View Full Version : Evolution and Creation
Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.
I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.
-CubeX
On what grounds?
Why refute the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution?
Oh, and how old do you believe the Earth to be?
Heheh, there's a start. Well, actaully, according to the Bible it is about 10,000 years old. Some people say that it ranges all the way to 16,000, which certainly goes against the time lines in the Bible. I'll look back into the study I did on it about a year ago. It took me over a week of work.
And there's another point you had above it - So what are some of those undeniable proofs? Just any of them! Go right ahead!
-CubeX
First of all you haven't actually told me how old you think the Earth is...
Secondly, undeniable proof is not the same as overwhelming evidence. Evolution is a theory - it isn't perfect, and there are holes. Heck, I'm certainly not a biologist (although I know one or two), but I hear google (http://www.google.com) is a good place to start if you're looking for some information.
What would help, perhaps, is if you spoke to us about your reasons behind your disbelief of evolution...
Ok, sry about that. I believe in what i found through giong through the Bible. Like, I said, I did research on it a year ago and I think it is less. I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC. That's what I believe.
Second, I do believe in Micro Evolution. Any educated person in the field of Creationism does and it IS a undeniable fact. Now, I'm not saying your definition of micro evolution is the same as mine, but it should be close. Like mutations, natural selection, etc. How else could we get all these new virus'? How about the cold virus? It changes constantly. That's what I mean by Micro Evolution. Now as for Natural Selection and Mutations, they still have not given us any proof af ADDING genes. All they have done is take away and this is PROVEN. I didn't make it up. That's why evolution seems to be holding onto mutations right now, they are the best bet for evolution.
Lastly, what I DON'T believe in is Macro Evolution, or Molecules-to-Man evolution. It makes a good storyline for a fictitious movie to me and that's it. I have studied about both sides of this argument for nearly two years now and I understand both sides perfectly fine. It's just seems to me like there's more disproving of evolution going out there than usual. I mean, for example, Netscape had an article on it a little while back about how there seems to have been an unusual catastropic event that caused the fossil record and what scientists thought it used to be(STRICTLY caused by long periods of time). (That seems to me like the flood.)
It's just that I have found so much proof of the Bible's accuracy that I believe every word it says. It just what every word means gets me.
But that's about it. I can't think of anything else!
-CubeX
Originally posted by CubeX
It's just seems to me like there's more disproving of evolution going out there than usual.
there is next to no solid evidence that would support creationism. and the few that exist have other explanations. i challange you to produce on scientifically sound piece of evidence why you think god created man, and i'd like a very clear explanation for the reasons you do not accept the evidence that evolutionists have brought forth. what is it if not proof of evolution?
It's just that I have found so much proof of the Bible's accuracy that I believe every word it says. It just what every word means gets me.
if you believe every word that was said in the bible, and your beliefs cannot be shaken, why are you posting here. you must keep an open mind. question everything. yes, even god.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by CubeX
Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.
I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.
-CubeX
First off - there is no such thing as studying creationism.
Second off - saying you're a creationist is identical to saying "I accept outrageous claims with no evidence for them, and mounds of evidence against them."
Thirdly - That makes you a 100% idiot.
FROM THE MENTOR: Name calling is grounds for being banned
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 05:15 PM
Cube - You just said you are a creationist, and yet "believe" in microevolution.
First off, microevolution has been filmed thousands of time, believing is accepting a claim with no evidence. Microevolution is a fact - and so you KNOW it occurs, not believe.
BTW - micro EVOLUTION EVOLUTION.
You just said you "believe" microevolution takes place.
THUS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE AND THUS CREATIONSIM CANNOT!!!!!!!!
Man oh man - it saddens me how someone can "study" for 2 years and come to a conclusion which I can rape to death in less than 30 seconds without performing a SINGLE thought process.
Are you sure you're human? I can't believe I am the same species of you! Surely you have evolved less than me!
FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.
Originally posted by CubeX
[B]Ok, sry about that. I believe in what i found through giong through the Bible. Like, I said, I did research on it a year ago and I think it is less. I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC. That's what I believe.
So how do you dispute the pretty much irrefutable hard evidence that shows the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (certainly much older than a few thousand anyway [s(])?
Is it all a big cover up? Have we got it whoppingly wrong when fossils for example are discovered and dated as however many thousand or million years old? This is what amazes me about creationists - do you want me to find thousands of pages with information that proves that the Earth has been around a lot longer than 7000 years?
As for your evolution rant, CubeX, I can't believe you're real. So much proof of the Bible's accuracy? How about reading some biology text books too.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Mulder
So how do you dispute the pretty much irrefutable hard evidence that shows the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (certainly much older than a few thousand anyway [s(])?
Is it all a big cover up? Have we got it whoppingly wrong when fossils for example are discovered and dated as however many thousand or million years old? This is what amazes me about creationists - do you want me to find thousands of pages with information that proves that the Earth has been around a lot longer than 7000 years?
As for your evolution rant, CubeX, I can't believe you're real. So much proof of the Bible's accuracy? How about reading some biology text books too.
Mulder- Hey . You and I both know he has absolutely no refute for this. He's merely been brainraped and will only accept the subjective evidence which supports his predjudice.
There are well over 100 methods in independantly dating an object. Absolutely all the methods will independantly produce the same result on a specific item.
Less than one tenth of one percent of the material that has been dated is less than one million years old.
There is no such thing as new material.
Cube is just a victim of the preisthood (probably in more ways than one :))
FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 05:38 PM
Cube is one sick sick person.
You guys wanna here something funny?
Here is one interesting way in which you can completely ***-rape creationism.
Did you know that if the Earth was the age the wackos say it is - usually 6 thousand years old, and we assume that every person now living, and every human corpse known to be in existance (buried etc..)
if we assume everyone of those people lived to be at least 18 years on average (judging by body sizes, and most reached higher ages)
that even if we distributed there lives evenly over the 6 thousand years their would be so many people alive at one time that they could not even physically fit on all the earth surface even including that surface that is underwater??
haha - talk about below-scientific proof of the stupidity!!!!!!!
FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.
I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC.
I'm curious what the source of your figure is.
... without performing a SINGLE thought process.
And it's clear you didn't.
and we assume that every person now living, and every human corpse known to be in existance (buried etc..) ... if we distributed there lives evenly over the 6 thousand years their would be so many people alive at one time that they could not even physically fit on all the earth surface even including that surface that is underwater??
Interesting. How, pray tell, do you know of 2 * 10^17 people? (and that's a conservative estimate based on your parameters)
Another God
Jul1-03, 07:35 PM
First of all Cube, I hope you just Ignore PhysicsRocks88...I assume he is new here (I keep forgetting to look at when he joined), and obviously doesn't realise that everyone here is actually interested in discussing things...Not being flamed for their beliefs.
Now having said that, I must warn you, that I am about to convince you that evolution is undeniably real. Do you think you can handle that?
I'll take my time with it, otherwise it may come as a bit of a shock.
The first thing you should know is : Talk Origins (http://talkorigins.org) is the Undisputed ll round perfect resource for all facts on Evolution (and counter arguments by creationists, and counter counter arguments and so on). If You have spent 2 years researching this subject, and never come across this website, then u weren't looking very hard.
Secondly, I am in my fourth year at Uni doung a Triple Major in Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, and Molecular Biology. I have a keen interest in evolution just for interest sake, and understanding molecular biology allows me to understand how evolution works 'In reality'...in the biological system. I know What mutations actually are. I know how mutations affect a system, and I know how they are propagated. Mutations are not something which occur on the phenotypic level...they occur on a genetic level, and sometimes they may have phenotypic effects. Just remember that.
Anyway, I said I will do it slowly, so I will just await your reply here so I know where to go with it from here. I have just one last thing. This is my proof for evolution:
Evolution requires three things to work.
[list=1]
Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
Slight Variations in that Informatio
Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
[/list=1]
This is a fact, reproduced many many times in computers, labs, and a social experiments times over. If you have these 3 parameters, you have a system which over time changes. This change, is evolution.
Now, does our world encounter evolution?
Well, every 'generation' recieves an accurate copy of genetic information from its parents. In that event there may be slight mutations. If the genetic information codes something which isn't functional, that generation dies. If that genetic information codes something which is below obviously less functional than many others around it, then it will probably die. And so on.
I can't prove right here right now with these words that these facts about nature coincide directly with the mathematical style proof of evolution as given above, but I can suggest strongly to you, that it is VERY unlikely that it doesn't.
We have the parts, we have the proof. It is unreasonable to accept that they don't come together and result in what you know you see all around you.
I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people. But then, I also used religious traditions and practices and traced them to their first dated recording. I had a Church History class at that time, so it was quite easy to use the information I got from there. And also, I used calculations of time and so i guess that they can be educated guesses. But all I did was follow the outline of the Bible basically. You would probably find about the same numbers if you did it.
-CubeX
From what I've read, the Catholic Church did just that, and got a date of 4004 BC for creation.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by CubeX
I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people. But then, I also used religious traditions and practices and traced them to their first dated recording. I had a Church History class at that time, so it was quite easy to use the information I got from there. And also, I used calculations of time and so i guess that they can be educated guesses. But all I did was follow the outline of the Bible basically. You would probably find about the same numbers if you did it.
-CubeX
I can see by your replies that you are 100% ignoring any contradiction. I would assert your sole purpose is to stir **** up - and that indeed you know not a single thing about evolution. Also, your post content makes you look 13, so are you?
Secondly, why are you using the bible. If you're asserting that a piece of information is true because it's in the bible, then please provide evidence that this information is true.
I could write a book which said the earth was 10 days old. You have no evidence of the age of the Earth little child - you're just believing what you read.
Another God
Jul1-03, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by CubeX
I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people.
Yeah, thats generally accepted as how the creationists date the earth. I've just enver met someone who bothered to do it personally before. But even so, how do you account for the fact that there are so many many many scientific methods of dating things, all of which give a number MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than 6000 years? I mean like, if they were at all similar, then maybe you could claim they were wrong, and that the earth was actually 6000 years old. But no, the scientific dates are MUCH bigger than 6000 years. And they ALL say it.
What I find compelling is that these earth age dates from science all came out in a time when everyone was a good little christian, and the only date they had for the earth was the biblical one. And so compelling was the scientifica evidence, that all of these christian scientists realised that the earth COULDN'T be only 6000 years old, so changed to the obvious evidence present in the science.
It's hard to change someones belief system, and so to have an entire world of people change it obviously means something. It is just a limited number of residual pockets left, unwilling to change.
Yes, i have come across that site many, many times. I've been very intrigued by some of the articles there. But, yes, I do know that mutations occur on the genetic level. but, please, correct me if I'm wrong but you posted:
Evolution requires three things to work.
Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
Slight Variations in that Information
Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes? Therefore, natural selection CANNOT cause this type of evolution, but we still don't know about mutations, correct? There hasn't been one that has caused this, but there is still quite a chance that it still could do this. But we cannot prove that it can or cannot at this time. The only problem is - where do the genes come from?
Also, I was ignoring PhysicsRock88 because, I don't think he even knows where he got any of his stuff. Also, most of his posts were just Spam. I'm just glad that there are people on this board like you and Hurkyl that are willing to just takl and not flame.
Thanks!
-CubeX
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Another God
[i]
Evolution requires three things to work.
[list=1]
Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
Slight Variations in that Informatio
Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
[/list=1]
I would suggest you attempt to recieve a refund on your education. This statement is complete and total misinformation. If you're gonna attempt to prove evolution, at least know what it is.
Statement 1 is fine - and so is statement 2.
In statement 3 you are merely referencing ONE evolutionary agent called natural selection. If your three statement were to accurately describe evolution statement three should read like this:
3. A change in allele frequencies of a given population over time, for absolutely any reason.
You need to correct this in your brain - and stop spreading misinformation that I as a biologist must go around and correct.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 07:59 PM
Posts with truths you can't handle aren't spam. You're not here to learn obviously.
Thirdly - his 3 points of evolution are flawed, and so you need to ignore those posts.
His third one is simply one evolutionary agent.
Also, why are you asking that it needs to be "good"? If you had done evolutionary research you would have known the answer to this - which is 100% no.
Originally posted by CubeX
Yes, i have come across that site many, many times. I've been very intrigued by some of the articles there. But, yes, I do know that mutations occur on the genetic level. but, please, correct me if I'm wrong but you posted:
Evolution requires three things to work.
Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
Slight Variations in that Information
Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes? Therefore, natural selection CANNOT cause this type of evolution, but we still don't know about mutations, correct? There hasn't been one that has caused this, but there is still quite a chance that it still could do this. But we cannot prove that it can or cannot at this time. The only problem is - where do the genes come from?
Also, I was ignoring PhysicsRock88 because, I don't think he even knows where he got any of his stuff. Also, most of his posts were just Spam. I'm just glad that there are people on this board like you and Hurkyl that are willing to just takl and not flame.
Thanks!
-CubeX
Yeah, well, they all seem to vary quite a good bit from each other, it's hard to figure out which one is the right one! But, let me check into it before I officially say it, but I do believe that there were tests done that made 2 of the carbon dating methods faulty. I believe it was based on temperature and enviroment issues and things like that. I read something about it in a mag. some time ago. I'll try to find it for you!
Also, just want you to know, I'm not trying to prove evo. wrong, I'm just trying to talk about it. (That one was to everyone!)
-CubeX
This is a fact, reproduced many many times in computers, labs, and a social experiments times over.
But in general how does evolution compare to intelligent design? I'm familiar with evolution in one particular realm (the game "corewars"), and while it is possible to evolve warriors, the results of evolution are fairly homogenous, and don't even compare to the results of intelligent design.
And from what I've picked up about evolutionary programming in general, it pretty much requires the programmer to intelligently design at least the gene pool, if not the mutation probabilities, crossover strategies, population management...
PhysicsRock, could you please stop Spaming and Flaming. I believe that someone who has 4 years worth of schooling knows quite a bit more than you. I would kindly like to ask you to stop flaming and spaming.
-CubeX
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by CubeX
Yeah, well, they all seem to vary quite a good bit from each other, it's hard to figure out which one is the right one! But, let me check into it before I officially say it, but I do believe that there were tests done that made 2 of the carbon dating methods faulty. I believe it was based on temperature and enviroment issues and things like that. I read something about it in a mag. some time ago. I'll try to find it for you!
Also, just want you to know, I'm not trying to prove evo. wrong, I'm just trying to talk about it. (That one was to everyone!)
-CubeX
No, there were no tests done. You (lie) say you did 2 years of research, and you're a creationist? Then how come you don't even have your age of earth date known? I sure would think you'd at least know that!
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
I would assert your sole purpose is to stir **** up - and that indeed you know not a single thing about evolution.
it seems he knows a good deal about evolution and that which he doesn't know he is trying to clarify in this thread. you are not helping him.
Also, your post content makes you look 13, so are you?
i'm 15. would you judge me? (i probobly shouldn't ask this, becuase i'm fairly certain you do judge me)
Secondly, why are you using the bible. If you're asserting that a piece of information is true because it's in the bible, then please provide evidence that this information is true.
I could write a book which said the earth was 10 days old. You have no evidence of the age of the Earth little child - you're just believing what you read.
how are you doing anything any different? do you go out yourself and make the calculations in the stars and trees about the age of the universe? or are you just believing what you read in a physics book?
This topic needs to get back on track or it will be locked.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by CubeX
PhysicsRock, could you please stop Spaming and Flaming. I believe that someone who has 4 years worth of schooling knows quite a bit more than you. I would kindly like to ask you to stop flaming and spaming.
-CubeX
4 years knows more than me. Hmmm, somehow it doesn't makes sense that an M.D. Ph.D. is the same as having a B.S.??
You know - you won't get anywhere ignoring the truth, so I suggest you deal with it.
If you call the truth spamming, then you are in for some spam from hell.
Yeah, you can download a program called Darwin's Pool. It's very simple, but it shows how evolution most probably works. If you get a good one, you can be entertained for a very good while!
-CubeX
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by maximus
how are you doing anything any different? do you go out yourself and make the calculations in the stars and trees about the age of the universe? or are you just believing what you read in a physics book?
In case you didn't notice, scientific book make a claim and back it up with evidence so others don't necessarily need to do it themselves, man.
The bible makes claims WITH NO EVIDENCE.
Get it little guy?
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Kerrie
This topic needs to get back on track or it will be locked.
This thread is absolutely on topic. What's the issue.
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
4 years knows more than me. Hmmm, somehow it doesn't makes sense that an M.D. Ph.D. is the same as having a B.S.??
what in the hell is this supposed to mean? having a ph. d. does not automatically make you smarter or wiser than anyone else (at least not here, you need to prove yourself worthy). einstein droped out of high school, for christ's sake!
Heheh, PhysicsRock, you're starting to crack me up! I've never seen such an ego! Heheh. But, I'm not replying to you again like this again because this is SPAM. It doesn't relate to the topic. I'm gonna go now though so I can work on my Ear Training program.
Later,
-CubeX
Another God
Jul1-03, 08:10 PM
PhysicsRocks88 is right. I stuffed that last one up. I always fall into that trap.
The fact is Evolution is undeniable. There is really no discussion there. The challenge, is to prove that Natural Selection is the cause of it. But we should leave that element until after you are convinced that Evolution is true.
But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes?
ACtually, there is no "Good" or "Progression" in evolution. Evolution is just a ...well, as PR88 said: "A change in allele frequencies of a given population over time, for absolutely any reason."
It just happens, and if whatever that happening thing is happens to survive...then it survives. There is no direction, there is no reason, there is no right and wrong...there is just luck, and death.
And as for the addition of genes... A 'Gene' is not necessarily a singular unit. DNA is so complex, that its hard to explain what it is without getting into everything.
But let me skip a basic level or two, and at least tell you that there are many various versions of Mutations, some of which copy large chunks of DNA and place them somewhere else in the chain. In fact, about 10% of our DNA is made up of 'transposable elements'. That is, sections of DNA (short ones around 500bp long, or long ones which are several thousand base pairs long) which simply copy themselves and put themselves back intot our genome. Thats all they do. Copy, paste, copy, paste.
Now, in my mind, this is the most basic organism. DNA, is the most basic organism.
But anyway, with this sort of mechanism, you can get genes, functional genes copied, and then you have two copies of a functional gene, so if one was to mutate, then the organism wouldn't notice it, and so over time, it may aquire a new function.
i propose we simply ignore every post by physicsrocks88, as he is not helping here at all. all in favour?
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by maximus
what in the hell is this supposed to mean? having a ph. d. does not automatically make you smarter or wiser than anyone else (at least not here, you need to prove yourself worthy). einstein droped out of high school, for christ's sake!
If you believe that having a PhD doesn't make you more knowledgable than someone with a B.S. you gots issues.
Why are people with PhDs the ones doing the work? random occurance?
Einsien may have dropped out - but he did plenty of studying on his own. And by the way, Einsien didn't do that much in his lifetime - he handled a few large things but there was very little for him to learn of what was known before him.
It would have taken less than one year to learn math and science then - whereas now one could learn for many decades.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by maximus
i propose we simply ignore every post by physicsrocks88, as he is not helping here at all. all in favour?
Yep, ignore the person posting truths. At listen to another god which needs to have an editor - and cube the little guy who believes claims with NO evidence.
I can see this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything, other than me learning this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything....
Another God
Jul1-03, 08:20 PM
Ahhh..obviously my last post sorta belongs at the end of page one. Unfortunately, this thread is moving faster than is humanly possible to keep up with.
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
I can see this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything, other than me learning this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything....
No, this place is perfectly designed for people to learn. Unfortunately, in all your years of education there is one thing you have failed to learn: People need to learn of their own volition. Not by having 'FACTS' jammed down their throat.
If you spent your life accepting facts, then that would explain your inability to discuss things.
We are here to think for ourselves, and in so doing learn.
To quote:
"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening,
terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in
this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the
religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by
giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their
view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and
learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness;
chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.
Think for yourself.
Question authority."
-Some guy at the begining of a TOOL song.
Aww, Kerrie, can I go off topic a bit, please?
But anyway, with this sort of mechanism, you can get genes, functional genes copied, and then you have two copies of a functional gene, so if one was to mutate, then the organism wouldn't notice it, and so over time, it may aquire a new function.
Anyways, AG, I know a lot of studying has been done in the genetic code of some living organisms. Are there documented examples of this actually occuring across generations of living specimens?
If not, I understand there has been some headway into finding indirect evidence (such as "proto-eyes"), how solid is it?
Ok, this topic is a waste of time. If you are going to talk about the bible as a source of absolute reliability, and then transpose your personal opinion into will of god-esque infalsifiability, then you are following a faith based approach that isn't worth any reasonable discussion. With sufficient will, you can extract any statement you like from the bible, and on the grounds of absolute faith, declare them as true.
The sum result is that you must accept that (a) the bible is open to interpretation and (b) there are sources of knowledge and truth beyond it and (c) you must look on the situation without bias.
But since I am a borish, and unwise person, I will detonate some of those misconceptions...
1. Proof for the accuracy of the bible? This is utterly wrong. Any sufficiently wordy document must have some elements of truths in it, and a study focusing on correct portions is inherently biased, both from approach and interpretation. In comparision to fact that can be interpreted as wrong, sometimes blatantly, the bible has a low accuracy level.
2. The age of the earth is well confirmed by radio-dating of uranium isotopes, carbon dating, cross referencing of other solar system objects and so on. While some methods have a percentage uncertainty, this is statistically insignificant. Based on archeological data from fossils, ice cores, mineral deposits, there is no accounting for the sorting, gradual changing of fossils, the population growth of mankind, racial variations, the existence of magnetic polarisation of sea floor, tectonic mountain formation, erosion terrain features with an Earth of less than billions of year old. The suggestion of young earth series needs divine deception on a collossal scale, and is flatly unreasonable.
3. There is no such thing as a differentiation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The division is purely subjective, as "macro-evolution" is simply the culmination of small changes. The process of mutation is precisely the addition of genes you mentioned, or rather the changing of genes to give different characteristics. Hence we see a growth in complexity of various organisms like HIV which has developed numerous features to prevent antiviral attack.
4. Evolution works in the conjunction of mutation, natural selection and heredity. It does not work by one of the options. Mutation provides the raw creativity in the evolutionary process, heredity distributes them amongst the population, and natural selection selects them in terms of "goodness", or survivability, or any present selectional pressure.
5. The second law of thermodynamics is an invalid way to attack evolution, as the earth is not a closed system, greater complexity in living things in fact increases their entropy capability, and temporary decreases in entropy can occur.
6. While evolution is driven by random action, it's effect follows a general trend. Consider a balloon. The gas particles move randomly, but the overall effect is to inflate the balloon. There is however no overall "goal" to evolution.
7. Uses of probability to disprove chemogenesis are incorrect, because the processes involved are not random, and life as we know it, and even life itself is not special and hence statistically significant in an objective sense.
8. Speaking of evolution as darwinism is incorrect, as unlike creationism, evolution is a dynamic science which has developed greatly since. Eg. we now know that punctuated equilibriums also play a part (contrary to some creationists, these are not rival theories, but rather complementary aspects), as well as the "selfish gene" theory, symbiosis, co-evolution etc.
9. The expectation of a direct progression is incorrect, as random processes form multiple branches and the probability of fossil preservation (and uncovering) is too low.
10. Creation itself is unscientific, relying on static absolutes and without real falsifiability or evidence. It also involves the suspension of physical laws without experimental/theoretical backing.
11. Faith is completely meaningless in science. The value of a scientific theory has nothing to do with the strength of belief.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Are there documented examples of this actually occuring across generations of living specimens?
for simple organisms like viruses, yes. just about every year we observe new mutaions. but i don't think we have any solid observations for larger, multicellular organisms. we do, however, have the fossil record. and it's almost completely filled in. almost...
Another God
Jul1-03, 08:45 PM
Yeah... ^ ...what FZ said.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Anyways, AG, I know a lot of studying has been done in the genetic code of some living organisms. Are there documented examples of this actually occuring across generations of living specimens?
If not, I understand there has been some headway into finding indirect evidence (such as "proto-eyes"), how solid is it? [/B]
Um...well, finding it 'actually happening' in living species, in the real world.. This just can't be done. We can't 'watch' the genetic code of real organisms unfortunately. What scientists do do though, is get their basic organisms (E. coli, Saccarmyces Cerevisia (Yeast), Drosophila (Fruit Flys), and Mice), and study them through various techniques. And what they have found, by studying E coli primarily, is that all of this stuff occurs. They then study Yeast, and find out that even though Yeast is Eucaryotic (E coli is Prokaryotic), it has essentially the same mechanisms in it (constrcuted slightly differently, but the same sort of stuff), and then they look at the Genomes of the fruit fly and the mouse, and they see the same sort of genetic elements in them.
its fair to assume that it happens in larger organisms too then.
DNA is a chemical, and it is the same chemical whether in bacteria, or in humans. Proteins are made from amino acids. Amino Acids are the same chemical whether in Bacteria or Humans.
When you realise that we are made of exactly the same sort of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen based reactions as bacteria, it becomes a lot easier to accept that we are really just doing exactly the same thing as they are doing. The only difference is, that our body is composed of billions of 'bacteria' (cells) working together...
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 09:03 PM
Like FZ put it. There is no point in this thread.
Evolution has been proven - I prove it every week in my lab where I publish various experimentations.
Creationism has no proof, and won't ever have proof because it's false.
It's you guys who've been had - Cube is just trying to rous you up a bit. How can you even give the time of day to someone who is so delusional!
Why couldn't God have created a system which then evolved?
Another God
Jul1-03, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
Cube is just trying to rous you up a bit. How can you even give the time of day to someone who is so delusional!
No one is getting 'rous'ed up except you. I see someone who has a belief which I tend to disagree with, and so I will attempt to explain to him why i disagree.
If you think he is delusional, then its easy for you to ignore him. So lets practice that shall we? You ignore this thread, and us 'had people' wil carry on discussing this useless topic [:D] Agreed?
Originally posted by Dave
Why couldn't God have created a system which then evolved?
because then your saying that god has direct influence over the laws of physics and can violate them if he wishes. we have never observed this. evolution is random. if god intended us to be as we are, he can therefore violate probobility.
Robert Heinlein wrote a book, Some Job something. One of his best story lines in it was that God created the earth 6,000 years ago but created it 4.5 billion years old. Blew me away, but his god was a trickster.
Why couldn't it be both, as I said before; man's body is evolved but his spirit or soul is created?
Anyway evolution is not a proven fact just tons of evidence that we take to indicate that is a viable theory. Its not complete yet and does not address genetic drift or divergence so far as I know yet, just that it happens even during a few generations.
I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally about anything in genesis. I believe it myth, legend and folklore. I do believe in evolution and creation and God and no, I not syhizoid - crazy yes. Schizoid no.
Another God
Jul1-03, 09:55 PM
Evolution is a fact.
Natural Selection in the theory attempting to explain the fact.
It has been this way since Darwin published Origin Of The Species.
In Origin of the species Darwin managed to do two things: Prove evolution, and argue that natural selection was the most reasonable mechanism to explain it.
Originally posted by Another God
Evolution is a fact.
Natural Selection in the theory attempting to explain the fact.
It has been this way since Darwin published Origin Of The Species.
In Origin of the species Darwin managed to do two things: Prove evolution, and argue that natural selection was the most reasonable mechanism to explain it.
Evolution most certainly has been proven as much as any scientific claim has been proven.
Originally posted by Royce
Robert Heinlein wrote a book, Some Job something. One of his best story lines in it was that God created the earth 6,000 years ago but created it 4.5 billion years old. Blew me away, but his god was a trickster.
This book just commits a syntax error.
If this God created the earth as "4.5 billion years old".
Then how old is the Earth? You said it yourself, "4.5 billion years old."
What Heinlein is merely doing is saying that the material of the Earth is older than the Earth itself, which is true.
Our Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old as a monument. However the material is about 3 times as old.
It's certainly nothing mind-blowing, it's just syntax tricks.
Originally posted by CubeX
Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.
I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.
-CubeX
No, no one asked for it. This topic went out of style about 20+ years ago when evolution was ireffutably proven. Evolution has been proven to the highest scientific degree; it has been mathematically proven.
It's not up for debate by anyone intelligent. Evolution has all the proof, and anything contradicting evolution has no proof. Simple as that.
But the thing you all keep on lacking to say is what the true definition is! You keep on saying the same thing without saying the real point! Look on True Origins! That's where I got the definition from!
Evolution requires the addition of genes, correct?
Where has that been found in testing?
-CubeX
Oh yeah, and to the ones who keep on saying it is "irrifutable," think again! No body, I repeat NO BODY believes in the SAME absolute things in evolution. Just look at all of the different viewpoints. Search in Google! (Man, google gets you alot of everything, ain't it great![:))] )
And, you see, it's impossible to have a post like this here (much to my suprise, b/c it was unactive ALL day almost) because of the replies back. By the tiem you read them all, you've had read 2 or 3 pages! By then, you can't answer in return. This is a topic that should have been a limited response, or, in other words, be kept to about a 3 person debate. My mistake! Sry!
But, I'm not here saying creationism is irrifutable, I'm here to discuss and debate. Apparently it's not the main focus of many here. But I will keep on responding to a choice few at times. I learned that you should never post more than what you can handle back.
-CubeX
but, I'm goin' to bed![zz)] I'm tired! i'll answer some more later!
One more response. No, I don't believe in any Gap theories, or anything like that. No, God didn't use evolution to create the world.
And evolution is NOT a fact. It's still the Theory of Evolution. Sry. Look in Webster's.
-CubeX
Another God said:
Now, in my mind, this is the most basic organism. DNA, is the most basic organism.
WHAT?! Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive! The CELL is the most basic lifeform. DNA is simply the coding, like a computer programming language. And what can DNA be broken down into molecules, and molecules to elements, and elements to protons, electrons, and nuetrons.
Are you sure you went to school that long? Or did you just simply not word this right?
-CubeX
Originally posted by CubeX
And evolution is NOT a fact. It's still the Theory of Evolution. Sry. Look in Webster's.
general relativity is also called a theory, but it has been proven several times over. germ theory is only a theory, but it is definatly a fact.
You can only prove a theory wrong.
General relativity hasn't been proved right, but there have been many experimental results which agree with it.
Cube - It's become obvious in this thread that you did NOT do any research whatsoever, and that you are in no way educated in evolution.
Evolution is a fact to the Nth degree.
You pulled the old "it's just a theory" bull****.
Do you even know what the definition of a theory is? Many theories are facts.
You are NOT educated in evolution whatsoever and those two years were spent as a completely bias look with the end result being completely uneducated.
Originally posted by Dave
You can only prove a theory wrong.
General relativity hasn't been proved right, but there have been many experimental results which agree with it.
Of course general relativity has been proven correct. Where the hell have you been?
Originally posted by Dave
General relativity hasn't been proved right, but there have been many experimental results which agree with it.
true, but creationism has no experimental results which argree with it.
there is also iffifutable proof supporting evolution and debunking creationism. for instance, we have found fossil records of animals which predate the estimated moment of creation. (age found through carbon dating). if god created all other animals at this moment of creation, how do you explian this?
Another God
Jul1-03, 10:54 PM
First:
Evolution as Fact and Theory (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)
Read that. Evolution is a fact, and it's a theory.
Secondly, if you want something a little more entertaining to read, but just as informative:
Douglas Adams' Speech (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html)
Douglas Adams is always amusing, but he is also quite intellgient.
The second link contains a quote relevent to the last thing I said. (No, I didn't say it wrong, and yes I still mean it. Even under the pressure of your indignation...)
I remember once, a long time ago, needing a definition of life for a speech I was giving. Assuming there was a simple one and looking around the Internet, I was astonished at how diverse the definitions were and how very, very detailed each one had to be in order to include ‘this’ but not include ‘that’. If you think about it, a collection that includes a fruit fly and Richard Dawkins and the Great Barrier Reef is an awkward set of objects to try and compare. When we try and figure out what the rules are that we are looking for, trying to find a rule that’s self-evidently true, that turns out to be very, very hard.
....
maybe you might say about something that’s an example of Digital life, ‘does that count as being alive?’ Is it something, to coin someone’s earlier phrase, that’ll go squish if you step on it? Think about the controversial Gaia hypothesis; people say ‘is the planet alive?’, ‘is the ecosphere alive or not?’ In the end it depends on how you define such things.
...
So, in the end, in the absence of an intentional creator, you cannot say what life is, because it simply depends on what set of definitions you include in your overall definition. Without a god, life is only a matter of opinion.
Originally posted by Shark
Cube - It's become obvious in this thread that you did NOT do any research whatsoever, and that you are in no way educated in evolution.
Evolution is a fact to the Nth degree.
You pulled the old "it's just a theory" bull****.
Do you even know what the definition of a theory is? Many theories are facts.
You are NOT educated in evolution whatsoever and those two years were spent as a completely bias look with the end result being completely uneducated.
you are following in the footsteps of the late physicsrocks88. i would not reccomend this. rudeness is not acceptable here.
and furthermore, he is right, you can never prove a theory correct. it is the old idea that even if you commit an experamentation a hundred times and get the same result everytime, there is no way that you can know without a shadown of a doubt that it will happen again. so unless you repeat the experiement an infinite amount of times, you can never prove it. this isn't too much a limition though, and is usually overlooked or simply ignored.
Another God
Jul1-03, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Shark
Of course general relativity has been proven correct. Where the hell have you been?
Well, if you follow the Popper method of Science, then no, Relativity has not been proven. No scientific theory can ever be proven. They can only be proven wrong. That is what makes science science. Bold Hypothesis's, and falsifiable claims.
Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats... It is true that Cube has used a couple of the most basic errors already, but well, so what if his two years of research have been futile. Perhaps now is the time for it to be fruitful.
Originally posted by Another God
It is true that Cube has used a couple of the most basic errors already, but well, so what if his two years of research have been futile. Perhaps now is the time for it to be fruitful.
now you're being rude, AG!
CUBE: don't let the others get to you. this thread is just as relevant as many other threads i've seen. you are voicing your views and the views of many other throughout the world, and i feel it should be adressed here.
Another God
Jul1-03, 11:05 PM
No.
And I only say that because I know what you are trying to imply. You are implying that there are pre-ordained genes that need to be there for stuff to happen. The fact of the matter is that Genes do not exist. Genes are something which we classify simply to allow us 'parcel' them up into a discrete entity, thereby allowing us ease in our studying of them.
The reality of it though, is that you have DNA. A long long polymerised chain of Phosphates and ribose sugars with Base side chains. Thats all it is. A long chain of A's, C's, T's and G's.... From there, if u happen to have a particular sequence of ATCG's which causes a particular protein to bind to it, (RNA Polymerase) and then a section of that DNA molecule is transcribed into RNA, and that RNA causes a ribosome to bind to it and have its codons expressed into Amino Acids added to a chain of amino acids...then you get expression of that section of DNA. If you want to call that section of DNA a Gene..then go ahead....but even if all this stuff happens, the protein which comes out the other end, is quite possibly entirely useless, and so will most likely end up being broken back down into amino acids by proteases.
What do you think a Gene is exactly?
Another God
Jul1-03, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by maximus
now you're being rude, AG!
How was that being rude? I thought it was an entirely objective statement. If Cube has spent two years 'researching both sides of this debate' and he had been to TalkOrigins many times, then by now he should know not to say "Evolution is only a theory" and "Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive!" and things like that.
I was not using ad hominen, I was merely observing that the comments used by him seem below standard for someone boasting years of research.
I could of course always be wrong.
Maximus - No you are wrong. A theory can be proven true, and certainly many have been. If you do not know this you have no place in the scientific community. Furthermore, I am not being rude by merely stating someones low level of mental ability. Is it rude to call someone retarded, retarded? No.
AG - Exactly, evolution is a fact and a theory. Some theories are facts, all facts are theories. Anyone who is deservant to be in the scientific community knows this. And if not, your education is purposeless.
Maximus (again) - To bad I need to notify you twice. AG is not being rude, he's merely, as I said, stating facts. You need to not be such an emotional nightmare and realize that one who is stupid is stupid.
Why are you so much smarter than us Shark?? Which degrees do you have?
Personally, I have none.
Originally posted by Another God
How was that being rude? I thought it was an entirely objective statement. If Cube has spent two years 'researching both sides of this debate' and he had been to TalkOrigins many times, then by now he should know not to say "Evolution is only a theory" and "Any 7th grade science class could tell you DNA is NOT alive!" and things like that.
I was not using ad hominen, I was merely observing that the comments used by him seem below standard for someone boasting years of research.
I could of course always be wrong.
AG - Exactly. I am with you all the way. This maximus character obviously has some sort of issue. And so does Cube.
Cube - I understand one being "stupid" on the subject of science. Obviously if you're a creationist than you are completely and totally uneducated in science and specifically evolution. So how is it at all possible that us - who require evidence to back a claim - could ever communicate with you - someone who randomly chooses which claims they want to assert are true?
Originally posted by Dave
Why are you so much smarter than us Shark?? Which degrees do you have?
1. I did not say anything that involved you. Do not assert the false claim that I stated I was smarter than you, or any "us" entity.
2. If I was smarter than you, it would be because I have had a higher ability to learn (intelligence) and because I spent more time in a better education system.
3. The degrees one has are absolutely tied to their "smartness" and intelligence. That said, what degrees I have are noones business here, simply because anyone can lie about a degree.
4. In is indisputable that someone who accepts the claim of creationism and has the same knowledge available to them, is surely much less knowledgable (and probably less intelligent) than someone who accepts the claim of the (proven theory of) evolution.
Another God
Jul1-03, 11:14 PM
Shark does sound an aweful lot like PhysicsRocks88...
Whatever.
Um, Nothing can be proven. A fact, is: Quoting Stephen J Gould:
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
In other words, it is not Proven, it is not absolutely certain...it is provisionally accepted as true, because it is unreasonable not to.
"We know nothing other than the things that we know we don't know. And we could even be wrong about them."
-me
Shark, I agree with 1, 2 and 3, but 4?
How can you say Creationlism doesn't exist with certainly?
You could have been lied to by all those books you read.
There are thousands of members here - surely some will sound like others.
With that said - claims can absolutely be proven. You are mistaken.
Below you define a fact.
A fact is something that has been proven.
Thus if X is a fact (by said definition) than X is proven.
It is that simple.
Evolution meets the requirements of the definition of fact - and thus it is proven.
Originally posted by Another God
Shark does sound an aweful lot like PhysicsRocks88...
Whatever.
Um, Nothing can be proven. A fact, is: Quoting Stephen J Gould:
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
In other words, it is not Proven, it is not absolutely certain...it is provisionally accepted as true, because it is unreasonable not to.
"We know nothing other than the things that we know we don't know. And we could even be wrong about them."
-me
Originally posted by Shark
AG - Exactly. I am with you all the way. This maximus character obviously has some sort of issue. And so does Cube.
dismissing someone else's ideas as "obviously wrong" is a very convenient way to get through life. here, we listen to each other and try to help everybody. you are being needlessly rude and egotistical. i find it a strange coincidence that you are showing up in this thread after the departure of another *******, physicsrocks88. maybe you two are one and the same.
personally, i'm ****ing tired of dealing with assholes, pardon my french.
Another God
Jul1-03, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Shark
4. In is indisputable that someone who accepts the claim of creationism and has the same knowledge available to them, is surely much less knowledgable (and probably less intelligent) than someone who accepts the claim of the (proven theory of) evolution.
I don't believe this at all.
I believe that they have just been brainwashed with an entirely different metaphysical world view to the metaphysical worldview that we have all been brainwashed with.
Of course there is a chance that our stance is entirely rational and theirs isn't....but nothing is certain.
"facts" are only our subjective interpretations of the world... And our subjectivity is known to be very very wrong. We have to accept this.
"So crucify the ego, before it's far too late
To leave behind this place so negative and blind and cynical,
And you will come to find that we are all one mind
Capable of all that's imagined and all conceivable."
Hmmm...two TOOL quotings in one day. This is good....
Originally posted by Dave
Shark, I agree with 1, 2 and 3, but 4?
How can you say Creationlism doesn't exist with certainly?
You could have been lied to by all those books you read.
How?
Because evolution has been proven - and any one of many evolutionary proofs cannot exist if creationism were true.
Thus creationism is false.
Books I've read?
I have performed research which inadvertently proved evolution myself. Science does not lie.
Maximus - You've been put on ignore. It's obvious you contribute nothing here. You can't seem to stand anyone being forward. So you've been dealt with.
AG - Using quotes is not an intelligent way to communicate. One could quote any number of idiots. Secondly, using quotes from a drugged up band is not a good means to conduct science.
PhysicsRocks88
Jul1-03, 11:23 PM
You guys didn't seriously think I was gone did you?
Oh no, I've been here a while and will continue to be. I do have to go eat you know - I am human!
Another God
Jul1-03, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Shark
Below you define a fact.
A fact is something that has been proven.
Thus if X is a fact (by said definition) than X is proven.
Well, if you choose that to be the definition of a fact, then we know no facts. Simple.
Equating two words, and then claiming to be in possesion of one, and therefore of the other, doesn't mean you actually have possesion of either.
Definiton: $10 is something which is the same as $10000000
This if I have $10, then I have $10000000
Well, i have $10 in my wallet.. I am a $10000000aire
So what?
personally, i'm ****ing tired of dealing with assholes, pardon my french.
Yeah, i was having fun for a while, but I have a bloody final exam tomorrow on Molecularl Biology of Nucleic Acids that I really should be studying for... I'm out for the day I think.
Originally posted by Shark
I have performed research which inadvertently proved evolution myself.
Please share the details of this research.
Originally posted by Shark
Science does not lie.
I guess not, but your brain might- seen the matrix? Is it not possible your brain is getting information from a source other than your body and if that is a possiblity then maybe everything you know is false.
That's one reason why evolution isn't definetly true. I mean it probably is correct. But who knows...
Another God
Jul1-03, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
You guys didn't seriously think I was gone did you?
Oh no, I've been here a while and will continue to be. I do have to go eat you know - I am human! LOL, and suddenly "shark" is no longer "Online"
[:D]
that's odd, physicsrocks88 arrived here seconds after shark left.
too bad, you two would get along wonderfully.
Originally posted by Shark
One could quote any number of idiots.
I've proved your theory [:D]
i repeat my proposal that we simply ignore physicsrocks88 and his alter ego 'shark'. i think we can all see that what little he does add to the discussion is greatly overdone with his rudeness and ego.
(wait, i am perdicting he will relpy to this with something very rude!!!)
So now we've got AG citing drug bands and Dave citing drug movies.
I am here and not signed off. My name doesn't even appear as it's hidden.
If you think I am such a spammer maxium, why in the hell would I need to change my name?
Anyhow - Evolution is proven. There's no refutting that. When a scientific claim is proven using mathamatics, such as evolution, it becomes proven to an even higher degree. And evolution is self-sufficient, nothing can unprove it.
I'm still waiting for (CubeX in particular) to explain why he refuses to believe all the evidence that prooves how old the Earth really is.
Guybrush Threepwood
Jul2-03, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Mulder
I'm still waiting for (CubeX in particular) to explain why he refuses to believe all the evidence that prooves how old the Earth really is.
wow, what a touchy thread! [8)]
I guess I'll wait for those explanations too before sayng something that adds to this controversy.
If you think I am such a spammer maxium, why in the **** would I need to change my name?
Phrased awfully curiously for someone claiming not to be PR88...
I think you're both LogicalAtheist anyways; you have the same bad attitude and the same views about the factual content of science as he did.
In any case, the topic of provability belongs in the philosophy forum, not the religion forum (and certainly not in this thread). You really should go over there if you want to evangelize (unless you wish to cast your faith in science as a religion... in which case it belongs in this forum but still not in this thread).
The main point of this thread was supposed to be a chance for Cube to defend his brand of creationism. That means that use of the Bible is fair game along with observational evidence, with the goal of refining a theory that is both consistent with observation and the Bible.
If you're unable to argue in other belief systems, then pretend you're doing a proof by contradiction and have presumed the idea of creationism is correct and you are working to logically derive a contradiction... with the end goal of proving all useful forms of creationism are contradictory.
If you're unable to do that, then you don't belong in this aspect of the discussion.
The secondary point seemed to be discussing the flaws of evolution, but that also really belongs in a different thread. (in the Other Sciences forum)
good news everybody! we can stop worrying about physicsrocks88. greg kicked him out! [:D]
Should we restart the thread so there isn't 5 pages of junk at the beginning?
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Should we restart the thread so there isn't 5 pages of junk at the beginning?
Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in any one of a dozen fields.
Originally posted by Zero
Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in any one of a dozen fields.
we may realize that, but the author of this thread obviously doesn't. we're trying to promote mutual understanding here, right?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.
error. evolution does not require the sun. sure, life has evolved around it because it is a very abundant source of energy, but if it were to slowly (key word slowly) die, life could evolve to different energy sources. like heat vents under water.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by FZ+
There is however no overall "goal" to evolution.Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun." In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.
And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.
i seem to have responded to your reply before you posted it! [:D]
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun." In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.
And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.
Sounds nice...but that is a metaphorical way of looking at it that bears little resenblance to reality.
Originally posted by maximus
we may realize that, but the author of this thread obviously doesn't. we're trying to promote mutual understanding here, right?
No, we are trying to promote understanding of reality!! GRRRRRRRR!!!![;)]
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by maximus
error. evolution does not require the sun. sure, life has evolved around it because it is a very abundant source of energy, but if it were to slowly (key word slowly) die, life could evolve to different energy sources. like heat vents under water. Oh, you mean the only life that we humans have been able to discover in the entire universe which, began on this very planet which, began with its very relation with the sun?
I think it would be a reasonable assessment to say that life didn't begin on this planet without the sun.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think it would be a reasonable assessment to say that life didn't begin on this planet without the sun.
this is true. but as i said, there are some forms of life which no longer require it. and this is beside the point anyway. earth is a single example of how life could be structred. (i'm not saying there is an ET here) but it is completly possible that life could evolve without the sun or any star for that matter.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Sounds nice...but that is a metaphorical way of looking at it that bears little resenblance to reality. Of course it's a metaphor, and yet it's the very metaphor which is necessary, if we wish to give any credence to the possiblity that God exists.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by maximus
this is true. but as i said, there are some forms of life which no longer require it. and this is beside the point anyway. earth is a single example of how life could be structred. This is not besides the point because it's the only example we have, and if you think about it, it's the only example that really makes any sense. Whereas your only means of countering it is purely speculative. A possibility perhaps, but still there's no evidence? -- i.e., except for the sun which, is all around us.
(i'm not saying there is an ET here) but it is completly possible that life could evolve without the sun or any star for that matter.And yet isn't it a remote enough idea (being this is the only example we have) that life began on this planet in the first place?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Of course it's a metaphor, and yet it's the very metaphor which is necessary, if we wish to give any credence to the possiblity that God exists.
And why on earth would we want to tell creative 'lies'(using metaphor) in order to give credence to an idea that has little merit on its own?
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Zero
And why on earth would we want to tell creative 'lies'(using metaphor) in order to give credence to an idea that has little merit on its own? And what is the point of using a metaphor if not to suggest a possible relationship?
If we want physical evidence of a "creator," i.e., to suggest that evolution doesn't occur randomly, by its own accord, then we have it, by means of the sun. And think about it, doesn't life on this planet elvove -- and in a sense "worship" -- the sun?
So perhaps in this sense we can establish that indeed life doesn't evolve randomly and, that it entails a sense of worship towards the sun (its creator). Aren't these two things which need to be maintained if we're going to establish that God exists?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And what is the point of using a metaphor if not to suggest a possible relationship?
If we want physical evidence of a "creator," i.e., to suggest that evolution doesn't occur randomly, by its own accord, then we have it, by means of the sun. And think about it, doesn't life on this planet elvove -- and in a sense "worship" -- the sun?
So perhaps in this sense we can establish that indeed life doesn't evolve randomly and, that it entails a sense of worship towards the sun (its creator). Aren't these two things which need to be maintained if we're going to establish that God exists?
Why would we want to establish that a myth is real? For what purpose.
And, anyhow, no one ever said that evolution was random, and we know that chemical processes sometimes need a energy sourse...all that is contained in science, you haven't added anything we didn't already know. You just dress it up in pseudo-poetic ways.
That's a strange idea of worship you have there... By that idea, we are also worshipping...
Power stations
The nuclear strong force
Maxwell's equations
Quantum uncertainty
Butterflies somewhere on the other side of the planet
Cosmic rays
Dark matter
Parents
Society
Marxist socialist doctrine
George Dubya Bush's urine
The mating habits of blue tits
The cruise velocity of African and European swallows
Fermi-Dirac statistics
etc etc
Since in reality there is no such thing as true isolation, and the condition of life and the world we see is affected to some degree by every observable thing that exists. To say that dependency is relevant to worship is to utter erase the significance of worship, as our current state is dependent on the state of everything else in the known universe. By QM.
And I think what you have done is to construct a circular, and hence rather pointless argument.
Except that evolution is set against the backdrop of the one thing which is constant, "the sun."
No. The sun is not constant astronomically speaking, and if you take the time frame where the sun is relatively constant, then plenty of other things are also constant.
In which case it would be reasonable to say everything evolves towards or, "aspires to be like," its creator.
No it isn't. Everything (perhaps all information?) evolves to fit the particular selectional pressure placed on it. The existence of a creator is irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. Does everything evolve to be a stellar nebula? Or maybe a Big Bang singularity? Plainly, this is nonsense.
And, although we are speaking of a natural process, it does present a different perspective, in the sense that evolution doesn't occur randomly, and that indeed there is a creative force (the sun) that it bears witness to.
I think you have misunderstood creative here. In the context of evolution, creativity equates to the introduction of random changes. The critical part is that the creativity is not directed by purpose - it is literally the addition of new, random information. The creative power of evolution is dependent on randomness - it is somewhat ironic that if Intelligent Design was true, and evolution had absolute direction, evolution in fact wouldn't work as we observe it to have worked. You get a narrow gene pool quickly, stagnation, lack of adaptability and the whole thing grinds to a halt and gets out-competed by the basically random creatures. Like the tortoise and the hare, where here the hare stops half way and thinks it's "won". Continuous fingers of god don't work, as far as the evidence is concerned.
Anyway, addentum to my popular misconceptions of evolution bit...
12. The attack that evolution is "just" a theory is meaningless. In science, a theory is the best state of existence an idea can have, as science accepts that absolute faith based truth is unreachable. As a neccessity, all science must have the capacity to be falsified, and checked continuously. Compare that with creationism, which is NOT a theory, but a belief system. PR88 is incorrect in saying that creationism cannot be proven because it is false. No ,creationism is unprovable, and undisprovable because of it's nature as a system on faith. Since it is dependent on a lack of attachment to observable reality, it is automatically immune, but as far as knowledge goes, completely meaningless. It's state can only be indeterminate, while evolution has the capacity to adapt. This ingrained skeptical approach is to blame for the extreme success of science.
Evolution is not "just" a theory, it is the best approach simply because it is in fact a theory.
Why? No offense, but the brand of creationism this thread started with is very obviously wrong to anyone who believes the scientific advancements in any one of a dozen fields.
So there aren't 5 pages of junk at the beginning of the thread, that's why.
Anyways, what brand of creationism are you talking about? The original poster has barely gotten to say a single word about it.
Also, see my admonishment of PR88; it's good reading for all.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 03:05 PM
FZ:
It's very simple. I can stand in the presence of the sun, feel it's sustaining warmth, and say Hey, isn't it great to be alive? Couldn't that be construed as a form of worship? Why should it have to be more complicated than that? -- than acknowledging the grounds of your being and appreciating it?
I really see no point in over analyzing it the way you have here, because here you can't see the forest from the trees. Oops! There's another one! One of those dirty little metaphors! [;)]
I pass my relativity exam, and beam in exuberance. Wow, isn't it good to be alive? I make love to a beautiful woman (since the great god relativity has Provided), and I say isn't it good to be alive? Some intestinal microbes take in nutrient and say, isn't it great to be alive?
Aren't I worshipping relativity and attractive females then? Are my intestinal products divine? I really doubt that by any conventional definition, worship = enjoyment.
Oh BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution. There is however such a thing as over-poetic language.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Why would we want to establish that a myth is real? For what purpose.And yet what is a myth if it weren't at the very least allegorical? And what is an allegory if it weren't "possibly" true?
And, anyhow, no one ever said that evolution was random, and we know that chemical processes sometimes need a energy sourse...all that is contained in science, you haven't added anything we didn't already know. You just dress it up in pseudo-poetic ways. If there's no overall goal such as FZ+ suggests, then it does suggest a sense of randomness.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
I pass my relativity exam, and beam in exuberance. Wow, isn't it good to be alive? I make love to a beautiful woman (since the great god relativity has Provided), and I say isn't it good to be alive? Some intestinal microbes take in nutrient and say, isn't it great to be alive?Yes, isn't it great to be alive!
Aren't I worshipping relativity and attractive females then? Are my intestinal products divine? I really doubt that by any conventional definition, worship = enjoyment.Life was meant to be appreciated. If you wish to find God, learn how to be happy. Whereas the only alternative to that would be "contrived."
Oh BTW, this has nothing to do with evolution. There is however such a thing as over-poetic language. Except that evolution is life -- which, evolves and maintains its being in relation to the sun.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If there's no overall goal such as FZ+ suggests, then it does suggest a sense of randomness.
Not really. Let me use an evil metaphor here. Have you ever heard of diffusion? It's how gases inside a bottle tends to spread out to occupy all available room...
Now, the mechanism for this is completely random. If we don't have a bottle, but empty air to expand infinitely into, then there isn't a final goal either. But though it is driven by random processes, the whole phenomenon is far from random. It has a general trend (expanding in all directions, decreasing in concentration) which we can predict by a statistical approach, and it acts overall in a non-random matter. Same with evolution.
If you wish to find God, learn how to be happy.
If you don't wish to find god, also be happy. If you can't find god, then you can still be happy. Happiness and worship are separate entities.
Except that evolution is life -- which, evolves and maintains its being in relation to the sun.
Except it doesn't maintain it's being. The most important part of evolution is change. Half the time, natural selection doesn't even depend on the sun - it's not a limiting factor. And as I have shown, the sun is as arbitary a factor as anything. The reality of natural selection is not so simplistic, nor does it infer a goal.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
[B]Not really. Let me use an evil metaphor here. Have you ever heard of diffusion? It's how gases inside a bottle tends to spread out to occupy all available room...
Now, the mechanism for this is completely random. If we don't have a bottle, but empty air to expand infinitely into, then there isn't a final goal either. But though it is driven by random processes, the whole phenomenon is far from random. It has a general trend (expanding in all directions, decreasing in concentration) which we can predict by a statistical approach, and it acts overall in a non-random matter. Same with evolution.I'm not the one who claims life is just a random process. But I think the "strict evolutionists" are making this claim by saying there is no purpose to life. If there is a point to life or, more than a sense of randomness, then how are we capable of acknowleging it? Otherwise I don't think we would be able to recognize what we term "the truth."
If you don't wish to find god, also be happy. If you can't find god, then you can still be happy. Happiness and worship are separate entities.Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.
Except it doesn't maintain it's being. The most important part of evolution is change. Half the time, natural selection doesn't even depend on the sun - it's not a limiting factor. And as I have shown, the sun is as arbitary a factor as anything. The reality of natural selection is not so simplistic, nor does it infer a goal. The sun is the one central (monotheistic) idea to our existence.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm not the one who claims life is just a random process. But I think "strict evolutionists" are making this claim by saying there is no purpose to life. If there is a point to life or, more than a sense of randomness, then how are we capable of acknowleging it? Otherwise I don't think we would be able to recognize what we term "the truth."
all purposes in life are superficial. there simply is no purpose to life, because- as stated before - it was a random occurance, and everything that brought it to the point we're at were random mutations. if one wants to make a purpose, such as reverance to a god, or the search for truth, than so be it. but remember, you are not a beautiful and unigue snowflake. you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else... (and these thoughts don't need to be so hurtful. i take comfort in beliefs.)
Originally posted by Iacchus32 The sun is the one central (monotheistic) idea to our existence.
That can be applied to many other things. Like say:
Earth
Water
Fire
Air
American football.
I think it is impossible to find a single objective central idea.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by maximus
all purposes in life are superficial. there simply is no purpose to life, because- as stated before - it was a random occurance, and everything that brought it to the point we're at were random mutations. if one wants to make a purpose, such as reverance to a god, or the search for truth, than so be it. but remember, you are not a beautiful and unigue snowflake. you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else... (and these thoughts don't need to be so hurtful. i take comfort in beliefs.) Indeed, I am greatful to have my own mind by which I can process that which I see around me. Nor do I tend to let "other labels" stick, which have designed around the purposes of other people's convenvience.
Also, if you truly understand something, it isn't a matter of being "convinced otherwise." [;)]
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Indeed, I am greatful to have my own mind by which I can process that which I see around me.
as am i. (no offence)
Also, if you truly understand something, it isn't a matter of being "convinced otherwise." [;)]
not in my book. for me, the greatest and most important principle is question everything. espessially that which we are certain of.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by FZ+
That can be applied to many other things. Like say:
Earth
Water
Fire
Air
American football.
I think it is impossible to find a single objective central idea. First and foremost, without the sun, there would be no life on this planet.
We see by the light of the sun (truth) and are sustained by its warmth (love). Whereas if you don't see the correlation to "seeing the truth" and "feeling love?" ... well, I guess that's another story ...
To shark:
Evolution IS still a theory! Which means it is not fact (possibly meaning yet). It is still possible that it can be proven. And yes I have studied about it. From the official point of view. I've used hundreds of papers from the harvard library online too.
-CubeX
Originally posted by Iacchus32
First and foremost, without the sun, there would be no life on this planet.
wrong. the majority of the life would die, but some species would still exist. in time these species would evolve around a different energy source.
We see by the light of the sun (truth) and are sustained by its warmth (love). Whereas if you don't see the correlation to "seeing the truth" and "feeling love?" ... well, I guess that's another story ...
i think i speak for everybody when i say, what the hell are you talking about!? i guess i don't understand the correlation, perhaps you'de better explain it to us.
Originally posted by CubeX
Evolution IS still a theory! Which means it is not fact (possibly meaning yet). It is still possible that it can be proven.
one can never prove a theory. but that doesn't mean it isn't a fact. in another post i gave the analogy of einstein and the GR. it is also called a theory, even though every experiment performed argees with it. there also is the "germ-theory" which is the theory that disiese is spread by germs. this also has overwhelming evidence supporting it.
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by maximus
wrong. the majority of the life would die, but some species would still exist. in time these species would evolve around a different energy source.Don't you think it would be just a little bit too cold for that?
i think i speak for everybody when i say, what the hell are you talking about!? i guess i don't understand the correlation, perhaps you'de better explain it to us. These are the two qualities of the sun -- translated into "human terms" -- that we couldn't live without ... i.e., without light and heat we would die, and without truth and love we would also die.
Originally posted by maximus
wrong. the majority of the life would die, but some species would still exist. in time these species would evolve around a different energy source.
To live a species would need to get energy from somewhere- ie eat something. At the moment any plant or animal gets it's energy from the sun (orginally) so no sun, you're suggesting the energy comes from the Earth's core perhaps?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Don't you think it would be just a little bit too cold for that?
the interior of the earth would still be warm, and geothermal energy would still keep the organisms under the sea warm. (specifically the ones which have adapted to live off of heat vents)
These are the two qualities of the sun -- translated into "human terms" -- that we couldn't live without ... i.e., without light and heat we would die, and without truth and love we would also die.
...er... i understand why we need the light and heat, but what truth or love does it give to us?
Iacchus32
Jul2-03, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by maximus
the interior of the earth would still be warm, and geothermal energy would still keep the organisms under the sea warm. (specifically the ones which have adapted to live off of heat vents)But how much of the earth's inner-temperature is maintained by the sun? And how long would it take to cool down? Or, let's say the sun never existed. Would the earth have ever gotten molten in the middle? If so, how hot and for how long? And how much longer (if ever) would it take for something like human beings to "crop up?"
...er... i understand why we need the light and heat, but what truth or love does it give to us? Truth and Love are spiritual terms (in bringing up the notion of God and evolution here) and are correlatives to light and heat.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Truth and Love are spiritual terms (in bringing up the notion of God and evolution here) and are correlatives to light and heat.
I don't really get this bit.
I mean they're corrrelatives, but that dosn't make them cause and effect...
i think we are wandering off topic again with all this sun worship stuff. cube, the best post so far is that made by FZ+ on page 3. go there and tell us what you think isn't explained there.
Another God
Jul2-03, 07:44 PM
This is very poor inductive reasoning. One example, and from that you think you have enough information to make a generalisation about everything else???
NO, doesn't work that way.
Secondly, there are stars everywhere, yet not apparently life everywhere. Just because we are on a planet orbiting the sun, and we have life here, doesn't make the sun special. Sure, without our sun, we couldn't have life here, but isn't that also because without the sun this chunk of rock wouldn't have formed, and the dynamic state that it is in wouldn't be occuring etc.
There is no reason to be solar-centric about this.
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 12:18 AM
Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com), Heaven and Hell ...Although the sun of the world is not seen in heaven, nor anything from that sun, there is nevertheless a sun there, and light and heat, and all things that are in the world, with innumerable others, but not from a like origin; since the things in heaven are spiritual, and those in the world are natrual. The sun of heaven is the Lord; the light there is the Divine truth and the heat the Divine good that go forth from the Lord as a sun ...
The light of heaven is not a natural light, like the light of the world, but a spiritual light, because it is from the Lord as a sun, and that sun is the Divine love (as has been shown in the foregoing chapter). That which goes forth from the Lord as a sun is called Divine truth, but in its essence it is Divine good united to Divine truth. From this the angels have light and heat, light from Divine truth, and heat from Divine good. As the light of heaven, and the heat also, are from such a source, it is evident that they are spiritual and not natural.Hey if it seems a little unclear, it might be because it was translated originally from Latin?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com), Heaven and Hell ...Hey if it seems a little unclear, it might be because it was translated originally from Latin? Just seems silly!
Well, at least it seems pretty empty and meaningless...and what does it have to do with evolution, exactly?
Iacchus32 - I don't know if you realize it, but your posts have nothing to do with anything, and you just cite very strange ideas and concepts which are so out of reality. What the heck is up man? Do you actually know anything about science or physics???
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Izzle
Iacchus32 - I don't know if you realize it, but your posts have nothing to do with anything, and you just cite very strange ideas and concepts which are so out of reality. What the heck is up man? Do you actually know anything about science or physics??? I know who I am.
CHRIST! is it just me or does this guy sound exactly like PR88!! i don't mean to sound paranoid, but how many assholes can respond to a single thread in one day and still have it be coindidence!
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by maximus
CHRIST! is it just me or does this guy sound exactly like PR88!! i don't mean to sound paranoid, but how many assholes can respond to a single thread in one day and still have it be coindidence! Maximus, you should probably try to keep your references to the "AH's" down to a minimum. [;)]
Actually I think "Fizzle" may have a point though, because I entered this thread somewhere in the middle, without bothering to read most of the earlier posts, in which case many of my remarks may seem a bit out of context. Will try and bear this in mind the next I post in the middle of a thread though. Thanks!
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I think "Fizzle" may have a point though, because I entered this thread somewhere in the middle, without bothering to read most of the earlier posts, in which case many of my remarks may seem a bit out of context. Will try and bear this in mind the next I post in the middle of a thread though. Thanks!
i said that politely ages ago!
Iacchus32 - My name is Izzle. There is no F in my name. Got it?
Maximus - I've noticed you post nothing of substance, and either spam good threads or call people trolls. Perhaps there is an aol chat to better suit your needs? Do you have any actual scientific knowledge?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.
No.
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Zero
No. Why?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why?
Because those words don't mean the same thing? You have a lousy tendency to redefine words as it suits you, and to make associations that don't fit. Then you act as though your associatioons mean anything, which they don't. By your 'logic' I could say 'The sun is hot. The oven is hot. The sun is like God, so I must go worship my oven on a cloudy day'
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Zero
No. Why? Actually I'm trying to let some of you non-religious types off the hook by saying worship doesn't necessarily entail following along "blindly," as well as "feigning" the idea that we're meek and humble and mild, etc.. That in fact it has nothing to do with being superficial and "contrived," which is sheer nonsense.
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would it be reasonable to say that happiness = appreciation = worship? I think all three of these words are very similar in that context.
WHAT?
reasonable to say that? Are you crazy? Happines has NOTHING to do with apprpeciation.
Is your mind seriously that warped? WTF?
Would it be reasonable to say envy - hate - racism?
So anyone with envy is a racist?
OMG this is unbearable.
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Zero
Because those words don't mean the same thing?Sure they do, in context with what I've just said above. What is happiness, if not a sense of appreciation? And what is worship, if it doesn't entail a sense of appreciation? So why can't worship be viewed as the sense of appreciation derived from happiness? Why should it entail anything other than this? Otherwise I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
You have a lousy tendency to redefine words as it suits you, and to make associations that don't fit. Then you act as though your associatioons mean anything, which they don't. By your 'logic' I could say 'The sun is hot. The oven is hot. The sun is like God, so I must go worship my oven on a cloudy day' Then again maybe some things need to be redefined to mean what they're supposed to mean? Just like here, I think people get the wrong idea about worship because of the way it's practiced, in which case they take it to mean being phony and contrived, which it shouldn't be.
Iacchus32
Jul3-03, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Izzle
WHAT?
reasonable to say that? Are you crazy? Happines has NOTHING to do with apprpeciation.
Is your mind seriously that warped? WTF?
Would it be reasonable to say envy - hate - racism?
So anyone with envy is a racist?
OMG this is unbearable. How do we ever explore something without first making the association? Is your life that rigid and fixed?
give me a good reason to unlock, but i think this topic is way off its original course...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.