CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
To me this is a simple one Evolution all the way. It is science plain and simple when and if creationists can show evidence for creation beside the bible then and only then should it even be considered. The fact of the matter is all they have are criticisms of evolution which does not amount to evidence of creation.
You say the bible is the only proof of creationism. Um, biblical archaeology?? Archaeology is science too.
Isn't evolution's bible Darwin's "On the Origin of Species..."? It has been proved by other branches of science.
And also, you think all things just appeared and began to evolve?
Was life created out of thin air? And, if so, how was the air created?
I beleive evolution could be, but as a stage after creation, that would progress life.
Both could be one in the same. Just, I beleive, for evolution to exsist, that creation must have preceeded it.
"The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared..."
How did they appear? What?
"... and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred..."
Unclear? Hmmm?
"Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells."
How did RNA first become?
I do not believe this debate is fair, because evolution has so many gaps in its reasoning. How can it be compared to creationism? They are two different things.
I would say I agree with both, but the blatantly ignoring theology in scientific theory makes a rift between the two. So, creationism.
actully, uncomplext compunds bonded to geather to create chemicals and very very uncomplect cell fragments that then banded to geather with otherthings for survival and formed the first very simple cells that then became more complext. (also, we have proof of human civilization that started with writings and buildings and history and bones before the bible says it all just happened)
Nothing "appeared"- its very simple. A very long time ago, after the creation of the oceans, simple chemical reactions occurred that became more and more complex, and eventually created RNA, which developed into 2 cells. those cells began to multiply, and random mutations occurred, changing them ever so slightly. (Also, cyanobacteria developed, which developed that thin air you were talking about). Millions and millions of years of this evolutionary process, and now we have websites where we can debate about how we started.
There are many cases of fossilized species appearing out of nowhere with radically different looking fossils preceding them. The most famous example is the Cambrian explosion. Also there are many new families of fossils appearing in the fossil record out of nowhere with no transitional ancestors.
The bible is not the only proof of creationism, yes, however, biblical archaeology doesn't help your position either. This is because archaeology is able to be manipulated. Science does not have this attribute. Evolution's bible is nothing. We have no bible. Life, which has various explanations and which can commonly be known as "Abiogenesis" has nothing to do with evolution and is rather disputable in its own right. But for the sake of this argument, life WAS NOT created out of thin air, it was created out of various common chemicals that are abundant in the universe, such as carbon and hydrogen. The chemicals formed from the cooling of sub-atomic particles that would eventually form into atoms. Of course, this is dwelling into physics, which, like abiogenesis, is disputable in its own right. You believing and assuming it is objective truth doesn't help. There are many explanations of how life could have appeared. Whether it be through lipids forming into spheres near hydrothermal vents, or through a hot puddle in the middle of a steaming pond with the precursor of RNA in it. Abiogenesis is not exactly proven (yet). A paragraph from the transcript of an educational video can answer your RNA question. "Today, genetic information is stored in DNA. RNA is created from DNA. The simplicity of RNA compared to its cousin DNA is the reason that most scientists think DNA came from RNA. This is part of the “RNA world" HYPOTHESIS, which theorizes that RNA was the essential precursor that led to the first living matter. But how did the first RNA molecule form from non-living chemicals? This is not clear cut, so here are some theories. RNA is made of three chemical components: the sugar ribose, the bases, and phosphate. Figuring out how the bond between the bases and ribose first formed has been difficult to replicate in the lab because cells in our body require complex enzymes to bring RNA building blocks together before they combine to form polymers. In a 2009 study, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that RNA could have formed on the surface of clays which act as catalysts to bring RNA bases together." Evolution does not have any gaps. It is compared because one lacks evidence while the other does.
Your problem being that life didn't begin through abiogenesis, otherwise it would have been reproduced in a lab decades ago. It will never be proven because it simply didn't happen that way. If every experiment you conduct testing a particular theory fails, then the problem is obviously with the theory and not with the experiments.
Abiogenesis does not strictly have to be reproduced in a lab, science can also be inferring from observations, which is how we got the center of the earth's composition. . It was, and it did, but ultimately failed, yes, but that in no way means to give up. Abiogenesis is still in the works of finding more evidence. Just to clarify, I am not implying to twist any evidence to be accordingly with the theory of Abiogenesis. You claim to say that life didn't begin through abiogenesis but just saying and being theoretic about it and not serving empirical evidence that it isn't and is something else doesn't seem to help.
Very bashful. Anyway, abiogenesis can have other proof such as various chemicals being seen at clay deposits, which would imply a formation of RNA. And, we also know that lipids can naturally form into spheres, creating a cell-like layer. Science never observes something that happened 3 billion years ago. Science can infer. If you even watched the video I linked, you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself right now.
Very bashful. Anyway, abiogenesis can have other proof such as various chemicals being seen at clay deposits
Listen to me please. I know you aren't going to understand or appreciate this, but you are an idiot. Finding chemicals in clay deposits does not prove that life began spontaneously on Earth. In fact, that is the most senselessly retarded thing I have ever heard. Chemicals are chemicals. Life is life. Stop purposefully conflating the two and shut up.
Woah, I never once implied that'd be the ONLY thing that would prove life began spontaneously on Earth. You keep talking in theoretical and never in empirical. You have yet to show me evidence that tells abiogenesis to be false.
Woah, I never once implied that'd be the ONLY thing that would prove life began spontaneously on Earth.
You are literally a fucking idiot. I quoted exactly what you said:-
Anyway, abiogenesis can have other proof such as various chemicals being seen at clay deposits
And I responded accordingly by informing you that chemicals found in clay deposits prove nothing about how life first began on Earth.
You are a retard and like all retards you backtrack and try to change the subject rather than admit you know absolutely fucking nothing about the topic you are writing 10,000 word essays on.
No, I never implied or said that'd be the only thing. Stop putting words into my mouth. I said "such as" not "only". It can help, as the formation of RNA tells us how cells could have formed. Hey, I'm sorry if I'm getting you pissed off, but can you at least keep the crap-talking to a minimum?
No, I never implied or said that'd be the only thing.
Total straw man fallacy. I never said or suggested you had said that was the only thing. You claimed it was proof. I explained that it wasn't. I'm not going around in circles with you while you try to reinvent your own language you stupid little twit. I quoted what you said verbatim and responded to it.
It can help, as the formation of RNA tells us how cells could have formed.
Living, animate cells did not spontaneously emerge from inanimate chemicals. It's that simple. Neither did they evolve from chemicals because chemicals don't evolve and, even if they did, the physical evidence suggests life began very suddenly on Earth, somewhere between 3.7 and a full 4.5 billion years ago, which is essentially the same age as the planet itself. Simply not possible.
Panspermia is the answer, I believe. Something hit the Earth, and when it interacted with the chemicals it found, life was born. Possibly some kind of microbe onboard a comet or meteor.
Panspermia is interesting, but it lacks ENOUGH evidence, unlike abiogenesis. Although, panspermia does have evidence has kind of aligns with what abiogenesis also uses. For example, the abundance of organic materials on both asteroids and planets. It's a debate in its own right. But, I'm not going to do that at the moment.
Moreover, you didn't seem to provide another alternative to abiogenesis.
That isn't how science works you intellectually redundant idiot. The burden of proof is not on others to disprove your clearly erroneous theory of abiogenesis. No scientist in his right mind still backs that theory anyway so whatever you are reading it is approximately 30 years out of date.
True, I do have to say, I apologize for giving you the burden of proof. But, it is still a suggestion that could help you otherwise. But if you are saying abiogenesis is wrong, you are going to have to tell me why.
True, I do have to say, I apologize for giving you the burden of proof.
If it's true and you are sorry then why do you keep repeatedly downvoting my replies? Including that one?
But, it is still a suggestion that could help you otherwise.
I am not the one who needs help because I am not the one touting a theory which has no supporting evidence, and which has failed countless laboratory tests.
But if you are saying abiogenesis is wrong, you are going to have to tell me why.
It has been tested dozens of times under optimal conditions, in a plethora of different ways, and nobody has ever succeeded in creating life from static chemicals or compounds.
Abiogenesis has various evidence that shows us how lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids came to form from chemicals that are crucial for life, especially in the sea. This video tells you more than me, so I'll let the video do the hard work for me.
If humans evolved from another species and we are the most intelligent species on earth; why aren't all species evolving into humans? I mean if you were a cow and you knew you were on the food chain and you've been on the food chain for millions of years; wouldn't you want to evolve to get off the food chain? In order for there to be evolution the way you want to explain it, we would continually be evolving. I have yet to meet anyone who can point out from who or what we evolved from. Sure some say we evolved from ape; well if that's true; wouldn't all apes have evolved to humans? There's some that say we evolved from a fish; wouldn't all fish eventually have evolved to human? Yeah, it's the easy way out to try and explain we came from something that was already here, but there has never been any exact science to prove your theory. As you said all are accepted as a valid description, but none are proven.
I've worked in the science field almost my entire adult life and I can tell you nothing evolves without a human's touch. Not a single cell will do anything without the intervention of someone or something feeding it or programming it.
Could you imagine evolution actually existing? You have a pet fish in an aquarium tonight and tomorrow you wake up with a man or woman sitting on your couch. I mean, you have to come up with a better argument than it's been accepted as so.
"If humans evolved from another species and we are the most intelligent species on earth; why aren't all species evolving into humans?"
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Animals do not 'will' themselves to evolve and nor do they know anything about the human construct of value. Animals merely mutate during inheritance and die or live according to natural selection. We were rather lucky to have evolved bigger brains, or rather natural selection selecting the less intelligent paving way for the higher intelligent.
" I mean if you were a cow and you knew you were on the food chain and you've been on the food chain for millions of years; wouldn't you want to evolve to get off the food chain?"
Yes, for sure. But this isn't what happens in real life. Like said, animals do not 'will' themselves to evolve.
"In order for there to be evolution the way you want to explain it, we would continually be evolving."
Yes, we are technically continually evolving, as the human races keep producing more offspring. Evolution is also defined as "change in allele frequencies". As we always have offspring with a different genetic sequence as the parent, we will have evolution.
"I have yet to meet anyone who can point out from who or what we evolved from."
Naming our earliest ancestor all the way to the latest, respectively; (just to clarify, a human is anyone who belongs in the genus Homo) Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens.
"There's some that say we evolved from a fish; wouldn't all fish eventually have evolved to a human?"
Technically one fish from Sarcopterygii did become the foundation leading to our evolution, so yes. But, like said, animals don't 'will' themselves to evolve. That's not how it works. There is no niche for any ray-finned, cartilage structured, craniate to evolve into a smart humanoid creature.
"I've worked in the science field almost my entire adult life and I can tell you nothing evolves without a human's touch. Not a single cell will do anything without the intervention of someone or something feeding it or programming it."
Personal experience tells nothing. I can't comment much on this as I'm not sure where you are coming from. But I'll say this, appealing to authority won't help. Whether you worked in the science field or not doesn't help you in this argument of yours. If you really are an adult, and you are passionate about the discipline of biology, you need to reeducate yourself in it.
"Could you imagine evolution actually existing? You have a pet fish in an aquarium tonight and tomorrow you wake up with a man or woman sitting on your couch. I mean, you have to come up with a better argument than it's been accepted as so."
This is a mere oversimplification. Things don't turn into something else over time. That's not how evolution works and is also a logical fallacy.
This is a logical fallacy. Its assuming the false presupposition that evolution has already clearly shown evidence. In the same sense, using a scientific method -- show me how darwinism evolution has been observed.
To each their own as a personal belief I have nothing against those that subscribe to creationism but feel strongly that it does not belong in schools. There is no theory of creation it is not even a hypothesis it is a belief or faith. Given the current state of education I dont think america can afford to put faith in schools.
Life consist of nothing but creations. Scientist create medicines such as, anti-biotics, and anti-dotes to fight bacteria and poisons to treat the problem and make you well. Other types of scientists that we wonder why are they getting paid such as (not all agree with me) marine biologist. I believe they study the ocean and sea and all that reside in them. What I'm trying to say is, If man have the ability to create something besides the sun, moon and stars. Who in their right mind would think that it doesnt take time and effort and a little thought into creating these beautiful things you wake up to each day?
Evolution has been basically proven... Other than that, the only source for creationism is the creation story in the Bible. And although that's a nice story and all, I believe it was only put there as an allegory for other messages we should know, like "God is all powerful (He created everything)" and "God is all loving (the line "and He saw it was good")".
".. has been basically proven" <-- ambiguity logical fallacy. Misleading the truth through use of ambiguity language. Show me ONE proof of darwinism evolution.
Here is a simple source explaining microevolution. The interesting thing about it is that it's evolution on a time scale we can see. A population is studied by scientists and put under some sort of stress. Gene frequencies change within the population and evolution is driven by this because only those organisms that can overcome the stress will pass their genes (which code for proteins that enable them to survive) to the next generation.
Also, here is a biological definition of evolution: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."
Now for an example. You obtain a sample of single celled amoebas. The species typically lives in a water environment at 20C. In an experimental setting, you force the population to live in a water environment of 25C. Some amoeba will die, while others will survive and reproduce. Their offspring will be able to survive the 25C environment. After several generations, the population went from (let's say) 5% having this trait to maybe 90% having it. And that, my friend, is evolution in action right before your very eyes.
I certainly apologize that we cannot witness the effects of millions of years of evolution in our lifetimes.
We creationists do not deny the existence of microevolution, the type of evolution you can prove and see. We creationists do not believe in macroevolution, you have never read creationist/ID resources so here are some links so you can see what we really believe:
I think evolution is an actual truth, since we are able to prove it and all. However, i think the two are closely linked.
But seeing as how everyone has their own beliefs, bleev what u want. My religion has already influenced me, so i'd like to believe God created the Big Bang and designed how evolution would occur. The Bible is not all truth sometimes, because the story of creation could just be a way to improve faith, not to state the way people came to be, we hav science for that
Intelligent Design doesn't refute evolution. it simply says that it was "guided" or "started" by something beyond explanation (at this time).
creationism says "God created man in his image"... nothing like Intelligent Design. Despite its origins, Intelligent Design has become something much more than just "God did it". Think of it based on the philosophy of Plato.
and, Evolution is not a theory saying God had nothing to do with it. even its origins were not perfect but BECAME something better as we went along with it (like Darwin saying that the cell was very basic). the cell is actually another Universe.
Evolution may not have been perfect when it was first thought up, but it was still pretty damn good. Why? Because it was based on observation, and evidence. It employed the scientific method to come up with an idea that changed the way we view our world. It is the foundation that unites all fields of biolgy.
Intelligent design, on the other hand began as an attempt to discredit evolution, for religious reasons. It was put in text books (such as Of Pandas and People) as a replacement for creationism, because the supreme court ruled that creationism was a violation of the first ammendment. I'D has no scientific evidence to support it's claims and never will because it requires an unobservable "inteligent agent." That which is completely unobservable cannot be scuentific because science requires observation.
Could ID be taught in schools? Sure...in a philosophy class, or in a science class as an example of what science isn't. As long as there is not one iota of evidence for ID, then it can never be taught as a theory.
Can you describe to me what part of evolution is observable? Have you witnessed the process (supposedly over millions, nay, billions of years)? The fossil record is woeful and proves nothing except that man will believe anything but God. Almost all of what science currently puts forth to be intermediary beings is based on either remains that are obviously human, primate, or are tiny fragments that have been surrounded by artist's renderings of what that creature "must" have looked like. Much of what science trumped up as those "missing links" have now been revealed to be hoaxes. See Nebraska man (Scopes trial), and Piltdown man. Even the famed "Lucy" is said to have walked upright by nothing more than similar leg bones to humans. Other apes living today have similar leg bone structures and don't walk upright. Again, where is the observation of Lucy's walking upright? In addition, Neandertal has been touted as some transitionary creature, but his brain capacity was actually larger than ours, and the skull features can be found in our current human population. As for ID, it is not a replacement for Creationism, but it a smarter and more supportable position than is evolution.
Wow...I am stunned by your complete misunderstanding of the evidence. You clearly have been spending a lot of time on creationist websites, and the job of debunking all the bullshit you assume to be knowledge is clearly an immense one, but here we go:
1) Observed instances of evolution
Obviously the entire process of evolution cannot be observed, however we do have the fossil record, which is not at all woefull, like you wish it to be, but is instead extremely detailed. Even over a hundred years ago when we only had a fraction of the fossils we have now it was still clear that species had been moving from more general forms, to the more complex forms we see today. Obviously we aren't ever going to find fossils of every species ever to have existed on the planet, however we have certainly found enough to conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that species today came about through evolutionary processes.
In addition, evolution is still happening today, and here are two examples:
If you want me to provide more examples of observed instances of evolution I would be more than happy to.
2. Nebraska Man
No scientist today includes the Nebraska man as a missing link, and in fact even before it was found out that the tooth was not that of a humanoid, Nebraska man was not widely accpeted by the scientific community as a legitimate human ancestor, or relative. The only people who ever talk about the Nebraska man seriously are actually creationists who think one mans mistake undoes all the legitimate evidence of evolution.
3. Lucy
I'm not sure what to say other than that your statements are completely inconsistent with the evidence. No living primate has a bone structure that is as similar to our knee as Lucys. In addition, you seem to ignore the fact that paleo-anthropologists found a lot more of the skeleton than merely the knee, including a skull. You also talk about Lucy as if she was the only one of her kind found. If this were the case, then your skepticism would be well founded, however numerous other creatures of the same species were also found that gave us a complete picture of that step in our evolution.
You seem to also neglect the thousands of other humanoid fossils that have been found, and even more, the millions of transitional animal fossils that exist in the fossil record.
4. Neanderthals
Once again you present a view that is not actually held by the scientific community. Neanderthals share a common ancestor with humans, but we are not decended from them, and in fact probably competed with them (and won) in Europe. I'm curious how creationism explains the existence of Neanderthals at all. Did god fuck up the first time, and then tried again with humans?
no scientific evidence, of course. but plenty of mathematical evidence. mainly because the mathematical answer for Life or the Universe is Undefined. ID doesn't say God directly (anymore, unless you are a creationist who believes in ID).
back to math. The existence of the Universe and Life itself is considered mathematically impossible. But if something that's impossible is happening, that would be illogical. but it's also illogical to say that the Universe and life within it doesn't exist because we see with our very own two eyes that it is happening. So how is the impossible possible? Intelligent Design may not answer it, but it does open our minds to the idea that things aren't always as they seem. The very fact that our brains are the rational animal kind, we see things, often, in irrational ways. Our perception, in trying to be rational, has obscured reality into matching what is logical. But, it is both illogical and logical to say that these obscurities are right.
idk, maybe what pisses me off is the harsh reaction to the idea of ID. I don't accept it as truth because there is not enough evidence to support it. but when working it out mathematically and looking to philosophy, it's not that improbable.
You're right about ID not being taught as a science. But, science teachers should be able to bring it up as a possible answer. My Chemistry Professor (who despised creationists) would sometimes answer "God did it" because he knew there was no answer for certain questions (like how and why). He was able to dissect the Universe and Life as we know it into the smallest terms, but he was still unable to answer the most simplest questions on why certain things did things.
The existence of the Universe and Life itself is considered mathematically impossible
I'm curious who (other than yourself) considers this to be the case. I know most scientists don't. The main reasons for this are:
1) Much is still unknown about the creation of the universe, and therefore attempting to put a numerical probability on the chances of it's existence is futile, and clearly any figure is going to be wildly inaccurate.
2) The universe is huge. The is so much stuff out there, that actually the chances of life occurring at least once, are probably pretty damn likely. As is the case with the previous answer though, we have no way of knowing the probability of life until we find (or don't find) other life.
3) Every individual scenario is unlikely. If I were to roll a billion sided dice, the chances of any one number coming up are wildly improbable, however one number will come up. Does this mean God did it? Maybe, but much more likely it was chance. Compare this to life on earth. Every single individual life is wildly improbable (think about all the sperm cells that could have reached your mom's egg) however, once again when we look at the whole picture we see that life did have to happen, it just happened to take this form.
idk, maybe what pisses me off is the harsh reaction to the idea of ID.
I think the claims you've heard about the "harsh reaction" to ID have been either exaggerated, or flat out fabricated. The fight has been to keep ID out of the classroom, because it was being used merely as a way to undermine evolution. There are in fact Christian scientists who, more than likely believe that God is guiding evolution, however these people still know that ID is not scientific.
What you need to understand is that no scientist, atheist, Christian, or otherwise takes the idea of ID seriously. You claim that it makes mathematical sense, then prove it! Show me some equations, that says that evolution needs an "intelligent agent." There is none. People used to think that rainbows were proof of an intelligent designer, because it was so unlikely that the light would just form in that way by itself. Well turns out it's not unlikely, and is simply refraction. Substituting "God" in for what we don't know has never gotten us anywhere. Looking for natural explanations may seem "both illogical and logical" (whatever the fuck that means) to you, but look at where it has gotten us (at this point you should look around you and think about what someone from the 1700's would think of your lifestyle). Maybe the world isn't completely rational, but so far all evidence points to the contrary.
Edit: Just came across this video which is very relevant to my argument. I hope you take the time to watch it.
ID doesn't undermine evolution. it doesn't say it didn't happen.
and it's funny how all of a sudden you speak for every scientist. i think in Logical terms we call that a fallacy.
I already said that it shouldn't be taught as a science (don't know what your rambling was about), I was just upset at how some people (not most though) react to it. you know, having to type extremely long explanations on why it's wrong (even though it proves nothing).
As i've explained already, our brain automatically attempts to rationalize things and in that effect it is irrational. This has been proven (Mueller). I'm not saying that science is bad (it's one of my most favorite subjects to research on), I'm just saying that things aren't ALWAYS as they seem, and no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to reason certain aspects out because our brain won't accept it.
and, I'm not saying ID has to be true just because the probability of life is practically zero. Obviously we hardly know shit about the Universe and Time. But because of this, it's not insane to suggest that there may be more to it (because there obviously is). ID may say that it's a God, and sometimes it will say it's just some kind of guide. Maybe some powerful force of energy that creates a guidance (the one i find most probable).
but go ahead. just say that ID is creationist propaganda trying to destroy the theory of evolution.
ID does undermine evolution, because supporters of ID wish to put a sticker in every textbook that says something along the lines of: "Evolution is just a theory. It is not a fact, and has not been proven. There are other possibilities." To deny that ID is being used to undermine not only evolution, but science as a whole, is...to put it lightly a dumb thing to do. Look at the video I posted. In it you can actually see people using ID to do just that.
If you or anyone else wants to believe in some guiding force, great. That's what freedom of religion is all about. No one is attacking anyone's personal beliefs.
If you think that there are significant number of scientists who disagree with me, I challenge you to find me some. I would be interested in hearing their opinion.
While on fallacies however, I think we should address the straw man you continue to present as your reason for defending ID. In previous debates, you said scientists were fired for "just mentioning ID." I gave you a list of people you might be referring to, and why this was not the case with each of them. You never responded to that argument, and haven't mentioned it since, so I am going to assume that you admit that you were mistaken. (If not, I would love for you to give me an example of someone who was fired for bringing up the topic.) Now, your reason for defending ID is that people (like me) get upset when the topic is brought up. Let me repeat what I said earlier. If you want to talk about philosophy or theology, I would be perfectly willing to talk about a "guiding force" that controls life. However, until you have some evidence, or even some type of realistic scenario, then we can't talk about it in a scientific way. It isn't possible. What I get angry about is when people attempt to teach ID in school. You have already agreed that it shouldn't be taught in school. I'm not even sure at this point why you're disagreeing with me.
I'm just saying that things aren't ALWAYS as they seem, and no matter how hard we try, we won't be able to reason certain aspects out because our brain won't accept it.
So we should fill in the gaps with "it's magic", or "God did it"? Again if you want to say this as a personal belief GREAT*. But it is better to say I don't know, and try to figure it out rationally. Usually, the results are pretty damn useful (modern medicine, airplanes, computers, etc...). But maybe that's all made up and we're just rationalizing magic.
Hell, right now maybe I'm typing on a magic keyboard and my brain is rationalizing what it sees by saying that my computer is just a bunch of integrated circuits powered by a stream of electrons. I must be fucking delusional.
Once again generalizing on an unfair term. Most people who believe in ID (i've already said that i don't accept it as fact) also believe in Evolution. They do not conflict with each other. Creationists want to say that evolution is just a theory, ID believers do not (usually).
I was disagreeing with your generalization of ID belief.
as for the scientists thing, Caroline Crocker's contract was no renewed and the reasons mentioned her belief in Intelligent Design. I'm sorry i don't have a list ready of all the scientists who were ever fired.
a couple are a bit extreme, but most of the guys on here are pretty rational ID believers (and are not religious), and, they're scientists and scholars.
I admit that I don't know. I do try to figure things out rationally, and ID happens to be a very rational conquest for the answers to the Universe. It's not the only theory i consider though, I have over 9000 theories in my head and I am constantly dissecting them in my head trying to figure out how i can possibly put them together or change them around a bit so that they are more reasonable.
and you keep on trying to make it sound like i want scientific conquests to stop... I don't understand why you continue with that argument after i've constantly repeated that i want scientific research to continue and that i don't want it to stop at ID.
it's an unfair argument. You seem to want to paint me as an irrational creationists when it's obvious i'm nowhere near that.
We do seem to be arguing past each other, and I will apologize for some of that.
As for Caroline Crocker, I mentioned her in my previous argument, of people who were not fired for merely mentioning ID. If you would like to hear the real story of what happened with her please look here. As the article shows, she actually taught creationism, and made flawed arguments against evolution. The students were the ones that complained, and she later lied about being blacklisted.
As for your post of non-religious scientists, I must point out that that is a blog and not a scientific peer reviewed journal. Because I am not a scientist myself I cannot accurately peer review them, however I can say that I can see what appear to be flaws in their arguments. They talk about "specified complexity." What this means is that a system, is too complex to have evolved. Another term that is often used by ID proponents is "irreducible complexity." This argument has already been debunked by numerous scientists including Ken Miller. Here is a video of him proving the argument to be invalid. What this leads me to believe is that there are other flaws, and that they are merely giving specious reasons for ID.
This is why i have my doubts about ID too, but the main premise of it (which is why i accept it as probable) is still very rational. People will try to make their reasoning for certain ideas, and I don't condone or condemn them (just how the Big Bang theory is still filled with a shit load of holes). It may be because I think more philosophically and mathematically then i do by senses and the scientific method... it's not that i ignore science (as i've said, i embrace it and continue to study it), I just see how science, when taken to an extreme, can lead people to think too linear.
I see how we are debating on a sort of different path. We both accept Evolution as a valid and most reasonable theory on the track of life. You think more on the what can be physically proven scale and on what you say, i agree. But concrete thinking was never enough for me.
although ID is not acceptable to me just yet (so far, no theory on the Universe is acceptable to me yet), I believe that we can incorporate it (as i've said, the mass form of energy that creates a guidance) with what is rational to even atheists.
Or maybe not, Philosophy is a pretty harsh subject now a days. How much I wish more people could become philosophers (seriously, we had three of the greatest in a row and now nothing).
Plato being my favorite. Socrates I like a lot too mainly because I think like him on how there is no real answer for anything. That if you look into all beliefs and theories, you will find a flaw. This is why i am constantly skeptical of beliefs but I still hold them because I take elements of them to try and rationalize other beliefs.
long explanation on how my mind works... i'd rather not.
But maybe we can see Philosophers in different lights. After all, Marx and Adam Smith can also be considered philosophers. Marx saw a greater picture kind of thing and Adam Smith was really just an economist, but his Invisible Hand of the Market belief go a great deal along with philosophy. (and, of course, I like Smith and i dislike Marx).
Einstein thought philosophically. He thought a bit on the lines of Pantheism, actually, a lot. He considered himself of an agnostic because he was astonished by the brilliance behind the Universe. But, on religion, he didn't focus too much on whether he was agnostic or w/e... he even said that "if you're religious, you might consider me an atheist". And on how the atheist would consider him religious (sort of how people constantly view me).
So maybe philosophy is still vibrant. or not. maybe i'm wrong about the last few mentioned.
That if you look into all beliefs and theories, you will find a flaw
This is very true for almost all theories. In fact even the fundamental theories of sciences still have a surprising number of holes. Molecular theory is a great example.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Thoreau. I don't agree with everything he says, however he has been extremely influential. One of my favorite quotes by him is "simplify, simplify, simplify." He recognized that modern life, and materialism tend to complicate life, and draw us away from what makes us human. Looking at our culture, it's pretty easy to see how right he was.
Evolution has more supporting details than the theory of intelligent design. Though, both still remains as a theory because it is still not proven to be otherwise. The evolutionism concept is more based on logic and radical studies. But though I still don't believe that our origin is that of a primate; I like to think that we are an origin of human at the beginning of time and mutate over time. Darwinism concept of primate origin has still a big void that is still left unresolved. So it really comes down to what you want to believe in because both still runs unsupported facts.
Your conclusion is just either misinformed or misunderstanding. Evolution doesn't base its conclusions on logic. You "like to think" is a subjective statement. No way is it objective.
Evolution has been proven many times. The fossil records, DNA analysis, geographical distribution, real-time observations all point to evolution. It all makes perfect sense and no discovery has contradicted it yet.
Evolution has not been proven. Were you there when evolution was happening? Are there any videos? Records? Pictures? No, there are not. Therefore, there is no concrete proof that directly points to evolution. Believing in evoluition requires an element of faith, because there isn't any concrete proof for it.
This is an absolute misunderstanding of the fundamental principle of science and how it seeks information. By this logic, don't you think history is full of faith too? No, in both history and science, we use empirical evidence that stood against the test of time. For example, biogeographical positions of fossils tell us common ancestry in some prehistoric creatures that have evolved. Looking at developing embryos tell us how similar distant species are, which implies a common ancestry where traits are shared by all. Direct observation/testing shows how some species can evolve certain traits pushed by population numbers, mutation, and natural selection.
The fossil record is the biggest proof against evolution that exists, there are many instances of new fossilized kinds(families) appearing out of nowhere with radically different looking predecessors. DNA analyses are kind of faulty don't necessarily prove evolution as many DNA differences can sometimes cause almost no changes and sometimes changing a few genes can cause huge differences. Real time evolution is just microevolution(which creationists believe in) you can't prove macroevolution(which creationists don't believe in) in real time.
Creationism is most often related to Christianity's form of creation. So, if we taught creationism in school, shouldn't we all have to learn about each religion's form of creationism? That way we keep the divide between church and state. We can't indoctrinate our students one way or the other, and being fair with religious education would mean we spend years talking about each religion's ideas on evolution, creationism, or whatever other ideas are out there. We just can't let there be Evolution and then Christian Creationism. There are others.
"evolution has basically been proven", "there is no evidence for the Biblical story" common claims made by evolutionists. Out of all the claims, I've never heard any solid evidence to support them. There's no evidence for the biblical story? Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams? Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints? Why are there so many "fossil graveyards" (the result of swirling water eddies)? Why did the earth have to be created instantaneously (www.halos.com)? Evolution is a fact? Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails? Why are the layers of coal formations connected? Out of the billions of fruit flies/bacteria generations observed, why have they only produced after their kind? Why is the age of the earth severely limited?: The moon is moving away from the earth each year, and would have been touching earth 1.3 billion years ago; long before then lunar tides would have wiped out life. Earth's spin is slowing down, so less than a million years ago it would it have been going much too fast for anything to survive (centrifugal force, 5,000 mph winds). Need more questions?
OK. Great. But I don't understand why you opposed my argument...
Everything you said sounds so ridiculous it borders made-up. Many of your questions don't even make sense. I don't need more questions. I need more answers. I think andsoccer said most everything that needs to be said other than that.
First, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Evolution is not a religion or belief system, but instead a well tested theory backed up by evidence in many scientific fields such as geology, embryology, genetics, and other fields of biology. A more accurate term to use would be scientist because over 99% of scientists agree with evolution. But hey, what do they know?
I will talk about the evidence for evolution later but first allow me to answer some of your questions:
Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams?
That's simple. The surface of the earth is covered by large masses of land known as tectonic plates. There are two types of tectonic plates, oceanic and continental. When two continental plates collide, mountains form. In this case, the Indian subcontinent collided with the Eurasian Plate forming the Himalayas. In fact this collision is still occurring and Mt. Everest is rising a few inches each year. What does this have to do with fossilized clams? At one point during earth's history, the rocks that currently make up the Himalayas were underwater and during this time the clams would have been fossilized. The mountains were raised later. In addition, if you are trying to say that these clams are evidence of the biblical flood (if you are not please correct me), then you should know that fossilization of the type witnessed on the top of Mt. Everest could not have happened in a short amount of time. They would have to have been covered for thousands of years. Didn't the flood supposedly only last 40 days?
Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints?
Short answer: They haven't
Long Answer: Although creationists originally claimed that "man-tracks" appeared with dinosaur prints near in Glen Rose Texas, these assertions were later proven to be false. The supposed human footprints were in fact shown to be dinosaur footprints that had been eroded, natural features, and some doctored and carved specimens.
Why are there so many "fossil graveyards" (the result of swirling water eddies)?
Could you be more specific? I have never heard the term fossil graveyard, and I fail to see how this could possibly point to "swirling water eddies."
Why did the earth have to be created instantaneously (www.halos.com)?
This theory was thought up by Robert Gentry, who based his conclusion on what he called "halos" found in certain primordial rocks. Gentry is a physicist not a geologist however, so his method of observations, and the conclusions he comes to are flawed. You might as well ask a plumber to falsify string theory. The problems with his research are numerous, but for the sake of brevity I will give you the basic reasons why he's wrong.
- The rocks he was examining were not part of the primordial crust of earth, but instead much younger, and therefore not reflective of earth's formation.
-He does not show that polonium is the only possible cause of the "halos." In fact, other scientists who reviewed his work have determined that Uranium (which decays much more slowly) is the real cause. This is because the rings were most common in areas that were Uranium rich. If the cause had been Polonium, this would not have been the case.
-Gentry attempts to rationalize the apparent conflict between his results and all other geological evidence for the age of earth, by proposing that decay rates have changed. There is no evidence for this, and the phenomenon is impossible according to current atomic theory. If he is right, then there is no reason that Polonium decay rates couldn't have changed as well, and therefore his entire conclusion is baseless
-His theory requires at least three instances of divine intervention. Science does not deal with the supernatural.
Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails?
What does this have to do with anything? I don't know specifically what your talking about, however, if I were to speculate this could be because either rocks containing the fossils were pushed vertically by volcanic or tectonic activity, or that an underwater avalanche buried a whale vertically. Until you show me specifically what your talking about though, these are just guesses.
Why are the layers of coal formations connected?
Once again, I'm not sure what your talking about.
Out of the billions of fruit flies/bacteria generations observed, why have they only produced after their kind?
I assume by kind you mean species. If that is the case, then you are severely mistaken. There are numerous examples of observed speciation, especially among bacteria. In fact, in 1975, a strain of bacteria was found that could digest nylon. Nylon was only invented in 1935, so this was obviously an evolved trait. Fruit flys have also been observed in laboratories to evolve. In addition we see bugs evolving all the time, to become resistant to pesticides. If you want more examples of instances of observed speciation look here.
Why is the age of the earth severely limited?: The moon is moving away from the earth each year, and would have been touching earth 1.3 billion years ago; long before then lunar tides would have wiped out life. Earth's spin is slowing down, so less than a million years ago it would it have been going much too fast for anything to survive (centrifugal force, 5,000 mph winds).
Your figures are out of date. The whole, moon touching the earth 1.3 billion years ago, was a problem in the 1960s. Since then, newer and more accurate models of the earth-moon system put the moon a good distance away from the earth 4 billion years ago. Scientists had to take into account how shifting landmasses on earth (due to tectonic activity) had an effect on the moon's movement.
Your second claim is laughable. I don't really know how to answer you other than to say that it's not true. Yesterday the temperature was one degree colder than today. Does that mean I can conclude there as an ice age less than a year ago? The earth is slowing down, but not nearly in the way that you described.
Okay, now that that's over with we can talk about evidence for evolution.
Out of all the claims, I've never heard any solid evidence to support them
I'd say that's probably because creationist blogs don't have much information on the topic. I however do. Let's break it up into a couple catagories:
Fossils
Scientists have been able to date fossils that are millions of years old, using numerous different techniques. What we see, when we look at the fossils we've found is a very clear representation of the evolutionary tree of life. Scientists have found literally thousands of transitional fossils, and not a single fossil has not fit within what evolution predicts. There were no mammals found during the Precambrian period, and no dinosaurs that dated less than 50 million years ago.
If evolution were not true then how could you explain:
1) How every dating technique used to identify the age of the fossils, turned up the same result? and how all of these results were consistent with evolution
As I said earlier in the debate, we can actually see species evolving. The reason that the flu vaccine must be updated every year, is because the flu virus evolves each year. In this case, our knowledge of evolution actually saves people's lives. So you must ask yourself:
3) If evolution isn't true, then why do we still see things evolving?
I could go on, but this argument is already too long. If you have more questions go ahead and ask, but I'm much more interested in answers.
The flu virus doesn't evolve, it mutates. Mutation and evolution are two different things. Evolution has never been witnessed happening. Scientists in support of evolution even state that. Evolution is a theory with a good argument, but it is a theory none-the-less.
Mutation and natural selection are the two driving forces behind evolution. By mutating the flu virus is evolving. There is no difference between the two.
Also, you claim that we have never observed organisms evolving: this is completely untrue. In lab experiments evolution is witnessed all the time.
In addition, scientists have also witnessed the evolution of species in the wild like the Italian wall lizard.
This is one of the common misconceptions about evolution. That species evolve is observed fact...that they do so through natural selection is the theory.
The bacteria mutated. They did not evolve into a new creature, granted that would take millions of years to witness. But, I agree, mutation would be a driving force behind evolution. However it isn't evolution itself. Mutations happen all the time in nature that never lead to a new evolved state in.
Now the article about the lizards is pretty amazing. I had not seen that. I have never said that evolution or adaptation or what ever someone wants to call it does not happen. These lizards may adapt through a from of evolution to acquire what is necessary to survive in a new environment but there is no evidence of them changing into a completely different creature to survive. Still, that is pretty amazing. Now, if they grew feathered wings I'd be convinced.
I think you have some misconceptions about what evolution actually is. Nothing ever changes into something completely different...that's impossible. Every generation is the same species as the previous generation, but with some added mutations orginally these mutations occur to the point where the end species cannot mate with the original, and that is where biologists arbitrarily draw the line as to a different species. In this sense we have seen many many examples of evolution.
In addition, we really do see new species of bacteria, and no it wouldn't take millions of years for them to evolve into a new species. It might take a long time for them to be mostly unrecognizeable from their parent species but dissimilarity to an ancester species is not a requirement to the observation of evolution.
In addition you claim that you would only except that scientists have observed evolution if they saw something without wings evolve into something with wings. Now obviously this is virtually impossible because the chances of parralel evolution of an exact same feature are virtually none, however I'm pretty sure you were being fecicious. Would you instead settle for the evolution of a mechanism in an organism that could didn't exist previously?
Those that are proponents of evolution to explain molecule to man evolution have changed the evolutionary tree of life continually to fit their understanding of the current science. In addition, if you take a look at a tree of life, much of it is conjecture based on what one would like it to look like if it were the nice neat package you would like it to be. Current textbooks all show a tree of life with dotted or shaded lines where there is no fossil record to prove the genetic lineage. In addition, the fossil record is not uniform around the globe and evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion in which the majority of phyla show up fully formed and haven't changed since then.
It sounds like you do a lot of reading of material that simply supports your own assumptions. Please think critically about what you believe. The idea that just a simple cell has been (somewhat recently) discovered to be a like a metropolis in its intricacies and interdependency. If any one of its processes did not evolve at the exact same time as all the others, the cell cannot function. That is simply a cell, not a complete organism.
fyi - day 3 is without photosynthesis - The Bible specifies this. And 1st plants without vascular were growing without photosynthesis. Which is interesting because an ancient writer who lived by the rising of the sun understood water and sun for harvest. So why would he have oddly placed plant growth on
day 3, and put appearance of the sun and seasons on day 4 ?
.
The Bible does mention large beasts.
And also drawings have been found and etched rock with dinosaurs on them, how could the sketches visibly show physical characteristics of dinosaurs?
Job 40
15“Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 “Behold now, his strength in his loins
And his power in the muscles of his belly.
17 “He bends his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
18 “His bones are tubes of bronze;
His limbs are like bars of iron.
19 “He is the first of the ways of God;
Let his maker bring near his sword.
20 “Surely the mountains bring him food,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 “Under the lotus plants he lies down,
In the covert of the reeds and the marsh.
22 “The lotus plants cover him with shade;
The willows of the brook surround him.
23 “If a river rages, he is not alarmed;
He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
24 “Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,
With barbs can anyone pierce his nose?
Isaiah 27:1
In that day the Lord will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, With His fierce and great and mighty sword, Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And He will kill the dragon who lives in the sea.
Isaiah 51:9
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who cut Rahab in pieces, Who pierced the dragon?
"Then why is the top of Mt Everest covered in fossilized clams?"
Because nearly all mountains used to be ancient sea floor genius. That continental drift and plate techtonics.
"Why have sets of human footprints have been found on top and next to dinosaur footprints?"
Because they are a hoax and have been proven to be so.
"Then why have fossilized whales been found standing vertically on their tails?"
Because the earth moves and shifts! Remember the mountains?
OK I'm going to stop there. If you can't go find the answers to some of these questions you are willfully ignorant. Science has working theories for most of this stuff and if it doesn't it's working on them because that's what science does. It knows it doesnt have all the answers yet but the very fact that you can make arguments that you made is because you have a basic understanding of science. Dont worry, friend, the answers are coming faster every day.
The problem with the bible is that it was written by men who claim to have been inspired by God. But that begs the question, why would God inspire certain men to write about him? Why not just inspire us all? And if the answer is, "Because he wanted us to have free will," then what about those certain men; did he not want them to have free will?
It's more logical than creationism; that's your argument? That would be like saying your heart should be where your stomach is, because it's more logical since that's closer to the center of your body. Come on people at least bring a good argument when you're trying to prove your false theory.
This is one of the most commonly misunderstood and misphrased arguments. Evolution we know occurs. We have observed it under microscopes at the molecular level and tracked it in earth science. Those who try to argue "intelligent design" are really arguing abiogenesis. How the universe was created and whether organisms evolve are two completely separate inquiries and have nothing to do with one another. One is a biological question, the other is a physics/metaphyscial question.
If you believe in creationism aka the Adam and Eve story...you're a fucking moron.
I make Flu Vaccines for a living at Medimmune Inc, and you try and tell me I'm ignorant of basic biology.
Let me explain biology to you. Biology is the study of life, not the study of evolution. Biology if studied correctly and used in the right manner can be used to create new life and new creations for the benefit for humanity.
Flu vaccines are created by injecting eggs with the virus, then retracted from the egg and grown in a flask for approx a week. After growing it in the flask you use that for innoculum for a larger vessel called a bio-reactor for another week. After this stpe you recover the vaccine through filtration and centrifuge then it is sent to be sterilized and bottled for human consumption.
We keep the virus frozen at -80 degrees celsius so we can thaw it and use it as many times as necessary to ake new vaccines. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and have yet had to collect a new virus, because the flu has 95% of the rhinovirus properties it had the previous year. The only thing that may change is the strength at which we make the vaccine.
So, when you say I'm ignorant of basic biology think again. That's why I feel so strongly about creationism. I live and breathe it everyday. That's why when people talk about evolution, I want them to prove it. Prove we came from an animal and not dust, and if we came from an animal; why aren't more animals evolving into humans. I mean I work with bacteria everyday and they're not evolving into different bacteria, the only way they change is if I force them to change by either manipulating their eenvironment or disecting them and programming them to produce something different.
It takes manipulation for something to change, it doesn't just happen.
I make Flu Vaccines for a living at Medimmune Inc, and you try and tell me I'm ignorant of basic biology.
I don't care. And based on what you've written, I'm seriously speculative of this assertion.
Let me explain biology to you. Biology is the study of life, not the study of evolution. Biology if studied correctly and used in the right manner can be used to create new life and new creations for the benefit for humanity.
Wrong. Evolution is a study within biological science. The study of life includes the way life changes. The fact you are disputing this very well-known generally accpeted concept is why I seriously question your credentials.
Flu vaccines are created by injecting eggs with the virus, then retracted from the egg and grown in a flask for approx a week. After growing it in the flask you use that for innoculum for a larger vessel called a bio-reactor for another week. After this stpe you recover the vaccine through filtration and centrifuge then it is sent to be sterilized and bottled for human consumption.
We keep the virus frozen at -80 degrees celsius so we can thaw it and use it as many times as necessary to ake new vaccines. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and have yet had to collect a new virus, because the flu has 95% of the rhinovirus properties it had the previous year. The only thing that may change is the strength at which we make the vaccine.
So what? Is there a point that is supposed to follow? You freeze cells at a level where cellular movement is impossible and don't see a change in the virus...no kidding. Thank you for that observation, Captain Obvious.
So, when you say I'm ignorant of basic biology think again. That's why I feel so strongly about creationism. I live and breathe it everyday. That's why when people talk about evolution, I want them to prove it. Prove we came from an animal and not dust, and if we came from an animal; why aren't more animals evolving into humans. I mean I work with bacteria everyday and they're not evolving into different bacteria, the only way they change is if I force them to change by either manipulating their eenvironment or disecting them and programming them to produce something different.
I didn't say your were ignorant of biology, but your words make it appear to be so. You're asking for proof of the origin of life. Again, you are the type of person that misunderstands the question. Evolution isn't about the origin of life, and it's about how life changes. Abiogenesis is the question regarding the origin of life.
It takes manipulation for something to change, it doesn't just happen.
No shit. Heat, pressure, and other environemental factors contribute to evolution. Creationism is the argument "stuff just happens."
It's ridiculous to debate evolution. Evolution is obvious. I think the real debate is over the timeframe.
If you want to say that the world is 6,000 year old then sure, not much has changed.
However, if we are talking about millions or billions of years then yeah, we probably came from some little organism that was brought here by an asteroid or something.
Or maybe God did create this because he was really bored and we're like the ant farm that my kid has in his room.
In 1770 it was believed that the world was 70000 years old
In 1905 it was believed that the world was 2 billion years old
In the 1969 after moon rocks were brought to earth, people then decided "well the world is 3 billion years old now"
The modern age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
When is the next time the age of the earth is going to change? We don't know, and we creationists do not want to trust the ever-charging word of uninspired man and that's why we trust the bible.
Ok. The Bible was passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years. They only wrote it down recently. God is there to explain the unexplainable. Evolution can explain things. Darwinism, survival of the fittest. Lizards have done it, apes have, all animals have. Ones in the fossil record did not make it because they weren't fit for the changes that they were facing.
natural selection and evolution aren't the same thing.
Evolution is change in a species over generations
Natural selection is the natural phenomenon of creatures with beneficial mutations out competing other creatures and surviving long enough to reproduce.
Darwinism is the idea that evolution happens through natural selection
Evolution is what makes life possible, it allows organisms
to adapt to the environment as it changes, its responsible for huge diversity
and complicity of live on earth. Which not only provides organises with source
of food and healthy competition, it also gives us some truly awesome stuff to
marvel at. And even tho Evolution makes living thing different from one
another, it also shows us how we are all the same. All live, every single thing
that’s alive on earth today, can claim the same shared heritage. Having descended
from the very first microorganism, when life originated on this planet 3.8
million years ago.
There are people who will say that this is all random ( which it isn't ) and that this clumsy process could not be responsible for the majestic beauty of our world. And to them people I say well at least we can agree that our world is beautiful. There are 2 kinds of people in the world,
the people who are excited about the power and beauty of evolution and those
I don’t understand how people book of genesis literally even though it’s completely illogical, has no evidence at all, the myth it’s self has been proven impossible on multiple occasions and there is overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting it.
Evolution has no proof either. If you can give me one proof of evidence I'll love to hear it. Creationism actually has proof. I will tell you if we have a full debate.
A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.
Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.
So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense
Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.
I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.
I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.
Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.
Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.
Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.
Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.
There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!
Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.
Its a religion of idiots.
Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.
Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.
Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.
Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.
And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.
There is no actual absolute proof of evolution as some of the people here have stated. Before people post things, they should really do their research first. And for those reading this I implore you to do your own.
Here are three basic reasons for why evolution is only theory and not a proven fact:
1.) Evolution has never been witnessed. Dawkin's even states that, "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He goes on to say that its like coming upon a murder scene after the murder has already taken place. It seems pretty obvious but there is no concrete evidence. Just obvious clues. "It might as well be spelled out in words of English." Well, it might seem obvious, but its not concrete evidence. It seemed pretty obvious that the world was flat once too.
2.) Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance. However, so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have failed. If you don't believe me, look it up. Now, there is evidence supporting RNA based molecules. But, even if that turned out to be successful, it would still pose an interesting paradox being that science created the self replicating molecule, it did not create itself as theory of evolution suggests.
3.) The last point is the fossil record is incomplete. We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line. Not even slight mutations within each generation to warrant there being evidence of evolution. Though, I will add they are getting closer and closer every year to finding that missing link but closer and closer does not equal found.
Now speaking about creation. I have read a lot of the arguments that are saying that creationism is faith based. Well, its just as faith based as evolution is. And there is just as much evidence, if not more, supporting intelligent design as there is supporting evolution. In all fairness there is no absolute proof for intelligent design as well. However, there is more substantial evidence for it. Here is one example:
Patterns occur naturally without the need for a 'designer'. For example: snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers, ocean waves etc... These patterns are a natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos. Science, in support of evolution, also uses chaos to describe what was before the "big bang". These things are well-understood and there is no debate in the scientific community. Now, take codes. Codes do not occur without a designer (programmer). Some examples of these include stuff like music, blueprints, languages, computer programs, and even codes of DNA. The basic difference is what happens between patterns and codes. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes. Codes store information which is pretty good proof that DNA just might have been designed (programed). DNA is not a molecule with a pattern. It's a code, basically a language, and a storage device for information. All codes that we know of were created by a conscious mind. Therefore, evidence dictates that DNA was designed by a mind of sorts. The language and information of our very own DNA is proof of some sort of intelligent design.
I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.
All observations are retroactive. We have observed evolution in the lab and in nature. That s, we have seen novel structures and abilities rise in diversified populations in various settings, whether it by nylonase in flavobacterium or cecil valves in Italian lizards, polyploidy in flowering plants, infertile and fertile hybridization in mammals, speciation of Drosphilia and Promonella among many, many other observed instances of speciation
Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with suggesting that life itself was generated in a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance.
You're mixing up theories. And there are no proofs in science. Proofs exist only in mathematics and liquor.
The last point is the fossil record is incomplete.
First, your understanding of the field, which you are discussing is woefully lacking. Two, there are thousands upon thousands of fossils categorically identifying diversification over time of various phylogenetic lineages. Third, there is no such thing as a missing link. That's just a media term. Every new generation of a population consists of physiological and genetic differences from the parent lineage, thereby becoming intermediate exemplars.
We do share similar bone structures with other animals but there is no defined developmental line.
An organic, DNA/RNA replicating, protein based, metabolic and metazoic, diploid, bilaterally symmetric, gilless, internally heated, coelomate, with a spinal chord, reduced olfactory system, lacteal mammaries, a jawed skull, specialized teeth, with canines and molars, forward oriented and fully enclosed optical systems in a singal temporal fenestra in an amniote skull that is attached to a vertebrate, that are hind-leg dominant, with sacral pelvis, clavicle, with wrist and ankle bones, lungs, tear-ducts, body hair, opposable thumbs, plantigrade extremities with an embryonic development, including amniotic fluid and placental birth leading ultimately to a highly social lifestyle based on a shared complexity in the frontal lobe, enhanced limbic system all connected to a reptilian brain, shared bi-hemispheres that help process language and spatial cognition... etc. etc. That's just the apes. Of course we have a bloody idea of a defined developmental line. Don't confuse yourself.
Well, its just as faith based as evolution is.
No. No. No. No. No. Evolution is not faith based. It is observed. And it is verified by biology, virology, paleontology, embryology, genetics, population genetics, genomics, bioinformatics, phylogenetics. it is evidenced by ring species, gene frequency change, observations and descriptions of populations in controlled settings and in nature. Endogenous retroviruses, body plans, homologous structures, basal features... and the list goes on and on.
I for one believe that elements from both evolution and creation, working in tandem, is more likely that one or the other. But if I had to pick one I would say creation.
Of course you. But you also have no idea what you're talking about. At all, it seems. And that explains fully why you'd go with the fantasy instead of learning about the things that make the world you live in tick. And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program. Do what you said: research (IT IS SO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY).
The aftermath of evolution has been witnessed but never the actual process itself. Its pretty good evidence but not concrete. With that said I never once stated that I don't believe in evolution personally.
You said my understanding of the field is lacking. Well, I am not a scientist but I have researched this on both sides. If I am lacking I am open to learning more about it. But in this case I don't believe you are correct. You're are right about one thing though. There are thousands of fossils showing what look like steps but there is no gradual change. Your examples of a defined developmental line are actually examples of a fragmented developmental line. And there are a ton more you could list. What you are talking about is macro evolution. These are changes within a species but there is no evidence of micro evolution. There should be millions if not billions of transitional phases between species but we have yet to find them. Therefore, I suggest that the fossil record is incomplete.
And I was being ironic when I made a comment about evolution being faith based. What I mean is, there is just as little, or as much evidence to support both sides. It always seems to me that Creationists are open to science but science is never open to creation. It comes across as incredibly close-minded. You say that evolution is observed. Well, intelligent design can be observed by the same definition. I even gave an example of it. But all you had to say was "And if you just knew--simply knew--what you are talking about, you wouldn't have to go to some ridiculous, undefined, designer using undefined terms like "information" and talk about chemistry as if it's a computer program." That isn't debating that is childish arguing which I don't participate in. I am also pretty sure its obvious what I meant by "information". And calling what I believe a "fantasy" and trying make me look like a fool is also a terrible way to approach a debate. Its just immature and proves that you are close-minded, not to mention it makes you seem incredibly unintelligent. You didn't even try to disprove the argument you just called it, in other words, stupid and left it alone. I typically don't debate with people that are immature. It just doesn't seem fair to them.
I have no patience for people like you. I use to spend days arguing with know-nothings about the evidence for evolution, when I was studying biology. And that was when I cared. We'll start with evidence for design. And we'll start step by step.
If it is so obvious, define "information" and pinpoint where it is located in a genome, in the chemicals: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine (that make up DNA) or any combination of those chemicals, or in proteins or amino-acid chains (whichever you choose is fine). Explain how this "information" is transferred and adapted between living organisms and provide examples. How is the information stored?
You, sir, do seem to understand a good portion of the science behind this debate. However, I think you need to state whether what you are describing as evolution is molecule to man evolution or the adaptive processes that are inherent in all living things. It may seem like semantics, but it is inherently different and the science to prove each is very different. We know from research in genetics, that information can never be gained (an upward evolution), but only stays stagnate or is lost with adaption. Can you scientifically (meaning observable, testable, repeatable science) prove when information has been added to DNA (outside of intelligent i.e. "human") intervention. As a Christian, I have no problem with changes within a species (adaption), but the notion of molecule to man is far-fetched and disproven by the discovery of DNA since Darwin's time. Evolution in that sense is outdated, just like the flat-earth theory.
However, I think you need to state whether what you are describing as evolution is molecule to man evolution or the adaptive processes that are inherent in all living things.
The distinction is important, but not indicative of "different types of evolution". Adaptation is simply a mechanism of evolutionary change that can and often does lead to what you, in a caricature, call "molecules to man" evolution.
We know from research in genetics, that information can never be gained (an upward evolution), but only stays stagnate or is lost with adaption.
I think it's imperative that you define information in chemistry. Depending on your definition, I can easily explain and give examples as to how information can be gained. But if your definition of information is some vague and amorphous concept that can't be identified in the chemicals that make up DNA/RNA and their subsequent imperfect replication, then you're not really informed honestly.
Evolution in that sense is outdated, just like the flat-earth theory.
The discovery of DNA actually confirmed Darwin's and many others prediction(s). In fact, it has led to what is known as the modern synthesis--of the mechanism of natural selection and adaptation, and the grounding principle of imperfect DNA/RNA replication. Evolution is a fact, that allele frequencies change has been observed and confirmed via population genetics. The theory of evolution, in that sense, is about as outdated and useless as the theory of gravity. When Dobzhanski wrote that nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of evolution, he was entirely correct at the time, and still correct today. An "outdated" theory and its techniques can't be constructive and inform the production of other fields, ranging from bioinformatics to genetics to engineering.
Because an all powerful god does not need millions of years in order to make a creature. I do believe that god created every basic kind(Family/genus) of living thing and after the fall gave them the ability to adapt, change, and evolve.
Big Bang theory- God said Bang and the earth was created.
Seriously though, If evolution was the answer to all the begging question of how life was created then why cant isn't it still happening. Where is the other planets that is created this way. Creationism isn't that simple thought of a high being just creating us. I am sure it took a process of from within the earth and using specific dirt with other things such as his/her almightiness to create something so complex. It is funny how they say that humans started as microevolutionay combined with abiogesis to create a breathing living human. How is it that blood courses through our veins and that our hearts are betting with no end if all this is possible then why does it suddenly stop. How does evolution explain death because with creation there is death. Evolution?? what does that make you....A monkeys uncle......
Faith is believeing in something without evidence. You're the only one using faith here buddy. Evolution has more evidence than I could possibly tell you. From the fossil record to plant homologies to speciation. We've even observed evolution in labs at this point.
Evolution has actually never been observed. The aftermath of it has been observed. But there is no concrete evidence. Now mutations have been observed but mutation and evolution are two different things.
Exactly, these words (mutations, adaptions, evolution) are so used interchangeably that they confuse the lay person. Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information, or are neutral. Do we agree that a progression from a molecule to a human is upward and doesn't represent a loss of genetic information? Then evolution in that sense is completely irrational and disproven by science.
Your point regarding it as unobserved is also true. When did science become about arbitrary assumptions and not repeatable, observable, testable, theories? Evolution is not science, it is an argument built by people that will believe in anything, (including aliens seeding the Earth, see Dawkins) but a God that may hold them accountable. It's actually childish and petulant.
Exactly, these words (mutations, adaptions, evolution) are so used interchangeably that they confuse the lay person.
Just for everyone's sake, I will put these in the proper hierarchy based on current science's understanding of evolution: Evolution is the change of inheritable traits through successive generations. The change in inheritable traits is usually the result of mutations. These mutations can both help and hinder a population's ability to survive and reproduce. The ones that help in certain ways are referred to as adaptations. These adaptations do not result to help a population, but help purely from coincidence. Populations that lack enough adaptations most likely die it. This process is referred to as natural selection.
Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information, or are neutral.
I hate to break it to you, but this statement is incorrect. Mutations result in a gain, loss, or no-net of genetic information. Huntington's disease and Myotonic dystrophy are both illnesses that result from a tri-nucleotide repeat, which is a mutation. Too many codons are added in a certain area resulting in a dangerous increase in genetic information.
Your definition of faith is atheistic; it actually denotes the essence of the term foolish. Explain how any person can believe in something about nothing that doesn’t exist. People can only know or not know of that which exists.
If evolution is observable in the laboratory what is the name of the new species? Are you asserting that evolution is observable in controlled artificial laboratory experiments? Then, if you are, how is that evidence of evolution when it can only be evidence of artificial manipulation of a species? I thought evolution is a naturally occurring process, not a consequence of a controlled experiment in a lab.
Allow me an opportunity, here and now, to describe in part my approach in answering the question of intelligent cause.
The axiom of my argument: The laws of mathematics are the consequences of an intelligent eternal cause. No man or group of men can claim that he/they is/are the author of the laws of mathematics, for the laws existed before a man recognized them. We can however, fundamentally claim that man recognized by reason the known laws of mathematics, but never can it be claimed that man is the author of that which he has recognized by reason. The laws of mathematics existed before they were identified by man. They are eternally true. For example, 1+1+1+1+1100=1104 is true now, and is true thirty trillion centuries from now, and has always been true apart from time itself. This is an eternal truth for the equation is true apart from time itself. When there exists eternal truths that are only recognized by intelligence such as I describe there is an eternal cause of those consequences. And since mathematics is an exercise of knowledge and intelligence it is therefore the consequence of an intelligent cause.
If someone would like to contradict the conclusion of my argument I offer an invitation to do so. However, the difficulty in opposing this view is that the opposition must prove that there was a time when 1+1= not 2.
I have loosely laid out some of the evidence that supports the deductive conclusion that the whole of the creation is a consequence of intelligent design. And as necessary, I will add thereto so that my statements are understood in the manner I have intended.
"I thought evolution is a naturally occurring process, not a consequence of a controlled experiment in a lab."
So you don't believe it's possible for a naturally occuring processes to be the consequence of an controlled experiment?
That would be an interesting position to hold considering that's what science is all about. All the philosophical logic in the world won't help you if you don't have a basic understanding of what science is.
Please take no offence to my response. I refute arguments not people.
I do not believe, as implicated in your rhetorical question, that evolution is the consequence of a controlled experiment. For your rhetorical question expresses that the evolutionary natural process is a consequence of a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment evidences only a consequence of a controlled experiment. In a laboratory we can conclude as a consequence of an experiment that plastic is derived from petroleum. We can not say that petroleum will become plastic one day. We must always be vigilantly mindful of that which we think evidences one thing when we are controlling only some of the variables in any given experiment.
a controlled experiment trys to vary only one variable to determine its natural relationship to the other variables. once these natural relations are known you also know the natural process for you know what it consists of. petroleum will become plastic one day naturally, if it is naturally in the right conditions to do so. Controlled experiments tell us what those conditions are. Some just so happen to be extraordinarily rare with out human intervention.
If someone would like to contradict the conclusion of my argument I offer an invitation to do so. However, the difficulty in opposing this view is that the opposition must prove that there was a time when 1+1= not 2.
What if said laws are only the random configuration that occurred in our universe in a multiverse of every possible mathematical configuration. I don't see how their existence denotes intelligence unless you are bordering on a more pantheistic "universal intelligence" where mathematics is like the "fingerprint" of each universe and the multiverse itself is the "intelligent cause". But math came into being after the big bang, and if that is what you are using to denote intelligence how can you assume what preceded it was intelligent when the laws of the universe break down at the big bang? We know 1+1= not 2 before the big bang, therefore the reasoning you have provided doesn't logically follow.
Stephen Wolfram and other mathematicians have shown that complexity or order can occur randomly.
I see no reason for the mathematical constants of this universe to warrant a belief in an intelligent cause when their complexity could have simply solidified randomly at the beginning moments of the universe, and you're assertion that due to your own intelligent nature you can discern an intelligent cause in mathematics seems to be a covering for a possible argument from ignorance unless you really believe that science can never discover how the laws of the universe actually came about, or as I said earlier you mean some kind of pantheistic "universal intelligence" .
But math came into being after the big bang, and if that is what you are using to denote intelligence how can you assume what preceded it was intelligent when the laws of the universe break down at the big bang? We know 1+1= not 2 before the big bang, therefore the reasoning you have provided doesn't logically follow.
The most basic fundamental of the law of mathematics is the concept of the ‘unit’. We cannot refer to the big bang without first relying upon mathematical law. However, would you care to number the attributes of the singularity before it banged, or simply prove what it was which banged?
Note: the existence of the singularity was governed by law, if so be there was such a thing.
I'm sorry for the intervention, but I have to add.
You said that maths existed before man and that 1+1 has always and will always equal 2.
That is wrong for a few reasons.
Maths is just a language. A language that was invented by and only exists in the realm of our intelligent brains, and is used to describe what we observe and make our lives easier. But just because our mathematical language has evolved to describe almost everything in predictable detail, that does not mean that the world is actually bound to the rules of that language.
Which is why Newtonian Physics came shattering down and gave way to Chaos Theory.
For in Nature, 1+1 has never equaled 2.
It equals 1.999999999999......-infinite. (Fractal Theory)
.
To demonstrate this I would like you to think of this: A piece of wood that we have measured to be 2 meters long, is not and will never be 2 meters long in reality. For if you zoom in at one end, you will always add more fractions, infinite fractions.
Which is why nothing IS or HAPPENS the same way twice.
Maths is as adequate a language as we need it to be for us to live our lives, but it will never be able to describe or predict nature to the full extent.
Maths is just a language. A language that was invented by and only exists in the realm of our intelligent brains, and is used to describe what we observe and make our lives easier. But just because our mathematical language has evolved to describe almost everything in predictable detail, that does not mean that the world is actually bound to the rules of that language.
Are you implying the laws of mathematics were invented by the language of mathematics? My argument references the laws of mathematics, not the language of the laws.
Which is why Newtonian Physics came shattering down and gave way to Chaos Theory.
For in Nature, 1+1 has never equaled 2.
It equals 1.999999999999......-infinite. (Fractal Theory)
That is a question of precision, not the laws of mathematics. In essence you are affirming the laws of mathematics are governed by man’s inability to infinitely and precisely measure. Consequently the laws of mathematics are therefore infinitely fallacious. Is that true?
Which is why nothing IS or HAPPENS the same way twice.
Theoretically.
Maths is as adequate a language as we need it to be for us to live our lives, but it will never be able to describe or predict nature to the full extent.
Again, that is a question of precision, not a question of the laws of mathematics.
No, the laws where not invented by the language. But our description of the laws requires the language. But in reality the observed is infinite. So the language will never be adequate enough to describe the full extent of the infinite reality.
In other words, there may well be a law, but it is certainly not confined to the description we have given it.
Which is why the universe doesn't quite work like a clockwork mechanism.
Having said that, I am not making this case to prove that God doesn't exist.
I just don't agree with the idea that the finite order we observe is somehow the work of an infinite creator.
Fractal theory however makes a lot more sense, because it proposes that all things are infinite (in fractions), which is nothing less than I would expect from an infinite creator.
Fractal theory does not contradict the laws of mathematics. It does though serve as a reminder that man’s observations are finite, not infinite. And yet despite man’s limitations of observation, the laws of mathematics can infinitely bare witness of both the truths and falsities of those limitations.
Bare in mind, if Fractal theory advances the supposition that all observations are necessarily false, then we must also infer that Fractal theory is necessarily false.
(True or false: Fractal theory is mathematically described?)
Bare in mind, if Fractal theory advances the supposition that all observations are necessarily false, then we must also infer that Fractal theory is necessarily false.
Fractal theory does not advance that supposition.
True or false: Fractal theory is mathematically described?
This is an interesting point.
But you are confusing the description of specific fractals with the description of a law that applies to all fractals.
So yes, mathematical language and geometry can describe (to a certain extent) an existing fractal. And you can even create your own mathematical fractals in the realm of your imagination.
But can mathematical rules predict or prescribe the variety of fractals that happen in the real world?
Can mathematical rules predict the branches of a tree? Or the branches that a river might create?
But you are confusing the description of specific fractals with the description of a law that applies to all fractals.
Fractal theory is a branch of knowledge that is an application of mathematics, first and foremost. Without the laws of mathematics, fractal theory has no foundation.
But can mathematical rules predict or prescribe the variety of fractals that happen in the real world?
Can mathematical rules predict the branches of a tree? Or the branches that a river might create?
Directly, I must answer ‘no’ to all of the above: Can mathematical rules predict or prescribe…. However, any field of knowledge that can reasonably predict or prescribe the above is mathematically predicated.
Conclusion: Fractal and Chaos theory are variations of our applications of mathematics. They augment our knowledge of the observable by the application of mathematics.
Do not the patterns of Zebras, Tigers, Rivers, fingerprints, snowflakes, mountains… evidence the uniformity of patterns that confirm the principles of a given pattern? Granted, no two Zebras, or any of the above, are identical. Yet, they exhibit diversity of a pattern. The diversity of that pattern is what I think you are identifying as random, is that true? If so, then I’ll continue.
If we cannot discern the causes of the variability within a considered pattern, shall we assume that the variations are random, or shall we assume our knowledge is incomplete?
I do not think anything or condition exists as a random consequence. Why, all that ‘is’ must exist as a consequence of a cause, including conditions of existence.
(I am willing to debate those assertions. I think we use the terms ‘chaos’ and ‘random’ as an implied admission of the limitations of our knowledge. And to date I have not discovered anything that should be rightfully described as either. But, I am willing to consider any examples that you care to submit.)
And there is no mathematical law or rule or equation that will ever predict those patterns, no matter how thoroughly we study and observe them.
Have we discovered all mathematical laws, or are we simply assuming that our knowledge is complete, and therefore that which does not appear to be subject to our knowledge of those laws is merely beyond mathematical law?
But is there one? And do you think there will ever be one?
Logically, I can deduce there are laws that must describe and predict all that exists, but I do not think we shall learn which questions must be asked in order to identify those laws.
How can any field ever be able to predict that which has no order?
I do not think there is anything which has no order, yet I also think we can’t predict all that exists. Hell, we struggle with the understanding of the ‘now’ of life and existence, let alone the ‘tomorrow’ of the same.
The diversity of that pattern is what I think you are identifying as random, is that true? If so, then I’ll continue.
Yes I am referring to the diversity of the pattern. Although I must add: when it comes to animals, it is very possible that the pattern is genetically coded.
What I am proposing however is that the genetic code can be random and still yield orderly results.
If we cannot discern the causes of the variability within a considered pattern, shall we assume that the variations are random, or shall we assume our knowledge is incomplete?
Both can be true.
I do not think anything or condition exists as a random consequence. Why, all that ‘is’ must exist as a consequence of a cause, including conditions of existence.
Agreed. But the "cause" and the "conditions of existence" can be a random code or a random sequence of events. Do we agree on this?
Because from a theological and philosophical perspective, there can be no freedom unless those events and codes are random. (I can explain this more if you would like me to).
when it comes to animals, it is very possible that the pattern is genetically coded.
Agreed.
What I am proposing however is that the genetic code can be random and still yield orderly results.
I am not, at the moment, willing to accept or refute your proposal, but I am willing to carefully consider an example from which the proposal should or could be inferred.
But the "cause" and the "conditions of existence" can be a random code or a random sequence of events. Do we agree on this?
Because from a theological and philosophical perspective, there can be no freedom unless those events and codes are random. (I can explain this more if you would like me to).
I have enjoyed our discourse; consequently I would like to further the matter by addressing the root disagreement of the same.
That from which you infer ‘random’ is that from which I infer ‘order’, generally. Allow me to explain myself.
(Feel free to address any of the following thoughts.)
There are an infinite number of unique mathematical equations that =1.
There are an infinite number of unique Zebras from one genetic code.
There are an infinite number of unique humans from one genetic code.
There are an infinite number of unique snowflakes, yet they form within distinct parameters.
When I consider the stars of the heavens, the beasts of the fields, and even the sons of men, I see none are identical among themselves. Then I ask myself:
If all of this is random, why does it...
The completed question and answer thereof will be revealed in part two!
If all of this is random, why does it not evidence that attribute? Because it is not random, it is deliberate. Now, before I argue the justification of that proposition, I want to state the two view points.
A. The existence of matter is random.
B. The existence of matter is deliberate.
Obviously, I’ll argue the proposition B ‘a priori’.
(I’ll await your response before I commit to a rather lengthy argument.)
I am sorry it has taken so long to reply, I haven't had time to get online.
Nevertheless, this topic has played in my mind all the time.
Now, on with the discussion.
If we cannot discern the causes of the variability within a considered pattern, shall we assume that the variations are random, or shall we assume our knowledge is incomplete?
They are both possible realities. But I would like to address the specifics of where "random" is possible by addressing your next section.
I do not think anything or condition exists as a random consequence. Why, all that ‘is’ must exist as a consequence of a cause, including conditions of existence.
True. The patterns on the zebra for example are predetermined by the genetic code of the particular zebra. If we had a software that could read the genetic code and interpret every single gene, we could, in theory, produce a picture of how the zebra will look like before it is even born.
Now let us direct our attention at how this genetic code (DNA) is formed. We know that one part comes from the father and the other from the mother. So far, there is nothing out there that indicates a "cause" for the order in which genes are taken from the parents. That is the part that I would refer to as "random".
Of course, I understand that there could be a law that governs this selection. But from a philosophical and theological perspective I am glad we haven't found one and I am confident that there is none. Otherwise we can not speak of "freedom". There has to be chance a.k.a "random" involved for us to be considered "free".
There is also something else that has played in mind which I would like to share with you. I once heard this phrase concerning the theory of there being a multitude of Universes, and it goes like this:
If there is an infinite number of universes/possibilities, then the chance of something happening in a specific order is 100%.
So far, there is nothing out there that indicates a "cause" for the order in which genes are taken from the parents. That is the part that I would refer to as "random".
Then you agree with the following: “Verily, we know that Zebra A and Zebra B produce offspring Zebra C. But we currently do not know why Zebra C is the offspring when Zebra d,e,f,g,h,I, etc. are also possible consequents.”? (This is an application of what I understand of your argument, am I correct?)
But is that not just another way of affirming the current limits of our knowledge, and if it is beyond our knowledge it is random/chaos?
Now before continuing this thread I would like to address our root disagreement. This will not be easy for either of us, primarily because we are on our own on this question.
Is our (mankind) knowledge the result of order, chaos, the combination of the two, and/or other?
I think the case can be made that our knowledge is orderly, but limited. I also think that we cannot learn from chaos, otherwise our thoughts must be without order. But we know that our knowledge is the consequent of order or else our thoughts are the consequent of no-order.
This is only a preliminary opener of a truly difficult question. I’ll form a better argument after I have a take of your approach to the question.
(If we settle this question, it necessarily follows we have settled this debate.)
I look forward to the discourse.
Note: Very, and I mean VERY few men/women will thoughtfully consider and question their own thoughts independent from common views for more than the time that is required to piss. As for myself, I still consider and question thoughts of years ago. Consequently, I can appreciate the level of intelligence that is required on your part to find a solution to a problem regardless of how long it may take.
(Call it flattery if you will, but flattery only applies to that which even the intellectually inept can recognize.)
I read your reply sometime ago, but I didn't want to write for the sake of it.
In a way, I think these big gaps between responses are beneficial because they give me time to not just form my thoughts, but to doubt them and see how they stand against my observation of everyday life and the new information that I receive/seek.
Your questions are of great importance and they do indeed address the root of our conversation, so I will respond as clearly as I can.
Then you agree with the following: “Verily, we know that Zebra A and Zebra B produce offspring Zebra C. But we currently do not know why Zebra C is the offspring when Zebra d,e,f,g,h,I, etc. are also possible consequents.”? (This is an application of what I understand of your argument, am I correct?)
Yes.
My sister gave birth to a baby girl recently. The baby has husky-blue eyes. My sister's eyes are brown and her husband's are brown also. The only ones in the family with husky blue eyes are my (sister's) mother and the mother of the husband. So both parents obviously carried that gene onto their daughter. Note that her first daughter was born with brown eyes. Now, there were 4 different possibilities with regards to the colour of the baby's eyes. So far biology has not produced a law or even a "reason" that explains which colour will be selected.
There isn't even a hint of an order with regards to that.
But is that not just another way of affirming the current limits of our knowledge, and if it is beyond our knowledge it is random/chaos?
They are both possible, I think ultimately it's a matter of what you want to believe, but you have to take into account a few things.
Some biological events are, in my opinion, irrefutably chaotic. For example, the sperm race. The obstacles that a sperm has to go through in order to reach the egg are so many and so deadly that nature has compensated by allowing man to produce millions of them, just so there is a chance of one of them making it to the egg. If I took an egocentric view I would conclude that I was meant to be the one. But the truth of the matter is, it was just chance and good luck.
The fact that men produce millions of sperm during ejaculation is, in my opinion, evidence that even nature recognizes chance and chaos. Why if there was order, men would only need produce one sperm that was equipped to go through the deadly obstacle course and create a baby.
So chaos does exist.
The other thing to take into account is the fact that our brains have an insatiable appetite for patterns. This tendency has helped us make some of the greatest scientific discoveries, and for the most part it has worked to our advantage.
But sometimes this tendency carries on and the brain creates patterns even when there are none. Gamblers and superstitious people are a good example of this. So when we are met with chaos, our brains are not very happy. They will try to find one, and if they don't, they will make one up. Just to feel satisfied that they have conquered the obstacle. The brain does not like to be defeated.
Which is why I accept the existence of chaos but my brain doesn't.
Note that I am not my brain.
Is our (mankind) knowledge the result of order, chaos, the combination of the two, and/or other?
I will assume that you are referring to the full body of our knowledge, which includes all branches.
If that is the case then I think it is the combination of the two and I will explain why.
When examining gene selection and DNA formation, it is obvious that we gain scientific knowledge from that which is orderly. When we are met with chaos, we continue to gain knowledge, but that knowledge probably requires interpretation. Perhaps philosophical interpretation? Surely you will agree that there is something to be gained from knowing that there is no reason why my niece's eyes are husky blue, when they could have been brown.
I am sure you will also agree that if there was such a law that governs gene selection, then the implications for mankind and our relation to the creator would be devastating.
If the Creator made us free, then there has to be something there to free us from the Creator.
Even the ancient Greeks acknowledged this issue, which is why they concluded that above all (even above the gods) was Chance.
Chaos and order can indeed co-exist, and Aristotle had a good example for this: a stone falling that happens to hit a tree is a chance event, although the falling of the stone and the growing of the tree are both determined events.
It's a long post, so I will stop here for now. I very much look forward to your reply.
Some biological events are, in my opinion, irrefutably chaotic. For example, the sperm race. The obstacles that a sperm has to go through in order to reach the egg are so many and so deadly that nature has compensated by allowing man to produce millions of them, just so there is a chance of one of them making it to the egg. If I took an egocentric view I would conclude that I was meant to be the one. But the truth of the matter is, it was just chance and good luck.
The fact that men produce millions of sperm during ejaculation is, in my opinion, evidence that even nature recognizes chance and chaos. Why if there was order, men would only need produce one sperm that was equipped to go through the deadly obstacle course and create a baby.
So chaos does exist.
Hello, let’s continue.
Working only from the above example, I can validly infer determinism and order. Yet, that is not your inference. However before I submit a contrary or contradictory argument, accordingly, I give you an opportunity to re-evaluate the example.
And regardless of the result of your re-evaluation, I think your ‘initial’ inference is patently invalid. But, (with the emphasis on ‘but’) I think you are more than sufficiently intelligent to recognize the conflict of the evidence and the inference thereby.
I’ll await your follow-up reply before I support or challenge your final inference. And if you still stand by your initial inference, I will post my explanation of the submitted evidence as outlined in your example.
Btw, your example does, in truth, expose the necessary inference of either chaos or order.
I recognize the conflict that my example presents.
On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.
One could validly deduce order and determinism.
But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.
Having said that, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation.
Furthermore, I would also appreciate your feedback on this thought:
How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?
On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.
One could validly deduce order and determinism.
Agreed!
But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.
That is the aspect of your example which truly requires an explanation on my behalf. And so I shall.
With very few exceptions, fertilization is accomplished by one sperm. Of the hundred million or so sperm, only one will fertilize the egg; all others die in the process. In one night of sex, a male may inject hundreds of millions of sperm into the vagina. And yet, only one of millions will succeed ahead of its brothers and sisters. We can call this sperm the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. In this instance of hundreds of millions sperm having the same objective, only one will win out. All others are discharged from the keep as dead, first place, losers. So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.
Let’s now be philosophical on this question.
Egg fertilization is the ultimate goal of all human sperm. But only one will achieve that goal per pregnancy. No more than one and no less than one sperm.
You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed. Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Baring in mind also that our progenitors, siblings, and progeny are also the ‘alpha sperm of the other herds’.
The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.
How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?
I suspect my answer to that question will lead us to an even deeper discussion. All of which I welcome; philosophy is my delight. (I’ll be easy with the philosophical terms.)
Nonetheless, let’s tackle that question as a separate subject if we have arrived at a termination of the former discussion; though both are inter-related.
Note: I ignored all of the issues associated with human twins. Including those issues would only lengthen, without changing, my argument. I like brevity when it is honestly intended versus deceitfully employed.
So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.
I used to think that too. But it turns out it doesn't work that way. The obstacle course is such that at some point each sperm will have to make its way through a "labyrinth" field. At this stage in the race (and a few others like it) a perfectly healthy sperm can end up at a dead end and die. So even the healthiest of all the sperm can die after taking the wrong turn.
I'm not sure if you can watch this documentary about the sperm race in your country, but please give it a try, it is truly magnificent and will give you a new understanding of the process:
As you admitted yourself this is not true for all pregnancies (twins, conjoined twins etc).
You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’.
The problem with that definition is that the term "alpha" implies superiority over the other sperm. Even though I made it first past the post, there is a very strong possibility that there were stronger and healthier sperm than me that simply took the wrong turn.
Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed.
But can you really attribute that success entirely on the winning sperm?
This is a race where there are countless variables and intermittent events that happen without a pattern. A race in which the runner is guided (predominantly) by heat perception and has no concrete clue that they are going the wright way.
More importantly, this is a race which is designed to kill ALL sperm indiscriminately. So the only success to see here, is the fact that there was fertilization at all!
Because that is what it is all about. More life. Because more life creates more chance and more chance holds more hope for change and improvement (evolution). It's not about the individual sperm. It's about conception.
Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’.
It is one thing to be thankful and to feel special that things happened in such a way that you and me made it, but it is another thing to somehow take all the glory from chance and claim it for your own.
The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.
I cannot see how, by looking at the specifics of the process, one can infer order or determinism and reject chance. Surely, for us to infer order, the process should bear some resemblance to orderly fashion. But this race is basically a war with no rules. A war which is more often lost than won.
If nature's way for making something happen relies on persistence and high numbers, does that not infer an inherent recognition of chance?
Sorry, my computer cannot reliably download the simplest of videos.
But I did notice in the description of the video an identical comment to my assertion:
The Great Sperm Race tells the story of human conception as it's never been told before. With 250 million competitors, it is the most extreme race on earth and there can only be one winner.
…”and there can only be one winner”.
The following sources support a consideration for the inference of order. Please read the complete articles.
Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at Sheffield University, told BBC News Online: "This study is potentially very exciting as scientists have been searching to demonstrate whether or not sperm really are attracted to the egg in mammals.
"What it illustrates is that the process of sperm transport to the egg is not just about sperm swimming around until they find an egg.
"It is likely to be highly coordinated and involving a number of different mechanisms of which odorant receptors may play an important role. --
Sperm do not swim randomly; they use various clues and factors to help reach the egg.
In humans, apparently, the female reproductive tract becomes warmer as the Fallopian tubes are neared. Current research at Harvard University has shown that sperm swim from colder to warmer regions (Flam 2006). Also, research has indicated that sperm swim towards increasing concentration gradients of a synthetic compound called bourgeonal (Flam 2006). Whether the egg or female body releases the chemoattractant is unclear as of now. But studies have been convincing to show that sperm can smell. Essentially, sperm smell their way from the vagina to the to the location of the egg in the distal parts of the female's Fallopian tubes (Flam 2006). Once the sperm meets the egg, fertilization can occur.--
As we discussed this is not entirely true. There can be 2 winners or more.
Or there can be no winner at all.
Also, I am aware that sperm have some indicators which help them swim towards a particular direction. We used to think that it was osmosis, we now have more evidence to suggest it is a combination of smell as well as difference in temperature. I acknowledged these facts in my previous post. The point that I was making was not that sperm swim randomly. My point was that the "terrain" is such, that at some point the sperm are met with a choice of tunnels, some of which lead to a dead end. And it appears that even the healthiest of all sperm can take the wrong way, we have seen this with microscopes. On top of that, the course is also randomly bombarded with deadly chemicals produced by the female.
Furthermore, even if the sperm reaches the egg and fertilizes it, that is not the end of the story. The female's immune system sees the zygote as a foreign body and bombards it with chemicals. Which is why the process fails more times than it succeeds.
If the whole process was specifically designed to filter out weak sperm then are you prepared to discuss the implications of this assertion with regards to babies that are born with severe genetic abnormalities?
Or furthermore, to take us back into the DNA formation, why was my niece born with blue eyes, when she had 75% more chance of having brown eyes, and the environment where she lives favors brown eyes by 99%?
there does not exist abstract numbers in actuality.
math is just the logic of quantities, logic is the study of arguments and which should be accepted. logic asks the question: does the conclusion necessarily follow from the premise? math has premises, the raindrop example shows how those premises can be false.
math has premises, the raindrop example shows how those premises can be false.
1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop
Are you therefore asserting by the example of the raindrop argument (if it is an argument) that 1+1=not 2? Or are you merely providing an example of an argument that hinges upon the meaning of how things are combined and then counted?
Meaning this: A raindrop converges with another raindrop and combined they are then one?
the main point of it was to show how Math rests upon conventions and premises, it isn't something magical.
another example is the following:
i have a hexagon, I number the sides and define rotating it counter-clockwise as positive. I start at side 2 and rotate it 8 and i'm at side 6. 2+8=6.in the above example the numbers do not represent objects like they traditionally do, they represent sides of a shape. since 8 is more then 6 you could get the same results by "reducing" it down by using the modulus operator and thus 6 also equals 2+2. the order of the numbers matter in this as well; there is quite a bit different from traditional math. Math isn't science, math is logic applied to numbers. Systems of math only hold when their premises are true. Math rests upon conventions and premises, it isn't something magical.
The example of the hexagon represents how numbers can be arbitrarily used as qualities that necessarily yield qualitative results. It therefore cannot follow that the conclusion is quantitative; for if we conclude quantitative results from qualitative premises the conclusion is invalid, and specifically non-sequitur.
Furthermore, the example does not illustrate a fallacy of mathematical law.
Here is an example of the nature of your example:
I own apartment #1001, apartment #1009 is mine as well; therefore I own 2010 apartments.
(I appreciate the sobriety of your arguments, despite my disagreement with the same. Ergo I support the spirit of your manner of debate, but not necessarily your arguments. However, I am not biased for or against your arguments.)
:) it doesn't and wasn't meant to illustrate a fallacy in math.
something closer to the previous example, but not the same, using apartments would be better described as I own apartment number 1001 and also the one 8 doors down, thus i also own apartment number 1009 as well. I actually picked up the hexagon(might of been another shape) example in a book called symmetry by a phd working in group theory.
also trig functions hold some of the same qualities as the example concerning Shapes, and perhaps i should of simply used those since their more common to people
:) it doesn't and wasn't meant to illustrate a fallacy in math.
Then pardon my assumption of your intent. I thought you were affirming by example that 1+1=not 2.
also trig functions hold some of the same qualities as the example concerning Shapes, and perhaps i should of simply used those since their more common to people
Without boasting of my accomplishments, I would have it known I am not incompetent in the fields of mathematics.
(The merit of my arguments stands or falls according to truth and logic, not title.)
It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason. Do you know why? Because it's not the LAW of evolution because it has no proof!
Even IF evolution was truth(which it isn't) it doesn't proove against intelligent design. Intelligent design constitutes that something created the universe; Aithiesm constitutes that NOTHING created the universe.
Personally, I believe that the earth and universe was created in six literal days, and evolution has no more proof than creationism IMHO
Ignorance of terminology. A "Law" is just a description of a phenomenon.
For instance: in a closed system, the amount of energy in that system is finite and thus the ability for that system to work reduces over time. That is the second law of thermodynamics. An example of a closed system is a small lighter, after so many uses it just won't work anymore.
A theory, on the other hand, is a model of observations that explains those observations, and has predictive power. A theory is the highest point in scientific endeavor, because it utilizes facts, laws and observations in its explanatory powers, and is the direct result of verified hypotheses.
your right about the definition of theory and law. However you seem to be conflating the common everyday meaning of work with the meaning used in physics. work is the dot product of force and distance or ForceDistancecos(angle). it is the measure of a transfer of energy.
I know. But "work" is more easily communicated and practical than your proposal. But I disagree with your conclusion on a lighter not being a closed system.
a lighter exchanges matter with it surroundings, that is why you have to eventually refill it or toss it.
yes, "work" is more easily communicated. I wish science was more culturally embedded in society and not just the products of engineering. a scientist can find out what current is, a engineer can build a useful product from it, and all that matters to any one else isn't the act of building or discovery, its just the end result. :(
I thought it only exchanged radiation or energy. Oh well.
I wish science was more culturally embedded in society and not just the products of engineering. a scientist can find out what current is, a engineer can build a useful product from it, and all that matters to any one else isn't the act of building or discovery, its just the end result.
I've made this same argument with some science majors and researchers about the role of Philosophy. As it stands, most people, regardless of their discipline, are ultimately practical. It's a matter of variable degrees, but it seems a steady ship.
well if matter is being transfered energy is too. A lighter can not function with out air, energy is lost to the surroundings as the butane is burned.
I would say there is something practical in knowing the development of things you find useful. Understanding models has their uses. Then again i am an engineering major. Not everyone needs to know that stuff for an ok life, although making it a hobby would probably increase the quality of their life. so long as the underlying thinking patterns is transfered through acquiring scientific knowledge. That knowledge is based on a way of thinking which can do nothing else. Science seems unique to me; one of its aims is to disprove what it promotes. A hypothesis isn't so much supported in science as it is attacked. if it can survive the onslaught of the entire community then its accepted but still open to criticism. Other ways of thinking are based on dogmas and those who criticize those dogmas are attacked, instead of their ideas. The more minds we have thinking scientifically the better.
A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some aspect of the universes workings that is based on long-continued observation and, where possible, experiment, that is the result of careful reasoning from those oservations and experiments, and that has survived the critical studies of scientists generally.
Example... we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"), of objects attracting each other according to the fixed rule (the theory of gravitation), of energy behaving in discrete bits (the quantum theory), of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the theory of relativity). I could go on and on... but I think you get the picture. All are theories... all are firmly founded... all are accepted as valid descriptions of whatever aspect of the universe. AND NO THEORY is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued, and more thoroughly accepted than the theory of evolution. If it is only a "theory"... that is all it has to be.
Creationism... on the other hand... IS NOT A THEORY! There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism is an expression of Middle Eastern legend. It is no more than a MYTH.
"Aithiesm constitutes that NOTHING created the universe."
Not a very good choice of words, by the way... atheists believe that God IS Nothing (in other words... something that is non-existent).
Your right... evolution does not "neccasarilly contradict intellegent design"... that is if you interpret the Holy Bible in a way which favors that point of view... but I have noticed something in the field of Bible interpretations... they are inconsistent. You can basically start reading the Bible with ANY built-in bias... and it can be read in a way which supports that bias (which are usually conceived through emotion... not rational thinking) If you are a Christian... it basically comes down to which bias makes you feel better... which, I'm sorry, is not good enough for me.
"Aithiests believe that there IS NO GOD, not that God is "nothing"
"Nothing" is definitely an overwhelming word... maybe this definition will clear things up...
noth⋅ing /ˈnʌθɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nuhth-ing] Show IPA
So, what is the difference in saying "God IS Nothing" and "There is no God" and "God is nonexistent"? There is no difference, all of the above statements have the same meaning.
ZINGO! HE CAN BE TAUGHT! I KNOW that there is no difference between those statements. Please provide some evidence that proves that I said otherwise... because I have no idea why you think that I think that.
But I was under the impression that You didnt know... at least until now.
"Aithiests believe that there IS NO GOD, not that God is "nothing"
See? You said that.
I was throwing out definitions of "nothing" to make the other statements clearer... not to dispute other statements meanings. I hope you realize how confused your argument is.
Listen... I'm sorry if I offended you... I'm not very sensitive when it comes to debating.
Your statement isn't correct. What makes you think it is?
As the matter of fact... there is no concrete belief among atheists as to what created the universe. But I have found that the Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted idea among atheists. Who knows... maybe some atheists believe that the universe spontaneously generated out of nothing... but that in no way is the common belief of atheism.
Now... as to what I said previously about your argument... I was just pointing out that it wasnt a very good choice of words. My response was in no way saying whether you statement was right or wrong... (because I understand what you were trying to get at) I just noted that your choice of words were poor.
"found that the Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted"
Let's just say, for the sake of arguement, that the big bang theory is true. What caused it? And what caused that, and before that, and before that? etc.
There is a concrete belief among athiests that there is no God. The end result of that way of thinking is that nothing created the universe in the begining. So, in the beginning, aithiests believe that the universe spontaneously generated out of nothing.
If humans evolved from another species and we are the most intelligent species on earth; why aren't all species evolving into humans? I mean if you were a cow and you knew you were on the food chain and you've been on the food chain for millions of years; wouldn't you want to evolve to get off the food chain? In order for there to be evolution the way you want to explain it, we would continually be evolving. I have yet to meet anyone who can point out from who or what we evolved from. Sure some say we evolved from ape; well if that's true; wouldn't all apes have evolved to humans? There's some that say we evolved from a fish; wouldn't all fish eventually have evolved to human? Yeah, it's the easy way out to try and explain we came from something that was already here, but there has never been any exact science to prove your theory. As you said all are accepted as a valid description, but none are proven.
I've worked in the science field almost my entire adult life and I can tell you nothing evolves without a human's touch. Not a single cell will do anything without the intervention of someone or something feeding it or programming it.
Could you imagine evolution actually existing? You have a pet fish in an aquarium tonight and tomorrow you wake up with a man or woman sitting on your couch. I mean, you have to come up with a better argument than it's been accepted as so.
If the planets orbit the sun, why isn't everything orbiting the sun? I mean if you were a cow wouldn't you orbit the sun instead of sitting here on earth? Wouldn't it make more sense that way? In order for there to be gravity we would have to be continually falling, I have yet to meet a person who can tell me where we are falling towards. Some say that the earth keeps us still, but if that were the case, wouldn't things float around too, being supported by the earth at a distance? Some say objects with mass attract each other, but if this were true wouldn't fat people attract thin people and dogs? Yeah it's easy to explain off your theory but there's no science behind it, gravity is just a description but not proven.
I've worked in science my entire life and I can tell you that nothing falls without a human's touch. Not a cell will fall without something intervening to program where it will fall.
Could you imagine gravity actually existing? You'd be orbiting the sun tonight and orbiting mercury in the morning. I mean you have to come up with a better explanation than it's accepted as so.
This is your argument? You really want to use your argument that people would rather be in orbit than on Earth? Some people might want to float in space and I'm sure if they had the choice they would and I'm sure some people would tell you they already do, but, I'm not sure what they're smoking.
I mean if we evolve, wouldn't we be perfect by now? I mean really think about it, if we were able to evolve, wouldn't we have figured out the things that cause cancer or diabetes by now, and we would never create those cells again? So, what you're saying is we evolve only to get dumber as we go along. I mean you would think if we were able to evolve we would have at least figured out how to live as long as Noah or Abraham, right?
Your argument is about as open as a fishnet and has no merit to the argument I was making.
Please don't let this stop you from writing, I would love to read your next argument.
This is your argument? You really want to use your argument that people would rather be in orbit than on Earth? Some people might want to float in space and I'm sure if they had the choice they would and I'm sure some people would tell you they already do, but, I'm not sure what they're smoking.
I was making a mockery of your argument to highlight the flaw in your reasoning which is that you are completely ignorant of basic biology and are making an argument from it.
I mean if we evolve, wouldn't we be perfect by now? I mean really think about it, if we were able to evolve, wouldn't we have figured out the things that cause cancer or diabetes by now, and we would never create those cells again? So, what you're saying is we evolve only to get dumber as we go along. I mean you would think if we were able to evolve we would have at least figured out how to live as long as Noah or Abraham, right?
Evolution doesn't work that way. It merely finds good-enough solutions to problems which are constrained by resources and therefore we see tradeoffs.
Neither is evolution a ladder with us at the apex, and neither does evolution have any intent behind it.
That we age and die is an example of this. We lose our reproductive ability after several decades and from that point on lose much of our fitness value, which means that we are free to have all sorts of nasty diseases because evolution selected to keep us healthiest at our early reproductive years when healthy individuals could mate and pass on their healthy genes. If you can no longer mate, then you cannot pass on any of your genes to the next generation, including those genes that might make older people healthy.
"That we age and die is an example of this. We lose our reproductive ability after several decades and from that point on lose much of our fitness value, which means that we are free to have all sorts of nasty diseases because evolution selected to keep us healthiest at our early reproductive years when healthy individuals could mate and pass on their healthy genes. If you can no longer mate, then you cannot pass on any of your genes to the next generation, including those genes that might make older people healthy."
Really? How old is too old for a man to become a father? Is 83 too old' or maybe 100? My great grandfather fathered my grandmother when he was 83 and Abraham fathered Isaac when he was 100. So, if they can father a child at that age; why can't we evolve to father a child at 200 or even 500 years old?
"I was making a mockery of your argument to highlight the flaw in your reasoning which is that you are completely ignorant of basic biology and are making an argument from it."
I make Flu Vaccines for a living at Medimmune Inc, and you try and tell me I'm ignorant of basic biology.
Let me explain biology to you. Biology is the study of life, not the study of evolution. Biology if studied correctly and used in the right manner can be used to create new life and new creations for the benefit for humanity.
Flu vaccines are created by injecting eggs with the virus, then retracted from the egg and grown in a flask for approx a week. After growing it in the flask you use that for innoculum for a larger vessel called a bio-reactor for another week. After this stpe you recover the vaccine through filtration and centrifuge then it is sent to be sterilized and bottled for human consumption.
We keep the virus frozen at -80 degrees celsius so we can thaw it and use it as many times as necessary to ake new vaccines. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and have yet had to collect a new virus, because the flu has 95% of the rhinovirus properties it had the previous year. The only thing that may change is the strength at which we make the vaccine.
So, when you say I'm ignorant of basic biology think again. That's why I feel so strongly about creationism. I live and breathe it everyday. That's why when people talk about evolution, I want them to prove it. Prove we came from an animal and not dust, and if we came from an animal; why aren't more animals evolving into humans. I mean I work with bacteria everyday and they're not evolving into different bacteria, the only way they change is if I force them to change by either manipulating their eenvironment or disecting them and programming them to produce something different.
It takes manipulation for something to change, it doesn't just happen.
Really? How old is too old for a man to become a father? Is 83 too old' or maybe 100? My great grandfather fathered my grandmother when he was 83 and Abraham fathered Isaac when he was 100. So, if they can father a child at that age; why can't we evolve to father a child at 200 or even 500 years old?
See the portion where I stated that evolution works with tradeoffs.
Our capacity to age is intrinsic to life, caused from numerous factors but the most obvious factor that I will discuss are mutations and telomeres being shortened in DNA replication. Mutations happen to us all the time, and this can cause disastrous effects, from deactivating our mitochondias' ability to work properly, to basic cell death or cancers. As you live longer you accrue more mutations. Our telomeres are the protective endings on DNA that shorten with each DNA replication cycle, eventually you run out of telomeres and each replication loses important genetic information, eventually leading to cell death or bad metabolic changes.
Evolution works in tradeoffs, you are at you peak from your teenage years to your mid twenties and then you start to show the wear of metabolic disorders, mutations, and so on. However, most humans have successfully reared children by this age, and are done passing on genes. Historically it was human tradition to mate in your early to mid teenage years, because you would most probably die in your thirties because of accidents. Essentially, our prime is our younger years, and modern society has changed this.
If the majority breeds at a younger age, and the older population tends to die (compared to us now) early, there isn't much selecting for long and healthy lives. As far as nature cares, once you've passed on your genes and stop mating, you're expendable. The only way that nature could have been forced to select for longer lives is if we continually bred until death and lived for many decades. However there are natural barriers to this, our telomere length and mutations (there are more aging factors, but these are the simplest and best understood for our discussion), and so those of us who breed until old age would tend to produce less fit children (because our germ-line cells are more mutated) and we would be less fit fathers (our bodies are frail at old age). We would need selective pressure to keep males breeding until old age, and we would eventually run into positive mutations that would increase fitness for old men (and women too, eventually, perhaps extending menopause or eliminating it).
That's how it works, in a nutshell. There's not a lot selecting for us to live until we're 500 years old, so we don't. This is a tradeoff.
Second point: the ages of men in the bible are exaggerated as a form of ancestor worship. Bluntly put, people don't live to be 1000, and with great exception do people live to be 100, let alone father children.
I make Flu Vaccines for a living at Medimmune Inc, and you try and tell me I'm ignorant of basic biology.
You don't need to know very much to do that. That's a medical field and I'll tell you that people in the health-care industry are startlingly ill-informed of taxonomy, cladistics, evolution, and the history of life on earth.
Let me explain biology to you. Biology is the study of life, not the study of evolution. Biology if studied correctly and used in the right manner can be used to create new life and new creations for the benefit for humanity.
Evolution is the GUT of biology, to miss it is to have no idea how everything fits together.
We keep the virus frozen at -80 degrees celsius so we can thaw it and use it as many times as necessary to ake new vaccines. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and have yet had to collect a new virus, because the flu has 95% of the rhinovirus properties it had the previous year. The only thing that may change is the strength at which we make the vaccine.
Tell me, if the virus doesn't evolve, then why are you still in a job? It's a serious question because influenza vaccines could be administered once and for all, per person, and we'd have gradually phased out the flu over the decades so that it's practically extinct like smallpox or very rare like polio.
That's why we can't cure it, it evolves so rapidly that we cannot eliminate it using our immune systems' natural defenses.
Smallpox on the other hand does evolve but apparently slow enough that we could out-maneuver it.
So, when you say I'm ignorant of basic biology think again. That's why I feel so strongly about creationism. I live and breathe it everyday.
So you've seen new "kinds" (whatever kind means in the biological sense, because no creationist ever defines it rigidly) of life pop into existence from thin air? That's what creationism is, it says that god makes life from nothing using magic.
That's why when people talk about evolution, I want them to prove it. Prove we came from an animal and not dust, and if we came from an animal; why aren't more animals evolving into humans.
It's simple to show that we evolved from animals, the chief reason being that we ARE categorically animals. We take in other life to fuel ourselves, we are made up of Eukaryotic cells, we are motile, our cells have no cell walls, etc.
We are descended from primitive primates, and this is obvious because we possess exclusive primate traits like fingernails, two pectoral mammary glands, primate dentition, a flat face, stereoscopic vision (and colour vision on top of that, which is very rare in the animal kingdom, amongst mammals).
Also if you followed the news you'd see that over the last several decades so many fossils have been found that show the relationships between the taxa leading from the most primitive monkeys to us. You'd also know that our genome has been sequenced and compared to primates and we are mostly identical, and we even have the end-points of a pair of primate chromosomes, the telomeres, fused in one case explaining why we have 46 chromosomes and primates have 48.
It's all there for the reading. Creationism is a form of denialism, teaching followers how to not see the obvious connections in evidence, and it gives you contentness in not reading science textbooks on the subject and remaining ignorant of it.
I mean I work with bacteria everyday and they're not evolving into different bacteria, the only way they change is if I force them to change by either manipulating their eenvironment or disecting them and programming them to produce something different.
If you are changing them by changing their environment then you are evolving them.
Evolution doesn't teach that life changes a little and then suddenly poof it's something else. It's always related to its ancestors, and it changes gradually, almost imperceptibly over generations until when you compare a preserved sample from a thousand or a million generations prior to the current one, you don't see the similarities any longer.
It takes manipulation for something to change, it doesn't just happen.
Right. This manipulation comes from our changing environment on earth and the interactions with other life.
Evolution doesn't work that way. It merely finds good-enough solutions to problems which are constrained by resources and therefore we see tradeoffs.
Wait a minute, you claim we come from evolution, and; it suddenly stopped once a human was created? I mean science doesn't work that way, if it happened once it will continue to happen until someone stops it.
So, keep trying to explain your false theory (belief).
Wait a minute, you claim we come from evolution, and; it suddenly stopped once a human was created? I mean science doesn't work that way, if it happened once it will continue to happen until someone stops it.
I never said it stopped with us. We are still evolving, it's just that human evolution is too slow for us to see in our lifetimes. If you lived ten thousand years you'd see subtle changes appearing.
Which came first the chicken or the egg? I'll give you a hint???????
Are you asking when the first thing that could be called an amniotic egg came about? Obviously the amniotic egg we associate with chickens was inherited from the early birds, who made modifications to their line of dinosaur eggs.
The egg predates the chicken, but if you're asking if the egg hatched and out came a newly developed species, the chicken, that is wrong. Chickens came from Gallus, a wild Asian ground bird that we domesticated, and they evolved as a separate population from their ancestors, along with their eggs. In this context there was no "first" egg or bird ancestor, they evolved together.
This is a straw man. The biblical definition of faith is to trust. Having faith in god is to trust in him. Having faith in the bible is to trust in the bible.
Though many say that there is no proof to creationism but yet so much for evolution but yet is there really. Can you not say that scientist are just humans like all the people who believe in evolution and that they may have it all wrong because none of us are perfect . People say that the bible is not real but what if the scientist stories, theories, facts wrong? I know that evolution is not real. But if it is:
Why are monkeys not all evolved?
Who created the Big Bang and where did it come from?
Why do we all have a curiosity if there is a God?
Why do we live on this Earth?
Why would the bible be wrong?
How can a bang create such a complex cell?
Why do we have a knowing of right and wrong but not monkeys?
Why do most people believe in the true Easter story but yet believe in evolution?
There are many more questions that could be asked but if you can answer all these questions than wow you must be supernatural but if you can't you might want to look into reading the bible or try checking out the site www.answersingenesis.com it might give people that can't decide which side to choose some answers.
The bible is to wrong. It has been passed down by word of mouth then only recently written down for the public to read. And survival of the fittest like Charles Darwin said.
There is no evidence for your claim. The bible has been well preserved for a long time and bible translators are always using the oldest manuscripts available. If you were to translate the dead sea scrolls and compare them to the modern bible then you will find that the meaning is the same. So basically any changes to the bible are undone. You can say Martin Luther removed books from the old testament but it was because they weren't in the Jewish Hebrew bible canon. Most changes have been mistakes or clarifications.
Unlike other written works, most ancient bible manuscripts have very little different. The words that are different usually have the same meaning rephrased.
There is an awful lot of faith in far reaching abilities thought capable in biology. Evolution purposes to assembe mutations for purpose of progress, and to further adaptation.
Evolution without a Creator is only selective of biological attractions based on these three basic needs to sustain durability, for survival and to further evolve toward progress through adaptations. But biology has no selection ability for preference!!
This kind of faith in evolution's ability absent a Creator is fairy dust!
It's a heavy acid trip to think evolution without a Creator can manage its designs selective also of preference, attracting mutations that will lead ultimately to design and artistic beauty too. It would actually look like crowded desolate waste with creatures durable and more likely ugly.
Thinking biology can evolve to select mostly beauty is unrealistic!
There are not enough care Bears and fairy dust to sustain that dream!
I'm sure organized artistic beauty can evolved through preferred biological selections for beauty in your make believe word of evolution But really... That's pretty neive faith in evolution's biological focus and creative abilities!
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite.
The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.
Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work.
The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe.
Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order.
To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill.
All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.
A message from the heart to debaters who fight in favor of evolution. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how you define it. Adaptation takes a formed life form and adapts within its own fully formed makeup. It doesnt adapt by becoming a different creature.
Evolution defined as used to describe the establishment of life and nature as we sknow it is not adaptation. As a term used in the debate of Creator vs self creation of evolution.
So please stick to the definition. Adaptation is subtle. Evolution is creative in a foundational sense
Adaptation would be darkening of pigmentstion or lengthening a nose to adapt to changing atmosphere. But there is no drastic changes needed for evolution.
I dont argue and poke fun out of a dislike for you. I am hoping at some point you will question reasonably and logically some of the things you accepy as truth and isnt founded in science or logic or reasoning.
I am not being mean or cruel, I'm challenging you for a greater purpose, to question and weigh reasonably.
Like evolution starts aftwr life forms are already in process and builds on it, balancing nature in the process to foster the evolving life forms and to support its progressive action to its current presentation.
Yet when proof of the Bible has connections confirmed, in front of your face, it is denied.
Arent these connections similar. Yet at least with the Bible evidence is tangable and visible, and not just assumptive, as seen in the foundation of the biginning of life, the first life form that assembled itself to start with, then the balancing act needed to progress from the beginning.
Neither of these at the foundation are logical, no matter what biology connects similarities, and no matter what adaptations we see after the fact of a living thing at its completion.
There is only evidence of biological simillarites. Not sound science in the beginning of the first formed living thing. Nor in the balance required beyond that, with entropy working against it from the creation of the first cell, and naturally beyond that!
Creatures with eyes have eye genes. But its a big jump to then say life formed and stabilized out of nonliving matter.
Its a religion of idiots.
Its the greatest insult to the Creator. The actual creator.
Man being a god created himself out of a process from nothing.
Man breathed life into himself out of evolving from a combination of dead matter.
Not even another god, a nothing god ... the earth was void, unformed, darkness over the deep. Into nothing He brought forth life, into chaos He established the balance for life to continue.
And evolution is the god nothing. The self god, nature and man created self by selection of the best. The self made man, evolved from nothing.
The evidence for creationism is as strong as evolution. To prove my point I will list a couple of reasons. 1 - The drawings by Ernst Haeckel have been known to be fraudulent for more than 100 years. 2 - There are almost no transitional fossils(except for fossils that have been highly debated whether or not they are transitional) and most creatures spring up without a transitional common ancestor. 3 - the human ancestor species have either been completely human like(neanderthals, homo habilis, and other homo species) or completely ape like(Australopithecus A.). 4 - And some are barely even complete(Sahelanthropus Tchadensis with only an upper skull found, and Lucy with only a few bones found in a specific area).
Evolution can't explain why we technologically evolved to such a level far beyond other animals that came before(according to evolutionary theory).
1. Humans are the only truly bipedal primate, all other great apes can only walk bipedally for a short time.
2. We have the biggest brain of any primate.
3. We are the only animals that can talk with our mouths
4. We are the only great ape with a ton of white in their eyes
5. We are the only great ape(other than the chimp) to have dark brown to pale skin. Other great apes have gray or dark gray skin.
6. We actually only share 85% of our DNA with Chimps(1% of DNA has as much information as 10 bible sized books).
7. Written records only go back up to 5000 years, beyond that we have to use less reliable methods.
8. Homo sapiens according to Evolutionists first appeared 200,000 thousand years ago, yet civilization only started a few thousand years ago. What were humans doing those first few hundred thousand years? There is no evidence that these prehistoric humans were less mentally capacitated than modern humans
9. We often find dinosaur fossils with flesh, blood, collagen, and even carbon 14 still on them(which doesn't make sense if they are a million years old.
10. There are fossil footprints even older than Tiktaalik(the supposed ancestor of all modern land vertebrates.)