but I don't believe something without wings can grow wings over a certain time, no matter how long, and make certain other changes and look like something else.

All the things that supposedly evolved from other animals. Those animals are gone. If we evolved from apes, then how come they are still here?
Bondings
JessieF wrote:
All the things that supposedly evolved from other animals. Those animals are gone. If we evolved from apes, then how come they are still here?

Because we didn't evolve from apes. The evolution theory states that we have a common ancestor. One group evolved to humans, other groups to the apes.
JessieF
Bondings wrote:
JessieF wrote:
All the things that supposedly evolved from other animals. Those animals are gone. If we evolved from apes, then how come they are still here?

Because we didn't evolve from apes. The evolution theory states that we have a common ancestor. One group evolved to humans, other groups to the apes.

When I said 'apes' I was referring to the whole monkey,ape, (etc) group.
Humans did not arrive from evolution. Apes, monkys, etc, also did not arrive from evolution. Like I said before, I don't believe in species forming into another species.

Who/what are you referring to when you say common ancestors. There are many beliefs/possiblities where humans came from (since how there are a lot of scientist saying different things about evolution). So who/what do you believe is the 'common ancestor'?

I'd like to know so I can fully contemplate your point of view. I don't believe we came from apes, you believe this, but you believe we came from_______?
Which I think I may not agree with anyways, even if I knew.
dzo
or what were the cavemen? just really ugly people?????
Bondings
JessieF wrote:
When I said 'apes' I was referring to the whole monkey,ape, (etc) group.
Humans did not arrive from evolution. Apes, monkys, etc, also did not arrive from evolution. Like I said before, I don't believe in species forming into another species.

Who/what are you referring to when you say common ancestors. There are many beliefs/possiblities where humans came from (since how there are a lot of scientist saying different things about evolution). So who/what do you believe is the 'common ancestor'?

I'd like to know so I can fully contemplate your point of view. I don't believe we came from apes, you believe this, but you believe we came from_______?
Which I think I may not agree with anyways, even if I knew.

The further you go in time, the more the 'human' fossiles differ from the current humans. If you go 5-8 million years back, the 'chimanzee' and the 'human' ancestors get back to one species, if you go further, 10 million of years back, you find the ancestors of the gorillas and human-chimpanzee are the same ones. And the same goes for other species. Just the further you go back in time, the harder it is to find fossiles of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
kaze89
I do believe in evolution.
But I do not live in America, too.
Here in Germany the theory of evolution is much more popular than creationism. Actually no one I know believes in creationism. Believing in God has become really outfashioned as well *lol*
I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm just saying how it is
KHO
Yes, evolutionists Neutral.
Have you seen the way they exagerate the tail bone? They make it like the size of a real tail! No human actually has that! They say and do things like so often, yet some idiots still believe in that garbage!! Who the hell would seriously say that he and his wife are the equivalent to a primate with a brain the size of a peanut?!?!?! Neutral. Pardon my language, but there are a very few things in this world that can actually make me mad, blatant ignorance is one of them Neutral.

Granted : Survival of the fittest, an animal is dropped off in a new environment, and the foods it is used to are no longer there, so, it "evolves" and addapts to using new tools to gather food Neutral. No duh this will happen, its called instinct! No animal will just roll over and die because it doesn't know what to do Neutral.

Now, just because this animal is addapting to its surroundings, it is not going to grow an extra three feet tall, develop webbed feet and hands, and suddenly sprout wings Neutral. Who the hell would think that something like this could happen?!
Wanderer
i believe in evolution but i dont believe that humans evolved from primates. the human body is much too complicated to be some "accident." Our bodies are like specially designed machines. human kind is designed to live forever believe it or not. our body is designed to renew itself every seven years but for a mysterious reason the renewal gets weaker and weaker causing death. our hearts are powered by electricity to never stop beating.

it is almost impossiblee that something this complicated was created by an accident. something had to plan the creation of humankind.

I'm christian and this was one of the topics at a retreat i went to. the speaker had a major in biology.
dzo
I want to know what people that dont understand evolution think of cave men???? what where they??? Ugly people???? Millwall fans????

Dont give me a stupid "gods first try" answer, how can god be wrong? besides, wasnt the earth created in 7 days then god made adam??????
Very Happy
XSTG
I'm Christian but I believe in evolution. That is one of the thing human brain cannot understand. It's like a computer, when you think at this question: Where does life come from? it makes a FATAL ERROR: FILE NOT FOUND in your brain! I suppose we do not have the mental capacities to reach this point of knowledge.
"God created everything"... blah blah blah!! That's too easy. God didn't. Even, God is just a person created by us. So how would he have created us if he didn't exist.
"We evolved from the first bactery and..."
I trust that more, but how did the first bactery appear? It was probably composed of the same atoms than a rock, and why wasn't the rock living? Are we all rocks???
"A big asteroid came from Mars to put life on Earth"
Ouch, I must admit it's the one that I trust the most. It is much more probable that an asteroid brought life on Earth than that God created universe.

Twisted Evil
rainynightstarz
everything is always changing all the time. and so do we!


I still don't really understand why people would believe in god... to me, it's something completely made up for some people to believe so they do good things, or they go to "hell".
willowmoon
It's impossible not to believe in evolution. It is proven..think about it. Say there is a bird with a long beak and a bird with a short beak. Both live on an island and their only food source is inside of trees. Do you think the bird with the short beak is going to live very long with no food? So therefore.. the bird with the long beak lives on to pass its traits onto its young. And the birds with the short beaks die off.. that's evolution by process of natural selection. It's common sense..
make_life_better
I'm sorry, but no religion gives any sensible explanation that comes within even a tiny fraction of what we see out there. Most seem to delegate much of the real complexity out there to some higher entity or god, which always begs the question of where that god came from. Surely any being capable of creating the universe in all its glory would be somewhat more capable than any human, and so pretty unlikely to have come about by chance. Just asking for the simplest explanation seems (to me at least) to rule out the idea of any all-powerful god/creator. What about a less capable god, one that just helps guide evolution - then you have to admit that evolution exists and that the universe and this earth are millions of years old.

One other thing - lots of people make simple mistakes when talking about evolution:

(1) I am not evolving, nor is anybody else or any other living thing (maybe not quite true, but I'm not a specialist). My genes are a unique blend of my parents genes, blending their characteristics, some better, some worse. No single creature ever evolves. It is the species that evolves, a statistical process taking many generations.

(2) We did not evolve from apes. The apes have evolved just as much as we have - maybe even more so as they have probably gone through more generations than we have. Just look at how well suited they are to their environment. We probably share some common ancestors with them.

I am happy to be around jews, muslims, christians, hindus, whoever, and many of my best friends are deeply religious. I will fight tooth and nail for the right of anybody to hold whatever beliefs they have; but I will not tolerate it when somebody or some group starts to ram their beliefs onto other people, by indoctrination, terrorism or whatever.

Finally, several folks have posted wild claims that science in general and evolution in particular is some kind of plot to turn people away from religion. Wake up and see the reality. Science crucially depends upon repeatable experiments. At least in principle, I could start with the evidence I see and know around me now and perform more and deeper experiments to justify to my own satisfaction that any scientific theory is true or false. This is a rigorous process and the evidence accumulated is vast and amazingly consistent. It's about believing in my own ability to understand simple experiments and logic. I do not need to take anything on faith alone. I just don't have time to do all possible experiments...
Shake
If you aren't a scientist, you shouldn't be talking about this. Old people, with a complete lack of education, are usually the ones who are gullible enough to believe everything they read in a book, and are usually the first ones to defend it. "Really, has Anyone herd of cancre celes? You know, cancer cells, those little microskopik things in yer body? Yeah. God made those." Uhuh. Whatever. I don't care.

How can you believe in something that you know nothing about? Give six good example of things in the bible that scientists (real ones) have proven to be 100% true, and write a paragraph about each one. Then we'll talk.

Either way, does it really matter? If you all really believe in heaven so much, why don't you die now and get out of our lives? Nearly everything scientists have proven (the law of gravity for instance) started with an idea. Isn't it possible that the bible is just a long novel that was written a long, long time ago and perhaps the author was forgotten? Books like the Odyssey, also, talk about gods and goddesses, witches, and devils. We know these things don't exist on Earth. These myths are just stories, so isn't is possible that the bible could be made up as well? Sometimes stories are told for so long that people begin to believe that they are real.

If creationism is the answer, then how can you show us that there is a god? Winning a camera certainly doesn't cut it. (I don't think people go to church to pray for cameras anyway...or do you?) There is nothing stopping me from saying we've evolved from bears. At least evolution has a solid base to stand on. What most people who believe in creationism fail to understand is that evolution takes too long to see. Genetic flaws and mutations are what cause things to change.

The fact that nearly every animal (such as cats, dogs, humans, even zebras) have some of the same basic structures could be evidence that everything we see today evolved from the same kind of cell. You could think about the development of a fetus in the amniotic sac, for an example. To truely know what evolution is about, you have to know what DNA does, how it works, and why it is the way it is.

The people who brought up creationism as a counter-tactic against evolutionism are clearly on the offensive. Evolutionism is just a simple theory that is used to explain genetic mutation. Highly religious people are under another influence. Religion isn't supposed to be about having an army of people to back you up. Religion is supposed to be the last hope you have when you're hopeless. Slaves have a reason for religion. Today in most countries, there is no reason for religion.

The fact that you won a camera does not prove anything, and I doubt it is something that would really change your life. If there is a god, I highly doubt that he cares about you getting your technology on time.

My last argument is that why is god always male? Our early writers must have been sexist (as most early civilizations were), and must have thought males were superior to females.

Forcing one's beliefs on other people is not fair, and not right. If one really believes in religion, that is his or her belief. That person cannot influence another. Only the weak minded or physically weak give in. Sometimes it just doens't work, and unless heaven (or hell) is real or exists at all, one will never know the answer, so why not commit suicide now and know the truth? If you think commiting suicide will get you into hell, go for it.
make_life_better
Somebody posted a while ago that someone had "proved" that evolution was impossible because it required mutations in DNA, and (all) such mutations were fatal. This is clearly nonsense because we know that each person has DNA which is a combination of parts of DNA from both parents. The chances of anybody having exactly the same genes as anyone else are tiny (not zero though); the chances of anybody else having exactly the same DNA sequence are far smaller still (but still not zero). Just look at gene variability between individuals, see e.g.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/4/1896

for an example study on gene varaibility between individuals.

Don't forget that the difference between people making blood type O is only a single letter different in the gene for a single protein from those who have type A blood (it's actually a deletion in the sequence). Blood type B is only four letters different in the sequence. Is it impossible that such changes could happen by chance in the billions of times that DNA has been copied in the past?

How can people sensibly think that natural evolution is impossible? It is more the case that it would be almost impossibly unlikely for it not to have happened.
make_life_better
Wanderer wrote:
i believe in evolution but i dont believe that humans evolved from primates.


Only people who don't understand evolution would think this. The theory says that both we and primates have evoled from some common ancestors.

Wanderer wrote:
...the human body is much too complicated to be some "accident." Our bodies are like specially designed machines.


Too complicated to be some accident - I agree. But it is certainly possible that it could be the result of trillions or quadrillions of small changes and adaptations. Our bodies are like specially designed machines? I don't think so - mine certainly isn't. Think of all the complex processes and body parts that we have and what they are for - any halfwitted design student could do a much better job of many of them. What use is hair and why do men have to shave or grow beards and women don't. Why when I cut or burn myself does it hurt for ages - surely once I have been alerted to the injury there is no more need for the discomfort. I could go on for pages about the stupid way our bodies work that make no sense to any "designer"

Wanderer wrote:
human kind is designed to live forever believe it or not. our body is designed to renew itself every seven years but for a mysterious reason the renewal gets weaker and weaker causing death.


It's no mystery. When the cells get replaced with new ones, the DNA copying is not perfect. There are spare and redundant bits of the DNA molecule that are there to act as buffers to defend against mistakes, but eventually even these start out run out and the mistakes creep into bits of DNA that matter, so that the proteins etc that are used to build the replacement cells aren't perfect either and so (usually) fail sooner or don't perform the same job or do it quite as well. Aging is at least in part caused by the accumulation of these errors over time.

Wanderer wrote:
our hearts are powered by electricity to never stop beating.


No they aren't. They are powered by the same chemicals as the other muscles and organs in your body. The heart does have differences (evolved to be good for long-term stamina, so quite different to e.g. leg or arm muscle), but it is not electrically powered.

Wanderer wrote:
it is almost impossiblee that something this complicated was created by an accident. something had to plan the creation of humankind.


See above... the "almost" I agree with but almost impossible is not the same as impossible, its just unlikely. But it could have happened.

Wanderer wrote:
I'm christian and this was one of the topics at a retreat i went to. the speaker had a major in biology.


I too am nominally a christian but you probably wouldn't class me as one, and this is one of the topics discussed at length at several colleges I went to. Many of the people there had majors in biology too. So what? Just because somebody has an opinion doesn't mean it is true. Go back to basics and try to justify your opinions to yourself from first principles of observation, experiment and logic. I see nothing that can't be explained by evolution et al. Stop and look at the wonder and glory of the world about you - isn't that enough to convince you?
Wotac
There is no doubt that evolution wouldn't exist. Evolution is like upgrading to better, and leaving things that are not needed.

Here is some facts that prove evolution exists.

Humans are related to monkeys/apes. There's nothing new about it. Think about Neandertali's humans. We used to have fur that kept us warm when we didn't have clothes. We used to be a lot shorter and our mind was much more simple.

Giraffes didn't always have long neck. But the plants on that area are so high that only those who have longer neck can reach it, not starve to death and let the their species continue. That was just one example of evolution, many animal species has been changing over time.

Humans still have that little muscle under every skins hair, that our ancestors had for their fur to keep warm. It will propably disappear after some generations because we don't need it anymore.

My whole family believes in God, so technically I believe too. I just have lost my faith when I learned about things. Those facts I wrote definitely removes that option that God made human looking like we look today, because we didn't always looked like this.
thpn
I am sure that I am as big of a Christian, Catholic to be exact, as you are but I do have to disagree with you on this topic. You see, not all scientist who study the evolutionary topic believe that we came from apes. Sure, there are some loonies who think that they have found some awe inspiring truth that my great-great-great-great grandfather was a monkey, but the majority believe that we came from some pramitive form of a human. It is key to know that the bible, be as holy as it is, isn't entirly true. Some stories in it, like the Creation, are just stories that are meant to have a purpose that a moral book would have. To teach you that 'God did it because he loves you' is what it is meant to tell. Not that God made woman from man's rib or that a snake is that devil. My faith, Catholicism, has ruled on this topic. They say that you may believe any stupid story of how we came to this Earth as long as you remember one thing, 'God did it because he loves you'. Big Bang, God did it. Any other thing that is beleived to have began evolution is okay as long as you remeber that. Although, I do beleive that some hypothesis, like that apes, are a little too imaginative.
JessieF
Ok. I wasn't very skilled at getting my point across two years ago with this point. It's rather odd. I don't even think like that anymore. (& I think my mom lied to me about that experiment just so I'd believe what she believed. I tend to resent how she tries to make me do things like praying, etc. I am definately not christian. I don't even believe in god anymore at all. But I do rather like speaking in techniqalities. So I am quite ready to close this topic and let someone else represent it in a much more skilled fashion).


Thank you
liljp617
JessieF wrote:
A scientist has done some kind of research before, I forget exactly how they were doing this experiment, but it proved evolution absolutly CANNOT happen. If I remember what they did, I'll modify this and put it right here:

Today, scientist are finding even more proof that the bibles' stories are completely true.
So how can you still believe in evolution?

Well, I can't say I believe something without strong sources, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to you that this experiment occurred. However, scientific experiments DO NOT attempt to prove something right. They attempt to eliminate every possible factor until the truth arises. An experiment is done not to prove a hypothesis correct, but to prove all hypotheses wrong until you find one that cannot be proven wrong. Basically, what I'm getting at is that it's impossible for this single scientist to have done a single experiment and proven the existence of evolution completely false. Hundreds of scientists every single day are doing experiments trying to prove evolution false (like an experiment is supposed to do) and haven't done so. So, to be honest, until I see strong scientific journals and sources that prove this experiment proved evolution completely false, I can't help but think it's false.

Secondly, please enlighten me where there are scientists finding "more and more proof" that the Bible is completely true. And on that note, how do they know it's any more true than evolution? Since you consider science to be wrong on evolution, why isn't it wrong on proving Bible stories to be the truth (although, I've never seen a single scientist even attempt to prove the Bible). The Bible revolves around pure faith in the existence of god. It does not revolve around any bit of science or tangible evidence.

How can I believe in evolution? Let me ask you exactly how much research have you done on the subject of evolution and how many high level biology classes have you participated in? If the answer is very little to none...well, this discussion is going no where, because one would have to have at least a basic understanding of college biology to even understand what I could type to prove evolution. And really, I don't have the energy or motivation to start at Biology 101 just to attempt to prove something to someone who doesn't want to hear it.

Lastly, evolution exists and occurs. It has occurred in the past and continues to occur. It will occur until all life is gone. Whether you care to acknowledge it or not is your choice, but it occurs and is backed up by scientific evidence, observations, experiments, etc. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether evolution occurs or not. It is instead an attempt to explain the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
JessieF
Please read my last post. And there's these two bugs (I am not sure if they've been around for a while or not, I don't tend to notice every detail -_- ) that look to be a cross between two other bugs.

One bug looks like a cricket and a grasshopper, and the other looks like a yellow jacket and a wasp. >.>
liljp617
-.- Had no clue it was 2 years old...wouldn't have wasted my time.
BobC
Donutey said "science is the HOW. religion is the WHY."

Actually science is the HOW, and religion is total bullshit.

Somebody was talking about the evolution of humans from apes. Actually humans are an ape species. Humans, and also chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are called the Great Apes. Our closest non-human ape cousins are the chimpanzees.

People who deny evolution are called flat-earthers because they stubbornly adhere to the childish idiotic idea a supernatural magician created people out of nothing.

People who deny evolution are also called "stupid", "pathetic", and "idiots".

To the flat-earthers here, I suggest you grow up, stop acting like the retarded children you are, and face reality. Humans are not a special creation of some god. We are just animals of an ape species, just one branch on a vast tree of life. Humans are not the big deal some people think they are. Humans are just one ape species on an insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere.
quex
noexes89 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian and I can totally reconcile the first part of Genesis as being a simple collection of symbols of the Jewish faith and not a factual account.


Christians who can understand this need to share their reasoning with those who can't. Please, proselytize to your fellow Christians!
deanhills
quex wrote:
noexes89 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian and I can totally reconcile the first part of Genesis as being a simple collection of symbols of the Jewish faith and not a factual account.


Christians who can understand this need to share their reasoning with those who can't. Please, proselytize to your fellow Christians!
What do you mean when you say this Quex? I don't quite follow you. I also don't believe that Genesis is a factual account. I'm not an expert of cause, but for me it is just a collection of hearsay stories over centuries and centuries, that got translated many times as well, once it finally got printed. There are some elements in it that can be verified, like the flooding that had taken place etc. etc. but for the rest for me it is not a factual account, and can't be. We weren't there at the time of the beginning, and we have our short length of time on the earth and being very mortal stacked against us if we want to check up what really happened at that time.
c'tair
^ In many other cultures the hearsay stories about the creation of the world, whether it was ancient Roman or Greek history or Norse or Slav is called mythology

It always, ALWAYS boggled my mind how people in my school would totally laugh at the ancient myths and be like "yeah right, a whole world coming from fire and ice and some sleeping giant and lol, they sure were stupid" and an hour later "well DUH c'tair, god almighty created the world in seven days, why are you laughing?!". Never could understand how people could ridicule other's mythology and be all too serious about their own stories.
jeffryjon
Just a question of clarification here. How does someone who's banned make a post? Was the person banned because of this particular post, which would seem unfair or banned because of another post? I can guess, but it does look weird when someone still appears on a forum when banned.

Back on topic.

The vote at the start of the thread only gives 3 options - I believe - I don't believe - and unsure. The question is vague and as a result the result of a vote is likely to be unfairly skewed. Do I believe that things evolve - yes - absolutely - do I believe those who advertise their evolutionary theories are totally correct? absolutely not. I voted honestly, though in doing so could easily have my vote used to be quoted out of context.
deanhills
jeffryjon wrote:
Just a question of clarification here. How does someone who's banned make a post? Was the person banned because of this particular post, which would seem unfair or banned because of another post? I can guess, but it does look weird when someone still appears on a forum when banned.
Usually the information next to our Avatars changes all the time, also for our historic posts. He would have been in good standing at the time he made the post, and then when he was banned, the banned symbol would appear against all of his postings. I have not seen anyone getting banned recently, as far as I know.

Back on topic.

I don't believe we are descendants of apes. I think humans are evolving all of the time. Some aspects of evolution make sense to me, but not all of them so my answer would be "no". I also don't buy the creation story in Genesis.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Just a question of clarification here. How does someone who's banned make a post? Was the person banned because of this particular post, which would seem unfair or banned because of another post? I can guess, but it does look weird when someone still appears on a forum when banned.
Usually the information next to our Avatars changes all the time, also for our historic posts. He would have been in good standing at the time he made the post, and then when he was banned, the banned symbol would appear against all of his postings. I have not seen anyone getting banned recently, as far as I know.

Back on topic.

I don't believe we are descendants of apes. I think humans are evolving all of the time. Some aspects of evolution make sense to me, but not all of them so my answer would be "no". I also don't buy the creation story in Genesis.

The fact that some aspects of evolution don't make sense to you simply means that you don't understand it and says nothing about whether it is correct or not.
Of course humans are descended from a common ape ancestor. The evidence is overwhelming - whether you understand it or not.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The fact that some aspects of evolution don't make sense to you simply means that you don't understand it and says nothing about whether it is correct or not.
Of course humans are descended from a common ape ancestor. The evidence is overwhelming - whether you understand it or not.
I see, in other words, if I go study everything there is on evolution I will come back with the exact same opinion as you have? No dice Bikerman, but nice try.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The fact that some aspects of evolution don't make sense to you simply means that you don't understand it and says nothing about whether it is correct or not.
Of course humans are descended from a common ape ancestor. The evidence is overwhelming - whether you understand it or not.
I see, in other words, if I go study everything there is on evolution I will come back with the exact same opinion as you have? No dice Bikerman, but nice try.

Well, if you prefer ignorance then that is your choice. It is quite revealing that you seem to know that if you DID take the trouble to learn about evolution then you WOULD find the case unanswerable. The conclusion that follows is that you don't want to believe in evolution and therefore do not want to know more about it.
Ankhanu
These threads really are painful; there's so much pride, misinformation, ignorance, arrogance and anger involved. I only read (most of) the last two pages, and it left me hurting and sad.

Most opposition to evolution is entirely based on the above mentioned adjectives... people don't understand evolution, don't want to understand evolution, so simply deny it. Information is readily available, presented in all levels of complexity, there is NO reason why people could not understand the concepts of evolution in today's world. The only reason to not "believe" in evolution is intentional choice to deny basic facts.

It honestly makes me sickened and a little bit angry that people can so willfully limit their understanding of the world, especially on topics that they claim to be of great importance. If one feels that the idea of evolution being true or not is important (which many Creationists and non-Creationists obviously do), it seems only natural that one would want to understand both sides of the argument. Why so willfully ignore the facts?
quex
deanhills wrote:
quex wrote:
noexes89 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm a Christian and I can totally reconcile the first part of Genesis as being a simple collection of symbols of the Jewish faith and not a factual account.


Christians who can understand this need to share their reasoning with those who can't. Please, proselytize to your fellow Christians!
What do you mean when you say this Quex? I don't quite follow you. I also don't believe that Genesis is a factual account. I'm not an expert of cause, but for me it is just a collection of hearsay stories over centuries and centuries, that got translated many times as well, once it finally got printed. There are some elements in it that can be verified, like the flooding that had taken place etc. etc. but for the rest for me it is not a factual account, and can't be. We weren't there at the time of the beginning, and we have our short length of time on the earth and being very mortal stacked against us if we want to check up what really happened at that time.


I think there is a divide between the Christianity that focuses on the teachings of Christ and the Christianity that relentlessly presses word-for-word literal adhesion to the Bible as the only acceptable proof of "good" in their fellow man. These fundamentalists generally speak louder and attack faster than those sensible Christians who understand the actual nature of the "Bible" we today pick up from the shelf to read as a complete book. Those who believe the Bible literally are not just misinformed, but dangerous. Consider how slavery in the United States was reinforced by quoting passages of the Old Testament. The persecution of homosexuals in modern America similarly pulls words directly from the book of Leviticus. For the sake of maintaining the sum of Christianity as a peaceful, accepting, humanistic religion of love and sacrifice, I appeal to you, the understanding among your brethren, to please, PLEASE speak up and convert the fundamentalists who share your churches and parishes to a more complete realization of the nature of the Bible and the mission of Christ.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't believe we are descendants of apes. I think humans are evolving all of the time. Some aspects of evolution make sense to me, but not all of them so my answer would be "no". I also don't buy the creation story in Genesis.

The fact that some aspects of evolution don't make sense to you simply means that you don't understand it and says nothing about whether it is correct or not.
Of course humans are descended from a common ape ancestor. The evidence is overwhelming - whether you understand it or not.


Fact is we don't understand the mechanisms that allowed the mutation to occur (more factually the long strings of mutations). If it's something that just happened for no apparent reason then a separate force is involved. If we mutated into humans as a consequence of our own free will, leading us to wish strongly enough to evolve into something seemingly better, then the constraint which held us as apes was something we were able to overcome, hence the possibility that 'man and mind' have power over matter. In the wider sense, it would also mean that sentient being and the mind that holds that sentience have power over matter.
quex
Ankhanu wrote:
Why so willfully ignore the facts?


Because people are lazy, and ignorance is easier.

In ancient times when the majority of the human population had to struggle daily to satisfy their most basic needs for food and shelter, ignorance of higher pursuits like writing, reading, or an understanding of the most basic science could be justified; they simply didn't have the time to do anything but survive. There was still, of course, a human need to make sense of the world around them; magic and religion offered quick solutions to do this.

In this day and age, I believe it is largely distractions of entertainment and social construction that pressure many otherwise intelligent people to feel they simply don't have time to access and understand these perfectly logical concepts. Magic having been largely disproven in the past several centuries (although you might note that a considerable portion of humanity still believes in some form of magical power, including clairvoyance or telepathy), religion is now the main "easy" alternative that offers people an understanding of the natural world without spending the time and consideration necessary to fully comprehend the beautifully complex answers that dedicated science has discovered.

It is sad, though. I agree.
Ankhanu
If you can't be bothered understanding what you oppose, get out of the debate.
quex
jeffryjon wrote:
Fact is we don't understand the mechanisms that allowed the mutation to occur (more factually the long strings of mutations). If it's something that just happened for no apparent reason then a separate force is involved. If we mutated into humans as a consequence of our own free will, leading us to wish strongly enough to evolve into something seemingly better, then the constraint which held us as apes was something we were able to overcome, hence the possibility that 'man and mind' have power over matter. In the wider sense, it would also mean that sentient being and the mind that holds that sentience have power over matter.


Yes we do.

You have millions (billions) of cells in your body, and so does every other creature you can see without a microscope. Every one of those cells contains (or should contain, in a hypothetically perfect body), a summary copy of all the same chromosomes and DNA contained therein. Each and every copy of this DNA is composed of four nucleotides (small organic molecules) named adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (ATGC). They connect to one another in simple pairs, then the pairs parallel to form long chains. Everything that makes you who you physically are is encoded into these chains, not unlike a symphony encoded in simple 1's and 0's on a CD. Long lines of code that translate into a very complex outcome.

Now, you say we don't understand the mechanisms that change this code. That is entirely false. In fact, we know several distinct mechanisms that change this code:

a) direct radioparticle strike: when an electron, proton, or neutron from radioactive fission strikes the DNA and damages part of it, which can result in the removal of the part of the code, transposition with another section of code, etc.

b) mutegenisis or toxicological morphos: when a toxic chemical (called a mutagen) affects the DNA in a cell such that it alters, removes, or otherwise damages the original code.

c) RNA misposition: when a cell prepares a copy of itself before dying, its mechanism for making the DNA copy may be damaged by either a) or b) as above. This causes the copy produced to be flawed, not unlike trying to rip a scratched CD to your computer.

d) viral interaction: when a virus invades a cell to make copies of itself, per the mechanism by which viruses persist, it damages the DNA code in the cell and applies its own short section. The damage is such that the cell continues to function under new DNA information.

None of these is rare. In fact, it is more than likely that there is some error in the DNA of every single cell in your body as you read this. Everyday chemicals, diseases, and ambient radiation assure this. Even before modern times, the carcinogens in charred meat and the UV radiation from sunlight, among thousands of other sources, did the very same damage to the bodies of our ancestors. The result of this damaged DNA is what causes evolution. You must remember that each cell is damaged differently, one at a time... but that for reproduction, only two cells are necessary. There are several outcomes:

0) damage to the DNA is not relevant: the change in the DNA is superficial or acts on a section of DNA that is unrelated to the function of the cell (say, damaged section that affects hair color in a liver cell). The cell continues to work, replicate, and function normally despite carrying the damaged DNA.

1) damage to the DNA is critical: the function of the cell is crippled by the damage done to its copy of the DNA code. The cell ceases to function properly and either dies of the malfunction, or is no-longer recognized as a native cell by the body and is destroyed by the immune system.

2) damage to the DNA forms a tumor: a tumor is, simply, when one cell's DNA is damaged in such a way that the cell is told to reproduce itself exponentially. The damaged cell does not generally die, or at least produces many more copies of itself than are needed before it does die. These copies further carry the same damaged DNA, telling them to also produce vast numbers of copies. These copies form an area in the body of damaged, incorrectly-functioning cells that only work to make copies of themselves. Simply speaking there are two forms of tumors:

2a) benign tumor: the damaged cells copy themselves over and over, but do not spread away from the organ or region in which they began. They furthermore do not produce any considerable negative effect on the function of the body as a whole, with the exception that they are using resources (energy and a portion of the blood stream) to continue aimlessly multiplying. Sometimes the body will apply the immune system in such a way as to stop these cells, at which point the tumor becomes inactive. Very often, benign tumors multiply so slowly that they are never discovered by the body carrying them (tumors that obtain a maximum size of a few millimeters over the span of 80 years), and they are simply carried in the body until death.

2b) malignant tumor: the damaged cells are instructed by their altered DNA information not only to copy themselves quickly and aggressively, but also to move to different areas of the body and continue their reproduction wherever they land. This is what we call cancer. The most potent cells, such as cells of the reproductive organs, are at greatest risk of being damaged in this way. Also, the cells exposed to the most concentrated sources of DNA error face high likelyhood of developing cancer, such as the cells lining the lungs of a smoker, or the cells of the skin taking radioactive damage from the sun throughout the course of one's life.

...and here is where evolution kicks in:

c) damage to the DNA is functional or beneficial: the damaged DNA is rewritten in just such a way that the cell is given new instructions that will either improve its performance in the body (stronger heart muscle, longer legs, etc.), or alter the body's presentation without any discernible advantage or disadvantage (eye color, freckles, etc.). These changes are often small and unnoticeable until they compound over generations, but there are tens of thousands of them.

A very simplistic story to illustrate:

Say you are a prehistoric man, and some random encounter with a beta particle changes the DNA in a single one of your sperm cells. The new DNA contains instructions for a person with green eyes, rather than brown eyes, as you have. (Your own eyes, of course, do not change color, because only the DNA of this one cell has been altered in such a way.)

When you mate with your wife, that single sperm cell happens to be the one that succeeds in fertilizing her egg. Half of all her DNA and half of yours combine to form the sum DNA of your child. The section of DNA from your single altered sperm cell is chosen to manifest in your child, and so he has green eyes, even though neither you, nor your wife, nor any other person on the face of the planet at this time has green eyes.

For an example of how this can be beneficial, consider the following extension. Your son, the only person on Earth with green eyes, grows up and reaches sexual maturity. Some animal that your tribe worships has green eyes. Women of the age believe your son's green eyes are a sign of magical powers or favor with this animal god, and they are significantly attracted more to him than to any other eligible male in the tribe. Your son then mates with several women and fathers ten children, while other males only father perhaps one or two. All of these ten children are also born with green eyes, and are also seen as desirable by the women of their own generation, and the process continues.

In the case of animals, this is called natural selection, and it is the key tenet of evolution. While "green eyes" is hardly the sort of trait that spurs an advantage in the wide field of evolution, you can likely understand how various animals would benefit from traits like poisonous skin, colors that provide camouflage, stronger bones, longer claws, or improved strength and dexterity.

In the case of humans, random DNA changes over the years caused our bones to shift and our bodies to become capable of walking upright, our brains to increase in size and complexity, and our hands to become dexterous to enable the crafting and use of tools, among thousands of other changes. At the same time, many negative changes also struck different veins of humankind, and those veins declined and died out. The same continues today, although we are beginning to alter the curve with medicine and technology.

In first-world society, those born blind, deformed, or severely handicapped are no-longer abandoned by their families and left to beg for food and shelter. As such, some diseases that would otherwise naturally vanish from the human gene pool in the next few thousand years are being preserved. Furthermore, because of the exchange of chromosomes that occurs by nature in human birth, some DNA damage does not manifest in every generation, but remains nevertheless possible to appear in a descendant of the original person who developed the damage. Lastly, we are surrounded now by more mutagens and radioactivity than ever before in the history of our species. DNA changes for us (and for the animals who share our environments) are occurring at a rapid rate, as evidenced by the rise of new genetically-rooted diseases and a higher rate of cancers than ever before. But for our own technology, science, and medicine, we would be dying off at roughly the same rate at which we reproduce.
quex
Ankhanu wrote:
If you can't be bothered understanding what you oppose, get out of the debate.


G*ddamnit, I need buttons and stickers and a billboard that says exactly this. I'll be over on the Websites exchange forum looking for a good internet print service... let me know if you want to coin your quote. XD
jeffryjon
quex wrote:
Ok I'll pick up on just one point for now.

quex wrote:
In the case of humans, random DNA changes over the years caused our bones to shift and our bodies to become capable of walking upright, our brains to increase in size and complexity, and our hands to become dexterous to enable the crafting and use of tools, among thousands of other changes. At the same time, many negative changes also struck different veins of humankind, and those veins declined and died out. The same continues today, although we are beginning to alter the curve with medicine and technology.


Random eh!!!! Just random. Surely that would statistically mean that the majority of us would just randomly die out. If we don't exist in any formal order as a race - an order that exists within certain tolerances - then surely more of us would just randomly die out and fail to reach maturity. There's an order - more specifically several orders that work in the same environment. What holds that order. What is it that makes order supersede chaos in any given focused environment - surely more than random???? Just to open the debate of course!!
deanhills
jeffryjon wrote:
quex wrote:
Ok I'll pick up on just one point for now.

In the case of humans, random DNA changes over the years caused our bones to shift and our bodies to become capable of walking upright, our brains to increase in size and complexity, and our hands to become dexterous to enable the crafting and use of tools, among thousands of other changes. At the same time, many negative changes also struck different veins of humankind, and those veins declined and died out. The same continues today, although we are beginning to alter the curve with medicine and technology.


Random eh!!!! Just random. Surely that would statistically mean that the majority of us would just randomly die out. If we don't exist in any formal order as a race - an order that exists within certain tolerances - then surely more of us would just randomly die out and fail to reach maturity. There's an order - more specifically several orders that work in the same environment. What holds that order. What is it that makes order supersede chaos in any given focused environment - surely more than random???? Just to open the debate of course!!
So how about an extreme event happening like an ice age, or asteroid hitting the earth? The reptiles seem to have been quite formidable, but something must have happened that ended their presence, so something similar could happen to humans. Bottomline, we are limited in so many ways, right on top of the list is our mortality. We can never say we KNOW anything for sure. We have not been around long enough to understand that, and since we are sure to die in a few decades' time, can't predict with certainty what the next stage of the "evolution" will be. We can make a number of hypotheses based on scientific theories and research, and debate them to death. Some of the more short-term hypotheses could work out OK, but the real longer term ones would depend on many factors that are not known to mankind today as one thing we are sure we can count on is that everything changes all the time.
jeffryjon
Gotta say I'm with you on that statement deanhills. Trying to figure out the whole plot using a snapshot of the whole movie combined with what the others in the room say happened so far. Guess we'd better rewind to the beginning of the tape and start watching from the intro. At least then, we can have some kind of fighting chance. The mind trying to figure out what created the mind that's figuring it out. Why people use drugs to experience an altered reality is beyond me - just try working through the previous sentence. (Sincerely, of course).
deanhills
jeffryjon wrote:
The mind trying to figure out what created the mind that's figuring it out. Why people use drugs to experience an altered reality is beyond me - just try working through the previous sentence. (Sincerely, of course).
Agreed. An enormous challenge. Must say however that some artists using drugs have created some amazing works of art and music. Maybe it could help for aspiring philosophers as well? Smile
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
quex wrote:
In the case of humans, random DNA changes over the years caused our bones to shift and our bodies to become capable of walking upright, our brains to increase in size and complexity, and our hands to become dexterous to enable the crafting and use of tools, among thousands of other changes. At the same time, many negative changes also struck different veins of humankind, and those veins declined and died out. The same continues today, although we are beginning to alter the curve with medicine and technology.


Random eh!!!! Just random. Surely that would statistically mean that the majority of us would just randomly die out. If we don't exist in any formal order as a race - an order that exists within certain tolerances - then surely more of us would just randomly die out and fail to reach maturity. There's an order - more specifically several orders that work in the same environment. What holds that order. What is it that makes order supersede chaos in any given focused environment - surely more than random???? Just to open the debate of course!!

No. You clearly don't understand the basics of the theory, or have a problem with statistics.
Change to DNA is indeed pretty random. That doesn't say ANYTHING about 'dying out'. If a random change occurs then without knowing more you cannot say ANYTHING more. You need to know the number/rate of change and the probability of such a change being expressed/noticable.
I think you are trying to give the impression of knowledge by asserting things when in fact it would be better to admit ignorance and ask questions - the addition of the word 'surely' is not really a convincing way of turning an assertion into a question.

The notion of 'orders' is an odd one and I don't really know what you intend it to mean. There are balances/equilibria in dynamic systems, and there is adaption/change. Certainly there are many adaptions that could offer success in certain environments - and you will see those adaptions expressed in various lifeforms in those environments.

Let's consider a hypothetical to see what happens. Let's say that climate change makes malaria a major issue in the west. Take away the possibility of technological intervention and what you would see in humans, amongst other things, would be the spread of the generic mutation that produces sickle-cell disease. Why? Because it also confers some immunity to malaria and since many without the mutation would die before breeding then naturally those with the mutation would be selected for.
This is, in fact, exactly what we see in reality. The mutation is common in those parts of the world where malaria is a real threat to survival.

In reality most genetic mutation is neutral. Much of the DNA is 'redundant' in that it doesn't express itself in the phenotype (the physiology of the life-form). Of that which DOES express then most is harmful. We don't see most of the results - the offspring are either not conceived at all or are spontaneously aborted soon after conception without the parents even knowing. Sometimes we do see the results - and the many genetic disorders present themselves in the population. In non-human species that normally results in early death so the mutation dies with the individual. In humans we can intervene so genetic mutations that would be fatal in other species can be passed on - hence, for example, the prevalence of haemophiliacs in the Royal families of Europe - passed through the descendants of Victoria.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
No. You clearly don't understand the basics of the theory, or have a problem with statistics.
Change to DNA is indeed pretty random. That doesn't say ANYTHING about 'dying out'. If a random change occurs then without knowing more you cannot say ANYTHING more. You need to know the number/rate of change and the probability of such a change being expressed/noticable.
I think you are trying to give the impression of knowledge by asserting things when in fact it would be better to admit ignorance and ask questions - the addition of the word 'surely' is not really a convincing way of turning an assertion into a question.


Oh, surely you jump to assumption too quickly. First that I clearly don't understand, second that you think I'm trying to assert myself as having great knowledge. Have I done either or is that an interpretation? I made no claim of knowing and am sure that my questions are fair. Is it not so?

Bikerman wrote:
The notion of 'orders' is an odd one and I don't really know what you intend it to mean. There are balances/equilibria in dynamic systems, and there is adaption/change. Certainly there are many adaptions that could offer success in certain environments - and you will see those adaptions expressed in various lifeforms in those environments.


My question here is, does the balance/equilibrium come from order or does the order create the balance/equilibrium. Alternatively are they interchangeable as a dominating factor?

Bikerman wrote:
Let's consider a hypothetical to see what happens. Let's say that climate change makes malaria a major issue in the west. Take away the possibility of technological intervention and what you would see in humans, amongst other things, would be the spread of the generic mutation that produces sickle-cell disease. Why? Because it also confers some immunity to malaria and since many without the mutation would die before breeding then naturally those with the mutation would be selected for.
This is, in fact, exactly what we see in reality. The mutation is common in those parts of the world where malaria is a real threat to survival.


So is it possible that the will to survive creates an overriding order to change the recently lost balance/equilibrium to a newly set balance/equilibrium? If so is it possible that the will to survive focuses into an order and concentrates energy sufficiently to redress an imbalance by created by an additional factor (in this case malaria).
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Oh, surely you jump to assumption too quickly. First that I clearly don't understand, second that you think I'm trying to assert myself as having great knowledge. Have I done either or is that an interpretation? I made no claim of knowing and am sure that my questions are fair. Is it not so?
If so then I am in error and apologise...
Quote:
My question here is, does the balance/equilibrium come from order or does the order create the balance/equilibrium. Alternatively are they interchangeable as a dominating factor?
I still don't know what 'order' means so I can't answer that. As far as I can see 'order' IS the balance equilibrium.
Quote:
So is it possible that the will to survive creates an overriding order to change the recently lost balance/equilibrium to a newly set balance/equilibrium? If so is it possible that the will to survive focuses into an order and concentrates energy sufficiently to redress an imbalance by created by an additional factor (in this case malaria).
I still don't understand the question. You speak of 'order' as if it is some specific state or entity - I don't understand the concept.
The will to survive has nothing to do with the genetic mutation that produces SCD. The balance/equilibrium (insofar as one can state that there is any such thing) does not depend on will of any sort - it is simply down to the epidemiology.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
My question here is, does the balance/equilibrium come from order or does the order create the balance/equilibrium. Alternatively are they interchangeable as a dominating factor?
I still don't know what 'order' means so I can't answer that. As far as I can see 'order' IS the balance equilibrium.[/quote]

So if order and equilibrium are the same thing (or at least 2 sides of the same coin), does that mean that either or both can create the effect?

If they can both create the same effect, rather than it just been a consequence of random chance, then it could follow that if something develops the ability to hold itself in equilibrium which is ordered to a particular outcome (for example remaining as itself - in effect, a will to survive, which we know for sure exists in sentient beings at least). If that will to survive or continue to exist 'as it is', is strong enough that it develops sufficient ability to withstand some level of outside interference, it should be able to draw extra mass of something (something similar enough to what it already is) into the equilibrium through the law of harmonics. The other side of this same coin may also explain how it can 'repel/cause itself to be repelled from/destroy' those things which aren't compatible with it's existence, such as is animated through animals fighting/flighting those things deemed as a threat. (speculation)
Bikerman
The terminology is now so muddled that I can't make any sense out of this at all...
How can something hold itself in equilibrium? It is in equilibrium with something else not itself...
How can a 'will' (which is actually a bad word for this - instinct would be better since 'will' implies conscious determination) develop abilities?
The stuff about drawing extra mass just seems like gibberish to me...and I know of no law of harmonics apart from Keppler's Harmonic Law
"the ratio of the square of the revolutionary period (in years) to the cube of the orbital axis (in astronomical units) is the same for all planets"
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
The terminology is now so muddled that I can't make any sense out of this at all...
How can something hold itself in equilibrium? It is in equilibrium with something else not itself...
How can a 'will' (which is actually a bad word for this - instinct would be better since 'will' implies conscious determination) develop abilities?
The stuff about drawing extra mass just seems like gibberish to me...and I know of no law of harmonics apart from Keppler's Harmonic Law
"the ratio of the square of the revolutionary period (in years) to the cube of the orbital axis (in astronomical units) is the same for all planets"


Equilibrium of two or more entities must create a new entity composed of the two or more entities that are in equilibrium - yes?

So instinct - impulse - toward pricking. As such, the instinct is an outside factor 'pricking' or attempting to interfere with what we (or something) currently are. What is then invoked is an instinctive reaction?

Let's see if we can further the speculation through the model of a balloon. Here (in possibly over-simplistic terms) 3 factors hold the balloon in equilibrium - the air pressure on the inside, the elasticity of the balloon and the air pressure on the outside - there's more, granted but for sake of argument let's keep it simple. Before the 3 factors came into equilibrium we had no balloon (since a balloon must have ballooned to be a balloon). The 3 separate entities, now in equilibrium, create a new entity, which we call a balloon. The balloon resists any attempt to disturb the equilibrium that created it by repelling/allowing itself to be repelled - yes? The equilibrium, called balloon, has developed an ability to survive, (a very limited ability, granted) - in a sense, it has life.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Equilibrium of two or more entities must create a new entity composed of the two or more entities that are in equilibrium - yes?
No. An equilibrium between two or more entities isn't an entity - it could be called a state I suppose....
Quote:
So instinct - impulse - toward pricking. As such, the instinct is an outside factor 'pricking' or attempting to interfere with what we (or something) currently are. What is then invoked is an instinctive reaction?
Err...instinct is very much internal not external. It is a set of behaviours/responses that are passed genetically.
Quote:
Let's see if we can further the speculation through the model of a balloon. Here (in possibly over-simplistic terms) 3 factors hold the balloon in equilibrium - the air pressure on the inside, the elasticity of the balloon and the air pressure on the outside - there's more, granted but for sake of argument let's keep it simple. Before the 3 factors came into equilibrium we had no balloon (since a balloon must have ballooned to be a balloon).
So a non-inflated balloon ceases to be a balloon? Are you sure?
Quote:
The 3 separate entities, now in equilibrium, create a new entity, which we call a balloon.
No. The 3 entities are not in equilibrium, they are distinct. There is an equilibrium between the pressure inside the balloon & the pressure outside the balloon maintained by the tension in the skin of the balloon.
Quote:
The balloon resists any attempt to disturb the equilibrium that created it by repelling/allowing itself to be repelled - yes?
No. Untie the balloon and it will naturally deflate with no resistance at all.
Quote:
The equilibrium, called balloon, has developed an ability to survive, (a very limited ability, granted) - in a sense, it has life.
This is why you need to use terms more correctly. There is no equilibrium called balloon.
The balloon does not have life and it's 'ability to survive' is simply a physical property of the material that it is made of.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
The terminology is now so muddled that I can't make any sense out of this at all...
How can something hold itself in equilibrium? It is in equilibrium with something else not itself...
How can a 'will' (which is actually a bad word for this - instinct would be better since 'will' implies conscious determination) develop abilities?
The stuff about drawing extra mass just seems like gibberish to me...and I know of no law of harmonics apart from Keppler's Harmonic Law
"the ratio of the square of the revolutionary period (in years) to the cube of the orbital axis (in astronomical units) is the same for all planets"


Oh - so I'm just wondering, if there's not a governing law to harmonics other than the one quoted, how can the voice of a singer possibly shatter a glass? I'm sure that can happen, as I've seen it demonstrated many time and in certain cases in impromptu settings removing the possibility of trickery. This phenomena must be covered by some law I think. Admittedly, I'm not well-read, so maybe it has another name that doesn't include reference to the word harmony or harmonics.

Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Equilibrium of two or more entities must create a new entity composed of the two or more entities that are in equilibrium - yes?
No. An equilibrium between two or more entities isn't an entity - it could be called a state I suppose....


OK a entity of state or a state of being. I can live with that.

Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
So instinct - impulse - toward pricking. As such, the instinct is an outside factor 'pricking' or attempting to interfere with what we (or something) currently are. What is then invoked is an instinctive reaction?
Err...instinct is very much internal not external. It is a set of behaviours/responses that are passed genetically.


I always thought that instinct was reactive rather than responsive. Response requires sentient consciousness does it not? Just trying to build a nomenclature from which we can proceed.

Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Let's see if we can further the speculation through the model of a balloon. Here (in possibly over-simplistic terms) 3 factors hold the balloon in equilibrium - the air pressure on the inside, the elasticity of the balloon and the air pressure on the outside - there's more, granted but for sake of argument let's keep it simple. Before the 3 factors came into equilibrium we had no balloon (since a balloon must have ballooned to be a balloon).
So a non-inflated balloon ceases to be a balloon? Are you sure?


Yes quite sure. We may incorrectly refer to it as a balloon of course in just the same incorrect way that we refer to a hanging slab of wood as a door.

Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
The 3 separate entities, now in equilibrium, create a new entity, which we call a balloon.
No. The 3 entities are not in equilibrium, they are distinct. There is an equilibrium between the pressure inside the balloon & the pressure outside the balloon maintained by the tension in the skin of the balloon.


So they are in equilibrium - without the elasticated skin, the equilibrium would be another state of entity.

Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
The balloon resists any attempt to disturb the equilibrium that created it by repelling/allowing itself to be repelled - yes?
No. Untie the balloon and it will naturally deflate with no resistance at all.


Oh, did I say the balloon is tied? And even it is is there will be some resistance to the knot being untied so it does resist. I didn't say it will resist in any absolute terms. We're building/disproving a premise in truth remember.

Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
The equilibrium, called balloon, has developed an ability to survive, (a very limited ability, granted) - in a sense, it has life.
This is why you need to use terms more correctly. There is no equilibrium called balloon.


We're using the term equilibrium because you chose it in preference to order - remember?

Bikerman wrote:
The balloon does not have life and it's 'ability to survive' is simply a physical property of the material that it is made of.


So on the same premise you do not have a life because your ability to survive is simply the physical properties of the materials that you're made of?
Afaceinthematrix
Quote:
Random eh!!!! Just random. Surely that would statistically mean that the majority of us would just randomly die out. If we don't exist in any formal order as a race - an order that exists within certain tolerances - then surely more of us would just randomly die out and fail to reach maturity. There's an order - more specifically several orders that work in the same environment. What holds that order. What is it that makes order supersede chaos in any given focused environment - surely more than random???? Just to open the debate of course!!


Well actually there is very little that really is random about evolution. The reasoning is that based on the physical properties of our universe, certain things will and have to happen certain ways. It isn't that they are random, it's that they were caused to happen by chemical properties.

For instance, if you had a cup and a pile of rocks, it would be an extremely slim chance that you'd find a rock that fits perfectly into this cup. The chances are one in a million. You could constantly drop rocks into the cup and even after you put in rock after rock you will still probably never find a rock that fits in absolutely perfect.

Now what would happen if I handed you a pitcher of water and you decided to pour it in? It would fit perfectly into that cup! So would you argue that you were extremely lucky for finding water that was able to fit in the cup perfectly? I doubt it because you know that liquids have certain chemical properties that force it to fit that cup.

All evolution is like that. Certain things are forced to happen certain way because of chemical properties. That is why it is so difficult for people to explain evolution to people who are not educated in science. It doesn't just take some knowledge of biology to understand it. It takes an equal amount of knowledge of chemistry and that is where most people fail (both metaphorically and literally... just look at the fail rates of the class biochemistry at most universities).
Ankhanu
Oh man, this is a terrible knot of terminology and misunderstanding that has caused me a certain amount of pain to read Razz Rather than jumping in on the terminological nightmare, I'll let Bikerman continue to try to set your wording straight and develop some sort of common language.

JeffryJon, regarding this "will to survive" thing resulting in evolutionary change, please read up on some of the debunked ideas of evolution, such as Lemarckism. A little research may clear some things up.

jeffryjon wrote:
Gotta say I'm with you on that statement deanhills. Trying to figure out the whole plot using a snapshot of the whole movie combined with what the others in the room say happened so far. Guess we'd better rewind to the beginning of the tape and start watching from the intro. At least then, we can have some kind of fighting chance. The mind trying to figure out what created the mind that's figuring it out. Why people use drugs to experience an altered reality is beyond me - just try working through the previous sentence. (Sincerely, of course).


I dunno, I was able to piece together the Indiana Jones trilogy through disjointed snapshots and what others say happened... I didn't actually watch an Indi film all the way through until right before the fourth was released... there were no surprises Razz It was nice to see the three films in a continuous, cohesive frame, with all the bits I knew to exist falling into their correct order, but, my understanding of the plot and such was not enhanced by the experience; it was already pretty solid.

In the same sense, we are able to piece together evidence from events we could not possibly witness to develop working, and correct theories of past and even future processes. Eye witnesses are not required if one knows how to interpret the evidence.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Well actually there is very little that really is random about evolution. The reasoning is that based on the physical properties of our universe, certain things will and have to happen certain ways. It isn't that they are random, it's that they were caused to happen by chemical properties.

For instance, if you had a cup and a pile of rocks, it would be an extremely slim chance that you'd find a rock that fits perfectly into this cup. The chances are one in a million. You could constantly drop rocks into the cup and even after you put in rock after rock you will still probably never find a rock that fits in absolutely perfect.

Now what would happen if I handed you a pitcher of water and you decided to pour it in? It would fit perfectly into that cup! So would you argue that you were extremely lucky for finding water that was able to fit in the cup perfectly? I doubt it because you know that liquids have certain chemical properties that force it to fit that cup.

All evolution is like that. Certain things are forced to happen certain way because of chemical properties. That is why it is so difficult for people to explain evolution to people who are not educated in science. It doesn't just take some knowledge of biology to understand it. It takes an equal amount of knowledge of chemistry and that is where most people fail (both metaphorically and literally... just look at the fail rates of the class biochemistry at most universities).


I take some exception to this, Face.
Chance circumstance is the driving force behind mutation. It is random whether or not mutation occurs. Yeah, I suppose that if you factor for every single chemical nuance mutation may become predictable, but, in reality, the likelihood of almost all genetic mutation is indistinguishable from random chance.

That said, the effects of mutation are in no way random; a mutation will have a very specific depending on what the mutation is, and where it is within the genes. This very non-random result from a random mutation is the driving force behind evolution. As Bikerman has said, most mutations either have no net change, or result in an inviable organism. Those that do result in meaningful change and still allow the organism to mature and compete will either put the individual at an advantage or disadvantage in light of other individuals in the population, and will either have greater or lesser reproductive success; those mutations leading to greater reproductive success have the chance to alter the allele frequencies in the population and result in the gradual evolution of the species.

Random mutation, Non-random results -> evolving.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Oh - so I'm just wondering, if there's not a governing law to harmonics other than the one quoted, how can the voice of a singer possibly shatter a glass? I'm sure that can happen, as I've seen it demonstrated many time and in certain cases in impromptu settings removing the possibility of trickery. This phenomena must be covered by some law I think. Admittedly, I'm not well-read, so maybe it has another name that doesn't include reference to the word harmony or harmonics.
If you hit a glass with a hammer it will shatter - but there is no 'law' of hammer-glass.
I think you are referring to resonant frequencies, but that is a concept not a law...
Quote:
OK a entity of state or a state of being. I can live with that.
Not entity of state - simply state of equilibrium.
Quote:
I always thought that instinct was reactive rather than responsive. Response requires sentient consciousness does it not? Just trying to build a nomenclature from which we can proceed.
No. A response is simply a reaction to a stimulus. It could be conscious or not.
Quote:
Yes quite sure. We may incorrectly refer to it as a balloon of course in just the same incorrect way that we refer to a hanging slab of wood as a door.
Well, since you like dictionary definitions:
A small thin inflatable rubber bag with narrow neck
An inflatable buoyant object, often (but not necessarily) round and flexible

So I'm afraid I take issue on that....I would say a balloon is a balloon whether inflated or not.
jeffryjon wrote:
So they are in equilibrium - without the elasticated skin, the equilibrium would be another state of entity.
Not 'state of entity'. Without the elasticated skin there would be equal pressure inside and out. Equilibrium is a balancing of forces (or a cancelling out of forces). Since there would be no forces acting then the word would not really apply...
Quote:
Oh, did I say the balloon is tied? And even it is is there will be some resistance to the knot being untied so it does resist. I didn't say it will resist in any absolute terms. We're building/disproving a premise in truth remember.
LOL...I don't think we are even close to building a premise in truth - we are still at the stage of defining terms correctly.
What exactly does the balloon resist? If the neck is tied with string then you untie the string (not part of the balloon) it will deflate.
Quote:
We're using the term equilibrium because you chose it in preference to order - remember?
No, I didn't. I said that I didn't understand what you meant by order and that in the context you were using it I thought equilibrium would be the correct word. That doesn't mean that I would normally use equilibrium when I meant order. Regardless, equilibrium is not an entity it is a state that exists between entities (forces).
Quote:
So on the same premise you do not have a life because your ability to survive is simply the physical properties of the materials that you're made of?
No. We have a fairly well agreed definition of what we mean by life. Biologists might argue details but in general terms life is that which has metabolism, a capacity to grow and respond to stimuli, reproduce and adapt.
Afaceinthematrix
Ankhanu wrote:

I take some exception to this, Face.
Chance circumstance is the driving force behind mutation. It is random whether or not mutation occurs. Yeah, I suppose that if you factor for every single chemical nuance mutation may become predictable, but, in reality, the likelihood of almost all genetic mutation is indistinguishable from random chance.


Yes, yes, of course. I did purchase a little room in my statement by saying that there is very little chance in evolution. I didn't say there was none because there is some chance... And the chance is mostly a mutation actually occurring. But the majority of biology (passing on genes, all of the processes involved in the functions of the organism, etc.) are pure chemistry.

People always argue that there must be a creator because we can't just be here by "chance" and that annoys me because it is not pure chance (and even if it was, so what? there are trillions and trillions of planets, solar systems, etc... so probability would still work)! If you study enough chemistry you understand how things tend to work together (plants eventually evolving which developed our atmosphere which then allowed land animals to evolve, etc.) elegantly and how many things forced other things and that evolution was just bound to happen. I'm not a chemist or a biologist but I have studied both to small degree and have some basic understanding of it. I am just neglecting to get to into detail about it because I don't feel that I know enough about it to talk about it with an authoritive tone. Besides, I tend to try and avoid biology because I have hated it ever since I took a class and had to memorize the Kreb Cycle (which isn't even that bad compared to what I would have had to memorize had I majored in bio instead of math!).
Ankhanu
quex wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
If you can't be bothered understanding what you oppose, get out of the debate.


G*ddamnit, I need buttons and stickers and a billboard that says exactly this. I'll be over on the Websites exchange forum looking for a good internet print service... let me know if you want to coin your quote. XD


Use it for free Razz
However, if there's a profit, I want 40% Wink
Bikerman
Quote:
In the same sense, we are able to piece together evidence from events we could not possibly witness to develop working, and correct theories of past and even future processes. Eye witnesses are not required if one knows how to interpret the evidence.

Whilst, of course, I agree with that, I think it is worth (re)stating that we don't really need interpretation when it comes to evolution. We can see it at work. Even without the fossil record the case for evolution is tight and overwhelming. There are numerous strands of evidence - ranging from the vestigeal/atavistic features in existing species (whales have vestigeal limbs, we have a vestigeal tail etc etc), through to the most recent genetic and other molecular evidence.
If that isn't enough, evolution can be, and has been, observed in the laboratory. I don't mean minor variations within species (we already have more than enough evidence for that - dogs being an obvious example) I mean actual speciation - the evolution of a new species.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Many biologists have started to adopt the phrase 'the fact of evolution' just to emphasise that as scientific theories go this one is nailed-down at least as well as any we have. Creationists will, of course, continue to deliberately misuse the word 'theory' to imply there is some serious doubt to be had, but there really isn't. Those who deny evolution belong in one or both of the following categories:
a) Ignorant
b) Dishonest
Ignorance can be remedied, dishonesty is not so easy to counter....
quex
Ankhanu wrote:
quex wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
If you can't be bothered understanding what you oppose, get out of the debate.


G*ddamnit, I need buttons and stickers and a billboard that says exactly this. I'll be over on the Websites exchange forum looking for a good internet print service... let me know if you want to coin your quote. XD


Use it for free :P
However, if there's a profit, I want 40% ;)


Duly noted. ^_^b
quex
jeffryjon wrote:
Ok I'll pick up on just one point for now.

quex wrote:
In the case of humans, random DNA changes over the years caused our bones to shift and our bodies to become capable of walking upright, our brains to increase in size and complexity, and our hands to become dexterous to enable the crafting and use of tools, among thousands of other changes. At the same time, many negative changes also struck different veins of humankind, and those veins declined and died out. The same continues today, although we are beginning to alter the curve with medicine and technology.


Random eh!!!! Just random. Surely that would statistically mean that the majority of us would just randomly die out. If we don't exist in any formal order as a race - an order that exists within certain tolerances - then surely more of us would just randomly die out and fail to reach maturity. There's an order - more specifically several orders that work in the same environment. What holds that order. What is it that makes order supersede chaos in any given focused environment - surely more than random???? Just to open the debate of course!!


-_-; Okay, go back and try to think about this again. Statistically, the majority of us HAVE died out. I'm not talking about the progress of generaltional age and death, either. The genus homo (us, neanderthals, cro magnon man, etc) has faced ENORMOUS attrition in the relatively short period that we have existed. I am not going to waste my time detailing human history, but let me say that if your own understanding only goes back to Mesopotamia, you are at the tip of the iceberg.

What your singluar mind, contained within it's period of experience of a single lifetime, considers "order" is far, far different than what would constitute universal order. The power of entropy (chaos, or the natural expansion of single elements into multiple permutations) is acting on so much over so very great a time period that a single human (who is predispositioned to selectively see patterns in random scatterings, by the way, as an evolutionary adaptaion), will look to either side of him and say "I see a flat land where it would be perfect to build a city; surely this is ordered this way by some intelligent force" while he is, in fact, standing on a tiny plateau atop a mountain, in part of a sporadic mountain chain, stretching across a continent of deserts and swamps, surrounded by an ocean, on a planet spinning through space that will someday be struck by an asteroid.

The order you see is not established over chaos, it is simply the small section of chaos you are looking at.
quex
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Well actually there is very little that really is random about evolution. The reasoning is that based on the physical properties of our universe, certain things will and have to happen certain ways. It isn't that they are random, it's that they were caused to happen by chemical properties.


You fail to understand the entropic nature of evolution. These "certain ways" do not happen at first, they happen by accident. Have you ever heard the allegory regarding infinite probability, that if you put a million monkeys with a million typewriters into a room where they had infinite time to hit the keys, they would eventually produce the entire collected works of Shakespeare? This very carefully about that for a minute or two. The acts are random. There are billions of cases of trial and error. The unique nature of evolution, however, is that there are external factors that will help screen out many of the failing cases. When one random happening gives a creature some advantage in surviving longer and reproducing more, that is the random change that multiplies and overshadows all others.

Quote:
For instance, if you had a cup and a pile of rocks, it would be an extremely slim chance that you'd find a rock that fits perfectly into this cup. The chances are one in a million.


...and evolution is the source of your proverbial "million rocks". One million is, actually, an underestimate; there are billions upon billions of "rocks" for you to try in that cup. And remember that evolution is a living, producing cycle. Perhaps you find a rock that almost fits. Great! Now your rock reproduces many millions of rocks that are closer to its original shape than the millions in the first pile, and one of these fits the cup even closer. Eventually, you will end up with a "rock" that fits your "cup" with a tolerance of less than a hundredth of a nanometer. A virtual fit.

Regarding the idea of water in the cup; that doesn't happen. You show me some system in nature that works so perfectly that it can't possibly be improved for the benefit of one side or the other, and I will give you two dozen ways that it could, indeed, be better. Evolution continues forever; it never makes a perfect piece. Just more and more perfect pieces to fit holes that, as part of the system, also change shape with time.
Bikerman
Just to add,
evolution is also a build-up process which means it adapts existing gene sequences for new purposes. This is why the human body, if it were designed, would have to be designed by a chap having a very bad day. The usual example is the vegus nerve. It wanders all over the place and has several 'mission critical' functions - such as maintaining heart-rate, sweating, speech (fine muscle control of the mouth), breathing (it keeps the larynx open) and digestion (it controls peristalsis in the gut).
Only an idiot would design so many critical functions into one pathway and then have it meander all over the place - from the brain, down to the aortic loop around the heart, back up to the larynx.
The reason it is much longer than needed and carries so many critical functions is evolutionary - all animals have a vegus nerve and in early animals the head and heart were sufficiently close to make it reasonably efficient. As animals changed the nerve was built on rather than redesigned. Now even a giraffe has this barmy arrangement of a nerve going down the neck to the heart and back up to the larynx - 15 feet of nerve. If God designed us then he is a pretty crappy designer...
quex
Bikerman wrote:
Just to add,
evolution is also a build-up process which means it adapts existing gene sequences for new purposes. This is why the human body, if it were designed, would have to be designed by a chap having a very bad day. The usual example is the vegus nerve. It wanders all over the place and has several 'mission critical' functions - such as maintaining heart-rate, sweating, speech (fine muscle control of the mouth), breathing (it keeps the larynx open) and digestion (it controls peristalsis in the gut).
Only an idiot would design so many critical functions into one pathway and then have it meander all over the place - from the brain, down to the aortic loop around the heart, back up to the larynx.
The reason it is much longer than needed and carries so many critical functions is evolutionary - all animals have a vegus nerve and in early animals the head and heart were sufficiently close to make it reasonably efficient. As animals changed the nerve was built on rather than redesigned. Now even a giraffe has this barmy arrangement of a nerve going down the neck to the heart and back up to the larynx - 15 feet of nerve. If God designed us then he is a pretty crappy designer...


This is an excellent example. (I'm going to have to remember it.) The old standby example that we learned in, damn, maybe junior high(?) is the appendix. We have no use for it*, and yet, it is still there in the body. It can even be a liability, as you may hear from anyone who has ever has an appendectomy to remove an infected appendix... if a swollen infected appendix bursts, you are very likely to succumb to peritonitis (bacteria everywhere, infecting the abdominal membranes).

*I should mention there is more modern research that suggests secondary uses for the appendix, brought about by evolution. When the appendix lost its function as a standalone organ in the body, it began to shrink and lose blood vessel connectivity... but remains useful to the human body as, perhaps, a pocket to harbor beneficial bacteria in the intestines when an infection in the gastrointestinal system triggers the body's immune response to wipe out all bacterial life in the larger colon. Secondary use for vestigial organs is a common example of how evolution continues to act upon every part of every creature, randomly and often.
jeffryjon
quex wrote:
Okay, go back and try to think about this again. Statistically, the majority of us HAVE died out. I'm not talking about the progress of generaltional age and death, either. The genus homo (us, neanderthals, cro magnon man, etc) has faced ENORMOUS attrition in the relatively short period that we have existed. I am not going to waste my time detailing human history, but let me say that if your own understanding only goes back to Mesopotamia, you are at the tip of the iceberg.

What your singluar mind, contained within it's period of experience of a single lifetime, considers "order" is far, far different than what would constitute universal order. The power of entropy (chaos, or the natural expansion of single elements into multiple permutations) is acting on so much over so very great a time period that a single human (who is predispositioned to selectively see patterns in random scatterings, by the way, as an evolutionary adaptaion), will look to either side of him and say "I see a flat land where it would be perfect to build a city; surely this is ordered this way by some intelligent force" while he is, in fact, standing on a tiny plateau atop a mountain, in part of a sporadic mountain chain, stretching across a continent of deserts and swamps, surrounded by an ocean, on a planet spinning through space that will someday be struck by an asteroid.

The order you see is not established over chaos, it is simply the small section of chaos you are looking at.


I agree with you completely and absolutely in all the above Exactly as it is written. It may be better to use terms like someone/somebody in preference to 'you' though to lessen the chance that the reader interprets statements like 'if your own understanding only ..........etc' is exposing the writer's presumption that he knows better than his target audience. In many other threads this approach has led to many an unnecessary argument - sometime to the complete destruction of the quality of the thread. Very Happy

I never actually said anything about order over chaos. I simply questioned a theory based purely on random.
Afaceinthematrix
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

You fail to understand the entropic nature of evolution. These "certain ways" do not happen at first, they happen by accident. Have you ever heard the allegory regarding infinite probability, that if you put a million monkeys with a million typewriters into a room where they had infinite time to hit the keys, they would eventually produce the entire collected works of Shakespeare? This very carefully about that for a minute or two. The acts are random. There are billions of cases of trial and error. The unique nature of evolution, however, is that there are external factors that will help screen out many of the failing cases. When one random happening gives a creature some advantage in surviving longer and reproducing more, that is the random change that multiplies and overshadows all others.


I understand evolution just find. I think you're missing a link in understanding. I did say that there was some randomness in it. There does have to be some randomness in genetic mutation. Although the processes that have allowed us to evolve the way that we have were not so much random as they were chemistry.

Plants evolved which developed our atmosphere which allowed us to evolve. That's just one example. The processes which actually pass down our traits are both biology and chemistry. My point is that much of it is not as much random as it is based on chemical properties that our universe has.

Even if you look at a subject related to evolution but not quite evolution - abiogenesis (which I am bringing up because Creationists often mistake it as evolution and try to use it to bash evolution) which is the study of how life came to be which then leads into this life evolving - is pure chemistry.

An organism (algae, for example) may evolve in a water environment and then affect the chemical properties of that water allowing other organisms to evolve. See, that wasn't purely random. That was a direct result from the chemical properties of this universe.

You cannot truly have an understanding of most topics in biology without having a decent foundation in chemistry.
Related topics
Pro Evolution Soccer 5 Demo
Pro Evolution Soccer to Mobile
Why the big change from Creationism to Intelligent Design?
science vs. religion
Fifa or....
Pro's and Con's of Being a Christian
Intelligent Design?Or Evolution?
Brain Or MIND?
Science - Anybody Interested
Evolution, the religion
Intelligent Design - Science or Religion?
The Christian Riddle
Why I quit wasting my time with Creationists
DOES LIFE ORIGINATE BY CHANCE (EVOLUTION) ?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.