If You Don't Believe in Evolution, Why?

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
Snack Cake said:
That's an interesting "quote", given that I never said any such thing. Regardless, I would say that this is a pretty good example of non-literal interpretation of the bible.
I used the wrong quote tag, keep your pants on.

Woodsey said:
Well then they're not an atheist, they're agnostic.

You're either an atheist or you're not.
No, that's not how it works. You're still using an incorrect definition of "atheist".
 

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
katsa5 said:
I believe in Creationism and the existance of Evolution, and the two together are logical. I like how Stan from South Park put it, "Doesn't it explain the 'How', not the 'Why'?"
I see what you're getting at, but...
"Creationism" is the pseudo-scientific attempt to push Genesis into the science classroom, Evolution does real science. They don't go together logically. I think what you're trying to say here is "God made this shit, but evolution just explains how, mkay?" But you just threw the term Creationism in there for who-the-fuck-knows.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Cakes said:
Snack Cake said:
That's an interesting "quote", given that I never said any such thing. Regardless, I would say that this is a pretty good example of non-literal interpretation of the bible.
I used the wrong quote tag, keep your pants on.

Woodsey said:
Well then they're not an atheist, they're agnostic.

You're either an atheist or you're not.
No, that's not how it works. You're still using an incorrect definition of "atheist".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

No I'm not.
 

thepj

New member
Aug 15, 2009
565
0
0
cartzo said:
thepj said:
cartzo said:
their is a biology teacher in my school who himself doesnt believe in the evolutionary theory, he has only ever spoken of it once because he is of course abliged to teach it, he doesnt directly believe in god, he is actually an agnostic, he just sees life as something to complicated to originate from that particular theory.

heres a good question, can all the fossil evidence, carbon dating, and lengthy studies accumulate to conclusive proof?

because the way we know evolution is true is because of the way we can predict the past with it, and by that i mean fossils, if the first fossil amphibians were older than the first fossil fish then that would be a major hit for evolution, as yet though all the evidence points to the fact that evolution is true. at that is why i know, i don't belive i know, that evolution is real
i better just clarify that i do think evolution is fact, but do you think that evidence is solid enough to hold up in court for example.
against religion? if the trial was unbiased and completely fair then it would win yes, religion is based on: i belive it therefore it must be true.

i could belive that my dog isn't dead but that won't make it true


evolution is based on the facts of fossils, dated to eras that they were fossilized in. now i'm not saying you can't disprove evolution but that would require, to quote a famous biologist when asked what would disprove evolution, "fossilized rabits in the precambrian era"

so yes, against the only thing that evolution could go to court against it would hold up and win
 

katsa5

New member
Aug 10, 2009
376
0
0
Cakes said:
katsa5 said:
I believe in Creationism and the existance of Evolution, and the two together are logical. I like how Stan from South Park put it, "Doesn't it explain the 'How', not the 'Why'?"
I see what you're getting at, but...
"Creationism" is the pseudo-scientific attempt to push Genesis into the science classroom, Evolution does real science. They don't go together logically. I think what you're trying to say here is "God made this shit, but evolution just explains how, mkay?" But you just threw the term Creationism in there for who-the-fuck-knows.
All right, fine. Keep it simple with 'Creation'. May I ask why these ideas don't go together?
 

Snack Cake

New member
Jun 9, 2009
64
0
0
sneakypenguin said:
Newton himself was a pious Christian and that is what drove him to scientific pursuits. That's also where the idea of god as a "watchmaker" came from, but that's another story.
Newton was a pious christian, from his perspective, but from the orthodox perspective, he was a unitarian heretic - he rejected the trinity as a corruption. Not totally relevant, but interesting, nonetheless.
 

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
katsa5 said:
Cakes said:
katsa5 said:
I believe in Creationism and the existance of Evolution, and the two together are logical. I like how Stan from South Park put it, "Doesn't it explain the 'How', not the 'Why'?"
I see what you're getting at, but...
"Creationism" is the pseudo-scientific attempt to push Genesis into the science classroom, Evolution does real science. They don't go together logically. I think what you're trying to say here is "God made this shit, but evolution just explains how, mkay?" But you just threw the term Creationism in there for who-the-fuck-knows.
All right, fine. Keep it simple with 'Creation'. May I ask why these ideas don't go together?
...are you asking me why Creationism and Evolution don't go together? Do you understand what either of these are?
I'm saying religion and evolution can go together, not bullshit pseudo-science like Creationism.
 

Cakes

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,036
0
0
Woodsey said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

No I'm not.
THE INFALLIBLE DICTIONARY HAS SPOKEN!

[small]For fuck's sake...[/small]

Yes, an atheist can accept the possibility of god and still be atheist. That would make him a weak atheist, as in "god probably doesn't exist". That is different from agnosticism. Of course, most atheists would say it in the sense of "god could potentially exist in the same way leprechauns and faeries do", but still.

Edit: Actually, no, nevermind, any atheist can accept the possibility of god, not just the weak ones.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
CuddlyCombine said:
Alexnader said:
I don't see why you can't... viruses and bacteria are prime examples of evolution or at least adaption. Bloody drug resistant little buggers...
No, viruses and bacteria are primary examples of mutation (not to mention that they're single-celled organisms). They don't prove much in the way of evolution; at least, you can't convince a sceptic by presenting those facts.

Alexnader said:
Anyway it gets much worse than Baboons... thanks to the whole common ancestor thing you'd be surprised what we're closely related too.
We share something like 97% of our DNA with dogs, so we're pretty much related to everything.
If you think about it though it's not surprising how close we are. We all have four limbs (no tail but we do have the coccyx bone or whatever it is), similar facial builds, similar body functions, etc.
We respire, we crap out the back end not the front etc.
The differences seem really rather petty. (talking about dogs here, don't tell me amoeba don't have a tail bone because I know this)

Incidentally that's one reason I'd like to see an alien life form. Something that could actually be really different.

Anyway viruses and bacteria and fungus can at least be said to be proof of the concept of natural selection. If a fungus that rots crops is sprayed with a common fungicide and those fungi with an inherent immunity to it survive long enough to reproduce more than those without the immunity. In that area the slightly different fungus will replace the previously dominant one. (They're still the same species, I just mean that all fungus in that area will then display that trait)
Natural selection at work there I'd say. Same could be said for a virus that "mutates" to be less deadly than its prior form. Its hosts then survive to spread the disease further. Single celled organism or not it's still "life" and it can evolve.

Natural selection is the mechanism Darwin proposed which caused the vast array of different species present on earth. Instead of an animal breeder selecting the traits he/she deems desirable, those animals in the wild with greater propensity to breed do so.
If such a key and simple concept can't be used to argue for evolution I don't see how anything else can.
 

CuddlyCombine

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,142
0
0
Alexnader said:
If you think about it though it's not surprising how close we are. We all have four limbs (no tail but we do have the coccyx bone or whatever it is), similar facial builds, similar body functions, etc.
We respire, we crap out the back end not the front etc.
The differences seem really rather petty. (talking about dogs here, don't tell me amoeba don't have a tail bone because I know this)
Put a bunch of lifeforms on the same planet and it's guaranteed that most of them will develop among a particular path, yeah.

Alexnader said:
Anyway viruses and bacteria and fungus can at least be said to be proof of the concept of natural selection. If a fungus that rots crops is sprayed with a common fungicide and those fungi with an inherent immunity to it survive long enough to reproduce more than those without the immunity. In that area the slightly different fungus will replace the previously dominant one. (They're still the same species, I just mean that all fungus in that area will then display that trait)
Natural selection at work there I'd say. Same could be said for a virus that "mutates" to be less deadly than its prior form. Its hosts then survive to spread the disease further. Single celled organism or not it's still "life" and it can evolve.
You're good up to when you say that natural selection is the same thing as evolution. It's not.

Anyway, most Christians don't doubt evolution's existence, but rather the theory that we developed out of eukaryotes and the like.

Alexnader said:
Natural selection is the mechanism Darwin proposed which caused the vast array of different species present on earth. Instead of an animal breeder selecting the traits he/she deems desirable, those animals in the wild with greater propensity to breed do so.
If such a key and simple concept can't be used to argue for evolution I don't see how anything else can.
Correct in most areas, but still, not concrete proof. I shouldn't be saying that, though - proof means nothing in a debate between faith and logic. They're not compatible.
 

The Big Eye

Truth-seeking Tail-chaser
Aug 19, 2009
135
0
0
Kubanator said:
Huh, and I was under the impression that evolution was the idea that species changed over time, not how they first began. Also, I'm pretty sure that it was a little more complicated then this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif
That's semantics, buddy. If abiogenesis isn't possible, whether or not macroevolution is becomes a complete non-issue. Your image representing the "real" theory of abiogenesis contains mostly theoretical concepts, and even then transition from the penultimate step in that sequence to the ultimate is a big one. I would argue that the formation of replicating polymers and hypercycles is in some violation of the laws of thermodynamics, since molecules tend not to spontaneously organize themselves. At the very least, it creates a paradox: the enormous amounts of energy required to form these life-like structures is also more than sufficient to destroy them. As I said, the primordial world painted by Darwinian scientists said to have created life would have been a mind-numbingly dangerous place for said life forms to live. Probability states that chaos will produce far, far less than it destroys.

Kubanator said:
I'm liking how you stated that dinosaurs inhabit the Earth today. Also, I don't think you understand what happens to organic material under pressure. Oil, coal?
Well, clearly you're not liking it, Sarcasm Johnny. Actually, the average evolutionary biologist will tell you they do exist - in the form of chickens, which are genetically and in some ways anatomically analogous.
You have majestically missed the point: while dinosaurs are purported to be the missing link between reptiles and birds (and yes, I missed mentioning them the first time around), they alone are not enough to account for the transition. Yes, there are hundreds of them, but they cannot be placed on a spectrum ranging from the reptilian on the one end and the avian on the other. Well, they can, but the ends of the spectrum would be largely empty. In the evolutionary model, one would expect a fairly even distribution and, better yet, one that correlates with the approximate ages of the species involved as they evolved their way to flight.
And before you say it, I am aware that evolutionary progress involves thousands of dead ends wherein species try something new and are driven extinct through natural selection, ergo the true fossil record would not be so clean-cut. However, since this is a generally random process, one would expect that the net effect of such failures and extinctions would be zero, allowing for a general trend from reptilian to avian life-forms.
Also, I am... aware... of the existence of oil and coal. You are a confusing man, Kubanator.

Kubanator said:
I don't think you understand the difference between problems you don't understand, and problems science can't understand. A simple google search will clear up the difference.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120171328.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity
The first and third links that you have presented bring me only to working hypotheses regarding their respective topics. My point here was not that these things are impossible, just that their credibility remains dubious. One could hypothesize that the tides are caused by the actions of an array of deep-sea vaccuum cleaners and that the moon is made of massless papier-mache, but I doubt that such a theory would be presented as hard fact within a few years of its formation. Also, the article on the differentiation of the genders perplexingly dealt exclusively with plants. Animals are the issue here, I should think. The simultaneous and complementary evolution of male and female genitalia over the course of tens of thousands of generations seems an unlikely one, to say the least.
Link #2 contained rather a large number of unverified claims. The fact is that the evolution of organs, particularly the brain, would require a coordinated evolutionary effort on the parts of all constituent organs, which in turn would require coordinated mutations. Even at the best of times, this seems an unlikely scenario.

Kubanator said:
As for your big bang theory problems, under quantum theory, a big bang can randomly occur at any point in time. Granted it takes a very long time to do so, but it can happen. The universe can exist for eternity, and from a rational stand point it could have existed for 10 billion years or more. Just because you can't comprehend a universe of infinite time doesn't mean it can't exist.
I suppose I should have clarified my point. First of all: fundamental cosmology states that time and space did not exist before the big bang, but that said event caused them to come into existence along with all the other physical laws of our universe. My difficulty is not when the big bang happened, but what happened afterward. There are two specific problems:
1. Using the big bang as a starting point, it is astrophysically impossible for galaxies to form.
2. An explosion in which all constituent parts are moving outward at relativistic speeds should not cause condensation into higher molecules. Swift expansion implies swift cooling, which implies in turn a dropoff in activity. The big bang should be expected to produce one great big cosmological puff of smoke.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Cakes said:
Woodsey said:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

No I'm not.
THE INFALLIBLE DICTIONARY HAS SPOKEN!

[small]For fuck's sake...[/small]

Yes, an atheist can accept the possibility of god and still be atheist. That would make him a weak atheist, as in "god probably doesn't exist". That is different from agnosticism. Of course, most atheists would say it in the sense of "god could potentially exist in the same way leprechauns and faeries do", but still.

Edit: Actually, no, nevermind, any atheist can accept the possibility of god, not just the weak ones.
Still wrong. Nevermind.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
CuddlyCombine said:
You're good up to when you say that natural selection is the same thing as evolution. It's not.

Anyway, most Christians don't doubt evolution's existence, but rather the theory that we developed out of eukaryotes and the like.

I didn't mean to infer that natural selection was the same as the theory of evolution, just that it's an integral part of the theory and that it's well demonstrated in viruses and micro-organisms.

CuddlyCombine said:
Correct in most areas, but still, not concrete proof. I shouldn't be saying that, though - proof means nothing in a debate between faith and logic. They're not compatible.
As for the faith vs science thing. The whole problem is that faith is used to justify everything. Religion is protected under the human rights i.e. freedom of faith. This has been warped from not burning "heretics" to not offending anyone. It's the perfect way to kill a debate, just say that it's a matter of faith.
This is what I think Dawkins gets so annoyed about, not that people have other beliefs to him but that they not only refuse to defend them through rational argument but actually think this is a good thing.
I think that regardless of how incompatible they seem, above all else debate should continue. Questioning your own beliefs, whether they be religious or scientific, should not be seen as bad. I reckon anyone who can listen to a well reasoned argument and justify their own faith is better than someone who just shuts out the questions in the first place.
Didn't god test the faith of some of his subjects?
 

AhumbleKnight

New member
Apr 17, 2009
429
0
0
cuddly_tomato said:
AhumbleKnight said:
sgtshock said:
I do believe in evolution, although I do see how even some rational-minded people might question it. For example: how did eyes evolve? Eyes are an incredibly complex organ, I fail to see how an eyeless creature could either:

1) Be suddenly be born with eyes complex enough to give it an advantage at survival,
or
2) Evolve two useless organs on its face that, over many generations, would eventually gain the ability to pick up light.

Now like I said, I still believe in evolution, and I'm totally open to the fact that science might one day explain this. And those people who reject evolution purely on the fact that it contradicts with the "6 days" story, are idiots. Especially considering that Darwin himself believed in God.
The answer to your question is out there. It is not even hard to find. Most people who have a problem with evolution or questions about it tend to do nothing about it other than doubt.
If you really think that science should not be questioned, then you have completely missed the point of science. Science is a tool, a method, a process by which humans explain worldly phenomena and make useful predictions based upon those observations. Science is not a culture, a belief system or some kind of creed.

I myself have had evolution debates on these very forums concerning some discrepancies and unexplained and inadequate evolutionary phenomena. I never said that evolution didn't happen, just that the conventional theory for natural selection doesn't work for some species, and so that theory needs work. Maze and I had a really good discussion on it that enhanced my own theories on the subject and made me learn something. Sometimes however, when I say "Hang on a minute chaps, what about this?", some people scream "HERESY! HE BELIEVES IN GOD!"

Irony incarnate. In fact double irony because I don't believe in god.
I was not saying that people shouldn't question. Of course they should. I was saying that most of the people who have a problem with the science don't understand it, and don't seem to want to try. If you are going to question or doubt then you need to understand their point of view. Otherwise your questions and doubts will only be based on ignorance, not based of intelligent rational thought.

What you have done is the way people should be questioning. It seems like we see eye to eye here.

cuddly_tomato said:
AhumbleKnight said:
I believe in logic, reason, and the scientific process. I believe that the laws of the universe are fixed and through observation, testing, and rational thought, we are able to eventualy understand them (one at a time). It bothers me that so many people don't "believe" in evolution when they don't even understand the basics of what it is. They use and trust all the advances in technology that the scientific process has given us yet chose to not to believe in evolution. They believe in gravity and would laugh at anybody who chose to not believe in gravity. They don't even realise that there is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity.
Firstly, logic isn't something to believe in, the same way that people don't believe in their fridge. It is something we use. If you believe that the laws of the universe are fixed then you are actually at odds with science (quantum mechanics?).

Secondly, I completely understand and agree with you if you say that the beliefs of other people bother you when they get in your face with those beliefs and try to shove those beliefs down your throat. However, if someone else quietly believing something different to you then that tells of an insecurity in ones own beliefs.
Woodsey said:
Because for those who are religious it is, essentially, a God-killer.
No it isn't. Look at talkorigins.com.
Firstly, I should have explained myself better. It was 2am and I was very tired when I wrote that. I should have said something more along the lines of:
I believe in the use of logic, reason, and the scientific process. I believe that the laws of the universe are measurable and through observation, testing, and rational thought, we are able to eventually understand them (one at a time).

Secondly, I believe that belief is the most powerful emotion that we have and nobody has the right to mess with somebody elses beliefs. This goes both ways, if somebody feels that they have the right to mess with mine and act on it, I will see that as an open door to return the favour (although I rarely do). If creationists were sitting there quietly, minding their own business then none of this would be a problem. Unfortunately, they see it as their mission to force their religious beliefs into a science classroom. This is wrong.
 

goldenheart323

New member
Oct 9, 2009
277
0
0
Kubanator said:
...snip...
Kubanator, I only have time for brief replies. (Unfortunately, I haven't even had time to read all the posts since yours.)

You say believing in microevolution automatically means you believe in macroevolution because it's simply a matter of more time. How is that any different than saying if you believe landslides and rock slides, and other forces of nature can leave a series of lines and curves on a mountain side, then you have to believe Mount Rushmore was simply the result of a series of natural forces acting on a mountain over a long time? That is a metaphor. Of course knowledge of history would tell us otherwise. Focus on the principle.

You say there's no such thing as an irreducibly complex sense, organ, or process. Am I understanding you correctly? I completely understand there are many easily imagined processes like a fin becoming stiffer over time to become a leg. However, there are far more complex changes that have to happen for other abilities to come into existence. You cite a light sensitive patch becoming more complex, but how did it become light sensitive in the first place?

We agree having genes in common with other creatures doesn't necessarily mean we were made by the same creator. I'm saying just because we share genes is not absolute proof of evolution. There are 2 ways to interpret shared genes.

When you get into physics, you encounter the cosmological constant. Long story short, our universe is precisely tuned for our existence. (1part to 10to the 120th power parts,) Not even athiest scientists try to claim that's by chance. Their answer: There are an infinite amount of universes, so of course one is just perfect for us. Which is more rational by your logic, 1 universer + 1 God, or 1 universe + infinite universes?
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
goldenheart323 said:
You say believing in microevolution automatically means you believe in macroevolution because it's simply a matter of more time. How is that any different than saying if you believe landslides and rock slides, and other forces of nature can leave a series of lines and curves on a mountain side, then you have to believe Mount Rushmore was simply the result of a series of natural forces acting on a mountain over a long time? That is a metaphor. Of course knowledge of history would tell us otherwise. Focus on the principle.
That's a ridiculous statement to make, any geological scientist could easily find reasons why Mount Rushmore could not have been created by natural forces. For one thing there'd be signs of construction, not to mention that natural erosion couldn't make those kinds of shapes.
As for applying this to evolution, there are no "Mount Rushmores" of life, the only thing that comes close is irreducible complexity which I'll get to later. The entire analogy was moot to begin with. Oh and I doubt anyone found the cordless drill god used to make life.

goldenheart323 said:
You cite a light sensitive patch becoming more complex, but how did it become light sensitive in the first place?
I'm sure some scientist somewhere has written a 50 page thesis on the origin of photosensitive cells. I don't know how they work, however I'll cite more mundane reasons to debunk your argument.
For one thing it is not "photosensitive cells" which "respected" Creationists and advocates of Irreducible complexity will use to back up their arguments, but the eye. Logically this means that photosensitive patches have already been explained.

goldenheart323 said:
I'm saying just because we share genes is not absolute proof of evolution. There are 2 ways to interpret shared genes.
True, but shared genes are by no means the only thing supporting evolution. Fossil records, observation of adaption in modern species, "junk" DNA are among a few of the things scientists have used to trace the development of species.

goldenheart323 said:
When you get into physics, you encounter the cosmological constant. Long story short, our universe is precisely tuned for our existence. (1part to 10to the 120th power parts,) Not even athiest scientists try to claim that's by chance. Their answer: There are an infinite amount of universes, so of course one is just perfect for us. Which is more rational by your logic, 1 universer + 1 God, or 1 universe + infinite universes?
The universe was not tuned for our existence, no doubt it could be a lot nicer than it is now. I believe it occurred entirely through random chance and I think many atheists would agree. If our universe was NOT suited for our existence then we wouldn't be there to say "why are things so crap?". The only universe we could possibly exist in is one similar to this one, so if you think about it the chance that humans would exist in a universe such as this one is very high (Assuming we'd develop at all, the odds of use existing at all seem fairly small to me).
An infinite number of universes seems more logical to me than one universe + god, it's mathematically certain that the infinite number of universes would result in one like ours. Whereas I have no idea how god would go about creating or "tuning" a universe,
 

goldenheart323

New member
Oct 9, 2009
277
0
0
You only understood part of my point with Mount Rushmore. Yes, it's ridiculous to think Mount Rushmore would've been created by natural forces, just as creationists think it's ridiculous irreducibly complex parts of biology came about by chance. Just as you see a fin turning into a leg, the geologist sees nature make a slope in stone, eroding dips & indentations into stone, and erosion wearing underneath a ledge. The ridiculous part comes with people seeing irriducibly complex parts of life & saying it still happened by chance, just as the Rushmore geologist sees the erosing wearing underneath a ledge to create the botton of a nose, the slope making the profile of the nose, and the indentation making the nostril, etc. Every INDIVIDUAL aspect of the faces can be made by natural forces. The ridiculous part comes in thinking ALL those chance forces would come together to make something as complex as Mount Rushmore, or an irreducible complex process, or organ, or organelle of a cell.
Alexnader said:
goldenheart323 said:
You cite a light sensitive patch becoming more complex, but how did it become light sensitive in the first place?
I'm sure some scientist somewhere has written a 50 page thesis on the origin of photosensitive cells. I don't know how they work, however I'll cite more mundane reasons to debunk your argument.
For one thing it is not "photosensitive cells" which "respected" Creationists and advocates of Irreducible complexity will use to back up their arguments, but the eye. Logically this means that photosensitive patches have already been explained.
Saying because we know how the complex eye evolved, therefore I assume we know how the simple one came into existence is a poor argument and worse logic. "I bet some scientist somewhere has figured that out," has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. I'm sorry I didn't follow lock-step with the creationists and give you one of their examples. I've obviously befuddled you by doing that.

I never said shared genes was the only thing supporting evolution. I said it could also be explained by a common creator. Basically, it can't be used for or against either argument because each could explain why we share genes.

Just because every planet, comet, and asteroid belt isn't a utopia humans doesn't mean the universe wasn't tuned for our existence. I wasn't quoting creationist scientists. Those are main stream, secular scientists saying that. By "tuned for our existence" they mean if the cosmological constant were anything but what it is, the entire nature of the universe would be so drastically different that life as we know it couldn't possibly have evolved. A planet like Earth would never come into existence. Therefore life would have no place to exist, nor the time to evolve even if it did come to exist. If you don't grasp the concept of what it means for a universe to be tuned for the existence of life, you're ill equipped to debate this point. You don't have to believe in a god to understand what that concept means. Try this math. 1 universe +1 God, or 1 universe plus infinite universes. Now, keep in mind that an infinite number of universes means an infinite number of stars, and that means an infinite amount of energy was required to create them, and they're giving off an infinite amount of energy every second. Whichever you choose to believe, I hope your mind is thoroughly blown. :)

I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Your tone tells me you're very closed minded about this. I'd be happy if I'd at least opened your eyes to how others might actually be rational by believing God instead of believing the equivalent of Mount Rushmore happening in the world of biology.

Since you're so closed minded on the subject, these will be my last words on the matter.
 

CuddlyCombine

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,142
0
0
Alexnader said:
As for the faith vs science thing. The whole problem is that faith is used to justify everything. Religion is protected under the human rights i.e. freedom of faith. This has been warped from not burning "heretics" to not offending anyone. It's the perfect way to kill a debate, just say that it's a matter of faith.
This is what I think Dawkins gets so annoyed about, not that people have other beliefs to him but that they not only refuse to defend them through rational argument but actually think this is a good thing.
I think that regardless of how incompatible they seem, above all else debate should continue. Questioning your own beliefs, whether they be religious or scientific, should not be seen as bad. I reckon anyone who can listen to a well reasoned argument and justify their own faith is better than someone who just shuts out the questions in the first place.
Didn't god test the faith of some of his subjects?
Most religious people use a combination of faith and logic. Faith may be seen as the root of everything, but that's no more different than how atheists and co. use logic as the base of all.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
tl:dr
I'm sorry to have to post something so long but I feel insulted about being called close-minded. I basically say that most of my arguments were misinterpreted, likely due to my unavoidable habit of being flippant about important topics.


goldenheart323 said:
I'm not expecting you to change your mind. Your tone tells me you're very closed minded about this. I'd be happy if I'd at least opened your eyes to how others might actually be rational by believing God instead of believing the equivalent of Mount Rushmore happening in the world of biology.

Since you're so closed minded on the subject, these will be my last words on the matter.
OK, where to begin.
First of all you just refused to debate this, I can think of nothing more cowardly than to say on a forum, specifically made for discussion, that you refuse to talk about something just because you assume the other person is dogmatic. Secondly I don't believe I am dogmatic, you can't call someone close minded based off a paragraph of text. I don't think I'm close-minded by saying that you can't believe in god from a rational perspective but that's my opinion :)

I'm going to avoid any further humour/flippancy as it seems to confuse my arguments.

I was continuing with your analogy by saying "Mount Rushmore's of biology". I was saying there are NO cases of irreducible complexity, thus no Mount Rushmore's of biology. Because you were using the monument as an analogy for irreducible complexity yes?

goldenheart323 said:
You only understood part of my point with Mount Rushmore. Yes, it's ridiculous to think Mount Rushmore would've been created by natural forces, just as creationists think it's ridiculous irreducibly complex parts of biology came about by chance. Just as you see a fin turning into a leg, the geologist sees nature make a slope in stone, eroding dips & indentations into stone, and erosion wearing underneath a ledge. The ridiculous part comes with people seeing irreducibly complex parts of life & saying it still happened by chance, just as the Rushmore geologist sees the erosing wearing underneath a ledge to create the botton of a nose, the slope making the profile of the nose, and the indentation making the nostril, etc. Every INDIVIDUAL aspect of the faces can be made by natural forces. The ridiculous part comes in thinking ALL those chance forces would come together to make something as complex as Mount Rushmore, or an irreducible complex process, or organ, or organelle of a cell.
And you completely misunderstood my response to your Mt Rushmore analogy. I said it was completely moot as there are no cases of irreducible complexity. "No mount Rushmore's of biology"
Also, if all the parts of an animal can come about perfectly naturally, I see nothing wrong with those things coming about at the same time. They don't just "Come together" like a nose flying through the air and attaching itself to a face (sorry I promised no flippancy), they all develop as part of the entire organism. If it can't breathe I find it unlikely that it would develop a sense of smell, it's logical that bodily functions would evolve in relation to one another.


goldenheart323 said:
Saying because we know how the complex eye evolved, therefore I assume we know how the simple one came into existence is a poor argument and worse logic. "I bet some scientist somewhere has figured that out," has to be one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. I'm sorry I didn't follow lock-step with the creationists and give you one of their examples. I've obviously befuddled you by doing that.
Don't twist my words. I said that we already have plausible cases for how the eye evolved, I didn't say that meant we must know how everything else in it came to be.
What I meant by "some scientist has probably written a 50 page thesis on it" was that how photosensitive cells WORK, let alone evolved is beyond my means of explaining it without being over verbose and/or copying and pasting from an online scientific paper.

I was using logic to state that since creationist scientists (who have no doubt done a lot more research than you or I) have NOT used photosensitive cells as a case of irreducible complexity, this could could easily mean that I am right in assuming a scientist has written that 50 page thesis.
Additionally you cannot possibly state that photosensitive cells are irreducibly complex just because I do not know how something as complex as a photosensitive cell works/evolved. I thought we were arguing ideas here, not competing to see who can spout the most pseudo-science. You can't say "HAH, you don't know how those cells could possibly evolved! That means I've just disproved evolution by finding something irreducibly complex! You can suck on that people of the professional scientific community!" If you can find a scientific paper (peer reviewed of course) stating that those cells are irreducibly complex then I'll be perfectly happy to state that evolution could be completely wrong based off that evidence.


goldenheart323 said:
I never said shared genes was the only thing supporting evolution. I said it could also be explained by a common creator. Basically, it can't be used for or against either argument because each could explain why we share genes.
And i agreed with you, I then went on to state some of the other things you neglected to mention.

goldenheart323 said:
Just because every planet, comet, and asteroid belt isn't a utopia humans doesn't mean the universe wasn't tuned for our existence. I wasn't quoting creationist scientists. Those are main stream, secular scientists saying that. By "tuned for our existence" they mean if the cosmological constant were anything but what it is, the entire nature of the universe would be so drastically different that life as we know it couldn't possibly have evolved. A planet like Earth would never come into existence. Therefore life would have no place to exist, nor the time to evolve even if it did come to exist. If you don't grasp the concept of what it means for a universe to be tuned for the existence of life, you're ill equipped to debate this point. You don't have to believe in a god to understand what that concept means. Try this math. 1 universe +1 God, or 1 universe plus infinite universes. Now, keep in mind that an infinite number of universes means an infinite number of stars, and that means an infinite amount of energy was required to create them, and they're giving off an infinite amount of energy every second. Whichever you choose to believe, I hope your mind is thoroughly blown. :)
This is the bit that got me really annoyed, that and Mount Rushmore. Again my main argument was not that every astrological body should be perfect for life for this universe to have been tuned.
I already knew about cosmological constants, that's why I spouted out the argument used to rebut the idea that since all of those things like the speed of light, the strength of the strong nuclear force or the gravitational constant, are all just right and hence the universe must have been tuned.
I knew you weren't quoting creationists, I knew that it's the scientific consensus that all those constants are perfect for us. What there is no consensus on is the idea that all those things are so unlikely as to make god the most logical answer.

Saying "tuned" is not accurate, that automatically implies a creator. All they say is that they're just right, nothing more and nothing less. I doubt they say that it's just right, they say that they happen to allow for the possibility of life to develop.

You're going on a complete tangent here, you're questioning a different theory to evolution. You're saying that there must be a god because there can't be infinite universes, nothing at all to do with the topic.
But I'll answer it with this, infinite universes = infinite POSSIBLE "events" occurring Q.E.D there must be at least one event in which the randomly rolled cosmological constants have come up life friendly. If life can't exist anywhere else then the only place it could exist is here.
Nothing supernatural about that, just remarkable is all.

Anyway that's based off a prevalent scientific theory that there is a "multiverse" of infinite universes, which I'm not going to argue about in a topic about evolution. Even if there's only one universe, couldn't you say we just got very very lucky? At least the 1 in goodness knows what chance that our universe would be like this is possible and explainable by science. Whereas god isn't even taken account into those 1/whatever chances. In a venn diagram of events where the universe isn't good for life and of the ones where it is good, god doesn't get a circle, he's not even in the diagram!