Evolution/Creationism. (in Off-topic)


Ernest-Scribbler March 24 2009 1:47 AM EDT

After a vigorous debate at work i decided to do a little poll.
Theory of evolution ( man evolved from apes etc...)
Theory of creationism ( god created man etc...)

This is a controversial area so pm me your answers only if you are comfortable with me knowing. I will not post names only votes for a and votes for b. I do not need explanations for your choices as i want to keep this simple.

We were discussing groups that were different for reasons outside of there religious beliefs following different trends.

Thank you if you help.

Daz March 24 2009 2:06 AM EDT

Evolution.

Evolution and religion can coexist, I don't see the need for nonsense to be taught in schools. If you go to a religious school, then fine, but public schools shouldn't have any religion in them - Leave that for peoples Sundays and homes.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 2:12 AM EDT

i was under the impression that evolution was a fact and the only thing theoretical about it was understanding the processes and mechanics as well as their importance to evolution.

furthermore, creationism is more of a religious teaching rather than a scientific theory. next we will have to vote on moses' theory of fluid dynamics? ; )

Goodfish March 24 2009 3:25 AM EDT

That reminds me of the most disgusting thing I've seen on TV in a long time. I was watching "18 and Counting" with my sister, and the family went to a "Creationist Science Museum" (oxymoron...). Then the dad proceeded to complain about how schools weren't teaching Creationism and that they were only teaching the, and I quote, "fallacy of evolution". I was so grilled that I turned the TV off.

Evolution, naturally. dudemus said it well- evolution is well-documented fact, and honestly I don't understand why (some) Christians have a problem with it. Turn the "seven days" thing into an allegory (because people back then had no clue how LONG 4 billion years is), and bam. You're done. Problem solved.

GoLDeNGaTE March 24 2009 4:28 AM EDT

The Cambrian Explosion shows thousands of species of life coming into existence in "the blink of an eye" when put into perspective of the time it takes to "evolve". Also, Darwin denounced his own theory of evolution before he died...I think you have to be closed minded not to believe in God, and I also believe in adaptation...

Why do monkeys still have monkey babies, and if did evolve from them, why are they still here? Evolve=change into something else...or did the apes just happen to pop out a few humans here and there?

QBJohnnywas March 24 2009 4:36 AM EDT

Darwin did not change his views on his deathbed. That was a falsehood, denied at the time by his own family who were present.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 24 2009 4:43 AM EDT

please note: Theory of evolution

Is not a theory, it is a proven fact.
Most call it a theory because darwin had no evidence back then to back it up. However since Darwin scientists all over the world found evidence backing this "theory" up thus its no longer a theory.

Its a theory in the same way as Einstein' theory of relativity.

blackshadowshade March 24 2009 4:53 AM EDT

I think the problem is that these two concepts are considered to be disjoint, as evidenced by the fact that there are many debates of Evolution vs Creationism.

The one is a scientific theory (and yes, I say theory, since NOTHING in science can be proven), and the other is a belief with many different interpretations. The two can't really be compared---the same problem as comparing apples and philosophies.

Then again, maybe the problem is just the fact that Creationism is by definition abstract, as shown by the -ism at the back. :)

Ffive March 24 2009 4:56 AM EDT

evolution.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 24 2009 4:56 AM EDT

lol goldengate you're actually saying 2 things there:
one: the earth is older then 10.000 years (like most creationist like to believe)
two: You say all the animals popped up all of a sudden. Well its not like all the animals popped up after the explosion it took about 70 or 80 million years. And then its accelerated evolution. Well 70 to 80 million years of it anyways. :)

Don't forget 70 to 80 millions years is long long looooong time.
And the apes now aren't around 70 to 80 millions years. Give them a few millions years and some drastic environment changes later and they get evolved as well.

And for the record, calling people who don't believe in god close minded is rather close minded.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 24 2009 4:59 AM EDT

Warlord shadowshade said

"since NOTHING in science can be proven"

nah you're right there, science these days is all about guessing what happens next.

That explains cars, plains, hydrodynamics (ooh another theory), relativity (wait that was actually proven), television, internet, CB actually (someone had to program it and someone had to make a theory how to program it so does it make it proven? ergo the proof is right in front of you), pc's, etc...

ResistanZ March 24 2009 5:54 AM EDT

Goldengate, you calling people who don't believe in God close-minded is the most close-minded thing I've heard in a long time.

iBananco [Blue Army] March 24 2009 6:03 AM EDT

"Why do monkeys still have monkey babies, and if did evolve from them, why are they still here? Evolve=change into something else...or did the apes just happen to pop out a few humans here and there?"
Speciation doesn't imply anything about the original population. A small subpopulation could splinter off and migrate, entering a new environment.

blackshadowshade March 24 2009 6:10 AM EDT

Henk, it sounds like you've never done any philosophy of science. If you haven't read it, you might learn something from "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.

Flatcap [East Milwaukee Devival] March 24 2009 6:45 AM EDT

The laws of science can be proven through observation. Thats what science is, observation.

"Why do monkeys still have monkey babies, and if did evolve from them, why are they still here?"

Pick a hard one, Paralell evolution is so common that you see it every time you look out the window. Every different speceies has a common ancestor one way or another. Unless you think the adapted traits of each species just suddenly showed up. You could say oh no why do sea turtles have flippers when my cute painted turtle has stubby feet. Or why do crocodiles have elongated jaws. Heck man evolution has been forced in many species, take the daschund for instance. It was bred to chase weasels. The long spine was not a fully natural mass mutation

blackshadowshade March 24 2009 6:47 AM EDT

Science is not observation. Science STARTS with observation, and then attempts to develop rules/theories that explain not only those things that have been observed, but also those things that have not yet been observed.

Since we cannot have observed everything, it is not possible to prove anything in science.

QED (or not?) ;)

Sickone March 24 2009 6:47 AM EDT

Contesting the fact evolution CAN explain everything past the origins of life to the current situation we have right now is just... ungh... anger levels rising.

The culmination of ignorance and/or stupidity I have personally had the displeasure of experiencing more than once is something that boils down to two things : either "evolution is just a theory" (yeah, it is, but they are confusing proven "theory" with unproven "hypothesis") or that "scientists disagree on it" (no, they really don't, the only thing scientists even remotely disagree is the origins of life, NOT the evolution of life).
Sure, we might not have a 100% foolproof theory as how life STARTED existing, but we have 99.99% foolproof theories about it, and no, they don't involve "God(s) made it start" anywhere in their description.

I love it how even preponents of "Intelligent Design" always try to sidestep the proper scientific method in an appeal to so-called "common sense" that is just baddly applied science, or downright bad science. You know, stuff like "information cannot be created" (yes it can), "complexity can't possibly increase" (what the heck) or "evolution can't be observed" (oh, and I suppose all genetics research is fake, and we never managed to intentionally modify life forms, all those species of domestic animals and farmed fields were like that since forever, eh?)

Genetics and evolution are not just empty untested hypotheses, they are proven theories, and they have all been put to PRACTICAL use already. Trying to say otherwise is just... I don't even have a word for it.
Sure, if you want to believe SOME god or gods created the first lifeforms on the planet, that you can believe, since we don't yet have definitive proof to the contrary... but claim evolution is a fake concept and God created the planet and all life 6000 years ago in 7 days, that's taking it way, way too far. People have been sent to the looney bin for less, and the only reason you're not in there yet it's because there's to many with the same delusional idea running around to put into hospices.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 9:08 AM EDT

Creationism.

And before blood starts shooting out of Sickone's eyes, let me explain (Note to self, if I start writing too much, post a link to a .pdf):
First off, I do believe in MICROevolution (that changes happen within a species, due to natural selection and/or genetic mutation), but I disagree when it comes to MACROevolution.

I suppose I'll start at the beginning:
The Big Bang.
So this is what evolutionists say: "BOOM! Explosion! Life!"
Now, let's look at the world right now. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, they applied a lot of energy to it. A whole lot. Bombs, explosions and fires.
Was anything created by it? Not a thing.
A few years later, we applied even more energy to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (you know, returning the favor), and not a thing was made.

Has anyone ever seen a beautiful Rolls-Royce, and said, "Woah! The explosion in a car factory that made that 'un was sure a doozy!"
It is statistically more likely that an explosion in a printers shop created the Encyclopedia Britannica, because all the information (letters/numbers) were ALREADY THERE.
That's something else I take issue with; the Big Bang would have had to create the information required for life to exist, from an explosion, which is beyond unlikely.

Moving on...

After reading an evolutionist-slanted text-book for science (I AM 13, ye'know), I found something very interesting:
Evolutionists believe we came from a rock.
They say: "Your nuts, we don't believe that!", but when you look at their text-books, what does it say? We came from a "biological soup". Ask them where the "soup" comes from, they say, "It rained on the rocks for mill- Oh."
Just something I found humorous.

If the Earth is billions of years old, evolutionists have to account for several things:
The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Following this train of thought, you have to arrive at the conclusion that the moon was CLOSER in the PAST. So for the Earth to be as old as evolutionists say, the moon would have to have been connected to the Earth. Of course, some scientists would just tell you that the moon broke off from Earth. Uh-huh.

As for strata, the ever present billy-club that evolutionists try to use to beat creationists over the head (I've always wanted to use that analogy):
Firstly, we do NOT know that they were laid down at a constant rate (I.e., 1 layer of strata every 50 million years), and in fact, there is evidence that the strata was laid down quickly such as:

http://image38.webshots.com/39/5/52/77/2019552770087254215uKqBcZ_fs.jpg

Or

http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH073265.jpg?size=67&uid=%7BCB32A694-808C-4358-9CE5-AD3D85A46E55%7D

If that strata was laid down over millions of years, how do you reckon that it bent and folded?
And what about Polystrate trees, that have been shown to go through many layers of fossils?

Just a real brief run-down of some of the things I take issue with about evolution.
And hopefully I didn't offend anybody. :)

QBsutekh137 March 24 2009 9:22 AM EDT

Just to pipe in about "theories" and "laws"...

Technically, science is never "done". If that were the case, relativity and quantum physics would have forced hundreds of classical physicists to commit ritual suicide. *smile* But they didn't. They adapted.

A "theory" is less strong than a "law". In classical dynamics, it is called the "Law of Gravity", not the "Theory of Gravity".

So, letting Google sort it out, I did a (patently non-scientific) search for the two:

"Law of Evolution" -- 115,000 approximate hits
"Theory of Evolution" -- 2,710,000 approximate hits

So, whatever it is, perception and labels still "at large" side greatly with calling Evolution a "theory". Not a "fact" (there is not really any nomenclature like "fact" in the scientific method that I have heard about) or a "law".

It's a pretty strong theory, though, and when it comes to theories, there is an evolution of sorts there, too. In other words, which idea is stronger?

I side with Evolution.

iBananco [Blue Army] March 24 2009 9:29 AM EDT

"First off, I do believe in MICROevolution (that changes happen within a species, due to natural selection and/or genetic mutation), but I disagree when it comes to MACROevolution."
Macroevolution is iterated microevolution.

"I suppose I'll start at the beginning:
The Big Bang.
So this is what evolutionists say: "BOOM! Explosion! Life!"
Now, let's look at the world right now. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, they applied a lot of energy to it. A whole lot. Bombs, explosions and fires.
Was anything created by it? Not a thing.


A few years later, we applied even more energy to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (you know, returning the favor), and not a thing was made.

Has anyone ever seen a beautiful Rolls-Royce, and said, "Woah! The explosion in a car factory that made that 'un was sure a doozy!"
It is statistically more likely that an explosion in a printers shop created the Encyclopedia Britannica, because all the information (letters/numbers) were ALREADY THERE.
That's something else I take issue with; the Big Bang would have had to create the information required for life to exist, from an explosion, which is beyond unlikely."
A common misconception. Flaw one: Toss ten coins. What is the probability that you'll come up with "HTTHHTHHTH?" 1 in 1024. Is it likely to happen the next time you try tossing ten coins? Of course not. But would you be surprised if this combination DID arise? Again, of course not. The unlikelihood of this particular event occurring is low, but it isn't any less likely than the next. Secondly, order is easily capable of arising from disorder. Imagine a cloud of diffuse particles. Gravity then causes these particles to coalesce into discrete clumps. A simple attractive force causes what appears to be order arising from a state of disorder. In addition, nowhere do scientists claim that the Big Bang was directly responsible for life.

"After reading an evolutionist-slanted text-book for science (I AM 13, ye'know), I found something very interesting:
Evolutionists believe we came from a rock.
They say: 'You['re] nuts, we don't believe that!', but when you look at their text-books, what does it say? We came from a 'biological soup'. Ask them where the 'soup' comes from, they say, 'It rained on the rocks for mill- Oh.'
Just something I found humorous."
How is it absurd that organic precursor molecules were generated from abiotic processes? I don't see the issue here.

"If the Earth is billions of years old, evolutionists have to account for several things:
The moon moves away from the earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Following this train of thought, you have to arrive at the conclusion that the moon was CLOSER in the PAST. So for the Earth to be as old as evolutionists say, the moon would have to have been connected to the Earth. Of course, some scientists would just tell you that the moon broke off from Earth. Uh-huh."


"As for strata, the ever present billy-club that evolutionists try to use to beat creationists over the head (I've always wanted to use that analogy):
Firstly, we do NOT know that they were laid down at a constant rate (I.e., 1 layer of strata every 50 million years), and in fact, there is evidence that the strata was laid down quickly such as:

http://image38.webshots.com/39/5/52/77/2019552770087254215uKqBcZ_fs.jpg

Or

http://pro.corbis.com/images/IH073265.jpg?size=67&uid=%7BCB32A694-808C-4358-9CE5-AD3D85A46E55%7D

If that strata was laid down over millions of years, how do you reckon that it bent and folded?"
Are you familiar with earthquakes? Geological forces are easily capable of buckling earth.

"And what about Polystrate trees, that have been shown to go through many layers of fossils?"
Can't address this one at the moment. I'll get back to you after some research.

lotien March 24 2009 9:33 AM EDT

Creationism

Ancient Anubis March 24 2009 9:39 AM EDT

i have only one comment God rested on the seventh day and in my opinion left a job half done hence all of todays problems. Lesson to be learned here rest on the seventh day and your bound to have missed out on something so bring on the 7 day working week. :P

BluBBen March 24 2009 9:41 AM EDT

How can people be so blind! The bible is made up book, it's about as true as any other book or movie "based on a true story".
Religion is a matter of faith while science are in many aspects proved and is a fact!

chaosal March 24 2009 9:47 AM EDT

it seems to be clear that evolution (the adaptation, not creation of life) is accepted as truth. the conflict arises when some try to extrapolate the beginning of life by applying the same pattern.

all forms of the argument are on a spectrum between "no god involvement", where life came about by chance (albeit iterated as long as necessary for that to happen) furthered by evolution and "pure god involvement" where everything was created from nothing as a literal translation of genesis. anything in between is based on a subjective view of god, and how much of a role was played in man's development. as has been stated, observed, and concluded many times over in as many contexts, faith cannot be proven. this leaves the spectrum subjective for all who still breathe.

not to say that things cannot be learned by proposing thoughts about the creation of the universe and studying the effects of such a pattern, but that it is horribly presumptuous to say for a fact you know how it was done. any true scientist will admit science is nowhere near perfect, so it's impossible to exactly state the "no god involvement" side, and any true believer will consider it blasphemy to assume they know how god works, making it impossible to exactly state the "pure god involvement side" beyond what is in the bible.

so, we can never nail down the answer without god, and we can never know how much god was involved. what, then, does it matter? to put forth a hypothesis is exactly that, and cannot be claimed more true than another. anyone who gets upset about someone else's views really needs to take themselves less seriously.

Flatcap [East Milwaukee Devival] March 24 2009 10:28 AM EDT

"A few years later, we applied even more energy to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (you know, returning the favor), and not a thing was made. "

Mankind cannot create nearly the energy release by the sun in one second.

The biological soup you refer to is proteins what they were refering to is the random coincidence that they manage to mash together to create RNa then mash together again to create DNA then Make it over the last hurdle to organic life. It's hard to imagine a while mass of random molecules smashing together over trillions of years to form something complex, really.

The moon moves every so slightly from the planet every year and every year this process accelerates due to the laws of gravity. There are hundreds of theories on the moon and how it came to be, I fly by dwarf planet myself.

"If that strata was laid down over millions of years, how do you reckon that it bent and folded? "

Well for one bent and folded isn't whats in that picture, it's erosion, it doesnt happen evenly. But moreso the crust of our little planet isn't static it shifts and moves every day, 3rd grade science class would have told you that our planet consists of a solid iron core surrounded by molten rock surrounded by tectonic plates that collide and sink below each other. (On that note, there is also more energy stored in the plantet as heat than in all of the weapons ever created by man and all of the energy ever created by man)

Lord Bob March 24 2009 10:35 AM EDT

"I think you have to be closed minded not to believe in God,"

I think you have to be delusional to believe in one.

"Why do monkeys still have monkey babies, and if did evolve from them, why are they still here?"

Thank you for demonstrating that you have absolutely no grasp of the theory of evolution or how it really works.

Obviously, I believe in evolution.

ceslis March 24 2009 10:43 AM EDT

I believe in a combination of both. Considering both sides are an extreme. The goal of science is to disprove a god or whatever you may believe in which it cant. And the goal of religion is to disprove science neither side can really do it all. I believe that there is a form of evolution within species, but i find it quite hard to believe that we came from other species. This is just how i feel though.

On a funny side How does evolution explain the Duck Billed Platypus :D

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 24 2009 10:49 AM EDT

"Henk, it sounds like you've never done any philosophy of science. If you haven't read it, you might learn something from "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn."

Well yes I did do science, and every little thing I learned in college about science was backed up by well proven theories.

It rather sounds like you never did any science...

anyway, you can think all you want, in every script, be it the bible or theory of evolution there will be inconsistencies.

I'm not here to to change your way of thinking and quit frankly I really don't care what you think.
But don't try and convert my way or anyone else's way of thinking.
Which most creationists do.

blackshadowshade March 24 2009 10:51 AM EDT

I never accused you of not doing science, Henk. Rather, I referred to the PHILOSOPHY of science.

I certainly have done science and am currently a researcher. It is here at the cutting edge of research that you HAVE to often assume that what is accepted is wrong.

{cb2}Dinh March 24 2009 10:57 AM EDT

+2 ceslis ;) God Exists, although for 20 of my 24 years I was on the other side of the fence with the majority here and I actually would poke fun at people for believing in God...anyway, that was back before I starting looking because I didn't want to know, it's easier to just turn your cheek and look the other way. But once you really know God, when you find him yourself and not by someone cramming it down your throat, you can never turn away. It's no secret that Jesus lived, thats all that matters...

-2 Blubben...just ignorant, the Bible is actually the oldest and most historical document to date. Lots of things that happened in the bible are correct, and it also justifies other facts from different time periods.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 10:58 AM EDT

I hope all your women are wearing appropriate head coverings oh ye of literal interpretations...

The creation story is beautiful if you take away the hatred for science. Trying to force a valid play by play of the worlds creation from it is cruel both to yourself and to the story. You owe it to yourself to try and understand what is being taught in the story, rather than closing yourself off because of it. The ineffable nature of existence is not going to end up being explained to you, you have to find it for yourself. The stories in the bible attempt to help you to find your way to understanding.

Stop being obstinate and use your brain. If you believe in a creator, he's the one who gave it to you. Magic doesn't exist, magical thinking is dangerous. The path to understanding the divine certainly doesn't go through the valley of being a fundie.

QBOddBird March 24 2009 11:09 AM EDT

+1 novice

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 11:09 AM EDT

And where the heck did you get the information to create D/RNA?

As to 3B, I think most great historians disagree with you there.

QBOddBird March 24 2009 11:11 AM EDT

Oh right, my 2 cents worth.

Creationism, I simply find it easier to grasp the concept of such an intricate and complex universe being the result of intelligent design rather than mere happenstance.

{cb2}Dinh March 24 2009 11:11 AM EDT

+2 novice

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 11:12 AM EDT

And Dinh, Jesus' living is pretty unimportant. It's his death and resurrection that matters, although that should be in a different thread.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] March 24 2009 11:12 AM EDT

belief in anything is just a by product of our inadequate sensory apparatus and our far too adequate egos :P

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 11:13 AM EDT

I don't get any points? You know how long it took me to type that stuff up? ;P

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 11:26 AM EDT

here is a good read describing the different aspects of evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 11:40 AM EDT

""I think you have to be closed minded not to believe in God,"

I think you have to be delusional to believe in one."

;)

I think it's hubris to claim specifically that a God does exist. And also that they don't.

Evolution, if you have to push me. But I'm open to the possibility that we were created by something. Be it a supernatural being, or even a race of supra intelligent 'aliens'.

QBJohnnywas March 24 2009 11:41 AM EDT

I firmly believe, no more than that, I know at a gut level we are descended from and closely related to apes. You only need to see how chimps for example behave to see that what we call human characteristics are actually ape characteristics. They have the same feelings and needs and desires as us, they're as capable of cruelty as man is. We are the same creature, only accidents of birth, effects of environment and these thumbs of ours have set us down the path we are on.



AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 11:43 AM EDT

I don't tihnk it's in any doubt that our closest common ancestors are primates. Or that we evloved from another form.

But how did life originally get here? ;)

Eurynome Bartleby [Bartleby's] March 24 2009 11:51 AM EDT

Evolution, the big bang, etc... are the theories that explain to me what has happened since the start of our percievable universe. I label them probable. (Nothing is 100% certain, even with strong proof.) I accept them as proper explanation.

Before the time frame these theories cover however, with our current means of understanding, I don't think we can imagine what Was, Then. Choose your story, it's gonna be as good as anybody's. Nobody was a fool to believe in the shortcut to India, back in the day :P (That was correctly clarified at some point, and people do not continue to argue that North America isn't in the way to get there.)

Now, I find it hard to believe in the concept of god, as is described in our many kinds of holy books. But there is some other ''force'' at work, to be sure. I am unable to name it. (Or them, heh? Is it even sentient? Are they?...etc) But I don't think anyone can understand what it is. No words exist to describe it YET. That will come though as all knowledge, I believe, is going to be ours someday.

In short
-Evolution: Absolutely.

-Creationism: Not in the way people of faith see it.

-The two: Are compatible, and I don't see a problem with that. It is my opinion that rejecting Evolution is rather ignorant, BUT, rejecting the theory of a god that put it in place is not much better. Like I said, past our current understanding of things, everything goes, until proven.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 11:52 AM EDT

GL, you don't think that there is a God, but you'll admit to the possibility of aliens "seeding" life on Earth? That takes a whole lot more faith to believe in, than in a God. ;)

chaosal March 24 2009 11:57 AM EDT

it's funny how multiple people can say the same thing but some are still prone to argument.

Thak March 24 2009 12:21 PM EDT

Creationism verses evolution huh? I have to go with evolution considering the same people that believed in creationism are the same ones that wanted astronomers dead for saying the sun and planets dont revolve around the earth and that the earth was round thousands of years ago. Boy were they wrong! Also considering what we know about space we have seen planets and suns being formed through our telescopes.

Radiation causes mutation as we all know. Plants are the most susceptible to radiation the and fastest to evolve over any other species of the planet. Also considering what we know about space now.
And whoever made that japan comment, look at chernobyl there are many new species/mutants around the immediate blast area most famous the giant earthworm.

How all this life got here will always be open for debate. Its the good ole wich came forst the chicken or the egg debate. But once it was here it was all evolution for sure.

No matter what your religion is your bible is nothing more then a book of morales and guidelines on how to live your life. Its basicly the same as the boy who cryed wolf story just more of it.

And If you really want to dig deep religion itself has evolved too so explain that one.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 24 2009 12:25 PM EDT

Um. Thak. What the heck does radiation have to do with anything? You say how we got here is debatable, but that is one of the most important points! And you offer zero evidence to support evolution.

Thak March 24 2009 12:33 PM EDT

Just as a added note to the alien talk. The vatican now admitts there is a possibilityy of other life out there and accepts the possibility of aliens. So god and aliens is no longer a issue on the long going evolution creation dispute.
For the christian based religions at least.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- March 24 2009 12:34 PM EDT

"The one is a scientific theory (and yes, I say theory, since NOTHING in science can be proven)"

This made me facepalm so bad >_>

Thak March 24 2009 12:37 PM EDT

Ummm thought that was obvious, radiation is the catalyst that causes evolution/mutation that is what radiation has to do with it. everything.

Wether it be from the sun or other things around us. eg any wireless signal is a form of radiation and the sun dumps a ton of it on our planet daily

{CB1}Sparticus [Screwed Justice] March 24 2009 12:40 PM EDT

Whether your talking science or religion. People must admit there are a plethora questions about our coming into being, and whether or not there was divine influence that shaped/created our universe.

i fall somewhere inbetween(Yes it is possible). I just try to keep it realistic.

I live smack in the middle of a bunch of wierd religions(morman's/meninite's/redneck-hillbillies,etc..) and i've heard some doosies.

such as---

The world is only 5k years old and we lived with dinosaurs(first time i heard someone say this i almost died from laughter)

Jesus lived with the natives in america and wrote some book on golden tablets that noone else has ever seen.(pure poppy-cock,, What, did jesus walk all the way across the atlantic or did the aliens drop em off)(not arguing the that jesus lived, even the romans have record of him)

i could go on all day like this. The fact is that people since the beginning of "thought" have tried to explain the things around them.
"a meteor hits near 2 cities and they are reduced to rubble, 2k years later its still in a religious text as god smiting the evil-doers "Sodom and Gamora".

people take religious texts way to serious, forgetting that most were written in a time where earthquakes/tornadoes/freak weather/meteors/over all natural disasters were viewed as Gods judgements.

I am not saying that miracles dont happen, and that "god" doesnt exist. I just dont think there is any 1 religion out there that is 100% correct. therefore I believe it is up to each individual to develop there own spiritual connection with whatever higher powers that be.

Though as a parting note, Here's my crackpot theory.

Our ancestors were visited alright, but it wasn't god or even a god.

I am not ignorant/arrogent enough to believe we are the only life in this universe, and as the last 50 years have shown, our own ingenuity has made it possible to travel off our planet(which on a universal standard is very young). So you take an older planet under the right circumstances, it "could" produce life similar to ours, only maybe they've been at it for millions of years longer then we have.

And they are probably still try to figure out the god question themselves.

And as far as the Creation/Evolution part at some point im sure it was both(to a point). Quite a few creationism advocates say the earth cant be more then 10k years old. It is one of the first things they will argue, which for me is a magor turn off. Nothing like talking to someone who has "Idiot" tattoed on there forhead.


iBananco [Blue Army] March 24 2009 12:46 PM EDT

"And where the heck did you get the information to create D/RNA?"
Nucleotides are actually very simple compounds. It's not at all a far stretch to see them popping up from inorganic materials.

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- March 24 2009 12:50 PM EDT

I agree with spart... my .02 is that people will argue over ANYTHING. Combined with the internet, have fun ye` modern day swashbucklers!

ZzZzz My theory is that we are all just bacteria feeding off of the earth like a cancer. Spreading and depleting all resources in our path. Argue with me on that please! =) now that we can all agree humans are a leet plague... Lets argue about theories /eyeroll

chaosal March 24 2009 12:51 PM EDT

jir, you know what they say about arguing on the internet.. :)

AdminNightStrike March 24 2009 12:52 PM EDT

"The bible is made up book, it's about as true as any other book or movie "based on a true story"."

The bible is a collection of many books, not a single book, each with a different purpose. Some were stories meant to educate, some were historically accurate recounts of events (insomuch as historical accuracy could be maintained given the timeframe), and some are just thoughts on a page. Your broad generalization of the content held within is somewhat misguided.


That said....

"-2 Blubben...just ignorant, the Bible is actually the oldest and most historical document to date. Lots of things that happened in the bible are correct, and it also justifies other facts from different time periods."

The bible is hardly the oldest document, and it is far from being a historical text. This idea of literally reading every line by line * evolved* from the protestant offshoots that didn't understand how to read a book within the context in which it was written. Calling the bible a historical document is like calling a Michael Moore film a legitimate documentary. Not only is it dead wrong, but it undermines the very purpose of most of the books in the first place.

This sort of egocentric fallacy is indicative of the American culture. You have to realize that there are other people outside of this country that think differently and approach situations from a standpoint that you do not. And, in fact, it is just these people that started the religions based on the document you think is so historically accurate.

Case in point -- if you go to Egypt, it would not be uncommon to find a marriage counselor that listens to both husband and wife complain, then proceeds to tell the husband that he is right and the wife that she is right. Why is this? Mainly because the culture in that particular region is perfectly ok with accepting two conflicting states as being true simultaneously, even when doing so will contradict each other. In this country, such a thing is much harder to grasp, as we live in the land of lawyers, semantics, and root-cause analysis. We are just that -- analytical. The authors of the roughly 70 books you claim are the oldest documents ever are *FAR* from analytical. They *feel* their writings, and do not attempt to portray any sort of minute-by-minute recount of a particular event.

Just look at the four accepted gospels. They each given very different "recounts" on the events that transpired leading up to the death and resurrection of Christ. How can they all be right? Easily enough, each book has a very different purpose, with a different perspective and a different viewpoint to teach different things. How can you claim historical accuracy in detail greater than "Christ died" when all 4 books conflict? The answer is that you shouldn't be reading it from the standpoint of a CSI detective doing event reconstruction. If you are, you're reading the wrong set of books.

</rant>

SimplyNic March 24 2009 1:14 PM EDT

"GL, you don't think that there is a God, but you'll admit to the possibility of aliens "seeding" life on Earth? That takes a whole lot more faith to believe in, than in a God. ;)"

I believe in aliens. When you think about it there are trillions and trillions of other galaxies out there. At least one has to have life. And if there is no other life, this "God" character sure lacked creativity...

Oh, and I'm all for evolution. If we were descended from 2 humans (Adam and Eve) I would never be able to look at a woman and say "That's my sister I'm staring at right now... Or is it my cousin? My second cousin? My third cousin twice removed from any side?" so on so forth. And besides, I still have 10 fingers and toes. Both my eye-lids are still intact. I'm perfectly healthy (physically not mentally in case anyone that knows me well enough tries to pull something off that xD). So obviously I don't come from the same two people that started the whole human race. Least so says the bible.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 1:52 PM EDT

"Calling the bible a historical document is like calling a Michael Moore film a legitimate documentary."

i lol'd at that one, thanks!

Thak March 24 2009 2:14 PM EDT

"Science is not observation. Science STARTS with observation, and then attempts to develop rules/theories that explain not only those things that have been observed, but also those things that have not yet been observed."

shadowshade their is a key part of your explanation of science which is left out. You have pretty much the whole idea cept for that fact of being able to replicate those observations with those rules applied and PROVE that is what causes/caused it. (it being a tree growing or whatever you are observing)

We couldnt observe atoms 150 years ago but now we can break them apart, mash them together and explode them. so you are saying they havent proven atoms are real that they only observed them and that the proof of them isnt really proof just a possiblity

Colonel Custard March 24 2009 2:24 PM EDT

First of all, let me roll my eyes. Why are people getting so upset? Why are people purposely (or at least knowingly) being disrespectful to each other? Are you threatened by a casual exchange of ideas? Thanks.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, +2 to Marlfish for his new name.

And, what the heck, maybe some thoughts on the subject.
chaosal and shadowshade seem pretty on point to me.

DISCLAIMER:
I'm not arguing with you, per se. I'm just throwing forth ideas or answering questions or asking questions. And thinking on a page, too.

Henk:
"lol goldengate you're actually saying 2 things there:
one: the earth is older then 10.000 years (like most creationist like to believe)"
Do you think that young earth creationists simply don't believe that dinosaurs ever existed, because their official age is more than 10,000 years ago? That's the only way I can see that he was implying at all that the earth must be older than 10,000 years. Personally, I don't claim to know how old the earth is, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who simply doesn't believe dinosaurs ever existed.

Sickone:
"Sure, we might not have a 100% foolproof theory as how life STARTED existing, but we have 99.99% foolproof theories about it, and no, they don't involve "God(s) made it start" anywhere in their description."
Give me an example. Materialism alone can't explain the origins of the universe, and I doubt it can explain the spontaneous generation of life. Not that that's the issue even being discussed here, but I'm curious as to whether you were just saying that or not.

"I love it how even preponents of "Intelligent Design" always try to sidestep the proper scientific method in an appeal to so-called "common sense" that is just baddly applied science, or downright bad science. You know, stuff like "information cannot be created" (yes it can), "complexity can't possibly increase" (what the heck) or "evolution can't be observed" (oh, and I suppose all genetics research is fake, and we never managed to intentionally modify life forms, all those species of domestic animals and farmed fields were like that since forever, eh?)"
"Yes it can" doesnメt really convince me. What can you point at, since the beginning of the Universe, that is an example of new information being created (outside, of course, of the circular argument that unobserved but necessary steps in the evolutionary process prove that information can be created).
"What the heck" is also a fairly weak counterpoint. I'll tell you what the heck: the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that an isolated system that is not in equilibrium (our universe, for example) will continually increase in entropy (a measure of disorder). So complexity, in information or otherwise, has no known precedent for increasing on its own.
The third point you raise is a quite valid argument as well. Do you have an example of separate populations of a species that have diverged to the point of no longer being able to interbreed during the course of scientific observation? We are able to manipulate the information that is already there, but that shouldn't be any big surprise. Yes, we've created new breeds of dogs, for example, but they are all the same species, and still can interbreed.

"Sure, if you want to believe SOME god or gods created the first lifeforms on the planet, that you can believe, since we don't yet have definitive proof to the contrary"
Don't YET have definitive proof to the contrary? Explain to me, please, how one would even begin to go about getting proof of something like that? Proof or disproof of extraphysical matter/phenomena/entities is entirely outside the scope of science. Plus, assuming that any portion of God extends beyond the Universe (which I take for granted), we really would have no basis on which to even apply the oldest and most basic scientific concepts to such a being, as all our observation and research has been limited to objects, concepts, energy, and actions in this universe.

No offense, Sickone. I didn't even mean to say so much in response to your post, or to argue very hard here. I hope my tone doesn't come across as sarcastic or disrespectful, though I sometimes get caught up in that when I'm typing something that requires a lot of processing power (in my head, I mean).

Marl:
The Big Bang does not directly relate to Evolution. There are ways in which Creationism is an alternative to either, or both, but every discussion doesn't always involve both. Just a tip.

JS:
"Macroevolution is iterated microevolution."
Anything that has the slightest probability of ever happening, given infinite trials, is guaranteed to happen. Supposedly, the earth is so many billion years old, and then you multiply that by the number of living individuals of a species, and you divide that by the gestation period of an animal and multiply it again by the number of offspring in one litter, and you get a whole huge bunchload of trials, which means that it's pretty plausible that anything could happen. But without all this time multiplying the number of trials that could naturally occur, the plausibility really goes away. How did they come up with the 4.5 billion year figure, again? I canメt seem to remember.

"The unlikelihood of this particular event occurring is low, but it isn't any less likely than the next."
You're correct. Your argument implies, however, that any particular combination would have the same set of consequences, or none. I propose, however, that only one permutation calibrates properly in order for X to occur, while in all other cases, not-X would occur. Then, you have 1023/1024 against X occurring, while you only have 1/1024 in favor. Meanwhile, you have 1/1024 of Y, H, Q, or P occurring, but all those are irrelevant because the only question that matters is whether or not the yielded result is X.

AA:
Of course. Humans are perfect, so the only explanation for the world's problems today is a left over mistake an all powerful being must have made, right? I'm not 100% sure what blasphemy would be, but I'd say you seem to be on the edge of it, there.

ceslis:
"The goal of science is to disprove a god or whatever you may believe in which it cant. And the goal of religion is to disprove science neither side can really do it all."
I think your idea here is completely off. First of all, since God is, by definition, not a physical being or process measurable by any physical tools (nor really able to be understood by human intellect) and is not reproducible in a laboratory or other controlled environment, the very notion that human science can make any claims for or against the existence of a deity makes no sense. The first step in the scientific process is observation, or taking down data. God cannot be quantified, particularly not in human terms, making this first step quite impossible.
Secondly, let's look back at the European Scientific Revolution. Galileo, Newton, and Kepler, among others, professed belief in a creator God, and therefore in order in the universe. The very basis of science is that the universe is ordered, and that consistent results will be achieved when the same process is repeated. Without that foundational principle of western philosophy, observing data is entirely fruitless, as an unordered universe will not necessarily repeat observed results. So the goal of early scientists was not to disprove God, but rather to observe an organized creation while taking his existence for granted.

nov:
"The creation story is beautiful if you take away the hatred for science."
I've read it a couple of times, but seem to have missed that part.
I agree with a lot of what you say in your post, but only if I take the sentences out of context. For example: "Stop being obstinate and use your brain" is never something I can disagree with, in any scenario. I also agree that people shouldn't close themselves off because of what they believe. More importantly, I think they shouldn't close each other off. However, I don't think "use your brain" implies to stop believing that something or someone created the Universe with order, nor do I think that not closing yourself off means that you can't partake in discussions like this. Personally, I think what I've laid out here makes some sense and is as coherent as all I've seen relating to Evolution, and therefore see no benefit or purpose in abandoning this belief in favor of "open-mindedness," which I think sometimes people use when really they just are saying "listen to me, because I must be right, and need you to validate that."

GL:
"I think it's hubris to claim specifically that a God does exist. And also that they don't."
There are ways in which acknowledging the existence of a being greater than oneself is exactly the opposite of hubris. I don't necessarily disagree with you here in spirit, seeing as no one can really know one is absolutely right about all truth, but I think there are different ways to approach an unflinching belief in God.

Bruno:
Technically, the timeframe before the start of our perceivable universe wouldn't really be a timeframe, as time is a dimension confined to the Universe.
I'm not in the same place as you, but I think your method and conclusions make a lot of sense. Particularly this "past our current understanding of things, everything goes, until proven."

Thak:
"I have to go with evolution considering the same people that believed in creationism are the same ones that wanted astronomers dead for saying the sun and planets dont revolve around the earth and that the earth was round thousands of years ago."
I guess refer to what I said above about Galileo et al. The people who were saying those supposedly-heretical things also believed in Creationism. The opposition to these ideas was not based on anything particular in the Bible, but rather on entirely secular baseless consensus of opinion among religious authorities, who were supposed to have all the knowledge and answers about everything. They were simply trying to defend their credibility after it came out that their best guess about how stuff works was wrong, which isn't justifiable, but is plenty understandable.

"No matter what your religion is your bible is nothing more then a book of morales and guidelines on how to live your life."
Have you read the Bible? There's a butt-ton more stuff in there than that. Remember when the church thought that the earth was the center of the Universe, because they never really looked into it?

"If you really want to dig deep religion itself has evolved too so explain that one."
Because people do what they want sometimes, and will defend it to the death. The church authorities were wrong in 1630s about an area of study that was not at all their job, duty, or even priority. Their mistake was acting like they had anything to back it up with. Same thing happens over and over. There's no shortage of mistakes to be made, so all sorts of mutations can occur from what once was actually Bible-based.

"Just as a added note to the alien talk. The vatican now admitts there is a possibilityy of other life out there and accepts the possibility of aliens. So god and aliens is no longer a issue on the long going evolution creation dispute.
For the christian based religions at least."
*sigh* The Vatican. As if I haven't spoken enough about historical issues with the Catholic Church hierarchy, now you bring up current events.
There's always been the "possibility" of other life out there. It goes back to what Bruno said: "past our current understanding of things, everything goes, until proven." The creation story only makes passing mention of the stars (or the entire rest of the universe, basically), and never states anything about how much is or isn't out there. It doesn't say "And on the 8th day, God created Xarthan-6 in the XZ639 Sub-Zeta Galaxy," but it also doesn't say "and God never made anything ever again." Actually, the Bible indicates that God is an insatiably creative being, but that's beside the point.
Anyway, I personally write this off again as a religious authority making a claim about non-religious things simply because they're wrongly charged with having the answers to all the questions.

Sparticus:
You raise a lot of interesting points. I guess I donメt have much other feedback.

NS:
Thank you. I wanted to address that a bit, but I think you did very well.
One point I would contend is that "Calling the bible a historical document is like calling a Michael Moore film a legitimate documentary. Not only is it dead wrong, but it undermines the very purpose of most of the books in the first place." It does give the most accurate history we have of the Hebrew people at that period in history. The sequencing of kings and Roman Empire-imposed rulers, for example, is quite accurate and consistent with other records of the region, though recorded independently. In that way, it is very literal and very historically accurate.
The point about reading it in context, however, and cultural differences with the original authors couldnメt be more reemphasized enough.

"Oh, and I'm all for evolution. If we were descended from 2 humans (Adam and Eve) I would never be able to look at a woman and say "That's my sister I'm staring at right now... Or is it my cousin? My second cousin? My third cousin twice removed from any side?" so on so forth."
Actually, I don't think there's any way you can get around that :P. Unless you're proposing that multiple distantly-related ape descendants developed the same sequence of mutations (orchestrated by random chance, of course) and then were able to meet up (despite evolving in separate, distant populations, as implied by the necessary genetic diversity) and reproduce before dying, which would have to happen many times over near-simultaneously in order to start a human race that could not be traced back to a single originating pair. And, from what I understand, that's not how new species are supposed to develop; there's too much random lucky mutation involved for it to occur to many individuals, even in a ginormous starting population size.
It's fine, though, dude. As long as they don't know anyone you've seen at a family reunion (not counting the ones youメve introduced them to), it's fair game.

Oh, and to be clear, I believe in a creating God who took the actions and bears the characteristics described in the Bible (and so much more on top of that). Therefore, I believe that he created the world. As for the rest of it, I'm still trying to work out how many of the perceived discrepancies this has with established science are even valid or relevant. Cuz I really think it's not that hard to figure out, and at other times it's good to say "I don't know."

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] March 24 2009 2:33 PM EDT

Could someone across the pond enlighten me to how much an issue intelligent design is in lands apart from the US cults?



Fun fact on Big Bang, the founder was a Roman Cath. priest and the idea was accepted by the Pope before the scientific community could. He also died a couple years after they found background radiation back in '64 for a happy ending I would say. To all those who see monkeys and not fish-lizards...The More You Knooooow!
You can take the fish-lizard statement to "heart". ;)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 2:47 PM EDT

a creator-god that is so immeasurable, indefinable, unobservable and thus unprovable would also by definition be beyond interacting with us in any manner beyond the creation and thus beyond even our worship? how would having this god be any different from having an absence of god?

iBananco [Blue Army] March 24 2009 2:57 PM EDT

"I propose, however, that only one permutation calibrates properly in order for X to occur, while in all other cases, not-X would occur."
There, I would say that you are wrong. There isn't only one outcome in which life occurs. In fact, I would say that the generation of some form of object capable of reproducing itself is in fact inevitable, given sufficient time. It doesn't have to be on Earth, or anytime near this particular timeframe.

Colonel Custard March 24 2009 3:31 PM EDT

"a creator-god that is so immeasurable, indefinable, unobservable and thus unprovable would also by definition be beyond interacting with us in any manner beyond the creation and thus beyond even our worship"
Says who?
We certainly have no observed precedents from which we can make predictions or conjectures about what such a being would or would not do or be able to do.

Unquantifiable doesn't mean that no part of it has any bearing on the finite. I have no clue how large the Universe is, but I can tell you (with a little research) how far it is to Sirius, or what kinda stuff hangs out in our little part of the Universe. That doesn't mean that I can see, or even have the capacity to comprehend, what is 10,000 times further out there.

chaosal March 24 2009 3:33 PM EDT

i agree; the statement about god being out of reach by definition is ironic- by saying that, you're imposing a limit on such a god.

Thak March 24 2009 3:40 PM EDT

That is the problem with exchanging ideas on boards. It is in writing with no person to person interaction and you cant hear the tones in their voice and body language to tell if it is ment in a disrespectful way or just norm conversation.

That being said this is not ment as disrespectful but a re-conveying of ideas

モThe people who were saying those supposedly-heretical things also believed in Creationism. The opposition to these ideas was not based on anything particular in the Bible, but rather on entirely secular baseless consensus of opinion among religious authorities, who were supposed to have all the knowledge and answers about everything. They were simply trying to defend their credibility after it came out that their best guess about how stuff works was wrong, which isn't justifiable, but is plenty understandable.ヤ

I agree somewhat with your Galileo reference over all though that is what I said in other words, モI have to go with evolution considering the same people that believed in creationism are the same ones that wanted astronomers dead for sayingナ.ヤ

モHave you read the Bible? There's a butt-ton more stuff in there than that. Remember when the church thought that the earth was the center of the Universe, because they never really looked into it?ヤ
Yes, and that is what I said, モconsidering the same people that believed in creationism are the same ones that wanted astronomers dead for saying the sun and planets donメt revolve around the earth and that the earth was round thousands of years agoヤ I could have added and the earth was flat and when you where sick it was because demons and bad spirits were making you sick etc but I felt my point was made.

ヤThe church authorities were wrong in 1630s about an area of study that was not at all their job, duty, or even priority. Their mistake was acting like they had anything to back it up with. Same thing happens over and over. There's no shortage of mistakes to be made, so all sorts of mutations can occur from what once was actually Bible-basedヤ
My point again モreligion itself has evolved too so explain that oneヤ

モI personally write this off again as a religious authority making a claim about non-religious things simply because they're wrongly charged with having the answers to all the questions.ヤ
Once again my point モThe vatican now admits there is a possibility of other life out there and accepts the possibility of aliens. So god and aliens is no longer a issue on the long going evolution creation dispute. For the christian based religions at least.ヤ

So we are in agreement then?

The bottom line to this whole friendly sharing of ideas/argument/debate or whatever you want to call it is, and I think we can all agree on this.
That there are greater powers whatever they may be(a god,gods,physics,chemistry,etcナ) at work that we donメt fully understand yet, some we will learn and some we may never learn before we all go extinct whether the way of biblical or natural.

Cube March 24 2009 3:51 PM EDT

CC, the second Law of thermodynamics still functions with spontaneous creation of life. Life on Earth is not a closed system! Where does every single organism on earth get it's energy? The sun. (/Geothermal heat vents if you want to be technical) If you look at the entire universe as a system, entropy is still increasing. You have to remember 1. Without the sun we would all die, 2. how big the universe is. The fuel in your car comes from dead organisms, who got energy from the sun. The electricity you get comes from similarly rooted fuel. The wind comes from the sun. Heat & light come from the sun. Likewise, the excess energy from the sun allows the complexity of life.

As for the spontaneous start of life, all you have to look at is statistics. Are you saying that it'd be impossible if this giant universe in BILLIONs of years that no planet could randomly form life? Even with a finite chance, that huge a universe it's bound to happen somewhere. Again if you disagree, you probably don't realize how huge the universe is.

-I still remember the machine from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The Total Perspective Vortex is allegedly the most horrible torture device to which a sentient being can be subjected.

When you are put into the Vortex you are given just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little mark, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says, "You are here."


Remember by start of life, all it means is something self replicating. The first cells would have been extremely simple. Once you have something that self replication along with the excess energy from the sun, allows evolution to allow it to blossom into more complex organisms. If you accept "Microevolution" and you accept that life can randomly form then you have to accept "Macroevolution". (Quotes because those are not actual scientific terms) The scientific community isn't trying to play a practical joke. This isn't something debatable.

Regardless, I think anyone trying to derive facts from the bible is probably completely missing the point. You can still accept God and the principles of whatever religions teachings, but why must those teachings require any these specific circumstances. How life came to be should not stop you from accepting whatever religious beliefs you subscribe to. I definitely still have my own set or morals and I am perfectly Agnostic/Atheist (depends how I'm feeling). Not trying to be judgemental, but I think it's kind of sad that people think their religion hinges on the factual accuracy of the stories of how the world came to be. Honestly, the facts shouldn't really be important to anyone, but scientists. (Stay out =P)

If you think you are the one true religion, you probably don't realize how big this planet is, let alone the entire universe.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 3:52 PM EDT

sounds to me like convenient scapegoat for never being able to prove his existence or lack thereof. we are left with faith then, otherwise we have to admit that we are riding the bus with no driver. he must be there, we just cannot see him.

most of the time logical people will admit that a lack of any substantial evidence only leads to one conclusion.

i see it like this, the scientific method bases itself on lack of contrary proof. gravity must exist because the apple has never floated or shot upward. scientists will admit though that because it has never happened in the past that doesn't mean that it won't ever happen. logical.

belief systems based on faith rely on belief with no proof at all that a god exists. in effect instead of the "it has always happened this way but who knows what tomorrow will bring" mindset we contrast that with the "it has never happened, but i am darn certain that it will in the future."

faith is not logical and trying to turn it into something that can be logically discussed will never work, unless you believe in which case you can turn off your logic for that part of your life.

Colonel Custard March 24 2009 3:55 PM EDT

Hmmmm... yeah, I guess we are in agreement.

I think basically, what I was getting at is that I believe that the Bible is true, and a lot of the things that people argue against or take issue with aren't in the Bible -- it's just something some religious leader or organization said that may well be ridiculous and completely wrong without having any bearing on the credibility of scripture.

What I meant when I asked "Remember when the church thought that the earth was the center of the Universe, because they never really looked into it?" the second time was that it seemed to me you were mis-attributing things and making an incorrect statement about the content of the Bible -- just like the medieval church mis-attributing the cause of certain phenomena and making incorrect statements about the solar system. I was trying to simultaneously say that I thought you were wrong and reiterate my previous point.

You're right. The Bible says nothing about aliens, and I'm really not to concerned about whether or not they exist at all. I don't believe in aliens, but I don't really care, either. :)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 4:02 PM EDT

i wanted to clarify that one can believe whatever they like be it logical or not, i am fully behind that!

what i take offense to and get a little riled about is when something that is solely faith-based such as creationism is repackaged as a science with intelligent design as part of a deliberate campaign to circumvent the separation of church and state.

what i see as the great irony of these type of struggles is that if that separation is ever breached, the door will likely swing both ways. i truly want to see the separation remain for the protection of both church and state, even though i do not have the faith, i think it is important that we all can believe what we like.

three4thsforsaken March 24 2009 4:23 PM EDT

I definitely feel evolution is a theory. I feel that science cannot PROVE anything, but science doesn't attempt to PROVE anything. It attempts to make theories based on observation and logical thinking. If somehow a large amount of data and evidence was found scientifically refuting evolution science would adapt accordingly and create a brand new theory or set of theories.

My point is that science is in conversation. So whenever someone points at the flaws of science they have to realize that science is admittedly flawed simply because of our human condition (our limits of perception). Science makes a point to make theories based on what we can perceive, not what we can't perceive.

That being said, I believe in evolution. The amount of evidence is staggering. Many years after Darwin proposed evolution, the whole field of genetics exploded with direct molecular evidence to evolution, showing how evolution could occur on a physical level.

Of course there are many aspect still not perfectly understood. But that doesn't prove creationism anymore than it disproves evolution or big bang theory. Just because we don't understand how the big bang worked, doesn't mean God must have created us, or even that God didn't create us. That is not logical.

There is a point where we can choose to make beliefs and choices on evidence from science, or faith from our religion. There is no "wrong" thing to believe. But when people of faith try to refute scientific theories capitalizing on the nature of the scientific method and the limits of human perception, I have issues.

In other news, I do believe in God. But probably not in the same way.

Goodfish March 24 2009 4:29 PM EDT

I should say that ultimately I don't believe in God because it makes me feel better.

All this "proving" stuff bugs me a lot. Don't get me wrong, I loathe religious zealots, but I also loathe people that don't just let it go, even if they're on my side. Believe what you want; it's all ultimately a matter of what feels right to you.

I really think starting threads like this should result in a reset. And I'm not kidding. It's just inciteful and tears the community apart. It's already torn apart enough as it is.

...

There are times when I really believe a God exists. Because I WANT one to. I want to believe that something happens when I die, and that somebody loves me unconditionally and created me with a purpose besides wandering aimlessly and hopefully reproducing. But then my logical side kicks in and there is no justification for believing a god exists. He doesn't talk to me, he doesn't show that he loves me, there is no proof that I can trust (the Bible is bunk), there's nothing. There IS, however, an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of science. I'm not saying you can't believe in a god and science at the same time, but I'm saying for me it hasn't, isn't, and probably won't happen.

Those of you who are very fanatic about your religious beliefs: what would have happened if you were born... in a Jewish family? In a Hindu one? What if you were born and had two doctors as parents who were both atheists?

I think we all need to step down from our pedestals and just agree to disagree. Can we be done with this now...? :(

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] March 24 2009 4:41 PM EDT

I believe in creationism, but I don't really feel like getting involved in the discussion, sorry.

three4thsforsaken March 24 2009 4:42 PM EDT

I agree with you Goodfish.

But, it's worth pointing out that most people don't like believing something that they don't believe is true. Beliefs can be a tool to control our own emotions, but most of us aren't comfortable with that concept.

Goodfish March 24 2009 4:49 PM EDT

But, it's worth pointing out that most people don't like believing something that they don't believe is true. Beliefs can be a tool to control our own emotions, but most of us aren't comfortable with that concept.

I definitely agree with you, three4ths. But I think it happens slowly, and starts when people are young. I think a lot of people are religious because it makes them feel better- they worry about dying, and their faith gives them something to hold on to. Then there are people who are atheist for the same reason- it makes them feel better.

That's really what it all boils down to. And like you said, you wouldn't believe in something you didn't think is true... so believing in it makes you feel better (than the alternative of NOT believing in it).

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] March 24 2009 4:59 PM EDT


How many of you looked up "hubris"?

Colonel Custard March 24 2009 5:21 PM EDT

JS:
"In fact, I would say that the generation of some form of object capable of reproducing itself is in fact inevitable, given sufficient time."
I don't know if I'm interpreting this wrongly, but doesn't "inevitable, given sufficient time"="a probability of 1, given infinite trials"? You say there isn't only one outcome in which life occurs, but does there exist any outcome in which life does not occur? If so, "not-X" is still a valid concept. Right?

Cube:
Interesting points. I didn't really think of it that way. The universe as a whole is moving toward entropy, but localized pockets can be temporarily self-organizing while increasing in complexity? Interesting...

How did we get the second law of thermodynamics? There is no closed system we could observe on (or from) the Earth, correct? How were we able to test the hypothesis in the first place? I don't necessarily expect you to answer those. It just made me think.

"Again if you disagree, you probably don't realize how huge the universe is."
I think I actually brought that up in response to JS. Any occurrence with a finite probability and an infinite number of trials would yield a success. Assuming the Universe is infinite (which it isn't, but don't worry about it), then, every possible occurrence would occur. So, we then have to prove that there is a finite probability that humanity would come into existence at random. We can't prove that we, ourselves, came into existence at random, and therefore have no evidence that there is a finite probability of it occurring at all.

I like that quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide.

"Remember by start of life, all it means is something self replicating."
Is that all it means? Is consciousness and sentience anything, or is it nothing? I would call something self-replicating a program, not a life.

"Regardless, I think anyone trying to derive facts from the bible is probably completely missing the point."
I think you're right in the same way that NightStrike is right. These debates are quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I just tend to enjoy them a bit.
Of course, if it can be said that there are "facts" about the nature of God, what better place is there to look for that?

"Not trying to be judgemental, but I think it's kind of sad that people think their religion hinges on the factual accuracy of the stories of how the world came to be. Honestly, the facts shouldn't really be important to anyone, but scientists."
I consider myself a scientist, kinda. Not a particularly educated one right now, but y'know.
I think mostly it's the idea that if one part of it is wrong, then it can't be trusted as the perfect source of wisdom, etc. If it contains any inaccurate information, then how are we to know which of its information is accurate?
In large part, it's irrelevant whether God created the world literally in 7 days of 24 hours as we experience them or not. As long as God created the world and he's not straight-out lying to us about it, then we're good.

"If you think you are the one true religion, you probably don't realize how big this planet is, let alone the entire universe."
I don't think I've ever realized how big this entire Universe is. As your Hitchhiker's Guide quote points out, it's too big for that. God's bigger, though.

dudemus:
I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's impossible, using scientific methods of study, to prove anything either way about an extra-Universal deity. That's not a cop out; it's a statement about the nature of scientific study.

"we are left with faith then, otherwise we have to admit that we are riding the bus with no driver. he must be there, we just cannot see him."
This sounds to me like you're implying that I believe He exists simply because there's no proof against it, and I can't handle the concept that a god could not exist. There are things that have happened in history and in my life and in other people's lives that could be attributed to God, but anyone who doesn't want to believe them can't be made to. If someone has a "religious experience", another person can say they're faking, or ate some old sushi, or on drugs, or not getting enough sleep, or something. What if none of those apply? They had a surge of serotonin, or something, I dunno. Someone can say they were miraculously saved from injury in a car accident where they rolled over and smashed up their whole car, and someone can say it was luck. And as for miraculous events such as the parting of the Red Sea, there's the ever-popular "Oh yeah? Well I don't believe the Bible, so what now?"

God doesn't submit to scientific study, and I'm fine with that. I can't prove him to you. I don't mean to prove him to you.

"most of the time logical people will admit that a lack of any substantial evidence only leads to one conclusion"
Not exactly. I was going to correct you, but it looks like your next paragraph gets it right. I don't see how they follow each other, though.
"the scientific method bases itself on lack of contrary proof"
Exactly. Proof to the contrary disproves something, but lack of positive evidence alone does not disprove something.

"belief systems based on faith rely on belief with no proof at all that a god exists. in effect instead of the "it has always happened this way but who knows what tomorrow will bring" mindset we contrast that with the "it has never happened, but i am darn certain that it will in the future.""
What, exactly, is it that has never happened that I'm so darned sure of? I'm not really following you. Faith isn't a magical formula so I can get stuff or have things happen.

"faith is not logical and trying to turn it into something that can be logically discussed will never work, unless you believe in which case you can turn off your logic for that part of your life."
This sounds to me like you're upset or offended or just angry. I'm sorry if I elicit that reaction. I'm really trying to be reasonable and logical in my approach to this.

I've personally never encountered trouble with my faith by being logical and analytical. I don't see why you would think it would be so hard.

"what i take offense to and get a little riled about is when something that is solely faith-based such as creationism is repackaged as a science with intelligent design as part of a deliberate campaign to circumvent the separation of church and state."
Oh. I'm glad I refreshed to see this post.
I'm not trying to put it in anyone's schools, if that makes you feel any better. As I said before, I think it's largely irrelevant. Actually, I'd like to thank you guys for bringing up some good points that helped me to see that much more clearly. Thank you.

I guess, since it went there anyway, I'll ask: Where did all the matter and energy requisite for the beginning on the Universe come from? "Someone/thing made it" sounds like as good a guess as anything else I've ever heard. Insofar as that is concerned, I don't think I.D. contradicts any established scientific principle, or any other guess for which we have more evidence.

+3 or 4 to 3/4

Goodfish:
I haven't seen any community division, much, since my first post. I'm not trying to offend, or to be a "religious zealot." I think the last little bit has actually turned into a healthy discussion and a good exchange of ideas, exactly along the lines of what 3/4 mentioned.

"How many of you looked up "hubris"?"
I did after seeing your post, because I thought you were implying that I was using it incorrectly. I actually found some pretty interesting stuff on it. I intended my above statement to be quasi-synonymous with arrogance, and assumed GL had meant it that way as well. Was I incorrect?

Goodfish March 24 2009 5:26 PM EDT

I haven't seen any community division, much, since my first post. I'm not trying to offend, or to be a "religious zealot." I think the last little bit has actually turned into a healthy discussion and a good exchange of ideas, exactly along the lines of what 3/4 mentioned.

I think any discussion on religion will never accomplish anything worthwhile. We will get people on both sides being unreasonable and lashing out at the other side. We already got that earlier on in this thread with the whole "If you don't believe in God, you're close-minded" comment (and following comments), and I just think that it's usually best to stay out of these conversations. No good will come of it.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 5:30 PM EDT

This will take a few posts as my browser eats messages when I back, and MS Office has failed me. :(

"GL, you don't think that there is a God, but you'll admit to the possibility of aliens "seeding" life on Earth? That takes a whole lot more faith to believe in, than in a God. ;)"

You misunderstand. I don't think there is a God, but I don't think there isn't one either. Or many Gods. Or none. Or everything at once. ;)

I'm open to the possibility that A/any/all/none Gods, every thought of, or unthought, actually exist. Or don't. But until I receive personal proof of either, I'm open to all.

As for specifically, the Christian God, as described in the Bible, is a lot less likely to exist to me than say the Norse Pantheon. Some would go so far as to say the Christian God can't exist as defined, but I'm not one of them. I just think it's highly unlikely it does. ;)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 5:32 PM EDT

i am not angy or upset, i am sorry if i have come off that way as well.

"but lack of positive evidence alone does not disprove something."

that right there is the crux of the matter. logically then, it is about as likely that a creator-god made us as that we were made by santa claus, the easter bunny or a tiny kitten with planet creating entrails. since none of us can know what existed before the point of creation all theories are equally plausible including the spaghetti monster.

this is the point at which i personally decided that the scientific method was better than equally plausible unknowns. just because many people agree on a plausible unknown really doesn't make it any more plausible does it?

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 5:34 PM EDT

"This idea of literally reading every line by line * evolved* from the protestant offshoots that didn't understand how to read a book within the context in which it was written."

The only counter arguement to the Bible being nothing more than a story book collection of inspiring tales, is that it wasn't written by man.

It was in fact written by God, through men.

The authors were writing the perfect word of God (As God cannot, by definintion be imperfect).

If it's perfect, then we have to follow it literally, as applying interpretation to a passage is applying our (as defined) flawed human reasoning to the perfect word of God.

Which can only lead to a flawed interpretation of the passage. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 5:37 PM EDT

"There are ways in which acknowledging the existence of a being greater than oneself is exactly the opposite of hubris. I don't necessarily disagree with you here in spirit, seeing as no one can really know one is absolutely right about all truth, but I think there are different ways to approach an unflinching belief in God."

Yes. But acknowledging the existinace of a single being, based purly on faith, while simultaniously vhemenantly denying the existinace of all other similar beings that exist based only of faith is Hubris. ;)

I'm right, because I'm right, and all the rest of you are wrong.

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 5:37 PM EDT

"How many of you looked up "hubris"?"

If it was even only one, I win the thread! :P

GoLDeNGaTE March 24 2009 5:38 PM EDT

Wow, lashing out at people because I BELIEVE people are close-minded because they dont believe in God. Me and my silly beliefs...Well I don't take back what I said because its an opinion, MY opinion and I'm allowed to have it, as well as you all to yours. I've been the one of these peeps on here talking down religion and God, in fact a lot longer than since I have found God, and to me it takes just as much effort and FAITH to NOT believe in God as it does to believe. I understand, NO ONE wants to be held accountable for their actions and responsibilities. We would rather just write our selves off as monkeys rather than do some soul searching to try and find the TRUTH. It's the only place you'll find it...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 5:45 PM EDT

"My point again モreligion itself has evolved too so explain that oneヤ"

We can see examples of how the Christian Religion is 'evolving' by looking at the changes made by the latest Pope.

And the desire to update Catholiscism to make it relevant to current society...

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 5:47 PM EDT

"it takes just as much effort and FAITH to NOT believe in God as it does to believe"

Yes it does. ;)

Ancient Anubis March 24 2009 5:48 PM EDT

I like blasphemy oh and so people know my religious views are that of an Agnostic Atheism

The ealiest written gospel in the bible was written 42 years after jesus's death the rest of the bible was written from this point and over a period of over 100 years. Just because a book is historically old by the way doesn't mean its information is historically accurate.

Migration is the reason we come from apes but look pretty much nothing like them. We started off as swinging in the trees but over 1000s of years we began to move our numbers across the landscape we dropped out of the trees in order to travel over the plains and so and we began to adapt we grew longer legs for running with the short legged people being the first to be hunted and killed by predators. Natural selection as well as radiation mutation leads to evolution. Monkeys remain the same because they remain in their original habitat which is quite varied as well hence the different types of apes we have.

Interesting to note scientists doing gene research have found the platypus to consist of 5 distinct DNA types (combination of 5 different species).

Also interesting to note is the pigs are actually closer in dna to humans then most apes.

And in relation to science being unproven is medicine not a case in point where theories are put forward trialed and proven right. If science can't prove anything why does medicine constantly improve?

Oh and by the way those new creatures cause by atomic radiation on earth are just old creatures that have had the dna altered rapidly due to the radiation, bit like superheroes we have superbugs :)

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 24 2009 5:55 PM EDT

i think of christianity as afterlife insurance. how you interpret the fact that no one has come back for a refund is all that matters.

Andy March 24 2009 5:55 PM EDT

I believe in both at the same time! It works in my mind, though I do not strictly believe in God or another higher being. A divine power started the creation of the universe and this all lead to the evolution of animals and plants to this day..

For those who think BIG BANG! What started the big bang?

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] March 24 2009 5:56 PM EDT

Actually I did dictionary.com hubris to check the history of the word.

blackshadowshade March 24 2009 5:57 PM EDT

Bast, I didn't need to look up hubris, thank you very much! ;)

For those of you who are uncomfortable with science being unable to prove anything (although disproving is possible), there's always mathematics, where you CAN prove something, given that you state your axioms. (And yes, I'm a mathematician!) Don't understand? Here's a joke that may help:

-----
A physicist, a chemist and a mathematician were stranded on a desert island. One day, an unlabelled tin can washes up on the beach. Naturally, the three of them rush over and pick up the tin, wondering what is inside. However, they can't open the tin can easily and they start arguing about the best way to open it without damaging or losing the contents.

The physicist is all for putting the tin can under a coconut tree, climbing up and dropping coconuts on it until it's open. The chemist argues that this method is likely to result in the tin can being crushed, and proposes that they put the tin can above a fire and wait until the tin can explodes. The physicist argues that this will cause them to lose the contents.

The physicist and the chemist argue for quite a while and lose track of the time. At a certain point, they both run out of arguments and just happen to notice that the mathematician is not there any more. They look around and finally spot him eating out of the tin can. A little surprised that he managed to open the tin can, they asked him how he got it open.

He answered: "I assumed a tin can opener."

(Badaboom.)

Ancient Anubis March 24 2009 5:58 PM EDT

we could also ask where does god come from and how did it come to be.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 24 2009 6:03 PM EDT

big bang! :P

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 6:08 PM EDT

Love that joke! :D

I'm a mathematician (well rather more correctly, was!) and that was my largest bug bear. I really thought I was getting into to much circular logic. ;)

Thak March 24 2009 6:13 PM EDT

heh! The explain that, was ment as rhetorical.
religion has evolved for many reasons christian,muslim, hindu whatever. part of my point being with the comment was that even the people that blindly dont believe evolution exists cause their religion doesnt support it, their very own belief system that rejects the notion of evolution has evolved it self in turn sticking ones foot in there mouth every time that is used.

This thread alone is a perfect example of how someones ideas written down can be misconstrued to mean something else. See how easy it is to misinterpret the writings of these religious books of faith. And other ancient documents, This thread is only a few hours old and people have already took peoples writings the wrong way.

Just dont go blindly following anything one way or another, keep an open mind cause once you close your mind off to new possibilities you already lost the fight of learning what is.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] March 24 2009 6:13 PM EDT

In closing.(hopefully)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 6:15 PM EDT

Missed this earlier, but kinda covered it;

"Regardless, I think anyone trying to derive facts from the bible is probably completely missing the point. You can still accept God and the principles of whatever religions teachings, but why must those teachings require any these specific circumstances."

Becuse if you don't, you *have* to accept your Bible was written by man, and God created by Man.

Instead of the other way around.

Sure, you could then still belive in a God that created everything, only if you also accept that in turn he was created by the race he was supposed to have created. ;)

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] March 24 2009 6:16 PM EDT

LoL Gun. ;)

Canibus March 24 2009 6:22 PM EDT

Rofl the tin can joke was good. Makes no sense that there would be a god. And well, creationism isnt really a theory, it have not achieved that merit yet. I might be wrong though as im a layman when it comes to mathematics and astronomy.

{CB1}Sparticus [Screwed Justice] March 24 2009 7:02 PM EDT

I understand that some people really need to believe in something, hey thats great. But blind faith leads to things like "the crusades" or "Jyhad".

As far as the bible being written by god thru man, it is just as possible that an intellegent Alien race came here and instructed those individuals on what to wright. Either scenario is just as hard to swallow for the individual who requires physical evidence.

I am sure some day we will either be alot closer to the truth or maybe we will actually find out what the truth is. But until then its all speculation.

Personally I think the Alien version is an easier pill to swallow. Considering science damn has near killed god. If people actually bother doing any research on the subject Atheism and Agnostics are both on the rise, And the division of religions in the current spiritual climate has only served to create a multitude of Cult-like Religions. Blind faith has its points but when the power is put in any one individuals hands it generally leads to some scandel or other & possibly even war.

Examples: Jones Town, Waco, Alquida(calling for Jyhad), the FLDS(texas), Mormanism, Scientology, etc.....

Believeing there is a god is understandable, I do in my own way. The really Big issue i think is religion in general.

How many world religions are there and haw many do we really need. how many variations do we need of the same power. Personally i take a more spiritual approach. I believe we are all apart of the same "Universal Consciousness". religion tends to dumb things down to the level that the average person (hundreds of years ago) could understand and follow. It has also be great for governments to exploit.
"Follow the laws of god AND man" That was put in there by MAN, no godly influence the i mean what is the standard bible a christian reads, "King James Version" which ofcource was editted by the same King James. Constantin Held a council around 500 A.D. to deside which books to include in the Bible that was to be the standard for roman christianity. the rest of the book they had that were not included were destroyed.

Historically, religions have been used as a tool of the ruling parties to keep the population in check. If you do your research you will find this out for yourself. If you dont come to that conclusion then "Good luck to you" because your probably the same type of person that watchs tele-evangalists who ask for your money, which you send blind-faithfully.



{CB1}Sparticus [Screwed Justice] March 24 2009 7:22 PM EDT

And yes my spelling isn't that great. After 3/4 of a bottle of merlot your wouldn't be either. :P

Colonel Custard March 24 2009 7:32 PM EDT

AA:
"And in relation to science being unproven is medicine not a case in point where theories are put forward trialed and proven right. If science can't prove anything why does medicine constantly improve?"
As long as there is an ordered universe and the same actions repeatedly yield the same results, we will be able to discover effective ways to carry out processes and actions.

"we could also ask where does god come from and how did it come to be."
In order to create the universe in the first place, God would have to be infinite. If we're talking about a God who came from somewhere or something else, at a certain time, it's no longer a being even relevant to the discussion. If it came from something, then it couldn't have created everything.

dude:
Christianity functions as "afterlife insurance" by design, but that's not at all a proper motivating factor for which to embrace it. The idea is actually, best as I can boil it down, that God is freakin' sweet.

Thak:
"Just dont go blindly following anything one way or another, keep an open mind cause once you close your mind off to new possibilities you already lost the fight of learning what is."
Totally.

Sparticus:
Why does faith have to be blind? It's never good to have blind faith in anything.

I really like that can joke.

{CB1}Sparticus [Screwed Justice] March 24 2009 7:35 PM EDT

it's blind faith because that is what the christian bible calls it. Cant say i believe in anything blindly other then death or taxes. :P

kevlar March 24 2009 7:35 PM EDT

I'm honestly beyond this debate. It's old and it's like reinacting a re-run episode of Three's Company 200 times. God rocks, if you believe in him. Darwin is your God if you believe in him. NOone will know the truth until your heart flatlines. Only then will you find solice with this question.

Believe what you believe, but do it in peace.

{cb2}ShadeSlayer March 24 2009 7:59 PM EDT

To much knowlege is a bad thing... lol.

Sickone March 24 2009 11:45 PM EDT

" "Sure, we might not have a 100% foolproof theory as how life STARTED existing, but we have 99.99% foolproof theories about it, and no, they don't involve "God(s) made it start" anywhere in their description."
Give me an example. Materialism alone can't explain the origins of the universe, and I doubt it can explain the spontaneous generation of life. Not that that's the issue even being discussed here, but I'm curious as to whether you were just saying that or not. "

The MillerヨUrey experiment : water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen in a closed system, no organic compounds.
Add heat so that water vapour could exist, add sparks of electricity to create artificial lightning, let it cool a bit so that the water vapor could condense, repeat the cycle.
After as little as one week, over 10% of the carbon from methane was included in various organic compounds.
Almost 2% of carbon was included in AMINOACIDS.
Up to 22 separate aminoacids could be identified.
The basic building blocks of life as we know it, generated out of basically nothing but what existed in plentiful amounts on our planet a long time ago... and that in one week of carefully controlled experiments.
Now imagine that going on on the ENTIRE planet, not just in one beaker in a laboratory... and not for just a week, but for hundreds of thousands of years.

We don't know for sure that's how life WAS started on this planet, but the possibility of life EVENTUALLY starting to exist like that is quite high.

___

"What can you point at, since the beginning of the Universe, that is an example of new information being created (outside, of course, of the circular argument that unobserved but necessary steps in the evolutionary process prove that information can be created)."

What you seem to be doing (falling in the trap of ID preponents) is confusing the information itself with the information bandwidth given a certain system.
Information is constantly created - every brownian motion of particles in a drop of water, recorded over time, that's huge amounts of information alone. Sure, the information you can have "right now" about each particle in the drop of water is constant, but the total amount of information about it increases at a constant rate all the time.


"the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that an isolated system that is not in equilibrium (our universe, for example) will continually increase in entropy (a measure of disorder). So complexity, in information or otherwise, has no known precedent for increasing on its own."

Yes, the UNIVERSE, as a whole, as an isolated system always increases in entropy and gets simpler and simpler all the time.
But LOCALLY, like say, our planet, entropy can go either way - and the reason it can do that is because we ARE NOT AN ISOLATED SYSTEM, our huge source of anti-entropy is the SUN.
Once the sun will die out, so will the planet, and entropy will claim its final victory... but not before then.


"The third point you raise is a quite valid argument as well. Do you have an example of separate populations of a species that have diverged to the point of no longer being able to interbreed during the course of scientific observation? We are able to manipulate the information that is already there, but that shouldn't be any big surprise. Yes, we've created new breeds of dogs, for example, but they are all the same species, and still can interbreed."

We have created species that aren't even able to breed with themselves in agriculture.
As for the speciation experiments, we have had limited time ones by Diane Dodd on fruit flies... after just EIGHT generations, granted, the fruit flies in one type of groups were still able to mate with those in the other type of groups (differentiated by the type of food that was used to feed them with), but they overwhelmingly prefered mates from their own group type.
Given enough time and enough generations going by, you might actually reach a point where the two separate groups would no longer be able to mate with eachother viably.

Soul Eater March 24 2009 11:51 PM EDT

I believe in Creationism and always will. Evolution is a myth.

ScY March 24 2009 11:55 PM EDT

I take the third option. There is not enough evidence to actually believe in anything. To put it simply enough, you can argue either side endlessly for infinity and beyond etc. But at this time in human history we do not have the capabilities or understanding to come to a concrete conclusion about 'WHERE WE CAME FROM, HOW LIFE EXISTS, IS GOD REAL, etc' To justify this position to all those who may/may not care to- flame me after I post this, 700 years ago to the best European knowledge, the world was flat. What will we know in another 700 years?

Sickone March 25 2009 12:05 AM EDT

Sure, we can't know with 100% accuracy anything (hi, Heisenberg)... but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the 99.9999999(etc)% of the time when we know what's going on :)

ScY March 25 2009 12:20 AM EDT

Evolution and Creationism are hardly 100%, or even remotely close to 99.9999999999999% The truth is we only have an idea of whats 'going' on. This idea takes hundreds, thousands, even possibly (way into the future) millions of years to cultivate into something that is concrete.

For example, we once thought light was a wave. But (long story short) we found out that light does not always behave as a wave, and sometimes behaves like a particle--for example when it has momentum. Now can we say that light is a wave or a particle. Well, in small situations that observe light behaving as a particle or/wave we can call it one or the other for the sake of simplicity. But when you take the macro-view of this, there exist situations when light can act as a particle, and can act as a wave. So what is light?


Point is we do not have enough information to concretely conclude one or the other, or even some third type yet undiscovered, with respect to both light and evolution/creationism. So why waste time in a useless debate that cannot *really* end with respect to our current knowledge.

To put this another way. There are varying degrees of 'Rightness'

To say that a girl and a guy woke up naked in an orchard is less 'Right' than, for example, the Big Bang theory. Innovations in knowledge can greatly correct something's given degree of 'Rightness.'

Sickone March 25 2009 1:19 AM EDT

That's not to say we don't know how, on average, most of the things go on in a life-form.
We know how life-forms reproduce, we know how cells grow, we know what effect a certain gene has on the grown individual, and so on and so forth.
Genetics and evolution is not something that's guesswork, it's mostly an exact science. Sure, we don't know every little possible detail and don't know WHY some things happen exactly the way they happen, but we're working on finding out more all the time.

It's like saying, we don't know exactly what light is or why it behaves like it is, so we should stop trying to analyze it and use it, and just call it a "gift from God".

Rawr March 25 2009 1:51 AM EDT

"I believe in Creationism and always will. Evolution is a myth."

How is evolution a "myth"?

myth: (noun) any invented story, idea, or concept. (dictionary.com).

So evolution is the 'invented story', even after scientific proof it exists, such as Darwin.

Interesting.

Ancient Anubis March 25 2009 2:05 AM EDT

god we are a stupid species. We destroy everything, Are generally as a whole a depressed species, and debate pointless debates that no one wins oh how nice it would be to swing through the trees with the only thoughts being what to eat next and is that a female over their.

ResistanZ March 25 2009 2:06 AM EDT

But then we would not have Carnage Blender.

Gunny Pew Pew [Red Permanent Assurance] March 25 2009 2:35 AM EDT

+4 Sickone for the life experiment.

AA, we swing to foam-rubber "trees" on game shows and hit on the hostess if that counts.

Rawr March 25 2009 2:36 AM EDT

"only thoughts being what to eat next and is that a female over their."

yes!

ScY March 25 2009 6:51 AM EDT

"That's not to say we don't know how, on average, most of the things go on in a life-form.
We know how life-forms reproduce, we know how cells grow, we know what effect a certain gene has on the grown individual, and so on and so forth.
Genetics and evolution is not something that's guesswork, it's mostly an exact science. Sure, we don't know every little possible detail and don't know WHY some things happen exactly the way they happen, but we're working on finding out more all the time.

It's like saying, we don't know exactly what light is or why it behaves like it is, so we should stop trying to analyze it and use it, and just call it a "gift from God". "



First of all, genetics is NOT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLY CLOSE to an exact science. We know like next to nothing about what one could call the language of God. Genetics is a science, but it is by no means even in the same universe as an exact science. For example, we know approximately what something like 10-15% of all the genetic code of humans corresponds to, in terms of physical/mental traits.

Second of all, evolution is HIGHLY guesswork, or at least estimated/educated guesses that are made using the best knowledge available to us at this time. If this were hardly guesswork, then why is it still a Big Bang THEORY, etc.

Second of all, NEVER EVER would I say that 'oh since we dont know something, we should give up trying to know that thing.' Not only is that completely ridiculous, but you put words into my mouth when you imply I had ever meant that.

In fact one of the larger points of my argument is that over time these mysteries become more easier to understand and concretely define. Certainly not the intellectually apathetic nothings such as WE DONT KNOW ANYTHING WHY EVEN BOTHER.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 25 2009 6:56 AM EDT

You know, humans share about 50-60% of our DNA with bananas.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 25 2009 7:14 AM EDT

response to scy;

We only cracked the DNA only a few years ago and look at the progress we made. I'll bet you in about 50 years we can order customized babies online.

Thats progress for ya :)

Sickone March 25 2009 8:34 AM EDT

"First of all, genetics is NOT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLY CLOSE to an exact science. Genetics is a science, but it is by no means even in the same universe as an exact science. For example, we know approximately what something like 10-15% of all the genetic code of humans corresponds to, in terms of physical/mental traits. "

You are only about 10 years off from your statements being true. Would today be 1999, you would be almost completely right about that.


"Second of all, evolution is HIGHLY guesswork, or at least estimated/educated guesses that are made using the best knowledge available to us at this time. If this were hardly guesswork, then why is it still a Big Bang THEORY, etc."

This nomenclature stuff again ? "Theory" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The word you are confusing it with is "hypothesis".
Also, no, evolution is NOT guesswork. You are confusing guessing with randomness.
Let me explain the difference : trying to predict what each of one die's rolls will be IS guesswork, but saying there's a 1/6 chance for each roll to be either 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 IS exact science.
Same thing with evolution - you can't possibly approach evolution on an individual lifeform basis, the only possible approach right now is purely statistical.
And before you pick again at it, yes, statistics IS considered an an eexact science, and genetics is too.


"Second of all, NEVER EVER would I say that 'oh since we dont know something, we should give up trying to know that thing.' Not only is that completely ridiculous, but you put words into my mouth when you imply I had ever meant that. "

Then what exactly were you trying to say then ?
Because that's exactly what it sounded like to me.
Explain yourself.


"In fact one of the larger points of my argument is that over time these mysteries become more easier to understand and concretely define. Certainly not the intellectually apathetic nothings such as WE DONT KNOW ANYTHING WHY EVEN BOTHER. "

And the more we know, the more we come closer to the conclusion gods do not exist, and that life is just the result of existing conditions. You were saying the exact opposite, that somehow creationism and evolution were even in the same ballpark of probability, or that the balance isn't tipping further and further away in evolution's favor.

QBJohnnywas March 25 2009 9:19 AM EDT

"Also interesting to note is the pigs are actually closer in dna to humans then most apes."

It is true, but then pigs are one of the more advanced animals, more intelligent than dolphins they reckon.

And, with that in mind, you do know what 'long pig' is?

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 25 2009 9:25 AM EDT

You all need to start praying to the one creator in universe: Jon.

As the internet was created and its makers saw it was good. But one god saw the internet and knew something was missing. This godlike figure started to create his own little universe on the internet. He created the universe that is called CB, he created the land, sky and all you can see in 6 days and 6 nights, on the 7th day he rested and Jon saw it was good.

In his creation he missed something and created "the user", he made the user after his own likeness. The user was a friend of jon and liked what he see.
The user fought many battles on CB and killed many minions. Jon was pleased.
As the game evolved more and more users came to be, jon couldn't be everywhere in the same time. As a supreme being in the world we call CB he had different matters to attend to and he created the admins, these are his apostles in the world of CB.
And jon saw it was good.

Amongst the users, one of them shined bright, like it lit the night sky up like a lighting strike (anyone getting that?).
This user came to be the son of CB. Many users applauded this and followed the bright spot where every he went.

But sins followed the night and he was cast down by bugs. The bugs almost nailed him to a cross, but smart as the user was he tackled the bugs and overcome death itself. Jon invented the user to CB heaven, as he flew to the heavens he became a power admin. And was set lose on the world.

And jon saw it was good.

The users now live in harmony with each other, occasionally killing each other minions.

And jon saw it was good.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 25 2009 9:26 AM EDT

invented = invited*

Angel of Death [Hell Blenders] March 25 2009 9:32 AM EDT

god created the ape and the apes evolved in to man
humans got souls and i take them
its all in the grand design

QBsutekh137 March 25 2009 9:33 AM EDT

Marl, doesn't the fact that we share so much with vegetation (like a banana) sort of, well, support (or at least make more believable) how life has evolved on the planet? If we shared NOTHING with all other organic matter on the planet, Darwin would never have even considered evolution a possibility. It would have looked like we were dropped here via some other means. No, sharing amino acids and such with a banana shows that Earth-based, carbon-based life IS similar, and has some very basic building blocks to it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the difference between some brilliant humans and mentally disabled folks is very, very small on a DNA level, yet the more-apparent differences are profound.

[NOTE: I am in no way putting down the mentally disabled, nor am I comparing said people to bananas. No bananas and no people were harmed in the writing of this post.]

And don't get me wrong, humans, by and large, are far more eventful than bananas. But it is comforting and illuminating to me to know that organic life is similar and from the same "soup", so to speak.

QBJohnnywas March 25 2009 9:44 AM EDT

They reckon you need to know where you're from to know where you're at. But what I really want to know about is what happens next.

I mean, given that approximately a third of the world is Christian does that mean that two thirds of the world are going to hell?

Where did Ghandi end up?

These are the questions that I wonder about. Because I know if Hell exists then that's where I'm going to end up. Out of sheer stubbornness if nothing else.

Mostly because I find it comforting to know that I'll become food for future life on the planet. Makes much more sense to me that I'm part of an eco-system. I think it's a might indication of an outsized ego to believe we're anymore special than the plants and animals around us.

Tal March 25 2009 10:07 AM EDT

wanna know something REAL FUNNY????


in his opening post all he wanted was a vote:
a)god
b)monkeys


and it turns into one of the biggest arguments ive seen since i started!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 25 2009 10:32 AM EDT

^ we have polls for that though! posting it in a forums cries out for debate. ; )

QBOddBird March 25 2009 10:35 AM EDT

I like AoD's explanation best.

Except he never mentions the imps that thwart him at every turn in his accounting of universal roles...

Brakke Bres [Ow man] March 25 2009 10:41 AM EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do

Neo Japan March 25 2009 10:51 AM EDT

Wanted to keep my mouth shut, but here goes.

The Big Bang is just a THEORY, but doesn't make it wrong (or right). But the Solar System definetly was around before the Earth was.

Then the Dinosaurs Happened, maybe not immedietly, but through evolving from the pond scum. But!!! I believe they were created for a purpose, and that Purpose was TO DIE!!!! and become oil, and make movies.

then everything got refrigerated until the time was right, and then Man Started doing his thing. I can't say how he got there, but I don't want to think it was from a Retarded monkey. I say Retarded because all the monkeys that stop walking on there hands and only walk upright have been ones that get Brain damage from a fever or a fall. Watched it on Discovery.

The Whole 7 days that are read in the Bible may definetly not be the same 7 days that we enjoy in our work week. Thats just our calender. But since people weren't smart at all back then, it was a good way to say it and teach them about how they came to be, and who created them, and to be thankful.

Albert Einstein believed that there was a God of some sort. Don't remember whether or not it was the God that Christians believe in, or just a higher BEING, but, his reason for believing is because SOMETHING had to create the Big Bang, or however it started.

He compared everything to a Truck. The Truck is everything, and the Parts are Everything thats in the truck, and makes up the truck. So, the Parts are Energy, Matter, etc. These parts didn't make themseleves, nor did the parts assemble themselves into a truck, but A person created and put them together. Just like Something must have created the Energy and told it to become mass when it did this or that.

I don't want to preach to anyone, but don't be mad, mean, or argue to make anyone that believes in God, have any doubt that he exists. Because they are Happy to believe in him and want to go to heaven. Who knows what heaven is...Jehova's witness's beleive that we are on it right now. Don't make them think other wise. And if you Don't beleive, fine, but leave it as a possibilityor you are more stubborn than anyone. You don't have to go to church or practice anything, but If there is a Heaven, and you walk up to the gate, and he is there waiting to great you...Aren't you going to feel like a jerk when you look at him, and he knows that you not only didn't believe in him, but laughed at or critizied those who did, after what he gave you. Life.

or not.

00 March 25 2009 10:55 AM EDT

scientists believe the bulk theory/bubble theory started the big bang^.

three4thsforsaken March 25 2009 11:20 AM EDT

How come one of the biggest arguments against evolution involves making fun of monkeys?

Monkeys are silly. People aren't as silly. Therefor, people couldn't have come from monkeys!

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 25 2009 11:27 AM EDT

Neo, you offered zero facts in your post.
You say the solar system was definitely around before the earth. How the heck do you know? Were you there? I think not.

You say dinosaurs evolved from pond scum, yet there is no evidence to support this claim.

Then everything got refrigerated? What? Until who's time was right? Any geologic evidence to support this claim?

And you say people weren't smart at all "back then". Have you ever looked at the pyramids?

And to Sut:
The point is that you can't say something evolved from something else because of the genetic material. And just because they have the same genes can in no way tell you if they started from the same things. Evolution also has to deal with the problem of irreducible complexity, which makes it highly unlikely that beings evolved.

Did chihuahuas evolve from wolves? Most scientists say that from one breed of dog, the rest came about. But is there a loss or a gain of information from a chihuahua to a wolf? Obviously a loss. In fact, it's far more likely that things are de-evolving, rather than evolving.

Neo Japan March 25 2009 11:32 AM EDT

i didn't need facts, i told a story to dumb it down for you.

three4thsforsaken March 25 2009 11:39 AM EDT

de-evolving? That is still evolving. Evolution implies no progress, only change, change that is often suited towards a best to certain conditions. However the latter effect only happens if the weaker dies, which doesn't happen with chihuahua, being domesticated and all. There is no concept of a real loss and gain of information in evolution. Well, unless you want to go so far as the DNA change of length among species...

Lochnivar March 25 2009 11:56 AM EDT

For the record, the only higher power that I believe in is women..

... at least if I know what's good for me!
(or so they've told me)

QBsutekh137 March 25 2009 12:01 PM EDT

Marl, by "irreducible complexity" I assume you mean this?

Link

I don't really know a lot about it, but it sounds like IC is as debatable as everything else. And I have no problem saying "I don't know" when answers aren't immediately available. For me, "I don't know" and "Must have been God, then" are not equivalent. That's probably where we need to agree to disagree.

As far as where various breeds of dogs came from, I have no idea. Seems perfectly explainable via evolution, though, even if there are some "I don't knows" in there. Like I said, I can agree to disagree.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 25 2009 12:13 PM EDT

Evolution is by definition progress. De-evolving is the loss of information, whereas evolution is gain of genetic information.

QBJohnnywas March 25 2009 12:19 PM EDT

Sometimes things evolve into simpler forms. That's not regressing necessarily if the climate/evironment demands it.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 25 2009 12:19 PM EDT

But it isn't evolution!

QBJohnnywas March 25 2009 12:21 PM EDT

Evolution is change, that doesn't mean improvement.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 25 2009 12:23 PM EDT

That is MICROevolution, where a change is happening in a species. That has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 25 2009 12:27 PM EDT

methinks chihuahuas would be a product of nsid (not-so-intelligent-design) through human intervention and probably shouldn't be used in an evolution argument seriously.

QBJohnnywas March 25 2009 12:37 PM EDT

Natural selection doesn't necessarily mean more complex traits are the ones that evolve. It's the traits that are the most helpful to a situation.

Dog breeds aren't natural selection more often than not - they're artifical selection, man made breeds.

Thak March 25 2009 12:40 PM EDT

just an example of what QB is saying. The most recent addition to the new species of dog. the labradoodle.
I think these things are UGLY

(0.0) [SeeD] March 25 2009 12:43 PM EDT

Marlfox, Microevolution is the change in a species in a short span of time, there are other kinds of evolution that are changes a species.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] March 25 2009 1:07 PM EDT

Yes, but what we were referring to was microevolution.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] March 25 2009 1:14 PM EDT

Obviously, the theory of creationism is the correct theory and evolution is wrong, I mean why would you trust scientists to know things about biology and the study of micro-organisms? Just because they've been studying something for a long time doesn't mean anything, if they had gone to church and studied there, they would have a better idea about how the entire world works.

Have you ever been to a church and seen the study room that priests and holy-men have? They are at least 50 times as studious as any scientist I've ever seen. If they've studied all the facts and decided that all the creatures just popped into existence by way of an great invisible omnipotent being named God, why SHOULDN'T you believe that? Have you looked at the alternative to creationism? It's way too complicated to be true, it's got all those fancy 'science' words attached to it and requires lots of reading to understand. It's just easier to believe in creationism, duh!

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 25 2009 1:33 PM EDT

^i would almost think that was sarcasm except for the definitive absence of smilies.

Angel of Death [Hell Blenders] March 25 2009 1:34 PM EDT

what are imps? evolved pixies?
i eat those by breakfast
the only thing i can say is you might find out if gods exist and if he doesnt then you wont, you have to paitence i guess

Ernest-Scribbler March 25 2009 1:36 PM EDT

Is 148 posts a record for a thread that said PM yr answers? Well i guess i should have said cm:) The votes in the end were:-

Evolution 5
Creationism 3

Yes 8 votes were cast:D

{cb2}Dinh March 25 2009 1:47 PM EDT

The absence here is the fact that Scientists across the world are coming to the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer. The absence of evolution is clear...If evolution is so evident, why is it that the same animal phyla that boomed out during the cambrian age are still in existence today, except a few didnt make it...so some 500 million years ago, most animal groups that ARE STILL HERE TODAY came from nowhere in a relatively small amount of time, we're talking 15-30 million years here...Why is it that they are still around 500 million years later? Where is the evolution? You know what, nevermind, thats it, I give up...It's easier to just realize that there was a big bang that happened out of who the hell knows where, and we are purely accident...so, if you will excuse me, I have a game of poo-toss with my monkey relatives from CB ;)

ResistanZ March 25 2009 2:02 PM EDT

Dinh, I believe that "fact" you mentioned is completely wrong. The majority of scientists do not even have a religion, much less specifically one where your singular God is the master.

AdminShade March 25 2009 2:38 PM EDT

I say these kind of discussions can only end in war, which is the output of a lot of wars the earth has seen and many more which will come.

I'm closing this thread to hopefully prevent hatred of religion or non religion to arise in a game in which we already bash in each other's heads :)


Shade supported by a few people who wondered the same thing.
This thread is closed to new posts.