Talk'n bout some evolution...

[sarcasm]Your meaningful contribution to this discourse is duly noted and highly appreciated.[/sarcasm]

I am having a hard time to see your position in this matter. What DO you really think? How was the earth created and what was God's role and what was Evolution's role?

No, I don't see the difference in that. Believing IS being religious to me.

And I wasn't at all mocking you... I just realized that when I wrote that it was no use in turning it into a question because I THOUGHT I knew the answer allready. But obviously I didn't... So if it was a question phrased like that, what would be your answer?

Why? What's the alternative?

Ok, so macroevolution is a theory (just like God), I have never denied that. Of course it's impossible to demonstrate it as microevolution because macroevolution has been going on since the beginning of time. It's not a "thing" or an "event" or "happening" as I said in an earlier post. It's in progress all of the time. It's not like "Oh, today an evolution occured in Spain!" and a monkey suddenly turned into a hairless monkey.

I don't think think that macroevolution means that A suddenly turned to Z. But from A came B and C. Or BA and BB or whatever you want to call it. I just think it makes more sense that from a bacteria came different kinds of bacteria that developed into small small wateranimals or maggots and then after a million of years the first animal crawled up on land and there the evolution continued, than *poff* there were two human beings standing on land and then it went on from there.

I obviously haven't read 1/10 as much as you have about this stuff so rethorically I'm the underdog here...

When I said that I don't think evolution creates new spieces in that quote I meant of course that I didn't think that evolution, like a god, choose to over a night create a new spieces by taking a leg here and a wing here from another spieces. If we accept the fact that we once were some kind of ape (I do that anyway), then why isn't it possible that a couple of millions of years earlier that ape was something even more primitive?

I'm just saying that scientists believing in evolution don't mix religion into their work.

What breakthroughs? Just because a lot of the scienists who did big discoveries were priests doesn't mean that it was "religion" that made those discoveries. There was a time when (in the christian world) you had to be priest before you could get on with higher education. It was the only way for a lot of people to really study what they wanted to study. And what would you say would be a typical "non-religious person" of say the 15th century? During that time church/religion was extremely powerful, often more powerful than the king, and if they said that the world was flat, the world was damned well flat as a pancake, and woe you if you didn't believe that.

Then please enlight me with the real story about Galileo Galilei and Copernicus about which lives I've learned in school. I know that Galileo wasn't killed by the church but he was forced to live in exile for a long time.

Yoda... There has been a lot of awful things done in the name of God, also racist things. Am I calling religious people racists? Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution because it's racist? That argument is very out of date. And you said yourself that you believe in microevolution so in that case you're a racist too.

Perahps. But what is the reason that they don't want it in school today? The documentary I saw was from the late nineties and the racist point wasn't mentioned once. It was all God vs. Evolution.

No, I am not familiar with those concepts. So, does that mean I don't have the right to say what's most believable to me: Evolution on Creation myth? That was what this topic was about, wasn't it? The point isn't so much that I favour Evolution over Creation. The point is that I favour Science over Creation myth. And maybe you're right.. Evolution will perhaps be "hopelessly out" in 100 years, but Religion will have lost a lot of ground to Science as a whole.

If there's a flaw in your thinking? I won't criticize your arguments on science because I'm sure you've read your books correctly. But you constantly avoid the issue about religion (God = The Maker) vs. science (Evolution for example) and instead concentrate on scientifical alternatives to evolution, like Irreducible Complexity, which is a nice way to criticize Evolution without bringing religion into the discussion.

*Ding ding*


Don't know. Based on what I've learned, it seems that the more complex elements of life on this planet could not have possibly evolved through natural selection; as such, I'd say that seeing as how no viable alternative has EVER been proposed, God must have created the more complex creatures.

I think God created the Earth and the Universe. Perhaps He used evolution as a tool in some way. I'm not sure; thankfully, though, it's not exactly a crucial decision.


Allow me to illustrate further: some people decide to believe in God for less-than-compelling reasons, and then argue with whatever contradicts God BECAUSE they have chosen to believe in God.

Others believe in God because it makes sense, and argue with what contradicts with God because they think it is as at fault.

The first is blind faith. The second is the defense of a simple conclusion. I'm not sure how you could fail to see the distinction. Some people argue because they don't want to admit they're wrong. Others argue because they've already considered those arguments and concluded that they are mistaken.


Your question, which you didn't finish, was this:

"If you had to choose, if you just HAD to choose between a creation so complex that it goes beyond our comprehension (creation in 7 days) or a more "primitive" creation (The Big Bang etc.) followed by evolution...."

First off, I don't think Creation was really complex the way we know it to be. Let me ask you a simple question: how do you measure complexity?


The difference is that maybe we had really smart apes. Or really smart humans, at some point. Or some other reason we haven't thought of. Like I said: I'm undecided.


It *is* a thing. It has a definition and a meaning. It *is* an event. Yes, a continuous one...but still an event.


Macroevolution means that A can turn into Z eventually. I say it can't, based on irreducible complexity and the odds involved when you have those kinds of amino acids interacting with each other early on.


No one said it wasn't possible. But what are we doing to base our beliefs on? Are we going to believe something possible (which includes damn near any belief out there, made up or otherwise), or are we going to believe something likely?

Not only that, but you're ASSUMING the evolution of the ape. Sure, once you get to an ape, it's not *that* much farther to a human...but that's jumping to conclusions. It's like worrying about directions to the Eiffel Tower BEFORE you've made arranagements to fly to Paris. If you don't do that first, the rest is rather irrelevant.


I still don't see what you're saying. What's your point?


No; religion has supported and encouraged scientific progress many times throughout history.

http://www.movieforums.net/showthrea...1725#post61725

Around the middle of that large post you'll find a list of scientific accomplishments related to religion. And you know what? I'm being completely literal when I say I've barely scratched the surface. Religion does not have some kind of overwhelming anti-scientific record. The whole matter has been ridiculous exaggerated. I can recommend further reading on the subject if you're interested.

The Church has done oppressive things; but that's really got little to nothing to do with the concept of God itself. God cannot be held responsible for what people do in His name. After all; can't I kill someone, or enslave someone, or oppress someone, in YOUR name?

God's just fine, thanks; we are not. And some of us like to use Him to gain influence and power. However, as I stated, the idea that religion has been holding back science since its inception is baseless. Religion and science do not conflict; The Bible tells us to study this world...to subdue it.

The Bible also tells us that the world is a sphere, BTW. Rather ahead of its time, dontcha think?


I wrote this in another post and am reproducing it here:

"Copernicus's theory of heliocentricity had less evidence behind it than Galileo's...it stood for several dozen years, at least (I can't make out for sure if it was 60 years, or 90...but either way, plenty of time for it to get out and about, as it were), however, without any Galileo-esque resistance.

It was the publishing of Galileo's Dialogue in 1632 that caused the ruckus. Within those writings, you'll find a character named "Simplicio" (the name speaks volumes). The character mouthed all the arguments that The Pope did at the time. He'd been warned not to make waves before, and The Church came down on him over this.

That doesn't mean it was justified, but when you look at the context, which includes high tolerance of the less controversial Nicholas Copernicus, and the Church's continued support of astronomical research in both the 17th and 18th centuries, I think it's clear that it wasn't the science of the matter that caused so much trouble. The idea that the Church was unreceptive towards new scientific ideas and persecuted Galileo for merely speaking the truth is exaggerated and misleading."

The Church *funded* many scientific projects; Galileo was basically on the Church's friggin' payroll when he decided to mock his boss (The Pope). But, as should come as no surprise, half-truths concerning Galileo are almost always used to demonize religion.


Don't jump to conclusions; it's not an out of date argument because it's not an argument at all. And even if it was, it certainly isn't one I made...or would make. Evolution is not inherently racist; it was just used by many to justify racism. IE: that's probably one of the reasons it caught on.


Of course the racist point wasn't mentioned. Just as the story of Galileo, or Copernicus, is either never told properly, or never told at all, respectively. The reason they do not want evolution in school today? Heck, I don't know. Who are you talking about? Jerry Falwell? If so, he doesn't want it in schools because he's an idiot.

We should teach both possibilities, IMO. A common argument to the contrary says that only viable scientific theories should be taught, but I say that it's not really being taught, so to speak. You don't need to read The Bible unless you want to; present to the children that some people believe in evolution/The Big Bang, and others believe in Intelligent Design/Creation.

I've got no problem with the former being taught as a possibility; just not as a fact (which it is, unfortunately, at times), and certainly not as the only possibility. That's just ignorant, and it's bordering on oppressive to the other point of view. Is the answer to past religious intolerance to then become similarly intolerant towards religion? I don't think so.


There are a few problems with that.

1 - No, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to say what is believable...but it certainly takes a lot of the weight out of your argument when you reveal that you haven't even heard of the strongest counter-arguments to it. What do you say to them now that you've heard them?

2 - I hear you when you say you favor it; so, if you favor it, I'm asking you why. Why do you believe it in spite of the problem of irreducible complexity?

3 - You automatically associate "Creation" with "Creation myth," and "Evolution" with "Science." These are your own personal assumptions; they have no real bearing. As I said above, though; believe in it all you want, but I'd really like to know why you believe it in spite of the problems it presents.

4 - "Religion .vs. Science" is a false dichotomy. They do not conflict. They are not at war. There are Christian scientists. There are Atheists who think most science is a waste of time and are more concerned with their day to day lives. The two are not forever linked in opposition. I can't stress this point enough.


Alright, I'm trying to be a nice guy, but you're making it quite difficult. I'm not avoiding a damn thing, my friend. I never avoid anything; anyone here can vouch for me on that.

Now, as for the accusation itself: if you have a question, ask it. Fact of the matter, though, is that I'm not particularly trying to make an argument for God just yet. If you want me to, I'll start a thread and tell you exactly why I think there is strong evidence for some sort of God. This thread, however, is primarily about evolution...so my response is to discuss evolution.

Not to mention that, as I already stated, there is no "Religion .vs. Science." There are only good ideas versus bad ones. If you have some question that you view as Religion .vs. Science, be my guest and ask it, but I've answered all you've said so far; I'm not avoiding anything. I can't avoid questions you're not asking, however.

Man, you guys are banging out some killer arguments... both sides.


I'm going to weigh in briefly here with my own opinion.

Faith in God=Faith (No arguments)
Faith in Science=Faith.

Scientific 'proofs' are only valid in our tiny pinpoint of existence in a space so wide that we cannot comprehend it. NO ONE understands it, despite the million or so theories out there.

We cannot yet see the bottom of the sea, we're not advanced enough.

We cannot see beyond our own galaxy, we're not advanced enough.

What science sees and accepts as 'proof' of anything at all is only valid to us here on the third rock.

Scientific proof requires a faith that the proof is valid beyond our own very limited scope.... relatively speaking, our technology today is equivalent to examining the universe through a cracker jack prize magnifying glass. We're not even close to building a microscope.

Science in our microcosmic world is wonderful...

But in the big picture science knows jack sh*t.

Jeebus Chris is typing alot, I'm not getting into the whole faith arguement because its dumb. So is this irreducible complexity bull.

No where in Behe's entire book does it say "or most of its parts". Have you read it? If you're going to use this theory don't twist the words of the man who stated the theory to suite your own arguement. Behe goes on in his book to say that this has never been proven and is only theory, but that if an example of something irreducibly complex were to be found in the biological world it would break darwinism.

I entirely understand where the arguement is coming from and all that "irreducibly complex" theory does is beat around the bush, its just two fancy words for saying "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" If anyone can prove the chicken came before the egg then the concept of irreducible complexity is validate. No one has done that, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Just because no one has dissproven it does not mean that the chicken did come before the egg. This theory has the potential to break Darwinism, but until someone kicks it over the edge, it isn't going to begin to snowball. This theory is in no way kinetic, and that is the problem I have with it.

You want evolutions defense? I'll give it to ya straight:
Gases (CH4,NH4) reacted with inorganic compounds (CO,Co2,N2,H20) which then combined with ultraviolet radiation, lightening, clay and pyrite to yield organic monomers. These organic monomers reacted with UV-radiation and light, lightening, clay and pyrite to form polymers such as lipids, proteins and RNA. The formation and combination of different polymers yielded liposomes which is when polymers began to produce their own RNA. This brought around a long stage in which the only life on earth were prokaryotes, simple celled organisms; no nucleus, no concrete structural membranes. Over time there was one point where a prokaryote absorbed another prokaryote through a process called endosymbios which yielded Eukaryotes, multicellular organisms with a cell membrane and a nucleus. Eukaryotes then began to multiply, forming complex structures of interrelated cells, eventually organs etc etc.

The only problem with the above is where did the gases come from etc etc. Who made those? The big bang did. Who made the big bang? Who made whatever made the big bang? This theory isn't only about the creation of life, it is about the creation of the conditions of the creation of life. The entire theory is about predecceors. You need 2 to have 3, you need 1 to have 2, but you don't need 0 to have 1. The theory breaks evolution because at some point there logically had to be a step from 0 to 1.

In that is where my problem lies, I am a firm believer that every product has a producer.

I ask you why irreducible complexity has to ONLY apply to natural selection? Because if it didn't, it would dissprove god, thats why. Where is the creationism arguement to combat irreducible complexity? Chicken or the egg? What came before god?

You seem to be hooked on the idea that this whole theory applies only to things that breed, but it doesn't. If you read the book, you would know that. It is a concept that can be applied across a vast plain. Gravity doesn't only apply only to earth. The laws of physics don't apply only to our world. It goes back to my math example, the whole theory says that since 1 can't be born out of 0 then something had to create that 1.

I completely accept that. I believe in a collective governing force in the universe, whether it is a god or what, I have no clue. I believe in evolution because everything points to its predecessor, however the only predessor that can't be pinpointed is what caused the big bang. For all I know the big bang was caused by aliens from another universe and our universe is just their big experiment. Our entire universe could be their version of a Miller-Urey experiement. But even if that is the case, then who created those aliens?

I don't have the answers to this question, and no one has any answers, people just have theories. But becuase I don't know I'm not going to say anyone is wrong or anyone is right. There may be a god who created it all, I just personally don't find that to be the case. Who knows?

It is just an arguement of which came first, the chicken or the egg. If you believe the chicken came first, then you believe in creationism on a level. If you believe the egg came first you believe in evolution on a level. No one knows for sure which came first. Evidence points that things eventually combined to form an egg, see the data I have already put in this ramble, but even so the question just deepens to what created the things that created that egg?

Ever seen the 13th floor? :P

And since when is algebra warped logic?

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

The "most of its parts" part refers to the fact that every organ, despite being for all PRACTICAL purposes irreducibly complex, has convienences that it doesn't technically need to run; it just benefits from them. That's what I was getting at. Your heart needs all its crucial parts to run; thus, they would all have had to come together at the same time.


That's not what it's stating at all.

Look, I'm going to break this down. I don't care if you want to call it irreducible complexity. Call it whatever the hell you want, but here's how it is:

Natural selection is based on small changes over time. The entire theory that we evolved from molecular soup is contingent on tiny changes over many generations. So, I ask you again: how could something like our heart evolve? How could organs that are only useful when virtually complete evolve? It is not I that is beating around the bush; I've asked this same question several times without anything even resembling a direct response.

Your "chicken and the egg" analogy is erroneous. Evolution cannot jump certain biological gaps if they are of sufficient complexity. It doesn't matter what came first; that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not we could have evolved from a very low state, to the complex state we are at now. Clearly the level and type of complexity present in many living things makes this implausible.

The issue of what came before all else is another entirely.


I've heard that before, and frankly, it's a very weak argument. For one, it hasn't actually HAPPENED. That last part ("forming complex structures of interrelated cells, eventually organs etc etc") isn't something that has actually happened under observation...let alone in the real world, without lab conditions set up just right!

From what I understand, no lab experiment has EVER produce a protein by getting amino acids to simply react to one another. Even when they can be made to join (under very specific conditions), the result is at best barely functional, and at worst, totally disorderly. Your average enzyme has a chain of something like 200 links, with around 20 possibilities for each link. The number of useless arrangements of these links is quite large. There are more useless arrangements than there are atoms in your body...and that's rounding down BIG TIME.


Exactly. A moment of scrutiny shows you that the "every product has a producer" ideal can never hold up, unless you're willing to toss logic as we know it out the window.

At some point, we're going to get down to something being there for its own sake. Frankly, this applies to your thoughts, as well. Try it out if you like: ask yourself why you believe something. Then ask yourself why you believe that, etc. Eventually you'll find that you've taken something (logic...your own ability to deduce) on faith. Eventually, biologically OR mentally, you simply get to the point where you say "this is what I have to build on, whether I can rely on it for sure or not."


I think you've misunderstood me.

Irreducible complexity is not an argument, by nature. It is simply a statement. It says that some things don't work better as they gain vital "pieces," but rather, they only work when all the vital pieces are in place, basically. As you can see, it's just a concept; it is not designed as an argument...it just happens to conflict with other things.

One of those things is natural selection; natural selection doesn't allow for massive jumps forward where entire working organs evolve through one single random mutation. So, an irreducibly complex organ cannot evolve. That's why irreducible complexity is used as an argument against macroevolution.

So, now that we've spelled out what it means and why it takes issue with natural selection, on to your question: why doesn't it apply to God? Well, for one, God is not a machine, biological or otherwise. God does not have organs and pieces. Why would something without bits and pieces be subject to a concept describing the complexity of, well, bits and pieces?

Also, I noticed something: you ask where the "creationism argument" is for this. It's clear to me that this is Creationism .vs. Evolution in your mind, which is simply a mistake. This is about evoution and whether or not it is likely to have taken place. The fact that I happen to believe in God is irrelevant to the point I'm making about irreducible complexity.


It applies to things with parts; because the theory is based on the fact that you cannot afford to remove parts without "breaking" the machine.

I repeat: that does NOT mean that such machines cannot exist. Only that they couldn't have evolved unless they evolved "all at once." How can I make this any clearer?

As for your math example: clearly its at fault. Something had to, at one point, basically exist on its own accord. Everything cannot come from something else; something had to come before all else.


Define "collective governing force." This sounds like Jedi stuff.


Way ahead of ya', Pete.


If there's sufficient interest, I'd be glad to start a thread outlining the argument for a Higher Power of some sort (not Jesus specifically, mind you).


I'm not buying into the "it's just the chicken and the egg routine all over again" claim.

How is evolution the egg? The whole point being made is that evolution cannot go from an egg to a chicken without ridiculously fortunate mutation of fully working organs all at once.

If you read slashdot.org several weeks ago you would have read this:

If anyone doesn't know what the Bombardier Beetle is and why it doesn't make much sense is this; it has a defense mechanism that allows it to spray out bodily liquids at over 100 degrees. Now why in the world would this evolve? How could you gradually evolve to that? It didn't make any sense, until now. I can't find the article I read it from but here is a link to the blurb

It is very hard for me to explain how cells and such work and I'm sure you have a basic understanding of it, but I'll try to explain something that shows how organs such as a heart evolve.

Everyone should know that any animal or plant is made up of eukaryotic cells, cells with a nucleus. Before eukaryotic cells there were all sorts of kinds of prokaryotic cells; some that were big, some were small, some made their own food, some digest food, some simply abosrbed food, some could move, some couldn't. Certain variations of cells began to form symbiotic relationships until at some point one cell absorbed the other. These cells now had almost subcells within them that provided different functions. The nucleus was the brain of the cell, it provided the commands for the rest of the cell. I'm not going to get into all the details of everything in a cell and the possiblities of what everything does. The human body is basically one gigantic cell with billions upon billions of smaller cells within it, each with a specific function. Thats how things like the heart are formed. One cell envolpes another, the enveloped cell now functions for the cell that has assimilated it. It is how viri work. It is how everything in the world works, someone always has a boss.

The cells didn't need to come together all at once, one cell gradually enveloped another, which took another etc etc. There are the cells that are more elastic and have a different type of cell membrane, those are your muscle cells. There are types that absorb better, those line your stomach. Its complicated, but it makes sense if you've ever studied it, I don't think I did as good a job explaining it as several of my bio teachers have. But there is your direct response, two examples of how.

This is a point that will just be entirely immposible to argue with a creationist. "it hasn't actually happened", if it hasn't then why are we living and breathing? It is just a point that creationists and evolutinists will have to differ on. You say "isn't something that has actually happened under observation"...when was the last time you observed God creating man?

Sorry for the delays; I've been rabidly busy lately, and I've got a lot of driving/planning to do in preparation for a belated Halloween party. I'll have a response up before too long, but for now, I will say this: I never mentioned the Bombadier Beetle. I know all too well that many Creationists (let's be careful how we use that word, though) use that as some sort of irrevocable proof of intelligent design. I have not, because I know it is not proof...so disproving it is rather beside the point.

I'll go into more detail shortly. I should have time tomorrow.

I know you didn't mention it, I honestly had never even considered it as any proof to show intelligent design, I was just citing it as an example as to how mutations can occur all at once.

Hi again! Sorry I haven't posted on this topic in a while... Every time I post here on this discussion I end up sitting here for at least an hour and with the amount of work and study duties I've had the last week and weekend I just didn't have the energy...

So, back to topic...

Ok, that's your opinion. I think that it's not more unbelievable that mankind evolved through primitive organisms than the fact that a microscopic egg develops into a human being inside the female body. Nature finds ways.

I believe in a higher being. Not a "God" perhaps, but that there is forces that rule the universe. Powers that are beyond our minds. We can't comprehend eternity, so therefore we invented time and space. We have to think about everything in terms of beginnings and ends or else we go crazy. When was the Earth created? And where is the Earth's place in Universe? And WHO created the Earth? Well, the invention of God as a concept gave us the answer to that.

You may call me an atheist, maybe I am, I don't think so. I believe in life after death. Not because a holy scripture says it is so, but because I think it seems logical to me. I have a lot of atheists saying to me that I'm nuts and they laugh at me because I believe in life after death. But I don't think there's an end to it... I believe that and I can't explain why I believe that so hard.

We could debate this forever. Yoda and O.G. are discussing this in terms of biology and chemistry (if I have got that clear) but I prefer to discuss it in philosophical terms (I guess you could call it). I don't know anything about a lot of those things you are mentioning but to me it sounds like you're both trying to prove the other one wrong using the same sources of information. Information that you choose to interpret in the way you want to interpret it.

About Irreducible Complexity. Have I got it right if I say that it's more or less like this: If a creature or an organ in that creature is complex enough, it's impossible to take away that part because then the card house falls apart. A heart couldn't have developed from a microorganism more or less because the heart is too complex? is that it?

Well, I don't think that theory is convincing at all. It's a biological (or whatever it is) theory to suit the beliefs that a higher being must have created the human being because she's too complex to have evolved through evolution. To me it's seems logic that a primitive organism need primitive organs. The more complex the orgamism gets through time by natural selection, the more complex its organs get. Once again, this is just about what one chooses to believe in. I have problems believing in the theory that one day there was man, more or less as we know him today. Others have problems with the theory that man evolved from primitive creatures.

I don't know, I don't think I have ever measured it.

I think a human being, a horse and a tree are complex. I don't think a one cell organism is complex.

Well, you know that's up to each and everyone to decide for oneself what one think it's likely or possible. I haven't found anything in your argumentation for irredecule complexity that convinces me that that is more likely accurate than the evolution theory. Sure, it has a point. But it suggests that everything had a given start - a year zero - when everything we know sarted. And then pretty close to nothing has happened.

What, you're asking me to explain the whole chain from a little germ up to a 21st Century man? You know I can't do that even if I had the time and space. Once again, considering the fact that a human being once was a sperm makes me believe that nature itself have tools to turn small primitive "germs" to big complex humans. You're saying that since I can't explain that in a scientific way here makes it decided that God (or something else) created the human being OR a very intelligent Ape?

I always hold people responsible for people's acts. I am holding noone but the church and the people of that church responsible for those acts. But it is a fact that they did everything they did in noone else's name than God's, and you can't deny that.

And why the hell would anyone wanna do something in my name? Am I a god or an institution? Not really a relevant comparision.

The Church has always been conservative. It's not a coincident that in fascist states the church has often been on the opressor's side and in communist states people haven't been allowed to practice their religion.

Religion in itself doesn't conflict science, you're right. But the church, conservative as it has always been, doesn't like change. Because change has always threatened the power of the church, especially during the time when the church was extremely powerful. Science is a force working forward. Church, like conservatism itself, wants the status quo to remain.

If you look around in the world today I assure you that you will find out that those nations where religion is a power to be counted on, and in some cases even controlling the country completely, there isn't much concern about science and development from the people in power.

I am NOT blaming the religion itself for these things. Religion gives a lot of people without hope at least one little strim of light, and why shouldn't they have that light? But noone can't deny that a lot of powerful people use religion, and thus the name of God, to control and keep back changes.

Yes. I've heard that too, which makes it even more strange that the church had problems with the fact.

Of course he was on the payroll. If you needed money for anything it was the Church you went to.

I don't know what's the halftruth. And demonizing... I thought it was the religious people who believed in demons. Listen, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or anything, but the church hasn't exactly been exclusivly nice in the past.

It caught on during a time when european "enlighted" people thought that any other race than the white race was a race of savages and pretty close to apes. They thought this before Darwin and they believed it even stronger as a reaction to the theories he presented, which implied that we all came from the same origin.

I don't know who Jerry Falwell is. It looked like a pretty normal school to me, it wasn't a hyper christian school or anything. The protesting students just believed in God very strongly, I guess.

Why is it that a perfectly objective documentary isn't valid when it's not supporting any of your beliefs?

Well, why is the christian creation myth the only religious creation myth we should teach our children?

I think having the class "Christianity" is intolerant. It should be "Religion".

I have to run to work now... I will finish this when I get home. I didn't answer some of the responds because I didn't think they were relevant enought to the discussion or I had allready given my answer somewhere else in this post. If you are dissatisfied just tell me and I'll give you more answers.

Have a great day, everybody!!

Someone get Mills Lane in here.

Peter's up first:

There are a couple problems here. For one, it assumes that the mutations are going to be beneficial. Frankly, if you're talking about many, many bottled up mutations all at once, this begs the question: don't the odds say that one of those is going to completely screw the beetle over? The odds are STILL astronomical against a full feature developing like that...especially without another mutation offsetting all that work by being harmful in some way.

Not only that, but what would ensure that the beetles with the bottled up mutations would evolve? Seeing as how the mutations are not revealed, they provide no inherent benefit, thus there's no reason why that beetle should survive moreso than any other beetle...so it doesn't really work with natural selection.

And not ONLY that, but this would also have to apply to humans to explain us.


Ah, but you're forgetting a crucial difference: God is claimed to have already created man. The belief is that He DID...not that he DOES. Why would we observe something that happened in the past?

Evolutionists, on the other hand, claim that this is all observable...IE: technically, you can duplicate anything and see it for yourself via experiment. It happened awhile ago, but there's no reason it cannot happen again. But no one has really demonstrated it. The concept of God isn't promising anything it cannot deliver.

This is similar to your assertion that irreducible complexity somehow applies to God (have you abandoned that? I hope so ), even though God is not subject to natural selection or physical organs.

I'd like to branch out a little on this belief you have in a "governing life force," if you're willing. If you are, would you rather discuss it here, or in another thread? I'd like to hear more about your idea of this force.

Pidzilla

No sweat; no one thinks the less of you for it. Sometimes I take days...or a week, to reply to posts like this.


We can readily observe how and why a human egg develops into a human being. That's why we all believe it. Quite a far cry from a level of evolution that not only yields philosophical (to use the word loosely) problems with certain levels of complexity and has never been anywhere NEAR observed, duplicated, or adequately explained.

Nature does not find a way; according to natural selection, nature has no mind. It just works the way it does because no other way would make sense.


The "invention of God as a concept" (I think it was a revelation at our inception as a race...not an invention...but nevermind that) raises as many or more questions than it answers, if you ask me.


Maybe it's because you want to believe it. I've believed things and ignored logic in the past because I simply didn't want to hear the truth. I'm not judging you; I don't know you well enough to say whether or not this is the case. But it's plausible.

And no, as you said, you're not an Atheist; not if you believe in some Higher Power and an afterlife of some type.


No, I wouldn't call that an accurate description, in all bluntness.

Irreducible complexity doesn't say it's just "too complex." It's complex in a specific kind of way. Lots of things are complex, but they can evolve anyway. The idea is that the complexity is of the kind where it cannot evolve over time...it would have to evolve ALL AT ONCE.

Imagine a creature underwent some random mutation and developed a tiny piece of, say, a lung. It's not a complete lung...it doesn't allow you to breath. It's just, as natural selection is based upon, a small mutation. Natural selection says that creatures with advantages survive. But a small piece of a lung doesn't help you survive; if anything, it burdens you with useless crap inside you that you don't need. If you survive, it will be in SPITE of this partial organ.

If the organ does not somehow develop all at once, there's no plausible way it would develop at all. And, frankly, the idea that one single mutation produced an entire working set of lungs is mathematically ridiculous, as I'm sure anyone will tell you, Evolutionist or not.


How do you measure the probability of something?


Hmm...I'd say a one-celled organism IS complex. Definitely. Just not if compared to a horse or a tree.

Technically, sure. But there's obviously a right and wrong way to determine what is likely.


I'm saying that if you want to believe in evolution, you've got to believe that there's some amazing concept that no one's ever thought of to explain the massive roadblock that irreducible complexity is...OR you simply have to believe in astronomical odds.

When faced with odds that remote, the only logical choice is the alternative...and the only real alternative to evolution thus far is some form of Creation. Not necessarily The Bible. Not necessarily Judaism. Just Creation of some sort.


Good. If you hold people and beliefs responsible for what they profess/teach, then you shouldn't have a thing against religion. At least, not Christianity, as it teaches of love for thy neighbor above all else. People who say or act otherwise are misrepresenting it's message.


How the hell could someone possibly mistake "love thy neighbor" for "slaughter thy neighbor if they do not submit to forcible conversion"? It doesn't make sense, but it happens. It's merely an example to show you that having something done in your name doesn't mean you are at fault.

Likewise, God/The Bible is not at fault if people use it to justify their own messed up ideals.



Exactly. A Church State, or a State Church, simply does not work, because freedom is essential. God has given us Free Will to follow Him, or reject Him on our own whims. Belief in God is voluntary...it HAS to be, to have any value. When you apply that same freedom to a country's laws, as we have in the United States, you produce one incredible country.



Everyone had problems with the fact. It was an odd, scary idea, and frankly, you or I likely would've rejected it had we lived in that time...Church or not. The world doesn't APPEAR flat, after all, without close observation. Most of us wouldn't give it much thought at all.


Why "of course"? Just because the Church is the only source of money (which is an exaggeration, but nevermind then), it doesn't mean the Church needs to hire him.


The half-truth is saying that he was persecuted (true), and that he was a proponent of the heliocentric theory (true). The reason it's only a half-truth is because the implication is that he was persecuted FOR this belief, and that the Church hated the idea. The fact of the matter is that heiocentricity originated with a staunch Catholic, was not really opposed, and became and EXCUSE for the Church to punish him for other beefs they had with him, basically.

You haven't hurt my feelings at all.

The phrase "demonizing" is primarily used to describe the process of attributing "devilish" characteristics to someone or something. You don't have to believe in demons to demonize.


Jerry Falwell is a religious bigot who gives all Christians a bad name by association.


I didn't say it wasn't valid; I haven't seen it. All I know is that if it completely ignored the issue of race, it was only giving you part of the story. Just as religion has been used to justify oppression, evolution has been used to justify racism.


Who said anything about Christian Creation (myth my a**. )? I just said "Intelligent Design/Creation." Neither is exclusively Christian in any way.

It doesn't assume that the mutations are going to be beneficial, afterall they are just mutations. The beneficiality (is that a word?) of a mutation is not determined until its manifestation, it is just luck as to whether or not it is a good trait to have. No species survives that has widespread negative mutations, which is why the bombadier beetle is still present today, it got lucky. The odds thing doesn't matter to me. The odds are against you winning the lottery, but people still win. Odds don't mean anything, only immposibilities mean something. Odds are not infavor of the existence of god, nor are they infavor of mutations being beneficial, doesn't mean either can't exist.

....That doesn't make any sense. Of course the mutations are not revealed until they are manifested....but that doesn't mean the animal won't survive...There is reason why it should survive moreso than any other beetle, because of that mutation. It is a survival mechanism...the beetle more adept to surviving in its environment will be more populous than other beetles less capable of surviving.....it entirely works with natural selection....

...again....no sense....of course it applies to humans....it applies to anything with DNA....

It is practically immpossible to recreate the exact conditions of prebiotic earth which is why the experiment has never truly demonstrated it. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. No one has proven God exists. No one has proven God created earth and man. Likewise, just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it never will be.

I'm willing to ellaborate on my ideas, but it doesn't belong in here I'll create a thread.

Ok, hi again... Let me first finish off Yoda's first reply:

I've answered that before I believe.



To me the problem of irreducible complexity is just a problem if you believe in it. And if you do, I think it's more problematic and leaves us with more questions than answers than the "good ole evolution theory".

I believe in it because the one thing makes more sense to me than the other. And, sure, maybe "creation" is a science or "intelligent design" or whatever. This is just a matter of rethorics. You know what I mean and what I mean is that the theory about something being created out of the blue doesn't appeal to me at all. You can't prove it and I can't prove you're wrong, so I have to decide whether I believe it or not. Call it intelligent design or whatever, that's fine with me. I think it's a way to legitimize religion in the scientific world and to make skeptics take this theory seriously. Which is a good thing of course.

Well, if a scientist is a christian, an atheist or a muslim is not the issue at all. But when a scientist use religious philosophy of any kind as a base for scientific work - and I think irreducible complexity breathes christian philosophy - then you encounter a lot of obstacles that should be discussed philisophically (since defenite solutions is remarkably absent within philosophy), not "scientifically".

BUT if you strongly believe in creation or the creation myth (you know what I mean) AND is also a scientist, of course I understand that you would want to prove it in some way scientifically.

That would be interesting to read.


I'll deal with the other new post tomorrow or on wednesday... I'm too tired now. Bye...

Okay, let's get this over with...

Well, to me that IS a sign of what nature and the creatures in it are capable of. It is a smaller version of the big picture, a picture that we will never get a chance to see. It is impossible to observe it if you don't accept microevolution as a part of macroevolution. You don't see it - therefore I'm wrong.

Come again? So microevolution is nothing but a straight road, a predestined fate that nature follows blindly?

It sure does. In fact, a lot of things would be a lot more simple in this world without that concept. But then again, people would just find other things to justify their killings of other people.

Yeah, I don't know why I believe it either. Maybe I WANT to believe it unconciously. But when I was like ten I used to say that I believed in God. Then I realized that I didn't believe in God (at least not in "that way"), it was just something that felt right to say. Believing in life after death though is more a feeling and nothing I think about at all. But I'm not afraid to die.

Well, okay that's what I meant... So I did understand it correctly.

What function does your appendix have? Your wisdom-teeth?

"The systematic group of snails (Gastropoda) together with the other mollusc groups (Mollusca) evolved in the sea. It is, however, the only group of molluscs that have adapted to terrestrial life. The transition from the sea to the land only became possible because of multiple adaptations, that snails developed during their evolution. /.../ While the systematic group of snails (Gastropoda) represents a monophyletic group, a systematically consistent group, the terrestrial snails, in the contrary, do not. They belong to several groups inside the snails' group, that is, e.g. to the pulmonate snails (Pulmonata) or lung-breathing snails, on the one hand, and to the prosobranch snails (Prosobranchia) or gill-breathing snails on the other."

(http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Sc.../landschn.html)

What does this prove? Nothing. But it shows that there is a slight possibility that an animal has gone from the sea, thus breathing with gills, to land, thus breathing with lungs.

I'm not saying that one single mutation produced an entire working set of lungs. And I don't understand what a development "all at once" means. Over night? During a year? A century? What if a snail developed a lung while it still was breathing with gills? You accept relatively minor changes during a relatively short period of time (microevolution), but not major changes during a long period of time (macroevolution)? Why, because you can't observe it?

To accept the theory of irredecule complexity you first have to believe that there are certain things that are too complex to have evolved from something really primitive. If you don't have a problem believing in that, well, then the theory of irredecule complexity falls flat down.

Well, I use my earlier experiences in life and valuate whether whatever it is that's supposed to be possible or not really is possible. How do you measure it?

Exactly. That's why I compared it to them. We wouldn't have this discussion if it was just about one-celled organisms.

Sure, but I don't think my way of determing that is wrong. Neither is yours. We just come to different conclusions.

Only if you're convinced that there's a beginning and an end to everything.

Yeah. I like what Jesus said. Jesus was cool. Too bad the crhistians don't follow their leader.

Once again... I don't hold God or Jesus responsible for the foul acts commited in their names. But you don't see a problem whatsoever that people in fact are committing horrible crimes in the name of Jesus?

A rethorical question: How do you get rid of the drugproblem? Do you get rid of the drugs or do you get rid of the crackheads?

When you have a problem - you should attack the source of the problem, not only the symptoms.

(Sorry for getting way off topic... )

Oh please.....

The only way an atheist would be president in USA is if he lied about it. In fact, they viewed a story here on the news about that some politicians in US lie about their beliefs in God because they're afraid that they would lose votes if they admitted that they don't believe in him... It's bad for their image.

I didn't say the church was the ONLY source of money, man...

Maybe they didn't NEED to hire him, but they did, so the Church was his employer and boss and you don't talk back to the boss, right?

And this is a proven fact? What were these beefs?

Well, if it "ignored" the issue of race it was because the people in the documentary didn't mention it whatsoever. It was a passive documentary in the sense that they didn't ask questions to retrieve straight answers from the people in it. It just followed the classes and the discussions among teachers and students and also followed the developments of a campaign organized by some students to protest against the secularization of the educational system.

It was long since I saw this documentary, at least 1½ year, but I don't remember it to be manipulative in any way.

My Mother was a herring and my Father smelt of elderberries!

Of course I believe in "evil"ution

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."