Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Apr 30, 2008 16:05:42 GMT
I contend that any of the conflicts in evolutionary theory can be just as easily explained (theoretically) as you can explain any conflicts in the Genesis story. I think that anyone can come up with an explanation for any conflict or contradiction, usually by introducing some new idea. For this reason I think I could come up with a theory that the universe was created by an alien race of giant tomatoes and still manage to iron out any conflicts with scientific evidence. Flying Spaghetti monsterInvisible Pink UnicornWell, true, but then I am fine with that. I never wanted to try and prove that creationism is THE ONLY valid answer for life on earth. I feel though that a lot of people (including Jatayu) dismiss it as being scientifically absurd, when it isn't at all. I am sure you could make any crazy idea and defend it to some extent. Well, I guess I will start with my biggest argument against evolution. It is so simple and yet so irrefutable I may be able to get you guys to admit right now evolution has some holes. Let us say I believe things evolve and become more complex. Let us say I can swallow the big bang theory, I can swallow natural selection (which I do actually believe in to some extent), and let us say I am good with just about everything an evolutionist would throw my way. There is still one stage of the theory that no reasoning person can swallow. Where did it begin? Think of it for a second from just a common sense standpoint; No matter how small I divide matter there must be some smallest matter that began it all. Let us say atoms, or protons and neutrons and electrons, or even smaller quarks, we still get to a point where the origin of the universe is this large amount of formless matter, whatever it is you define it as. Now suppose I am able to swallow all evolution that takes that bunch of matter to the entire universe complete with life and everything we can observe; I still can't account for that first jump. I must indeed believe that at some point something (matter) originated from nothing. Perhaps I say it came from some energy? Where did the energy come from? You see, to fully look at evolution, you MUST account for this very first step. In fact you must have FAITH that something originated from nothing, which is EXACTLY the same faith a creationist has when he believes in a miraculous creation. But say you can ignore this point above and despite there not being a perfect description, you believe evolution is still much sounder than creation. Congratulations, you have just taken your first tiny leap of faith to believe evolution, you will have to take dozens more before I am done with you And there lies the difference between the two beliefs. The creationist must take one giant leap of faith - to believe in God. After that it is easy. The evolutionist must take literally hundreds of these at every turn to hold to his belief. More coming later.
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on Apr 30, 2008 16:24:23 GMT
Let us say I believe things evolve and become more complex. Let us say I can swallow the big bang theory, I can swallow natural selection (which I do actually believe in to some extent), and let us say I am good with just about everything an evolutionist would throw my way. There is still one stage of the theory that no reasoning person can swallow. Where did it begin? Think of it for a second from just a common sense standpoint; No matter how small I divide matter there must be some smallest matter that began it all. Let us say atoms, or protons and neutrons and electrons, or even smaller quarks, we still get to a point where the origin of the universe is this large amount of formless matter, whatever it is you define it as. Now suppose I am able to swallow all evolution that takes that bunch of matter to the entire universe complete with life and everything we can observe; I still can't account for that first jump. I must indeed believe that at some point something (matter) originated from nothing. Perhaps I say it came from some energy? Where did the energy come from? You see, to fully look at evolution, you MUST account for this very first step. In fact you must have FAITH that something originated from nothing, which is EXACTLY the same faith a creationist has when he believes in a miraculous creation. More coming later. 'Evolution' says nothing about how life originated. It says nothing about how matter or energy originated. You don't have to have faith to 'believe' in evolution. I believe you misunderstand the meaning of evolution. Perhaps the term you're looking for is abiogenesis, which postulates that 'life' arose spontaneously out of inorganic matter. The thing you mention about the formation of matter and energy.. that is covered in the big bang theory and other such and is anyway highly speculative. And therein lies the difference between science and faith. If science can't explain a certain thing, we don't say 'Magic man dun it'. We look for alternative theories that can explain it, until then it is outside the boundaries of science. And to put it frankly, if you say there is a creator, then where did the creator come from? Who created the creator? It's the same thing isn't it? It is not any more logical either.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Apr 30, 2008 16:40:24 GMT
Therefore people can and will believe whatever they like. Try typing 'flat earth society' into Google and you will find a stubborn bunch of people who spend their time contriving arguments to defend the theory. They're going the wrong way about improving their debating skills, but that's beside the point. I say that to make a judgement past the level of 'nothing can be completely disproved' we must have actual evidence in favour of something. This is what, it seems to me, is lacking in Creationism. I'm not saying evolution is 100% correct in every detail (which is why I hate the nitpickers like Dantares pointing out tiny discrepancies. Especially as the ones they point out often aren't discrepancies at all), but I do feel that the evidence suggests it is relatively close to the reality.
Imperator has made the scientific points so I'm going to focus on this one thing. This is what I take issue with:
Beyond the philosphical point that to accept our own existence as definite requires some belief, I disagree with you that following the scientific theory requires faith.
In my book (and this can be argued, please do so if you disagree as otherwise we'll be talking at cross purposes) faith in the usual sense of the word is believing in something without any evidence. Rational theorising based on the evidence has led to the scientific conclusions, and it is speculation rather than faith which accounts for the more uncertain aspects such as the Big Bang. There are in fact scientists who contend that the Big Bang did not create something from nothing, for example, which demonstrates that the scientific community does not have complete 'faith' in any single currently accepted 'fact'.
My argument about evolution is that it does not have (major) holes, but is incomplete. It is not completely certain, but it does have the weight of evidence in its support.
The weakness of so many Creationist arguments is that they bring up some of this evidence, and contrive a way for it to fit in with the Creationist story without providing any evidence actively for Creationism. If you are to build a persuasive case I think, as I said earlier, that you will need to come up with some backing in its own right for Creationism.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on Apr 30, 2008 20:40:11 GMT
Well everything has to start at some point, whether you believe the big bang theory or not. The whole point of that argument is that someone who refuses the creation account doesn't have a solid answer for that first step, which you basically agree to in saying the Big Bang theory is highly speculative. That isn't fair at all. Creationists are responsible for major strides in every area of science. Isaac Newton was a creationist, so was almost every other major scientist before Darwin. They never chalked it up to Magic, they were the most investigative bunch to ever live. I think you should read some creationist literature. It isn't some kind of goofy religion with no scientific basis. The bible has multiple passages describing things of science that were supposedly "discovered" thousands of years later. But I promised to leave the bible out of this. My point exactly, the same leap of faith is required for Evolution and creationism. Well, there IS a difference. For instance, people have taken pictures of a round earth from outer space, so there is what we would call indisputable evidence (at least to most reasoning people) that defies this. Creation is different. I will show by the end of this discussion that there is far more evidence for creation than evolution actually. No that isn't really the way I see it or want it. All I want is for evolution and creation to both be seen as two theories neither of which is infallible, both of which are possible. All I need to do for this to happen is to show that creationism doesn't conflict with science at all, that there is a lot in the universe that harmonizes better with this account, and that evolution is at best sketchy. If I can establish that, who can fairly say evolution should be considered the ONLY true theory? I am terribly short on time today, but I will give one more philosophical argument before beginning a more scientific approach. Suppose the three of us are exploring what we all assume is an uninhabited island. Walking the beach, we see a smilie face carved in the sand. Do we all assume the waves came up and over time their crashing carved the face? No, we assume there must have been a creator, it is far more likely than the odds of it having occurred by chance. If we assume this for such a brutally simple thing as two dots and a curve beneath them, like this , why should we consider the idea of a creator so outrageous for our amazingly complex Universe? I am enjoying this discussion. I have to work tomorrow, but maybe tonight or tomorrow night I will add some more to it.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on Apr 30, 2008 21:00:20 GMT
I'll stick to my arguments and let Imperator answer your responses to his.
Falsified. My original point, which you agreed to, is that anything can be rationalised if you try hard enough. Therefore we can't really say anything is absolutely 'impossible'. For example, how do you know you are not dreaming now?
If we carry forward my previous point that anything can be resolved with the scientific evidence, then to put Creationism on a par with evolution (which has evidence) you would need to provide equally compelling evidence (or show that the current evidence actively conflicts with evolution). I don't quite see what your problem is here, as you've also said that later on you'll introduce such evidence. Surely you agree that if there are two theories that are possible (as nothing can be proved impossible) the one with by far the greater evidence should be accepted?
By definition, where there is conflict there can only be one truth (although it needn't be either evolution or Creationism). If you cna provide some solid evidence (such as this harmony between the theory and physical universe you describe) then you would make Creationism more legitimate a theory.
Are you familiar with the concept of the multiverse? Whereby the sheer number of universes means that one of them, statistically, is bound to have the conditions for the degree of complexity we enjoy. When you factor in the natural selection concept of evolution this only strengthens the argument that no original intelligence was required for the complexity of the universe.
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 1, 2008 4:12:07 GMT
Well everything has to start at some point, whether you believe the big bang theory or not. The whole point of that argument is that someone who refuses the creation account doesn't have a solid answer for that first step, which you basically agree to in saying the Big Bang theory is highly speculative. Ok, I've already said that just because the beginning is highly speculative, we don't say 'Magic Man dun it'. Centuries ago people did not know about magnetism, did they? Did they say Magic man and devil is in the lodestone which causes it to point north? They probably did, and we laugh at them for it. But philosophically speaking it is the same thing as creationism. Besides that, there are several theories which do somewhat explain 'something coming out of nothing'. Ever heard of quantum irregularities? Hypothetically, it is possible for a particle to be created from 'nothing' due to quantum theory, though of course it is unimaginatively improbable. Then again, we don't know how many failed attempts there were. That's a very shallow explanation. Newton also believed in alchemy all his life and once nearly poisoned himself. Should we do the same too? Until Darwin, no one had any idea about evolution. No one had a theory which would explain the complexity of life. And the conditions they lived in were less than ideal. A full religious upbringing and burning heretics at stake and stuff like that. And the scientific theory was less established then. The point is, it might have been reasonable to claim creationism 400 years ago. It is not reasonable now, with tons and tons of empirical evidence to verify evolution. Just as it is not reasonable to believe in alchemy because we have better models of chemistry now. It is. Not a single scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. Not a single scrap of mathematical calculations. Not a single scrap of experimental evidence. It is a highly theoretical pseudoscience. Ehh.. afraid I didn't get you there. No, no, no! Evolution is not 'sketchy'. There are a lot of other things that are, including Big bang theory, but 'evolution' is not. If you are terribly insistent on this point, go buy a fruit flies experiment kit ( you will probably get one somewhere ) and observe it for yourself. This argument is fallacious. It is the idiotic argument of 'intelligent design'. Please see this 23 part video series, I'm sure it'll be worth the 2 or 3 hours. ( I dont have time to write any more now ) www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 1, 2008 15:36:28 GMT
I imagine that by 'evolution' Matty was referring to the scientific consensus on the history of the universe in general. That would include the Big Bang etc.
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 1, 2008 16:58:24 GMT
I imagine that by 'evolution' Matty was referring to the scientific consensus on the history of the universe in general. That would include the Big Bang etc. This is a principle mistake creationists make. They think that everything about the birth of the universe, abiogenesis etc. is covered under the banner of evolution. That Ben Stein guy also thinks that it covers thermodynamics and gravity lol. I'll expound on this one now There are many problems to that, but I'll point out three main ones. 1. Living things EVOLVE. Watches, buildings and faces in the sand do not evolve. They have no system of genes and propagation. Thus the complexity of living beings is different from that of non living systems. 2. Have you ever been to a beach? What you are saying is actually not as improbable as you might think. Two dots could happen very easily, and a passing animal might put a hoof stamp that could be interpreted as a semicircle. There are 100s of complex inorganic things including stalactites, crystals and snowflakes which have an astonishing degree of complexity, none of which needs to be explained by a creator 3. When forming a theory, we do not start off by ignoring everything we know about a subject. We know that people draw faces in the sand at times. Therefore it is okay to hypothesize that a person drew the face. On the other hand we know that people do not make snowflake patterns. So when we see complex patterns in snowflakes we don't conclude that someone made them. Of course you might just see the snowflakes and conclude that 'Magic man dun it' and therefore Magic man exists. This is erroneous because we have a satisfactory theory to explain the formation of snowflakes.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 1, 2008 17:57:46 GMT
Shall we assume for the purposes of this argument that we are reffering to the overall scientific theory? It's still Creationism vs Current scientific thinking. And anyway, the word evolution does not have to only mean natual selection, it could be evolution of the universe as a whole.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on May 2, 2008 3:33:20 GMT
Shall we assume for the purposes of this argument that we are reffering to the overall scientific theory? It's still Creationism vs Current scientific thinking. And anyway, the word evolution does not have to only mean natual selection, it could be evolution of the universe as a whole. My sentiment exactly. It is almost impossible for me to form an argument with those limitations. Every evolutionist hast to believe something about the entire universe. I know exactly what evolution means in the literal sense. I need to be able to lump it in with the majority of scientific thinking, and it is a simple word to use. And as far as what Jatayu says about previous scientists, it couldn't be more historically inaccurate. The basic ideas of evolution have been thrown around for hundreds of years, though not as concisely and scientifically as Darwin pointed them out. The only point I was making anyway is creationists cannot be in any way criticized of being unobservant, chalking science up to magic. It is just so unintelligent a thing to think. I am a creationist, and look what field I am in my whole life, science. It will be awfully hard to discuss this if Jatayu is insistent on his point that every creationsit is basically a moron. But I will still give it a go. One last poiny about the beach analogy, I think you both missed the point. I wasn't pointing at all to the likeliness of a creator. Rather I was pointing to how it isn't moronic, or in the word I used, outrageous, to seek a creator for a creation. Doesn't even have to mean such a thought process is correct, just it isn't ridiculous. Focusing more on Jatayu's wishes (evolution), let us discuss the fossil record. With over one million fossil's unearthed, who can evolution be possible without one single "transitional species", commonly known as missing links, having been unearthed? Shouldn't there have been thousands. no millions of readily recognizable species that clearly show a direct transition between stages of evolution. Forgetting that, should not there be an endless variety of these walking the earth today? animals which are in transition to a new and better and more fit form? Yet not ONE single live species OR fossil is a clear example of this. And this isn't a creationist view, this is the decided opinion of world authorities. Oh sure once every so often in the past there was one that would be hailed the missing link, yet each of these has been generally considered to be completely bird, completely fish, etc. The existence of 20 such fossils would seem a pathetic support for evolution; the existence of none is a decided argument against it.
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 2, 2008 5:33:45 GMT
My sentiment exactly. It is almost impossible for me to form an argument with those limitations. Every evolutionist hast to believe something about the entire universe. What is an 'evolutionist'? If you mean belief in evolution, that doesn't imply anything about the whole universe. By the way, there is something called theistic evolution, look it up. Not really. No major philosophy or science talked anything about evolution. That is why it caused such a big stir when it came out. Then WHY is there no evidence, no calculation, no theories, no papers in peer reviewed journals for creationism?? Put it this way, Aristotle believed that things were made of four elements, fire, metal, water and air, or something like that. Very fascinating theory, but he had nothing to show in its favour. Btw I am also in science. What are you studying specifically? I don't know what you're talking about. There are 100s of such fossils. Eg. Archeoptyrex ( spelt wrong I guess ) is a transition from reptile to bird. A simple google search would tell you about transitional fossils.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 2, 2008 17:08:59 GMT
You're right, I did misinterpret the aim of your analogy, I thought you were using it as evidence in favour of Creationism and against evolution and I responded as such. However if you prefer... You're right, it isn't outrageous to (at least initially) look for a Creator. Likewise it isn't outrageous to think that light from a mobile point would travel faster than light from an immobile point. However, this is not where the evidence points and so we revise our initial opinions. And while a flawed initial opinion is not 'moronic' it is questionable whether clinging to your original idea in the face of adverse evidence is quite the same thing. As an aside, Creationism would be a lot more popular if you didn't have so many complete idiots championing it. There are far too many insane zealots, pseudo scientists and ignorant laymen who are so easily disproved by basic observable fact for the theory to be taken seriously. If you want it to be taken seriously you really must cut your ties with these people, they are just as surely your opponents as evolutionists are. That is however the way we are using it in this argument. To be honest, I would be really happy if it turned out that at its most fundamental level all matter really was composed of earth, fire, air and water. That would be such a beautiful and satisfying conclusion, don't you think? I'm in the Arts (specifically I want to study Law), does reasoning count for nothing with you scientific types? Also, have you imagined how this would have gone at AoKH? *shudder*
|
|
|
Post by Basse on May 2, 2008 23:13:41 GMT
Would've been locked after a day I believe I'll leave the discussion to those with much information at hand. I'm not deeply informed in this matter. I do believe in God and that he could've created the world in six days, 6000 years ago, if he wanted to. He is almighty, he could create things that in our eyes look bazillion years old even if they aren't, no matter what scientists come up with. Or he could've created the universe with the Big Bang and started the evolution of the species and only planted man directly by himself (this because we're created in His image, while other animals aren't). That's my belief. As I said, I'm not very deeply informed about the scientific parts in this matter, so keep debating and I'll keep reading
|
|
Von
Stormwind Member
VonCorgev
Vene, Vidi, Verse.
Posts: 818
|
Post by Von on May 3, 2008 0:20:30 GMT
(Sorry I doctored your quote up a bit) Perhaps this should read the other way around, namely, 'Evolution is so easily disproved by basic observable fact for the theory to be taken seriously. Key word here is observable. What is evolution or naturalism as some call it? Theories. Big Bang Theory, Random Genetic Drift Theory, Quantum Theory. Why are these all hypothetical theories? If evolution is a science and not a belief why are these not fact? Could it be that these are not theories based on 'obsevable' fact, which is what science is? How can something be complete, when every twenty years or so the supposed facts change? In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. Evolution is not complete, evolution is not observable fact. Evolution is a man-made religion attempting to refute the existance of God so mankind can try to put out of his mind the inevitable judgement. Then isn't the same true for the "Big Bang" as well? Find me one person who witnessed that? In fact find me anything that witnessed inorganic matter spontaniously generating life? You will inevitably ask, "Well, no one witnessed Creation either!" However, I know of One who was there at the beginning, and I have His Word. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because it had teeth and claws on it's wings. However many predatory birds of today have a vestigial claw on the end of their wings but what are they? Birds. What were they? Birds. What will they be? Birds. I'm surprised many think Archaeopteryx to still be a viable transitional fossil. I tried searching on Google, but didn't see it. Could you please explain how we can observe evolution taking place with this kit? Have you ever thought about the complexity of the human eye? Have you ever thought about the complexity of the way the body forms blood-clots? Have you ever even thought about the sheer amount of information in a single-celled organism one of the simplest of all living things? Surely you don't believe even this simplest form of life generated spontaneously from simple chemicals? Now physical chemistry can produce amino acids under the right conditions (these acids you will know are fundamental to life). However these acids are mixtures of different forms of amino acids, and not the pure ones needed by living organisms. The fact is, only enzymes produce the pure amino acids and sugards necessary for life, and the problem with that is that enzyme manufacture requires a living cell. You see, life is based on life. The insurmountable problem of even getting one of these functional enzymes by random processes, even if you could get all the ingredients assembled together is multiplied exceedingly byt the fact that one single enzyme is comprised of typically 300 amino acids. I'll be generous and say that maybe 150 of these are needed for an enzyme to function, however the probability of getting a functional sequence is less than 1 in 10^195. Tiny bit of a problem, no? I guess one thing Evolutionists and Creationists agree on, is that for evolution to take place millions...no, billions of years are needed. “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth.” --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on May 3, 2008 2:18:54 GMT
(Sorry I doctored your quote up a bit) Perhaps this should read the other way around, namely, 'Evolution is so easily disproved by basic observable fact for the theory to be taken seriously. Key word here is observable. What is evolution or naturalism as some call it? Theories. Big Bang Theory, Random Genetic Drift Theory, Quantum Theory. Why are these all hypothetical theories? If evolution is a science and not a belief why are these not fact? Could it be that these are not theories based on 'obsevable' fact, which is what science is? How can something be complete, when every twenty years or so the supposed facts change? In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. Evolution is not complete, evolution is not observable fact. Evolution is a man-made religion attempting to refute the existance of God so mankind can try to put out of his mind the inevitable judgement. Then isn't the same true for the "Big Bang" as well? Find me one person who witnessed that? In fact find me anything that witnessed inorganic matter spontaniously generating life? You will inevitably ask, "Well, no one witnessed Creation either!" However, I know of One who was there at the beginning, and I have His Word. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because it had teeth and claws on it's wings. However many predatory birds of today have a vestigial claw on the end of their wings but what are they? Birds. What were they? Birds. What will they be? Birds. I'm surprised many think Archaeopteryx to still be a viable transitional fossil. I tried searching on Google, but didn't see it. Could you please explain how we can observe evolution taking place with this kit? Have you ever thought about the complexity of the human eye? Have you ever thought about the complexity of the way the body forms blood-clots? Have you ever even thought about the sheer amount of information in a single-celled organism one of the simplest of all living things? Surely you don't believe even this simplest form of life generated spontaneously from simple chemicals? Now physical chemistry can produce amino acids under the right conditions (these acids you will know are fundamental to life). However these acids are mixtures of different forms of amino acids, and not the pure ones needed by living organisms. The fact is, only enzymes produce the pure amino acids and sugards necessary for life, and the problem with that is that enzyme manufacture requires a living cell. You see, life is based on life. The insurmountable problem of even getting one of these functional enzymes by random processes, even if you could get all the ingredients assembled together is multiplied exceedingly byt the fact that one single enzyme is comprised of typically 300 amino acids. I'll be generous and say that maybe 150 of these are needed for an enzyme to function, however the probability of getting a functional sequence is less than 1 in 10^195. Tiny bit of a problem, no? I guess one thing Evolutionists and Creationists agree on, is that for evolution to take place millions...no, billions of years are needed. “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth.” --Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Oh, I like your post Archeopterix (we are brutal spelling this) is not a missing link. It has been agreed upon by evolutionists as a complete vird. NO species is today unanimously considered a missing link among evolutionists. I will now attack another pillar of evolution, the geologic column. This layering of soils supposedly shows the age of the earth. Additionally, the fossils found in each layer should indicate the er of evolution they are from. Yet NOWHERE in the worl is the entire column in order available. In a few optimal places it is arranged at best in layers of 5-6 in order, but in other places is reversed. Additionally, there are what we call polystrate fossils, which are fossilized in multiple layers of the geologic column. The geologic column is claimed to show the evolutionary process, yet doesn't even exist. Tomorrow I shall discuss the science of carbon dating.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on May 3, 2008 7:56:17 GMT
It's Archaeopteryx
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 3, 2008 11:12:20 GMT
No, they are theories based on observable fact. The reason they are theories rather than laws is that they cannot be absolutely definitely proven.
Note that he said 'most complete', the fact that the theories are fine-tuned is actually one of the reasons it is least like faith (in the sense that you mean it, there are some other rather innovative definitions of faith also). Rarely is the Bible critically assessed by the believers. In addition, Creationism is hardly more complete if it can give no idea of God's background story, so to speak.
The difference is that there is evidence for evolution and none (that I know of) that actively suggests Creationism above all other theories. Unfortunately we can't take the Bible's word for it when we're considering science.
For just one example, this is all covered by the theory of natural selection. It started with an animal with light sensitive cells that helped it to hide in the dark from predators (and so survive). Later mutations would, over time, have developed a more complex eye. This can be observed in the fact that some animals have more primitive eyes than others (the animals were the extra mutations offered little extra survival advantage). Maybe God wouldn't have bothered with a complex eye anyway, and just made a perfect eye without the need for convoluted lenses and nerves and so on? Isn't simplicity supposed to be most beautiful?
The theories on the very origin of life are speculative, but I am pretty confident (note, I do not have 'faith') that a consistent theory that can probably be replicated will at some time be devised. There already exist theories on this that are at least seemingly possible.
Where's the problem? That's a lynchpin of the theory of natural selection and definitely doesn't conflict with it.
For once, part of the theory that I have enough scientific knowledge on. This is catered for by the tectonic shifts and currents that are constantly occuring. They could easily split the levels, destroy fossils (which after all occur in only specific conditions, so you can hardly expect every species to be represented) and even invert the column. We can observe these shifts doing just this (particularly in major earthquakes) and so once again it doesn't conflict with the evolutionary theory as it stands.
Aside from the fact that only a very small percentage of animals become fossilised (and indeed so much detail is lost that we really couldn't observe the constant minute changes of evolution whether or not they are there) the idea of a 'missing link' is too simplistic. Natural selection would have it so that all changes are gradual, even glacial, in pace. These would result in evolutionsist disagreeing over what is a 'missing link' and what is not, so you really can't expect unanimity among every single one of the thousands of evolutionists. I can recall a number of prehistoric creatures which, according to science books, were the among the first mammals or reptiles and so might be called a missing link, but I can see why none of them would be unanimously accepted. Science is all about critiquing the currently accepted ideas.
One final point, about the quotation about leaps of faith. Aside from the rather dodgy idea that faith is needed at all in science (beyond the whole "we do not live in a computer simulation" faith that our world is real) one big leap of faith is hardly better than lots of small ones, which may be eventually covered by the theory in any case. When there is absolutely no reason to believe a God exists or ever existed, and absolutely nothing about God's origins, motives or nature of existence.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on May 4, 2008 19:55:11 GMT
You know, I was going to talk about carbon dating and such, but I thought perhaps we might be better off taking this in a slightly different direction for a short time before going back to the scientific discussion.
It seems to me I don't really know where you guys are coming from, as far as your religious background. But anyway, the real thing I wanted to know was do you guys (anybody, not just Julius and Jatayu) believe in some sort of God? Or are you purely atheist? I know a lot of people (read most) who aren't religious at all still have some belief in a god of some kind to some degree. I just would like to get your views on that.
I feel that belief in God is at the crux of the whole argument to some extent, which I would rather like to determine.
I will start with myself, I do in fact believe in God, exactly the way the bible describes him. I gather from reading this post Basse does as well, while Andan is Moslem and therefore would believe in Allah, which is just the Arab word for God. But the rest of you I am unsure on.
|
|
Andan
Stormwind Member
Andan
Attempting to design a scenario
Posts: 756
|
Post by Andan on May 4, 2008 21:41:17 GMT
I, of course, believe in the existence of God. It's certainly not just a blind faith, or believing something you're told to believe only to avoid being a sinner, but also because there's some sort of proof that God exists.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on May 5, 2008 14:26:52 GMT
Indeed, I'm Christian. Evangelic if you're in for details
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 5, 2008 15:46:29 GMT
I do not believe in a God, for various reasons I won't go into right now.
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 6, 2008 2:41:53 GMT
Perhaps this should read the other way around, namely, 'Evolution is so easily disproved by basic observable fact for the theory to be taken seriously. Key word here is observable. What is evolution or naturalism as some call it? Theories. Big Bang Theory, Random Genetic Drift Theory, Quantum Theory. Why are these all hypothetical theories? If evolution is a science and not a belief why are these not fact? Could it be that these are not theories based on 'obsevable' fact, which is what science is? How can something be complete, when every twenty years or so the supposed facts change? In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. Evolution is not complete, evolution is not observable fact. Evolution is a man-made religion attempting to refute the existance of God so mankind can try to put out of his mind the inevitable judgement. That is exactly what science is. As we get better and better evidence, we revise our theories. Oh, and evolution is observable, at least on micro level. Eg. the butterflies whose white wings turned black to adapt to the pollution levels in the 1800s and then white again because of the much reduced pollution in the late 20th century. Yes but abiogenesis, which is what you are talking about has nothing to do with evolution. Besides it may not be as difficult as you think, scientists have already recreated the polio virus. Oh, and you can't take the Bible as the word of God. Mendel's Fruit flies experiment. It is more to do with genetics than with evolution, but it is based on the same thing.. genes, chromosomes, DNA. Oh and Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil btw. Again.. abiogenesis.. sigh.. The complexity of the human eye can be explained by evolution, as Julius pointed out
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 6, 2008 2:43:40 GMT
Archeopterix (we are brutal spelling this) is not a missing link. It has been agreed upon by evolutionists as a complete vird. NO species is today unanimously considered a missing link among evolutionists. Please give a link. Not creationist science. A peper in a peer reviewed journal. I'm not a geologist, so I couldn't expound on it. Again, any link?
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 6, 2008 3:15:06 GMT
It seems to me I don't really know where you guys are coming from, as far as your religious background. But anyway, the real thing I wanted to know was do you guys (anybody, not just Julius and Jatayu) believe in some sort of God? Or are you purely atheist? I know a lot of people (read most) who aren't religious at all still have some belief in a god of some kind to some degree. I just would like to get your views on that. I will start with myself, I do in fact believe in God, exactly the way the bible describes him. Ahem, you mean the guy who kills newly born male children, floods the earth and gets his son nailed to a cross? Mmmmm.. I wasn't going to discuss this, but since you asked.. Firstly I think that behind religion is something called faith. Now this faith is ill defined and as Julius said sometime earlier you need to have faith in something you don't have evidence for. Now let me give an example here. Suppose I go to an eye doctor's clinic to check my power, and suppose I haven't gone there before ( I have but that's beside the point ). Now he has a machine which can look into my eye and in a few steps determine what is my power. Now I have no clue as to how the machine works. I have no clue as to the driving forces behind the machine. I have no evidence that there is not a magic man in the machine who is doing the eye testing. Still, I will have 'faith' that it works. This 'faith' is very different from 'faith' in God. Continuing my analogy, since I am an educated and intelligent person I will not conclude that there is a magic man in the machine unless I can find no alternative theory to explain it. As it happens, there is an alternative theory to explain it, which I can find by googling. So therefore I will discard the magic man hypothesis. So initially what was a leap of faith ( ie. I believed that the machine works without any prior knowledge ) turned out to be quite explainable, and much more acceptable to a rational mind than the magic man theory, because the magic man theory really has no evidence behind it. Therefore you DO have to take it on faith. Let's come to religion now. There's a major problem because xtianity and Islam give a bad name to religion. In both of them the world is divided into believers and unbelievers, with believers going to paradise and unbelievers going to hell, and the believers have to kill/convert/subjugate the unbelievers. Also lots of other nonsense thrown in. Let's contrast this with Buddhism, or any other eastern religion ( Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism , Confuciousism, Taoism, Shintioism etc. ) The biggest difference is that the gap between believer and non believer is something that just does not exist. No Japanese will tell you that I am a buddhist and therefore a non-believer in the eyes of Shintos. People will not tell me that I am an atheist and therefore not a Hindu. There is PLENTY of scope for atheism in proper religions. Buddhism is completely agnostic, and Jainism is completely atheist. There is also a big difference that xtianity and Islam are complete belief systems, expounded in a book that is correct for all time and place. As such these are 'dead' religions, unable to cope with the modern world. Living religions such as Hinduism are not tied to any book, and can adapt whenever necessary. It is more a way of life than an ideology. If you don't like something in it, you simply don't do it. There's not compulsion. Again we now return to the bible/other spiritual texts. Now it is VERY evident that it is a work of man, not god. These guys living 1000's of years ago had really no clue as to what was going on, and thus whatever they wrote was purely speculation. Sometimes this does happen to be right.. for example the Hindu theory of creationism says that the world was created in one day and night of Brahma, which is about 8.64 billion years. Some crackpots will say that this is near the evolutionary theory and therefore there is some 'vedic science', much like 'biblical science' and 'quranic science'. Now this does not mean that since I believe in evolution, I will be ashamed of this theory.. on the contrary I am proud that my ancestors were thinking on the right timescales, whereas the rest of the world was limited to <10000 years ( another exception is Maya, they were thinking in terms of millions of years ). Does my atheism make me 'not a Hindu'? No it doesn't. While the rest of the world was trying to find new ways of burning heretics, doing jihad and so on Indian scientists ( although they did not follow the scientific method as we know it all ) theorized about the Earth going round the sun, etc. without any interference from religion. Unfortunately my ancestors were so obsessed with these type of thinking that they became easy targets for jehadi hordes. We paid a heavy price for it, losing 30% of our population through conversion, and 80 million dead. Think about this for a little while. Especially I suggest you look up Buddhism. It is the fastest growing religion in the west. Oh and as for me personally, it's difficult for me not to be an atheist in manner of speaking.. born into an atheist family.. been atheists for generations.. Hindu atheism is somewhat different from western atheism. Western Atheism is based on a rejection of Christianity, which is a very different thing from 'no belief in god'. Edit: here's a link atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 6, 2008 15:12:49 GMT
I would like to contest this point. While not every text is relevant to the modern world, I still think that organised religion has benefits. A sense of community, a sense of purpose and moral values (eg don't kill people for personal gain) shouldn't be dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by Basse on May 6, 2008 17:31:19 GMT
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but both the light and dark coloured peppered moth existed before and after the high pollution, it was just that the darker one had an easier time surviving predators thanks to the darker trees. When the trees became lighter after reduced pollution levels, they went back to being an easier prey than the light ones. So your example isn't all too accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Julius CMXCIX on May 6, 2008 17:37:35 GMT
That's exactly in favour of the theory of evolution. The one best for the conditions has the easiest time, so they prospered. The ones which were easier prey suffered many more losses. Developments in species are made due to a random mutation, which if it proves successful will then survive and prosper, in the same way as the best adapted moths survived and prospered.
When he says their wings turned black, he meant that overall there was a shift to black in the moth population. And vice versa later on.
|
|
Matt
Stormwind Member
The Come And Go Man
Monsieur Mercredi
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by Matt on May 6, 2008 21:50:37 GMT
That's exactly in favour of the theory of evolution. The one best for the conditions has the easiest time, so they prospered. The ones which were easier prey suffered many more losses. Developments in species are made due to a random mutation, which if it proves successful will then survive and prosper, in the same way as the best adapted moths survived and prospered. When he says their wings turned black, he meant that overall there was a shift to black in the moth population. And vice versa later on. As a 6 day creationist I totally believe in survival of the fittest, which is what that is. I believe dinosaurs died out due to a rapidly changing climate for which they were not able to cope with, etc. This has little to do with creation, I beleive God made everything, but things go extinct due to climate changes, human effects, etc, and them being unfit to cope with these changes. I kind of wanted to keep the bible out of this, but your post on the bible shows how absolutely uninformed you are of the historical and scientific INFALLIBILITY of the Bible. There is not one single thing in the bible which is not 100% scientifically or historically accurate, except for the creation of the world conflicting with evolution, which is only a theory which is unprovable to the true extent that laws such as gravity are provable. Literary wise it is a masterpiece; the poetry of the Book of Job is considered outstanding, and for having been written by 40 different men there isn't a single discrepancy. We as Christians do believe the bible was written by men, but inspired of God. Christianity is certainly not a dead religion because it is based on a book, because the information in the bible can be constantly applied to modern methods. For example, change chariot to tank to get a modern interpretation, this is obvious and practiced by virtually all Christian groups. To even attempt to mention Christianity as a religion that persecutes is absurd. Many times more Christians have been killed than any other religion including jews. Except for a 500 year period where the catholic church inappropriately made religion law, Christians have been the persecuted not the persecutors. In addition, during that period, true Christians where slaughtered by millions. And if you believe in a heaven, what meaning does it have if everyone goes there? Would you like the rapist to sit next to the women he raped in heaven? To have such a milk toast religion where everyone is right isn't intellectually feasible. THhe first one never happens in the bible. the second did but with explanation, the third is one of the most loving things in the bible. In addition, in Christianity, the Father and the Son are inseparable, so it isn't some cruelty to his son. Jesus is God as well. It is pretty clear you are getting these things you keep posting about the ridiculousness of Christianity from some internet site. I would encourage you to actually read the bible.
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 7, 2008 2:37:11 GMT
Matty, I am getting more and more worried for you, because you are now trying to defend the bible, which is just about suicide because it is simply indefensible. Apart from the scientific absurdities it is just unreasonable and totally immoral, especially it's god. Also you seem to be slipping in the mould of 'christian martyrs' who die defending their religion against persecution. This is very stupid and akin to Islamists who keep shouting that their religion is in danger and therefore suicide bombings are justified. As a 6 day creationist I totally believe in survival of the fittest, which is what that is. I believe dinosaurs died out due to a rapidly changing climate for which they were not able to cope with, etc. This has little to do with creation, I beleive God made everything, but things go extinct due to climate changes, human effects, etc, and them being unfit to cope with these changes. You're trying to fit science to fit the bible, which is just not going to happen. Grow up, dude. It is interesting to see that the first parallel you draw is to a weapon of war. So something like 'use chariot to kill infidels' would get translated into 'use tanks to kill infidels', and would be practised by virtually all Christian groups. How terribly enlightening. So much for the religion of peace. Oh wait, that was Islam.. And as if we don't know about the Christian Dark ages, burnings at stake, letters of indulgence and all whatnots. It's like muslims trying to pretend the vicious jehad of 1400 years never happened. Of course, the one thing you can't erase is the evidence. Not 100 km from where I live is a vihara filled with beheaded buddhas. No marks for guessing who did it and why. Christian intolerance is still present, to the very day. I'll talk about it in my next post. No, but the heaven where unbelievers are automatically shut out is thoroughly immoral. Besides that the very idea of heaven and hell is distasteful to us non-(christians and muslims ). More expanations about that if you like. It did. God killed all the Egyptian first born male children, for no fault of theirs. I do. And since you seem to be a typical bible thumping maniac ( sorry! ), please try to answer the following questions about this biblical passage. Genesis 19This chapter makes the Jerry Springer Show look like Winnie the Pooh. The Sodom business is worse than I ever imagined. Two male angels visit Lot's house in Sodom. A crowd of men (Sodomites!) gathers outside the house and demands that the two angels be sent out, so the mob can rape them. Lot, whose hospitality is greater than his common sense, offers his virgin daughters to the mob instead. Before any rapes can happen, the mob is blinded by a mysterious flash of light. The angels lead Lot, his wife, and daughters out of the city, and God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone. Lot's wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. (God may have listened to Abraham's rebuke, but He surely didn't heed it. What of all the innocent children murdered in Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Lot's innocent wife?) But the chapter's not over. After the attempted mass gay rape, the father pimping, the urban devastation, uxorious saline murder, it looks like Lot and his daughters are finally safe. They're living alone in a cave in the mountains. But then the two daughters—think of them as Judea's Hilton sisters—complain that cave life is no fun because there aren't enough men around. So, one night they get Lot falling-down drunk and have sex with him. Questions: Why does God kill Lot's wife. What is the moral lesson you draw from this? Is Lot a just and perfect man? Is it okay to for a father to have sex with his daughters? And so on..
|
|
Jatayu
Stormwind Member
Jatayu
Posts: 1,064
|
Post by Jatayu on May 7, 2008 2:43:55 GMT
Edit - self deleted -
|
|