NationStates Jolt Archive

One thing I've noticed is how evolution is like a godless religion to many people, especially here. I've heard people defend Darwin's hypotheses to the death(yes, some are hypotheses). I've seen Darwinists call those who disagree with them ignorant. They basicly butchered the pillars of science, which are:
1. To learn
2. To think
3. To question
4. To answer
5. To understand

When you learn, you tend to think. When you think, you ask questions. Questions lead to answers. Answers lead to understandings. In a way, religion is an early science, I guess. Before telescopes and beakers, people were already trying to answer questions. Like scientists, they took all of their knowledge and made theories. Although these theories resulted in fairies and flat earths, they were theories none-the-less. Religion came from these theories. Religion's ability to change allowed for the faithful to explore secular science. I doubt Keplar could have calculated the distance of the six known planets of the time without his belief in intelligent design. If he hadn't believed in intelligent design, it is unlikely he could have used geometry to accurately describe the planets' distence from eachother. He most likely would have believed that the distances were random. For more information, look up information on Kepler. He's the guy who discovered that the planets orbitted in ovals, not circles.

Back on topic: I've seen people defend their sacred Darwin cow. If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists. These aren't just evolutionists. They're hardcore atheists. They believe that all theists are still stuck in the dark ages. Recent discoveries have altered evolution's school of thought. We now evolved alongside apes, instead of from apes. A chunk of human history has one species turning into another in a straight, branchless line. Notice how I said CHUNK. If science wasn't all about thinking for onesself and questioning things, it would have died on day 1. How do you feel about these dweebs? Not the ones who believe in secular science or the ones who believe that god had a helping hand in it. The hardcore creationists were already done to death. I'm talking about the ones who turned science into a religion. I'm talking about the ones who want Darwinism to go unquestioned as the one school of thought, thus butchering one of the things that allowed for discoveries to be made in the first place.

/yawn

Funny... I haven't yet seen anybody on here saying the evolution excludes the possibility of god. Apart from creationists, that is...:rolleyes:

Aye. I hear much talk about these hardcore Darwinists who think that evolution disproves the existence of God, yet I have failed to observe this elusive creature.

I have yet to see any argument brought to bear by creationists or ID proponents that punched any type of hole in evolution as we understand it (and yes, the theory is constantly evolving; that's why we call scientific theories facts instead of laws- as new observations come in, they may have to be altered to suit the circumstances, and this is how it's supposed to work). I have also failed to see any creationist/ID argument that proved to be significant evidence that God does exist.

That evolution on all scales (no micro/macro crap; it's all the same) occurs is undisputed within the scientific community, including a good many devoutly religious scientists.

There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence against God. My atheism is as much my personal viewpoint as anybody's theism is.

Science presumes nothing about any god, or lack thereof. Scientists observe the universe and how it works, and reach conclusions based on that. Scientists will be very, very loathe to attribute anything to a supreme being, as "Invoking the supernatural explains everything, and therefore explains nothing."

If God does exist, I can only think that learning about His creation (the universe) would serve to honor Him. That has been the motivating force for many of the brightest scientific minds, from Galileo to Einstein and beyond.

One thing I've noticed is how evolution is like a godless religion to many people, especially here.

Holy generic creationist argument, Batman!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

# Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:

* Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
* Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
* Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
* Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
* Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
* Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
* Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.


# How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

# Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.

# Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998). Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion. Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.

# Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.

The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).

If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists. These aren't just evolutionists. They're hardcore atheists.

Would you like fries with that King-Size Strawman?

1) Not all 'followers of evolution' are Darwinists.

2) In fact, what is a 'Darwinist'? I've never heard of anyone who ONLY followed the 'teachings of Darwin', among the wealth of evolutionary material.

3) Not all 'followers of evolution' are Atheists.

4) Not all Atheists are 'hardcore'... and that distribution has NOTHING to do with science generally, or evolution, specifically.

Darwin rocks my Ark full of monkeys!

Darwin > all of you.

Come on - the guy spent years concentrating his research on BARNACLES for christs sake. Anyone with that much committment, attention to detail and obvious genius deserves a great deal of respect, and it just makes me laugh when people go "Darwin was stupid. Me more clever! Giant man with beard and white robes cast a magic spell to create world!"

Sure, he wasn't correct on everything, but he formulated the basis for a theory that is being improved upon all the time, which is pretty much proven and only fundamentalists who don't matter anyway don't accept.

in addition to joining the chorus wondering where exactly these 'evolution is my religion' folks are, i've got a few comments.

Recent discoveries have altered evolution's school of thought. We now evolved alongside apes, instead of from apes.

we are apes. we evolved alongside the things that became the other modern apes, and we evolved from a common ape ancestor

A chunk of human history has one species turning into another in a straight, branchless line.

which chunk was that? i can't think of a single example of a species which doesn't overlap the fork or branch off into several different things, except for ones that appear to have just gone extinct.

1. To learn
hmm i wonder if evolution is the be-all and end-all?

2. To think
if not strict evolution, could god play a role? or could creationism be correct?

3. To question
at the heart of the matter: i wonder, could there be a god?

4. To answer
ahahahahahaaha what a silly idea. the flying pink unicorn is just as likely.

5. To understand
i understand 'evolutionists' are asking these questions and are generally basing their beliefs on the firm basis there is no god - ergo creationism or any mixture of 'darwinism and god' cannot exist. i understand it is the creationists who are not fully questioning their belief and faith in some mythical creature that they have been indoctrinated to believe in.

case closed as far as i'm concerned. believe in what you want to, just don't try and argue me into accepting something as ridiculous as theism or any 'theory' - or in fact anything else - that follows on from it :rolleyes:


ps: i'm probably one of those arseholes you're talking about :D
but does that make athiest evolution a religion, or anything approaching such a thing? no. :rolleyes:
my distain for theism is actually stronger than my 'belief' in evolutionism or whatnot

There is some dogmatism in science, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. One shouldn't give up a theory at the first sign of problems, but rather see how the theory can be salvaged. Eventually if it can't, there'll be a shift in paradigms, and another theory will emerge to take it's place.

I support evolution, and I couldn't give a damn about worshipping it like a sacred cow. The theory needs work, as the conditions under which we've seen evolution at work (gradual selective breeding) aren't necessarily constant. That being said, fictional giant bearded men living in clouds don't have sweet FA to do with it.

Cope.

As some guy's sig says: "It's OK not to believe in evolution. Evolution believes in you".

That's probably what this tiny handfull of religious nutters can't seems to grasp. Evolution isn't something you believe in or not. It's just there. Like the sun in the sky, the gravity making sure you don't fall off the planet, and the weather that hopefully never stops showering you fundies with rain.

Thank Dog the universe works regardless of what people believe.

The trouble with science in such circumstances is that the only, and I mean only opposition is non-scientific, which is something science cannot cope with. In that sense it may appear religious to people who don't follow it, but you can be assured it isn't; it's actually a special case in that it's diametrically opposed to religions. It doesn't make any claims that can't be substantiated, by which I mean, could not theoretically at some point be substantiated, whereas religion is defined by its tendency to make claims about the nature of the Universe which by definition cannot be substantiated, providing as they do no testable propositions.

However, it is precisely because religion deals only with non-testable factors and science only with testable ones that the two a priori do not interfere with each other; thus in a sense it is a fortiori true to say that "evolutionism" says nothing about the status of God.

Moreover, in a similar way to that in which a small but vocal minority of Young Earth Creationists and other such fools have painted the entire ID movement as blind and stupid, a small but vocal minority of idiot atheist scientists (Dawkins et al.) have somehow managed to convince the undecided and the religious that science is the way away from God. This is a terrifying trend, and one which must for the sake of the developed world be reversed immediately; the two can coexist, and the major point of "disagreement" between the two is a perfect instance of lies, damn lies and straw men on the one side and too much complexity for John Q. Taxpayer to understand on the other side. One side is right, and it is blindingly obvious which, but the other side is well-funded, knows its rhetoric, and has the home-ground advantage - and it is the one which, for its own ends, has made this shit a debate at all.

Would you like fries with that King-Size Strawman?


But it's such an awesome strawman Grave. All of a sudden the entire emphasis is meant to be on supporters of evolution who apparently now have to defend their motives. In one fell swoop it paints supporters of evolution as a kind of hate-filled fanatic and completely shifts the focus of the debate away from which side is supported by hard evidence and good science.

Or at least that's what would've happened in one fell swoop if it weren't such a clumsy, blatantly obvious strawman. As is, I like the way it sets up all those false arguments you just mentioned and doesn't even _attempt_ to address the Evolution vs Creation Science issue on the scientific merits of the opposing arguments :)

Evolution: From Monkey to Man
just like...
Evolution: From Religion to Science

But it's such an awesome strawman Grave. All of a sudden the entire emphasis is meant to be on supporters of evolution who apparently now have to defend their motives. In one fell swoop it paints supporters of evolution as a kind of hate-filled fanatic and completely shifts the focus of the debate away from which side is supported by hard evidence and good science.

Or at least that's what would've happened in one fell swoop if it weren't such a clumsy, blatantly obvious strawman. As is, I like the way it sets up all those false arguments you just mentioned and doesn't even _attempt_ to address the Evolution vs Creation Science issue on the scientific merits of the opposing arguments :)

That is why nobody ever took over the world with armies of scarecrows... sure, a man made of straw is scary, but it has no finesse, and it just falls to pieces in face of the slightest resistance.

Yeah yeah, atheism/secularism/"Darwinism" is a religion...get new material, people. This same tired idea has been debunked more times than I can count. It's okay to have bad ideas, just try to have your OWN bad ideas rather than spinning out copies of bad ideas that have already been recycled hundreds of times.

It's okay to have bad ideas, just try to have your OWN bad ideas

but that's hard. it's much easier to think and speak only in talking points provided by other people.

but that's hard. it's much easier to think and speak only in talking points provided by other people.
what he said.




;)

but that's hard. it's much easier to think and speak only in talking points provided by other people.
John Edwards.

Funny... I haven't yet seen anybody on here saying the evolution excludes the possibility of god. Apart from creationists, that is...:rolleyes:
Nail of the head.

but that's hard. it's much easier to think and speak only in talking points provided by other people.
*Sigh* I suppose you're right. I keep on hoping that someday people's own sense of self-respect will outweigh their laziness, but I guess that's a little too much to ask...

Scientific theories should be questioned, of course, but that doesn't mean alternative non-scientific theories like Intelligent Design (Creationism) are anywhere near as plausible as evolution.

That is why nobody ever took over the world with armies of scarecrows... sure, a man made of straw is scary, but it has no finesse, and it just falls to pieces in face of the slightest resistance.

And I particularly like how even the survey for this thread is biased. You've only got one option that involves evolution, and it's worded to make it sound like anyone who agrees with it must be some sort of rabid fanatic who thinks Charles Darwin could do no wrong. Seriously, whatever happened to options like

"Evolution baby. Maybe not as Darwin first explained, but we're still working the kinks out to develop an explanation that best fits the oberservable data"

or

"Life evolved over billions of years, but I don't think this fact has anything to do with whether God exists or not"

One thing I've noticed is how evolution is like a godless religion to many people, especially here. I've heard people defend Darwin's hypotheses to the death(yes, some are hypotheses). I've seen Darwinists call those who disagree with them ignorant. They basicly butchered the pillars of science, which are:
1. To learn
2. To think
3. To question
4. To answer
5. To understand

When you learn, you tend to think. When you think, you ask questions. Questions lead to answers. Answers lead to understandings. In a way, religion is an early science, I guess. Before telescopes and beakers, people were already trying to answer questions. Like scientists, they took all of their knowledge and made theories. Although these theories resulted in fairies and flat earths, they were theories none-the-less. Religion came from these theories. Religion's ability to change allowed for the faithful to explore secular science. I doubt Keplar could have calculated the distance of the six known planets of the time without his belief in intelligent design. If he hadn't believed in intelligent design, it is unlikely he could have used geometry to accurately describe the planets' distence from eachother. He most likely would have believed that the distances were random. For more information, look up information on Kepler. He's the guy who discovered that the planets orbitted in ovals, not circles.

Back on topic: I've seen people defend their sacred Darwin cow. If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists. These aren't just evolutionists. They're hardcore atheists. They believe that all theists are still stuck in the dark ages. Recent discoveries have altered evolution's school of thought. We now evolved alongside apes, instead of from apes. A chunk of human history has one species turning into another in a straight, branchless line. Notice how I said CHUNK. If science wasn't all about thinking for onesself and questioning things, it would have died on day 1. How do you feel about these dweebs? Not the ones who believe in secular science or the ones who believe that god had a helping hand in it. The hardcore creationists were already done to death. I'm talking about the ones who turned science into a religion. I'm talking about the ones who want Darwinism to go unquestioned as the one school of thought, thus butchering one of the things that allowed for discoveries to be made in the first place.

Evolution is a godless religion?

Wow, that is news to us Evolutionary Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists!

Evolution is a godless religion?

Wow, that is news to us Evolutionary Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists!
Shhh. Fact has no place within modern dialogue. Where have you been? :)

I'm beginning to suspect that one could have a more profitable and constructive conversation about philosophy with a parrot than with most of the creationist/godbothering types on here. A parrot would repeat the same points over and over regardless of how they've been answered a lot less.

Darn. I'd hoped this was going to be a serious thread.

Shhh. Fact has no place within modern dialogue. Where have you been? :)

Oh yes, I forgot that every thing was binary.... Silly me...

1. All Christians are Republicans.
2. All Republicans are Christians
3. All Evolutionists are Atheists
4. You're either a Democrat or a Republican
5. You're either with us, or against us.

And all such....

Snip

Back on topic: I've seen people defend their sacred Darwin cow. If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists. These aren't just evolutionists. They're hardcore atheists. They believe that all theists are still stuck in the dark ages. Recent discoveries have altered evolution's school of thought.
snip.
WTF is a darwinist?

And I particularly like how even the survey for this thread is biased. You've only got one option that involves evolution, and it's worded to make it sound like anyone who agrees with it must be some sort of rabid fanatic who thinks Charles Darwin could do no wrong. Seriously, whatever happened to options like

"Evolution baby. Maybe not as Darwin first explained, but we're still working the kinks out to develop an explanation that best fits the oberservable data"

or

"Life evolved over billions of years, but I don't think this fact has anything to do with whether God exists or not"
Absolutely agree ... one would think that the thread creator thinks that Darwinian theory is still the current theory of evolution

Absolutely agree ... one would think that the thread creator thinks that Darwinian theory is still the current theory of evolution

Yeah, almost as if the guy who started the thread didn't actually know anything about biology or the way the scientific community works except for a few evangelical talking points and generalizations, and was going out of his way to start a thread that would make his opponents look bad by trying to cast them as fanatics because he's given up on trying to use facts or evidence to discredit them :D

WTF is a darwinist?

Someone who worships Charles Darwin as a god.... [or, from certain people's views, someone who does not adopt the full fundamental tenets of Young-Earth Creationism [YEC]/ (1)Intelligent Design(tm) [ID]. [and therefore many "Christians" are "Darwinists" from this misapplication of fundamental understanding (and total misuse of wisdom)].

Notes:
[i]1. Intelligent Design, not to be confused with EC's "intelligent design" as theological idea that all espects of the evolutionary process are an operation of the theological idea of a system of God guided evolution; but rather a false presupposition based upon lack of evidence that evolution cannot take place because of complexity, relying upon a fundamental misuse of general scientific theories...

While this thread isn't exactly the pinnacle of discussion, I can agree with a few of the OP's sentiments.

There are people 'out there' and on this forum who basically fit the description of "religious atheist". I see the same dumb shit from different posters with every thread about religion on this board, and on others. They go on a huge, mouth-foaming tirade about how 'evolutionism' and 'atheism' aren't religions. Okay, that's fine. By definiton, they're not. Then those same people start spewing dogma and their own take on morality like they're something new, different and intelligent because they're not Christian dogma or morality.

Don't want people calling atheism and 'evolutionism' (or 'Darwinism', whatever the hell that's supposed to be) religions? Then stop treating them like a religion and try utilising some of that 'intelligence' and 'rationality' you're always gushing about.

Edit: Yes, I'm aware of the irony of needing to wipe a bit of the foam from my own mouth here, but idiots irritate me. And I figured, if I'm going to rant, I should do it in a thread that was never going to spawn an intelligent discussion anyway.

Someone who worships Charles Darwin as a god.... [or, from certain people's views, someone who does not adopt the full fundamental tenets of Young-Earth Creationism [YEC]/ (1)Intelligent Design(tm) [ID]. [and therefore many "Christians" are "Darwinists" from this misapplication of fundamental understanding (and total misuse of wisdom)].

Notes:
[i]1. Intelligent Design, not to be confused with EC's "intelligent design" as theological idea that all espects of the evolutionary process are an operation of the theological idea of a system of God guided evolution; but rather a false presupposition based upon lack of evidence that evolution cannot take place because of complexity, relying upon a fundamental misuse of general scientific theories...
Makes so much more sense now :fluffle:

not to be blaspehmous but.. maybe someday somewhere humanity will "evolve" into a god like entity, and repeat the cycle that "god" may or may not have started. like someone said earlier that science doesn't exclude god from the picture. maybe god started out like us and evolved? who knows!

One thing I've noticed is how evolution is like a godless religion to many people, especially here.

That's funny, because I've seen, maybe two people like that in my entire lief, and I'm in the field of biology!

I've heard people defend Darwin's hypotheses to the death(yes, some are hypotheses).

Darwin's hypotheses, at this point, have either moved to theory or been debunked. Of course, if you are talking about biology, yes, some things within biology are hypotheses and some are theory, as with any science. Evolutionary theory, as it stands, is theory. There are other corrolaries that are still hypotheses.

When you learn, you tend to think. When you think, you ask questions. Questions lead to answers. Answers lead to understandings.

Generally, yeah, it goes something like that.

In a way, religion is an early science, I guess.

Not in the way in which we generally use science today. Both religion and science are philosophies. Science is bound by the scientific method, while religion is not. Therefore, religion is not a science.

Like scientists, they took all of their knowledge and made theories. Although these theories resulted in fairies and flat earths, they were theories none-the-less.

The difference, of course, being that a scientific theory means something different from a general theory. Theory to religion basically means, "My explanation I came up with." Theory to science means, "An explanation arrived at through observation and testing that is backed by a huge amount of evidence and has no contradicting evidence within the knowledge we currently have."

I doubt Keplar could have calculated the distance of the six known planets of the time without his belief in intelligent design. If he hadn't believed in intelligent design, it is unlikely he could have used geometry to accurately describe the planets' distence from eachother. He most likely would have believed that the distances were random. For more information, look up information on Kepler. He's the guy who discovered that the planets orbitted in ovals, not circles.

This has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard. "If Kepler didn't believe Goddidit, he couldn't possibly have made observations and come to conclusions, he just would've made a decision and stopped investigating." That is essentially what you have just said. I could just as logically say, "If Kepler didn't believe his dog had Satan's voice, it is unlikely he could have used geometry to accurately describe the planets' distance from each other."

]quote]I've seen people defend their sacred Darwin cow. If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists.[/quote]

Please show us this mythical animal.

Recent discoveries have altered evolution's school of thought.

Well, my dear, that is how science works. Faith-based schools of thought can stop at something and never change it in light of new evidence. Science goes until something is disproven - it is then reevaluated and either discarded or changed such that it does meet all evidence.

We now evolved alongside apes, instead of from apes.

That was always the theory, my dear. It was simply people who didn't understand it that yelled the whole, "They're sayin' we came from monkeys!"

A chunk of human history has one species turning into another in a straight, branchless line.

Really? Please demonstrate this for us?

If science wasn't all about thinking for onesself and questioning things, it would have died on day 1.

It is about thinking and questioning things in a specified logical method - the scientific one, to be precise.

I'm talking about the ones who turned science into a religion. I'm talking about the ones who want Darwinism to go unquestioned as the one school of thought, thus butchering one of the things that allowed for discoveries to be made in the first place.

Like I said, I've seen, maybe, two people like this in my entire life. Where are you that you see so many?

I can't say I've seen anyone dogmatically defend the theory of evolution to the death.:p

I've seen people defend their sacred Darwin cow. If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists.
Please show us this mythical animal.
You're looking at it. It is precisely mythical in that it is an image that has symbolic significance as an analogy (one that doesnt apply to you, but that's beside the point). I'm sure it's meaning did not really escape you.

:)

Funny... I haven't yet seen anybody on here saying the evolution excludes the possibility of god. Apart from creationists, that is...:rolleyes:

Aye aye, cap'n. But, ahem, methinks that its a bit wierd likey there 'ave been no transitionull fossils ever been found. Shiver me timbers, aharr.

This is, by Jimmy me lad, a good thread.

Aye aye, cap'n. But, ahem, methinks that its a bit wierd likey there 'ave been no transitionull fossils ever been found. Shiver me timbers, aharr.

This is, by Jimmy me lad, a good thread.
Well, since fossils have been found, and all stages of life are transitional, I would have to say that there have been transitional fossils found.

Yeah, once you've read Aftershock by Adrian Holloway (C) 2004 you need more faith to believe in chance than intelligent design. As the scientist whose name I can't remember but is in the book somewhere said, the chance of this happening without a helping hand from some (highly) intelligent force is like an option between:
(a) this book being written by an author

(b) this book being the result of terrorist blowing up an ink factory and the ink splattering all over pieces of paper to make sequences of intelligible words which make up quite a nice book, thankyou very much.

Aye aye, cap'n. But, ahem, methinks that its a bit wierd likey there 'ave been no transitionull fossils ever been found. Shiver me timbers, aharr.

This is, by Jimmy me lad, a good thread.
Here is a partial list of found transitionial fostles


* Fish to Amphibians
o Osteolepis
o Eusthenopteron
o Panderichthys
o Elginerpeton
o Obruchevichthys
o Hynerpeton
o Tulerpeton
o Acanthostega
o Ichthyostega
o Pederpes finneyae
o Eryops
* Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles)
o Proterogyrinus
o Limnoscelis
o Tseajaia
o Solenodonsaurus
o Hylonomus
o Paleothyris
* Synapsid reptiles to mammals
o Protoclepsydrops
o Clepsydrops
o Dimetrodon
o Procynosuchus
* Diapsid reptiles to birds
o Compsognathus
o Protoavis ?
o Archeopteryx
o Changchengornis
o Confuciusornis
o Ichthyornis
* Evolution of the Horse
o Hyracotherium
o Mesohippus
o Parahippus
o Merychippus
o Pliohippus
o Equus

Well, since fossils have been found, and all stages of life are transitional, I would have to say that there have been transitional fossils found.

What me meant was, if you'll excuse me whatsits, fish with legs not yet strong enough to walk on, or creatures with wings not yet strong enough to fly with. Catch me meaning, yoho?

I'll stop bein' a pirate now. Aharr.

Yeah, once you've read Aftershock by Adrian Holloway (C) 2004 you need more faith to believe in chance than intelligent design. As the scientist whose name I can't remember but is in the book somewhere said, the chance of this happening without a helping hand from some (highly) intelligent force is like an option between:
(a) this book being written by an author

(b) this book being the result of terrorist blowing up an ink factory and the ink splattering all over pieces of paper to make sequences of intelligible words which make up quite a nice book, thankyou very much.
You see, the problem with that unlikelihood is that it suggests that this is what is supposed to happen. Well then, sure, it's unlikely. But you see, the thing about chance occurance is that the end result is not what is supposed to happen, but just what does happen.

Yeah, once you've read Aftershock by Adrian Holloway (C) 2004 you need more faith to believe in chance than intelligent design. As the scientist whose name I can't remember but is in the book somewhere said, the chance of this happening without a helping hand from some (highly) intelligent force is like an option between:
(a) this book being written by an author

(b) this book being the result of terrorist blowing up an ink factory and the ink splattering all over pieces of paper to make sequences of intelligible words which make up quite a nice book, thankyou very much.
Hmmm sounds like that author was making a rather sloppy attempt at the good ol thousands of monkeys analogy

To Upward Thrust,

Hello, how're you doing. that'd be so much more interesting if you'd tell me what that big list actually means? Eutychloposisus to you to.

I see some people here took my words out of context while others haven't. Here are my definitions:

Darwinist-someone who takes Darwin's theories and hypotheses(some have been disproven) word for word without question.
syn: hardcore evolutionist
ant: Creationists, theists, scientists, pie, people, random object, thinkers, doers, underwear, thing thrown in there for humor

evolutionist-Someone who believes that life on earth has changed over time.
syn: n/a
ant: hardcore creationist, darwinist

creationists-Someone who believes that life was created by one or more higher beings.
ex: Christians, Jews, Muslims, most dead scientists, many live scientists
ant: Darwinists.

Hmmm sounds like that author was making a rather sloppy attempt at the good ol thousands of monkeys analogy

You mean infinite monkeys with an infinite supply of ink, time, and not-broken typewriters. If we had that, we'd have several better improvements on Shakespeare. But, alas for poor drama students, we don't.

Besides which evolution is not pure chance. Quite the contrary

To Upward Thrust,

Hello, how're you doing. that'd be so much more interesting if you'd tell me what that big list actually means? Eutychloposisus to you to.
That was a partial list of found transitional fossils

Under the category they fall on

Each of thoes are a species that qualifies as a transitional fossil

What me meant was, if you'll excuse me whatsits, fish with legs not yet strong enough to walk on, or creatures with wings not yet strong enough to fly with. Catch me meaning, yoho?

I'll stop bein' a pirate now. Aharr.
The problem with this is that there is no reason to expect find such fossils, and if we do it would be an amazing thing! You see, the creature who develops legs would have use for those legs, not have ones not strong enough to walk on.

Just to make it clear, i believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution. i believe the transitions which have been attempted to explain by old darwin here were helped along by the guy with the original clay (God.) Rubbish metaphor, wasn't it?

The problem with this is that there is no reason to expect find such fossils, and if we do it would be an amazing thing! You see, the creature who develops legs would have use for those legs, not have ones not strong enough to walk on.

But to evolve into having legs there must be at least a lot of different versions of the species all with slightly better legs than each other. And one of those guys is gotta have little stumpy things. A better argument for my case is how life started. So throw something at me (but don't hit my elbow. It really hurts after falling on it a few days ago. Owwww.)

(b) this book being the result of terrorist blowing up an ink factory and the ink splattering all over pieces of paper to make sequences of intelligible words which make up quite a nice book, thankyou very much.
The problem is that this is a useless comparison. The only thing we can say with any degree of certainty is that live does in fact exist & organisms does evolve.

Do you have a coin handy? Try flipping it 30 times now. I'm sure you'll agree it's insanely unlikely that you get heads 30 times in a row... But what's the chance that you'd get exactly the combination of heads & tails that you just got?

When we do not know the equation (which we don't when it comes to life, and I assume you're referring to that halfarsed Behe guy, who mixes the origin of live, the origin of the universe & the theory of evolution), the only thing we can say about the probability is that it's 100% certain that it happened. The probability of the thing is a non-issue. It happened. Now deal with reality.

I believe in evolutionary algorithms. And I wouldn't by surprised if God's a bit of a nerd who likes them too.. (It would also explain the need to create a world and people to be worshipped by. That's what I'd do..)

Besides which evolution is not pure chance. Quite the contrary

yeah i know. I wasn't talking about that.

But to evolve into having legs there must be at least a lot of different versions of the species all with slightly better legs than each other. And one of those guys is gotta have little stumpy things. A better argument for my case is how life started. So throw something at me (but don't hit my elbow. It really hurts after falling on it a few days ago. Owwww.)
Why would we do that the topic of argument is evolutionary theory
That has nothing to do with how life started

I see some people here took my words out of context while others haven't. Here are my definitions:

Darwinist-someone who takes Darwin's theories and hypotheses(some have been disproven) word for word without question.
syn: hardcore evolutionist
ant: Creationists, theists, scientists, pie, people, random object, thinkers, doers, underwear, thing thrown in there for humor



Does anyone actually know any living Darwinists? :confused:

You see, the problem with that unlikelihood is that it suggests that this is what is supposed to happen. Well then, sure, it's unlikely. But you see, the thing about chance occurance is that the end result is not what is supposed to happen, but just what does happen.

Well, do you think a or b? I wouldn't bet the rest of my eternity on b, to be honest. (just for people who weren't listening: a was very likely, b was so unlikely it was almost impossible. Like this post being the result of terrorist blowing up an ink factory for no reason and the ink splattering all over the keyboard to make sequences of intelligible words which make up quite a nice post, thankyou very much. And then it happening fifty times all in the same five minutes in different cities around the world. In alphabetical order.)

A better argument for my case is how life started. So throw something at meEvolution says nothing about it. Just how it could have changes from that point on.

Do you have a coin handy? Try flipping it 30 times now. I'm sure you'll agree it's insanely unlikely that you get heads 30 times in a row... But what's the chance that you'd get exactly the combination of heads & tails that you just got?Precisely equally unlikely. Every sequence of 30 flips has an a priori chance of 1/2^30 (assuming it's a fair coin)

I see some people here took my words out of context while others haven't. Here are my definitions:

Darwinist-someone who takes Darwin's theories and hypotheses(some have been disproven) word for word without question.
syn: hardcore evolutionist
ant: Creationists, theists, scientists, pie, people, random object, thinkers, doers, underwear, thing thrown in there for humor.
Alright then. Definition accepted (why not?).

Have you ever come across such a fellow inside the last 100 years?

Other than your nifty little homemade definition, I've never heard of such a character before.

Evolution says nothing about it. Just how it could have changes from that point on.

Precisely equally unlikely. Every sequence of 30 flips has an a priori chance of 1/2^30 (assuming it's a fair coin)

What if its a three sided coin? (I know, it doesn't make sense.)

Alright then. Definition accepted (why not?).

Have you ever come across such a fellow inside the last 100 years?

Other than your nifty little homemade definition, I've never heard of such a character before.
Agreed

I don't think I have met one yet.

Does anyone actually know any living Darwinists? :confused:
I have shrine to the Guy in my basement.

Ooh fancy

What if its a three sided coin? (I know, it doesn't make sense.)Well, you're right. I was using mathematical coins. In reality there's also the chance it lands on it's rim and stays standing. :p
So in that case if it's a fair coin (and every state is equally likely) replace 2 by 3 in the above expression

Evolution says nothing about it. Just how it could have changes from that point on.

Precisely equally unlikely. Every sequence of 30 flips has an a priori chance of 1/2^30 (assuming it's a fair coin)
Alright, that was poorly worded. What I meant was: if you think it's insanely unlikely that you'll get 1 specific result from one set of (aparently random) variables, consider for a moment that it's equally outrageously unlikely you'll end up with the result you do end up with, whatever it may be.

It's a non-issue. If we'd ended up with another result, it would've been equally unlikely, as you so aptly demonstrated. It's not an argument against something happening.

Creationist here :cool:

Creationist here :cool:

Cool! What sort? 5000 year old world, or just belief in a creator god?

Alright, that was poorly worded. What I meant was: if you think it's insanely unlikely that you'll get 1 specific result from one set of (aparently random) variables, consider for a moment that it's equally outrageously unlikely you'll end up with the result you do end up with, whatever it may be.

It's a non-issue. If we'd ended up with another result, it would've been equally unlikely, as you so aptly demonstrated. It's not an argument against something happening.

Hey, the chances of me typing this post are hardly anything! But just look at me go! Wahey!

Cool! What sort? 5000 year old world, or just belief in a creator god?
I believe the Lord created Earth in six days, 6000 years ago.

Creationist here :cool:
Ha! You're living on borrowed time mate.. May Darwin smite you for your foolishness!

Hey, the chances of me typing this post are hardly anything! But just look at me go! Wahey!
What? Huh? Arh fuck, missed it!

I was busy getting crosseyed reading your location & trying to spot you. Your fault really. Try again.

Ha! You're living on borrowed time mate.. May Darwin smite you for your foolishness!
Do you really think I care what you say? No, I don't give a shit really :D

I believe the Lord created Earth in six days, 6000 years ago.
I've never really understood that. Why would it take six days for an omnipotent being to create something?

I believe the Lord created Earth in six days, 6000 years ago.

Ah. So, you are not quite the same as me. Ah well. At least you're a Christian. As for the 6000 years bit, the translation of the Hebrew word that can mean 'father' (the generations mentioned in the Bible rely on this word being father) can also mean 'grandfather' or even 'long dead ancestor.' Besides, science has proven that lots of things (for instance, earth) are much older than that. Sorry if i sound a bit patronising.

Do you really think I care what you say? No, I don't give a shit really :D

Awwww, that's not very nice

I've never really understood that. Why would it take six days for an omnipotent being to create something?
Exactly ... you would figure it would be instantanious

Awwww, that's not very nice
Sure it is. It's got a smiley and everything.

Ah. So, you are not quite the same as me. Ah well. At least you're a Christian. As for the 6000 years bit, the translation of the Hebrew word that can mean 'father' (the generations mentioned in the Bible rely on this word being father) can also mean 'grandfather' or even 'long dead ancestor.' Besides, science has proven that lots of things (for instance, earth) are much older than that. Sorry if i sound a bit patronising.
I used to believe in a 4.6 billion year old Earth, but science has changed my way of thinking :p

Exactly ... you would figure it would be instantanious
Well that's God for ya! Creates the universe.. painfully slow.. billions of years or something and then tells you he made it in six days just to fuck with you!

I've never really understood that. Why would it take six days for an omnipotent being to create something?

Yeah. The hebrew translations again are a bit annoying. Day can also mean 'long period of time.' And the six periods fit in with the evolution theory as well, if you hadn't noticed. (Period 1, Earth forms. 2, land solidifies out of the molten rock. 3, water is formed. This allows 4, plants, (possibly evolving into) 5, fish and animals, 6, (possibly evolving into) humans. 7, rest from creation...for now.

I used to believe in a 4.6 billion year old Earth, but science has changed my way of thinking :p
How so?

I used to believe in a 4.6 billion year old Earth, but science has changed my way of thinking :p

OK, so you think carbon dating isn't too accurate. Well...I'd have to agree with you there. But it is very unlikely for it to be out by billions of years, is it? What scientific evidence is there for the 6000 years?

Whenever I think about the creation stories I can't help imagining God trying to explain quantum physics to Adam and Eve...

Whenever I think about the creation stories I can't help imagining God trying to explain quantum physics to Adam and Eve...

yeah. They're not scientists or anything. They're not even highly intelligent physicians who specialise in quantum mechanics.

"Hi Adam!"

"Hi, God."

"Hey! There's this new thing I've invented - it's called quantum mechanics. Ever heard of it, Addy?"

"Um..."

"No, of course you haven't. How on Earth could you? I've only just invented it, remember. Tut-tut-tut. Now, be sure not to eat anything of that tree, will you?"

"No, dad." **giggle-giggle**

OK, so you think carbon dating isn't too accurate. Well...I'd have to agree with you there. But it is very unlikely for it to be out by billions of years, is it?Carbon dating doesn't work for such a long period. They used the decay of uranium, I think.

Carbon dating doesn't work for such a long period. They used the decay of uranium, I think.

Carbon-14 has a half-life of only 5,730 years.

Carbon dating doesn't work for such a long period. They used the decay of uranium, I think.

Fine, uranium dating. All greek to me. I mean latin, or whatever its supposed to be.

My Darwin Cow is made of Guano and Werthers Originals.

My Darwin Cow is made of Guano and Werthers Originals.

I have a nagging feeling you're called Desperate Measures for a reason... :D

My Darwin Cow is made of Guano and Werthers Originals.
Bah! I have a Darwin Tortoise!

What? Huh? Arh fuck, missed it!

I was busy getting crosseyed reading your location & trying to spot you. Your fault really. Try again.

The Evil Bambambambambam Location strikes again! MWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!

Want some pie? I do.

Bah! I have a Darwin Tortoise!
No you don't. You nicked mine. Now give it back you damn Darwinist-wannabe!

Want some pie? I do.

**starts dribbling over keyboard**

**later finds teethmarks in monitor**

No you don't. You nicked mine. Now give it back you damn Darwinist-wannabe!

ooh deary me. 'damned darwinist-wannabe' is probably right.

No you don't. You nicked mine. Now give it back you damn Darwinist-wannabe!
It chose me! Get over it!

It chose me! Get over it!

Does this have anything to do with the thread's original point?

What was it anyway? I've been too busy trying to answer all the evolutionist onslaughts all at the same time.

I've just looked. Don't bother.

Does this have anything to do with the thread's original point?

What was it anyway? I've been too busy trying to answer all the evolutionist onslaughts all at the same time.
That evolution is a religion?

Arrgh, look at that poll! 8.89%! I ask you.

It chose me! Get over it!
Grrr! Faithless Darwin Turtle Harlot!

I shall now go shop for a fairytale in book form, whighting no less than 4 pounds, proclaim myself a creationist & clubber the faithless heathen tuttle to death.

If I can't have it, noone will:(

That evolution is a religion?

Everone look at me! Evolution is a religion!! With all Mr. Adrian Holloway's books, I can rule the world...no wait, I meant, I can say 'Evolutionism requires more faith than Creationism.'

Grrr! Faithless Darwin Turtle Harlot!

I shall now go shop for a fairytale in book form, whighting no less than 4 pounds, proclaim myself a creationist & clubber the faithless heathen tuttle to death.

If I can't have it, noone will:(
And risk the wrath of Darwin? I double dog dare you!

I have a nagging feeling you're called Desperate Measures for a reason... :D
The cow had to be made! Or Darwins ghost would have de-evolved me!!!
I only had a couple of tools to work with...
Desperate times call for Desperate Cows....

Arrgh, look at that poll! 8.89%! I ask you.

ooh, look, 10.87%. Who just came on? Eh? Eh? Huh? Huh? 10.87%. Still pathetic. Phone me for clicking-on-the-right-button-lessons (joke, you moron).

Hey, look, I've been debating this since about page 5. Go me!

Where are the cute little Creationists? They're fucking adorable!

How does anyone think life started?

And risk the wrath of Darwin? I double dog dare you!
Haha!! I accept your puny challenge of my newfound murderous goodbye to reality. Surely your false Darwin idol shal not descent on me & smite me silly with his odd antique hat. Believe you Darwinists not in survival of the fittest?

Sould I succede in my endeavour, and not end my days in the tummy of a turtle, I shall bask in the glorious light of Darwin & (3-4 letter combination), knowing my murderous actions, have served both equally well.

And more importantly, I'll have a brand new soup bowl :)

Where are the cute little Creationists? They're fucking adorable!

Right in front of your nose, you blind bat. Except I'm not a 'proper' creationist: I believe in microevolution not mcroevolution, and that the universe is about 15,000,000,000,000 years old, and that the earth was created in somewhat more than six days. But I still classify as a christian.

How does anyone think life started?
Whatever the current theories on the origin of life are.. that's how it started..

( I think I covered my ignorance up well there)

Haha!! I accept your puny challenge of my newfound murderous goodbye to reality. Surely your false Darwin idol shal not descent on me & smite me silly with his odd antique hat. Believe you Darwinists not in survival of the fittest?

Sould I succede in my endeavour, and not end my days in the tummy of a turtle, I shall bask in the glorious light of Darwin & (3-4 letter combination), knowing my murderous actions, have served both equally well.

And more importantly, I'll have a brand new soup bowl :)

Lol and double Lol ( :) & :D )

Right in front of your nose, you blind bat. Except I'm not a 'proper' creationist: I believe in microevolution not mcroevolution, and that the universe is about 15,000,000,000,000 years old, and that the earth was created in somewhat more than six days. But I still classify as a christian.
Yeah, but you're a boring one....
I like the 6,000 year old types...

Haha!! I accept your puny challenge of my newfound murderous goodbye to reality. Surely your false Darwin idol shal not descent on me & smite me silly with his odd antique hat. Believe you Darwinists not in survival of the fittest?

Sould I succede in my endeavour, and not end my days in the tummy of a turtle, I shall bask in the glorious light of Darwin & (3-4 letter combination), knowing my murderous actions, have served both equally well.

And more importantly, I'll have a brand new soup bowl :)
Congratulations! You have passed the test! May Darwin be praised! Don't kill the tortoise.

Whatever the current theories on the origin of life are.. that's how it started..

( I think I covered my ignorance up well there)

Except for that give-away at the end, you get a gold star. Well done.

There are several current theories... to name a few, Creationism, Christianity, Buddhism, Anti-creationist Science (it just happened)...

(how can it just happen?)

Yeah, but you're a boring one....
I like the 6,000 year old types...

Oh, yeah, they're fun to debate with. (e.g. Templar Legion)

(how can it just happen?)

It just can.

Lol and double Lol ( :) & :D )
Hehe, I hope it's not my spelling you're laughing at. Sorry about that by the way. I'm a little bit tired today.. Haven't slept for 40 hours or something.

The cow had to be made! Or Darwins ghost would have de-evolved me!!!
I only had a couple of tools to work with...
Desperate times call for Desperate Cows....

There's a book called Desperate Measures, by Kjartan Poskitt. hehehe.

Except for that give-away at the end, you get a gold star. Well done.

There are several current theories... to name a few, Creationism, Christianity, Buddhism, Anti-creationist Science (it just happened)...

(how can it just happen?)
You might wanna read some of the junk about abiogenesis.

I'm not gonna pretend I know how life started. For the moment, I think the abiogenesis sounds most probable, as the other explanations are .. Well .. Pretty damn extraordinary. But there's no theories I'd put money on at the moment.

It just can.

Yeah, you seriously need to reconsider your...

...can't think of the word, someone else fill me in. Quick!!

It just can. Well I never. Well, I'm never going back to church then, he said, with a hint of sarcasm.

It just can. I still can't believe you're ignorance.

It just can.

I'm just going to have to keep on repeating that to myself until I believe that you really live your life by that statement.

It just can.

Life can just...happen?

What, like poof?

WTF, mate?!?!?!

Gahhaaargh! Hellkhdsafsdafbsaidthelkjhsda. Nnnnnnnn!!!!!

You might wanna read some of the junk about abiogenesis.

I'm not gonna pretend I know how life started. For the moment, I think the abiogenesis sounds most probable, as the other explanations are .. Well .. Pretty damn extraordinary. But there's no theories I'd put money on at the moment.

Please can someone explain for an unenlightened child called Bambambambam what abiogenesis is?

Yeah, you seriously need to reconsider your...

...can't think of the word, someone else fill me in. Quick!!

It just can. Well I never. Well, I'm never going back to church then, he said, with a hint of sarcasm.

It just can. I still can't believe you're ignorance.

It just can.

I'm just going to have to keep on repeating that to myself until I believe that you really live your life by that statement.

It just can.

Life can just...happen?

What, like poof?

WTF, mate?!?!?!
Indeed.

Indeed.

Indeedy, my young fellow. But, and I'm getting down to Earth now, why, or even how, can you live like that's true?

Please can someone explain for an unenlightened child called Bambambambam what abiogenesis is?
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiogenesis" in this article.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Please can someone explain for an unenlightened child called Bambambambam what abiogenesis is?
It's the explanation that doesn't involve aliens, comets, elves, Star Goats or Gods.

Not that it excludes any of those things, but it works independently of them. In other words, it's a scientific hypothesis.

www.wikipedia.com can give you a quick rundown, and talkorigins can prolly add a few more details. The right place to go would be a university library though.

Abiogenesis is the chemical birth of life.

Indeedy, my young fellow. But, and I'm getting down to Earth now, why, or even how, can you live like that's true?
Because. Or even, why not? I wouldn't ever argue explicitly why life wouldn't just happen but, maybe out of ignorance, I don't see why not?

Indeedy, my young fellow. But, and I'm getting down to Earth now, why, or even how, can you live like that's true?
Aren't you doing exactly the same?

And good said: POOF! And man was made & it was dandy.

I'm guessing Zero Six Three is proposing abiogenesis, and at least with that it doesn't just happen out of the blue, because something snapped it's fingers, noodly appendages, or whatever s/he/it snaps when it snaps them.

I think there is plenty of room for God in the theory of Evolution. What would have happened to the evolutionary process if say the moon wasn't there or the Earth was placed in a space further from the sun? There are thousands of things which would have caused evolution not to occur in the first place.

But until that pre-cambian rabbit is found, Intelligent Design is just filler for what we don't know yet.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)

I believe the Lord created Earth in six days, 6000 years ago.

So you dismiss the second Genesis account of Creation then? The one in which animals were made after man (Adam), but before woman (Eve)?

Because. Or even, why not? I wouldn't ever argue explicitly why life wouldn't just happen but, maybe out of ignorance, I don't see why not?

Because, my friend slash brother slash person I met on the internet, you risk the HIGH risk of being eternally seperated from Jesus. I know it sounds all poncey, but that's what I believe to be the worst thing that could ever happen to me. Oh yeah, and you could face eternal damnation and all that jazz on top.

My, this is quite a debate now, isn't it?

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)
Instead of us resorting to the normal "You say, I say" shout fest, why don't you just ask if there's something you'd like to know about, check the material we can provide you with (if you want to), and formulate your own arguments explaining why you hold a different opinion?

This thread have been a laugh, & I'd hate to see it spoiled by the same old Evo vs Crea shite. It's so damn boring.

As some guy's sig says: "It's OK not to believe in evolution. Evolution believes in you".

That's probably what this tiny handfull of religious nutters can't seems to grasp. Evolution isn't something you believe in or not. It's just there. Like the sun in the sky, the gravity making sure you don't fall off the planet, and the weather that hopefully never stops showering you fundies with rain.

Thank Dog the universe works regardless of what people believe.


Well said.

Because, my friend slash brother slash person I met on the internet, you risk the HIGH risk of being eternally seperated from Jesus. I know it sounds all poncey, but that's what I believe to be the worst thing that could ever happen to me. Oh yeah, and you could face eternal damnation and all that jazz on top.

My, this is quite a debate now, isn't it?
Fair enough. I probably deserve it.:)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000.

Only an idiot would attempt to calculate a probability of something for which all the variables and possibilities are not known. We haven't observed the generation of life enough times (in fact, we haven't observed it all, that I know of) to have a probability. Any calculations he made were based upon his personal understanding of what he thinks natural generation of life might be. Seems a bit fishy, no?

"I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth."

Someone didn't study probability. Unless the probability was exactly 0, there is no way to state a 100% certainty that it could not have happened. Oopsie!

He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation."

Who brainwashed him to believe that? Where the hell did this guy go to school? He doesn't understand science, probability, or religion apparently.

Science cannot invoke a deliberate creation (at least not of the universe or by a supernatural being). It is certainly not inconsistent with it.

"The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling."

Quite a bold claim. I'd like to see someone actually try and back it up. You really have to wonder any time someone starts a sentence with "The only logical answer is...." Usually, that means they have no logic to back it up, so they're simply going to say it is the only answer.

Well said.
Hahaha! I got sigged! And for paraphrasing another guys sig none the less! That's just brilliant! :D

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)
That makes no sense. Life as we know it is too unlikely to not believe in an equally (if not more) unlikely creator...?:confused:

Just a few years ago, I found it to be 100% improbable that I would ever see Janet Jackson's breast on live National TV due to a wardrobe malfunction.
I believe my point is made. To the Guano/Werthers Darwinian Cow!
(I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm going to play video games...)

Just a few years ago, I found it to be 100% improbable that I would ever see Janet Jackson's breast on live National TV due to a wardrobe malfunction.
I believe my point is made. To the Guano/Werthers Darwinian Cow!
(I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm going to play video games...)
Can I come? I'm like a god with a laser blaster!

Can I come? I'm like a god with a laser blaster!
I think you meant to say that you are like a Darwin with a laser blaster.

I don't understand why people want a Darwinian cow or turtle. Darwin was all about beatles! Why shouldn't there be a Dawin Beatle!? (He could look like John Lennon)

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)

1) That's pretty impressive since we are not sure how life started. Calculating the probability of an unknown event is impossible.
2) 1^40000 per what? Per year? per minute? per second? How big of an area is being considered? Give it long enough and enough possibilities, the imporbable becomes almost unavoidable.

About your citing, is Daily Express a periotical? What is Blanchard, the author of a book? What is the books name?

I don't understand why people want a Darwinian cow or turtle. Darwin was all about beatles! Why shouldn't there be a Dawin Beatle!? (He could look like John Lennon)
The beagle was a false prophet.

Hahaha! I got sigged! And for paraphrasing another guys sig none the less! That's just brilliant! :D

Any time, bro, any time :D

1) That's pretty impressive since we are not sure how life started. Calculating the probability of an unknown event is impossible.
2) 1^40000 per what? Per year? per minute? per second? How big of an area is being considered? Give it long enough and enough possibilities, the imporbable becomes almost unavoidable.

About your citing, is Daily Express a periotical? What is Blanchard, the author of a book? What is the books name?
One might venture that if that bit of conjecture accounts for the probability of life occuring on a given planet in the universe, from the origin of the universe to this point in time, then the chance of life occuring countless places in the universe is very close to 100%.

This galaxy is VAAAAST, and it's but a particle in a needle in a haystack in a friggin barn.

Because, my friend slash brother slash person I met on the internet, you risk the HIGH risk of being eternally seperated from Jesus. I know it sounds all poncey, but that's what I believe to be the worst thing that could ever happen to me. Oh yeah, and you could face eternal damnation and all that jazz on top.

My, this is quite a debate now, isn't it?
ah, good old Pascal's Wager.

You know, you are in high risk yourself. What if your God is not THE god? Better start worshipping Allah, Yahwe, Ra, Odin, Zeus and others...

But what if you get re-incarnated as a toad because you haven't followed the proper teachings to advance on the wheel of fate?

Can YOU take that chance?

ah, good old Pascal's Wager.

You know, you are in high risk yourself. What if your God is not THE god? Better start worshipping Allah, Yahwe, Ra, Odin, Zeus and others...

But what if you get re-incarnated as a toad because you haven't followed the proper teachings to advance on the wheel of fate?

Can YOU take that chance?
That's not Pascal's wager. He was merely stating that God hates me.

That's not Pascal's wager. He was merely stating that God hates me.
Hey, join the club. He's a vengefull god, what with casting to hell those who never heard of him (according to some interpretations anyways)

Hey, join the club. He's a vengefull god, what with casting to hell those who never heard of him (according to some interpretations anyways)
They probably deserved it.. ungodly bastards!

Hey, join the club. He's a vengefull god, what with casting to hell those who never heard of him (according to some interpretations anyways)
Don't worry about it. That particular incarnation of that God hates every human you could stand spending 5 minutes with anyway, so who in hell would want to go to heaven?

- If we really do end up in hell, I'll buy you a pint ;)

Don't worry about it. That particular incarnation of that God hates every human you could stand spending 5 minutes with anyway, so who in hell would want to go to heaven?

- If we really do end up in hell, I'll buy you a pint ;)
Likewise. We'll get to chat about the good old times with some of history's greatest.

Don't worry about it. That particular incarnation of that God hates every human you could stand spending 5 minutes with anyway, so who in hell would want to go to heaven?

- If we really do end up in hell, I'll buy you a pint ;)
What about me? Will there be Cherry Coke in hell?

What about me? Will there be Cherry Coke in hell?
You don't seriously think I'll start supporting that crappy corporation just because I'm dead, do you?!

Edit:Gimme back me turtle and we can talk about that damn killercoke...

What about me? Will there be Cherry Coke in hell?
You can hang around. Not sure about the cherry coke. But there should be plenty of cherries.

You don't seriously think I'll start supporting that crappy corporation just because I'm dead, do you?!

Edit:Gimme back me turtle and we can talk about that damn killercoke...
Fine.. Take her.. Darwin, I love Cherry Coke.

Fine.. Take her.. Darwin, I love Cherry Coke.
Haha! Alright! I'll get you that killercoke then, even if I have to be buried with it ;)

Haha! Alright! I'll get you that killercoke then, even if I have to be buried with it ;)
That's not really fair you know.. you couldn't imagine what an eternity without Cherry Coke would be like for me.. Much worse than an eternity with Diet Pepsi!

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)
hmmm I would love to see how he formulated that probability ... I have a BS in statistics it would be intresting to review

hmmm I would love to see how he formulated thoes odds ... I have a BS in statistics it would be intresting to review
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Hmm thank you ... I took a look at talkorigins but I must have missed it

Hmm thank you ... I took a look at talkorigins but I must have missed it
They have some links at the foot that also can help. The specifics of Chandra Wickramasinghe's points are a little hard to find, but I think I managed to find a transcript just by Google-ing him and futzing through the first few links that came up.

One thing I've noticed is how evolution is like a godless religion to many people,
Just like Spheroid Earthism is a religion.

Once you understand why Spheroid Earthism can't be a religion to anyone, you'll understand why evolution can't be a religion to anyone.

Just like Spheroid Earthism is a religion.

Once you understand why Spheroid Earthism can't be a religion to anyone, you'll understand why evolution can't be a religion to anyone.
I think he's already conceded it's a strawman. Look at his definition of a darwinist.

I highly doubt the dear OP will return with more claims about this stereotype he pulled out of his arsehat ;)

Just like Spheroid Earthism is a religion.

Once you understand why Spheroid Earthism can't be a religion to anyone, you'll understand why evolution can't be a religion to anyone.

Anything can be treated like a religion. If someone took it on faith that the world was spheroid, rather than looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is true, they certainly haven't come to a scientific conclusion. If someone takes it on faith that evolutionary theory, in its current incarnation, is absolute truth that cannot be questioned - they are treating it like a religion, specifically a fundamentalist religion, rather than science. Of course, I've only seen one or two people who might do this, and one of them is currently forumbanned for a few days, so I don't really think it's a big problem.

Anything can be treated like a religion.
*sigh*

Only if you stretch the definition to meaninglessness.

*sigh*

Only if you stretch the definition to meaninglessness.

I'm not stretching anything:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


There are people who don't attempt to understand science, who take what scientists say on faith, and then defend it as a belief, rather than as a logical conclusion, and hold to it with quite a bit of ardor. These people are very few and far between, but they do exist. They are a bit scary actually, and give the rest of us a bad name. I'm not really sure how they handle it when scientists realize that a given conclusion was in error and change the theory around on them.

Yeah, once you've read Aftershock by Adrian Holloway (C) 2004 you need more faith to believe in chance than intelligent design. As the scientist whose name I can't remember but is in the book somewhere said, the chance of this happening without a helping hand from some (highly) intelligent force is like an option between:
(a) this book being written by an author

(b) this book being the result of terrorist blowing up an ink factory and the ink splattering all over pieces of paper to make sequences of intelligible words which make up quite a nice book, thankyou very much.

Oh, please, not this one again...

It falls down in SO many places, it's not even funny.

1) Even if there WERE a designer, it needn't be 'intelligent'. Spiderwebs are pretty, but they do not require any form of formal education.... a 'tool' that is good at it's job is NOT an 'intelligent' tool.

2) The whole idea that evolution can be compared to explodey ink, or tornado-flavoured airplanes, is ridiculously over-simplified.

In a GENUINE parallel, the ink would be kept if it made ANY coherent form, and such forms would be allowed to associate together, with more complex/advances coherent forms being kept whenever they were generated.

The 'explosion' would also be one of millions of explosions, over hundreds, maybe millions, of years.

3) It 'means' nothing to judge probabilities of things that HAVE happened. Deal a card from a deck. No matter WHAT card you deal, the probability is actually pretty tiny that THAT one card, should be the ONE card you deal...

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)

However, what is missing from such math, is the fact that there can have been hundreds, even millions of 'attempts' (if you will) that DID fail to spawn life... both on this world, and on others.

When you look at a couple of billion years, and you look at a number as SMALL as 40,000... it's almost guaranteed that life WOULD start here accidentally, eventually, no?

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. "I am 100% certain that life could not have started spontaneously on Earth." He says that his conclusion came to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been "strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation." "The only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling." (Daily Express, 14 August 1981, cited by Blanchard, p. 298.)

That assumes "accidental" and "random" actually exist.

"Random" is the hard to predict result of extremely complex systems.

"Accidental" is a view whereby the finite cannot accurately model the entire complex system.

Automatically, any statistic, attempting to calculate the chances of life developing on this planet, with a result less than 100%; is indicative of the statistical equation not accounting for all factors in the model.... Simply because, since life is here, the chances are 100%.

In the same way, if I am playing poker, and the hand I am delt is a royal flush, the chances of me having got that royal flush, assuming that all variables are accounted for, is 100%... Because the statistical probability for any event which has already occured, is always 100%, because the event already happened.

That assumes "accidental" and "random" actually exist.

"Random" is the hard to predict result of extremely complex systems.

"Accidental" is a view whereby the finite cannot accurately model the entire complex system.

Automatically, any statistic, attempting to calculate the chances of life developing on this planet, with a result less than 100%; is indicative of the statistical equation not accounting for all factors in the model.... Simply because, since life is here, the chances are 100%.

In the same way, if I am playing poker, and the hand I am delt is a royal flush, the chances of me having got that royal flush, assuming that all variables are accounted for, is 100%... Because the statistical probability for any event which has already occured, is always 100%, because the event already happened.
Exactly why we do regressional analysys

You find out if one variable reduces the error you observe in your model

If it does it must be a factor and you got to weight how much that adds to the model

However, what is missing from such math, is the fact that there can have been hundreds, even millions of 'attempts' (if you will) that DID fail to spawn life... both on this world, and on others.

When you look at a couple of billion years, and you look at a number as SMALL as 40,000... it's almost guaranteed that life WOULD start here accidentally, eventually, no?
The number is actually ten to the power of 40,000. One and fourty thousand zeroes.

The number is actually ten to the power of 40,000. One and fourty thousand zeroes.

Indeed, I see that, now I pay a little more attention.

A pretty meaningless number, really... since there could be ten to the power of 40,000 chemical reactions on this planet every SECOND, for all I know.

And, if there were, that means there would be a 100% probability of life spontaneously beginning at ANY moment, no?


The reason I usually avoid this kind of math (apart from a kind of laziness...), is that people make ridiculous assumptions to base their math upon...

Like... well, first it has to happen on this planet... so they factor the chances AGAINST this planet, of all available planets... which is, of course, illogical.

One thing I've noticed is how evolution is like a godless religion to many people, especially here. I've heard people defend Darwin's hypotheses to the death(yes, some are hypotheses). I've seen Darwinists call those who disagree with them ignorant. They basicly butchered the pillars of science, which are:
1. To learn
2. To think
3. To question
4. To answer
5. To understand

When you learn, you tend to think. When you think, you ask questions. Questions lead to answers. Answers lead to understandings. In a way, religion is an early science, I guess. Before telescopes and beakers, people were already trying to answer questions. Like scientists, they took all of their knowledge and made theories. Although these theories resulted in fairies and flat earths, they were theories none-the-less. Religion came from these theories. Religion's ability to change allowed for the faithful to explore secular science. I doubt Keplar could have calculated the distance of the six known planets of the time without his belief in intelligent design. If he hadn't believed in intelligent design, it is unlikely he could have used geometry to accurately describe the planets' distence from eachother. He most likely would have believed that the distances were random. For more information, look up information on Kepler. He's the guy who discovered that the planets orbitted in ovals, not circles.

Back on topic: I've seen people defend their sacred Darwin cow. If you thought the Catholic church was ignorant during the times of Robin Hood and plagued rats, you should see the Darwinists. These aren't just evolutionists. They're hardcore atheists. They believe that all theists are still stuck in the dark ages. Recent discoveries have altered evolution's school of thought. We now evolved alongside apes, instead of from apes. A chunk of human history has one species turning into another in a straight, branchless line. Notice how I said CHUNK. If science wasn't all about thinking for onesself and questioning things, it would have died on day 1. How do you feel about these dweebs? Not the ones who believe in secular science or the ones who believe that god had a helping hand in it. The hardcore creationists were already done to death. I'm talking about the ones who turned science into a religion. I'm talking about the ones who want Darwinism to go unquestioned as the one school of thought, thus butchering one of the things that allowed for discoveries to be made in the first place.

I agree for the most part. A lot of the Darwinists are just as ignorant as a lot of the creationists. A lot of the Darwinists don't understand this evidence and therefore only believe in it based on blind faith. Plus evolution does nothing to disprove God, though it does provide evidence against the literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.

That said I think all the scientific evidence points to the fact that evolution occurs, while I have not seen any reasonable evidence against evolution. Sure there are some things that we do not understand, but lack of evidence isn't evidence. For example genetic comparisons seem to show that certain species evolved from common ansestors. Just because a common ansestor cannot be identified in all cases is not evidence against evolution, just the lack of a piece of evidence supporting it. Which does nothing to negate all the evidence supporting it. Similarly there is no evidence against the existance of God.

Anyways, while I agree with you that science should be questioned. I also think its important to go where the evidence takes us. I think we should only teach evolution in our schools, but should be open to new evidence as it appears. If such new evidence appears then we should teach that to the children as well. So yes, science should be questioned, but we should focus our energies on intelligent questions. Scientists don't sit around thinking I wonder if the world is really flat, but will only reevaluate it when good evidence presents itself.

Just for you to understand my bias. I am a Christian, and am quite familure with various Christian teachings on the subject. I believe that the evolutionary process is God's mode of creation. I am also a biological scientists and understand quite well the evidence for evolution.

Does anybody else think these mysterios Darwinists could be the missing link?

I want another option added to the poll...I see no reason why Darwin's theories cannot be, for the most part, correct, but I also believe in Intelligent Design. I don't think the two conflict with each other...if you take some frog eggs and put them in a jar, with all their basic needs provided for, they will hatch into tadpoles, which will grow and eventually become frogs. The frogs may look on this as evolution, in a small way, and yet we who instigated the process knew what would happen all along. I believe God created the universe, and everything in it, many billions of years ago. When science proves something true, there is no arguing with it. I also believe God created it in such a way that Life would evolve to become what it is today, which is what He had planned all along. Make sense?

I want another option added to the poll...I see no reason why Darwin's theories cannot be, for the most part, correct, but I also believe in Intelligent Design. I don't think the two conflict with each other...if you take some frog eggs and put them in a jar, with all their basic needs provided for, they will hatch into tadpoles, which will grow and eventually become frogs. The frogs may look on this as evolution, in a small way, and yet we who instigated the process knew what would happen all along. I believe God created the universe, and everything in it, many billions of years ago. When science proves something true, there is no arguing with it. I also believe God created it in such a way that Life would evolve to become what it is today, which is what He had planned all along. Make sense?
Yes it does but the thread creator seems to have a bias against his supposed “Darwinists” that made his judgment off when creating the poll

Not only is their your option

But the simple fact that Darwin was wrong in detail hence why current evolutionary theory is NOT the same as darwanism

I want another option added to the poll...I see no reason why Darwin's theories cannot be, for the most part, correct, but I also believe in Intelligent Design. I don't think the two conflict with each other...if you take some frog eggs and put them in a jar, with all their basic needs provided for, they will hatch into tadpoles, which will grow and eventually become frogs. The frogs may look on this as evolution, in a small way, and yet we who instigated the process knew what would happen all along. I believe God created the universe, and everything in it, many billions of years ago. When science proves something true, there is no arguing with it. I also believe God created it in such a way that Life would evolve to become what it is today, which is what He had planned all along. Make sense?
You're not talking about ID here. What you talk about is evolution, you just believe that (I presume) God invented evolution & uses it to achive what he wants. Evolution makes no attempt to explain why it works or if God made life & the laws of nature. The theories of evolution is ONLY explanations about how the process itself works.

Attributing the creation of the universe, the origin of life, and biological processes to God or The Star Goat is your call.

ID is something altogether different from evolution, and a nice huge roadblock to furthering our understanding of how stuff works.

You're not talking about ID here. What you talk about is evolution, you just believe that (I presume) God invented evolution & uses it to achive what he wants. Evolution makes no attempt to explain why it works or if God made life & the laws of nature. The theories of evolution is ONLY explanations about how the process itself works.

Attributing the creation of the universe, the origin of life, and biological processes to God or The Star Goat is your call.

ID is something altogether different from evolution, and a nice huge roadblock to furthering our understanding of how stuff works.
I'm disappointed that there is has been no ignorant retort to this yet...

I'm disappointed that there is has been no ignorant retort to this yet...

To what? Is there something to disagree with there?

To what? Is there something to disagree with there?
I'm sarcastic.

I want another option added to the poll...I see no reason why Darwin's theories cannot be, for the most part, correct, but I also believe in Intelligent Design. I don't think the two conflict with each other...if you take some frog eggs and put them in a jar, with all their basic needs provided for, they will hatch into tadpoles, which will grow and eventually become frogs. The frogs may look on this as evolution, in a small way, and yet we who instigated the process knew what would happen all along. I believe God created the universe, and everything in it, many billions of years ago. When science proves something true, there is no arguing with it. I also believe God created it in such a way that Life would evolve to become what it is today, which is what He had planned all along. Make sense?

This is where part of my problem is. I'm a devout Christian, but the whole concept of creationism gives me the shits because it springs from people believeing that science and religion have conflicting perogatives, which it untrue.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the God has created the universe, and guided the process of evolution to what we see now. However, I have huge objections to ID because it is vehamently unscientific and at the very best deserves to be considered theology and not science.

My biggest issue with ID is that it has blurred the boundry between theistic evolutionism, which I believe is perfectly reasonable scientifically, and ID which is nothing but sugar-coated creationism.

I'm disappointed that there is has been no ignorant retort to this yet...
Unless there's a massive powerfaliure in the US, I doubt you'll remain disappointed for very long.

This is where part of my problem is. I'm a devout Christian....

My biggest issue with ID is that it has blurred the boundry between theistic evolutionism, which I believe is perfectly reasonable scientifically, and ID which is nothing but sugar-coated creationism.

This is excellent.

If only, my friend, there were more like you....

This is excellent.

If only, my friend, there were more like you....
There are. All of europe, in particular eastern & southern europe, is chuck-full of people who shares that opinion. It's held by the vast majority peoples.

USians are just a bit backwards with regards to religion & forign policy, that's all ;)

There are. All of europe, in particular eastern & southern europe, is chuck-full of people who shares that opinion. It's held by the vast majority peoples.

USians are just a bit backwards with regards to religion & forign policy, that's all ;)

Oh, I know... I'm a Limey in a foreign land, so to speak. :)

However, the UK seems to following the US's bad example on this one...

Pie is kicking some ass on that poll.

This is excellent.

If only, my friend, there were more like you....

Actually, there are at least a few of us on here...

I'm a Evolutionary Creationist, which differs only in matters of degrees of creator involvement from Theistic Evolution, really more of a subset of Theistic Evolution...

Actually, there are at least a few of us on here...

I'm a Evolutionary Creationist, which differs only in matters of degrees of creator involvement from Theistic Evolution, really more of a subset of Theistic Evolution...

So - the Evolutionary Creationist... how does that work? Non-literal 6 days? Non-literal 'man from clay'? Literal Adam and literal Eve? Literal Adam and Eve... but not necessarily individual humans?

So - the Evolutionary Creationist... how does that work? Non-literal 6 days? Non-literal 'man from clay'? Literal Adam and literal Eve? Literal Adam and Eve... but not necessarily individual humans?

Theistic Evolution with active Creator involvement in the process...

Where as Theistic Evolution could be classified with or without an active creator.

EC tends more towards Creator involvement and operation through stages of the process. Hense the "active" aspect. Otherwise, it's simply Theistic Evolution... and a religi-philosophical interpretation of the scientific evolutionary process.

There is no real consensus on a status for "Adam and Eve"; though I tend to think they may have been actual persons, and if not that, at least the first "family" or tribe... So really either... Jury is still out on that one...

I tend to view Genesis as a metaphor of a process of creation, not a literal list of specific "events"... The "6-days" are metaphors, not literal, nor necessarily even an easily equated system [1 day = 1000 years].

"Man from clay" can, or cannot be taken literal.... "formed" can be relatively vague in it's application.... One could describe the entire evolutionary process of base elements into a fully functioning human [abiogenesis] as "forming" from "clay" [or dirt]... So, I'd say, at least in how most people would take it, as non-literal.

I also tend to calvinism [reformed, not hyper], and tend to interpret things in a very deterministic fashion as well.

This is of course all personal philosphy, and has no bearing on the established principles of the scentific processes of evolutionary theory.

Science is part of my religious world-view, and does lend to having a reasoned system of faith; though religion is not part of my science [which is where too many make error].

Does anybody else think these mysterios Darwinists could be the missing link?

Excellent. Sigged

Theistic Evolution with active Creator involvement in the process...

Where as Theistic Evolution could be classified with or without an active creator.

EC tends more towards Creator involvement and operation through stages of the process. Hense the "active" aspect. Otherwise, it's simply Theistic Evolution... and a religi-philosophical interpretation of the scientific evolutionary process.

There is no real consensus on a status for "Adam and Eve"; though I tend to think they may have been actual persons, and if not that, at least the first "family" or tribe... So really either... Jury is still out on that one...

I tend to view Genesis as a metaphor of a process of creation, not a literal list of specific "events"... The "6-days" are metaphors, not literal, nor necessarily even an easily equated system [1 day = 1000 years].

"Man from clay" can, or cannot be taken literal.... "formed" can be relatively vague in it's application.... One could describe the entire evolutionary process of base elements into a fully functioning human [abiogenesis] as "forming" from "clay" [or dirt]... So, I'd say, at least in how most people would take it, as non-literal.

I also tend to calvinism [reformed, not hyper], and tend to interpret things in a very deterministic fashion as well.

This is of course all personal philosphy, and has no bearing on the established principles of the scentific processes of evolutionary theory.

Science is part of my religious world-view, and does lend to having a reasoned system of faith; though religion is not part of my science [which is where too many make error].

Just one or two comments... not arguments, really. :)

The Hebrew makes it possible to make very liberal interpretations about the duration of a 'day' of Creation. A 'day' can just be 'a period of time'... which COULD be an entire epoch of the 'lifecycle' of a world. Viewed that way, science and religion do not really argue about the 'days' of Creation.

'Man from Clay' could ACTUALLY be seen as describing abiogenesis... the base molecule (dirt) becomes something new. If one perceives 'god' telling abiogenesis to happen, there is no disagreement.

From your 'Calvinist' comment, is it safe to assume that you believe evolution (if genuine) was DESIGNED to make 'us'.... specifically?

I am lingering in between being a theistic evolutionist and an old earth creationist. I have seen evidence FOR evolution, evidence AGAINST it, and I'm not sure about it. I don't think believeing in macro-evolution excludes God, because much of the Bible is figurative, so why not Genesis?

I am lingering in between being a theistic evolutionist and an old earth creationist. I have seen evidence FOR evolution, evidence AGAINST it, and I'm not sure about it. I don't think believeing in macro-evolution excludes God, because much of the Bible is figurative, so why not Genesis?
What's the evidence against it?

What's the evidence against it?
Exactly all these people that have so far not shown any evidence AGAINST evolution just bitch

Wake up people if you see a problem with a theory study

Work hard

Create a counter theory or a theory modification and submit it in peer review

This is the beauty of science ... theory can and DOES get modified ALL THE TIME

It makes sure our discriptions fit reality rather then trying to force the opposite

God >all mankind
People, look at Darwin's theory. Does it really explain anything at all? If we evolved from monkeys, why are there no other forms of free-willed creatures on the Earth? Also, how do you explain thousands of miracles that have occured throughout time? Scientific coincidence? Yeah right. Science is pathetic, and whatever it says I check with my Church, because I trust Rome more that I trust science.
GOOOOOOOO CATHOLICS!

God > Yeah right. Science is pathetic, and whatever it says I check with my Church, because I trust Rome more that I trust science.

Well sense science is so pathetic you best not use a
telephone
or car
or airplane
or TV
or radio
or boat
or countless other devices in contacting them

Would hate to use products of that pathetic scienc

In fact might want to stop eating most food ... taking medicine ... wearing shoes
or jackets
or clothing

Well sense science is so pathetic you best not use a
telephone
or car
or airplane
or TV
or radio
or boat
or countless other devices in contacting them

Would hate to use products of that pathetic scienc

In fact might want to stop eating most food ... taking medicine ... wearing shoes
or jackets
or clothing
Or expecting an anaesthetic or disinfectant while undergoing surgery, come to that. Hopefully he's taking the piss, though.

Or expecting an anaesthetic or disinfectant while undergoing surgery, come to that. Hopefully he's taking the piss, though.
Hell them fancy lightbulbs that they use in surgery
Health monitors

The non absorbing surfices that keep things sterile
Hell the computer he is using right now to bitch about the very process that brought his computer about lol

God >all mankind

Yeah. But what does that have to do with the discussion exactly?

People, look at Darwin's theory. Does it really explain anything at all?

Why, yes, although Darwin's proposals weren't perfect - some of them have been altered to a rather large degree.

Now, evolutionary theory - where we are today? That explains quite a bit. It explains the process of natural selection. It explains how a species or subset of a species can change over time in response to a changing environment or a new niche in the ecosystem. It explains why viruses will be constricted to one species for years and then suddenly infect another (ie. the new dog flu). It gives us a metric to determine how closely related species are - and thus to know how studies of those species may help us to understand ourselves.

Yeah, I'd say evolutionary theory explains quite a bit. Biology and medical technology wouldn't really be, well, anything like what they are if it were still undiscovered.

If we evolved from monkeys,

Who told you we did? It certainly wasn't someone who understood evolution. We evolved from a common ancestor with monkeys. Considering how closely related they (and apes, which are even more closely related) are, it isn't a huge leap of logic to make.

why are there no other forms of free-willed creatures on the Earth?

What on Earth makes you thnk there aren't?

And, even more importantly, what on Earth makes you think that there should be?

Also, how do you explain thousands of miracles that have occured throughout time?

Evolutionary theory in no way contradicts the possibility of miracles having occurred. I would say that the explanation for any miracles you have witnessed, or that you believe occurred would be, quite simply, that God did something outside the general workings of nature.

Science is pathetic, and whatever it says I check with my Church, because I trust Rome more that I trust science.
GOOOOOOOO CATHOLICS!

You are aware, then, that the pope endorsed evolutionary theory (for the most part)?

Meanwhile, if "science is pathetic," you should really step away from your pathetic computer, stop taking any pathetic medicines, get out of your pathetic climate-controlled home with pathetic synthetic materials and pathetic sources of energy coming in. You should stop wearing clothes made by anything other than your own hand, from animals you hunt with whatever you can make with your own hands, and you should be living either in a cave, or some sort of hut you can make without technology.

Well sense science is so pathetic you best not use a
telephone
or car
or airplane
or TV
or radio
or boat
or countless other devices in contacting them

Would hate to use products of that pathetic scienc

In fact might want to stop eating most food ... taking medicine ... wearing shoes
or jackets
or clothing

Hmmmm.....beat me to it. hehe

Hmmmm.....beat me to it. hehe
:) yeah you took the high road and really argued with the troll lol

I took the low road and suckerpunched him lol

God >all mankind
People, look at Darwin's theory. Does it really explain anything at all? If we evolved from monkeys, why are there no other forms of free-willed creatures on the Earth? Also, how do you explain thousands of miracles that have occured throughout time? Scientific coincidence? Yeah right. Science is pathetic, and whatever it says I check with my Church, because I trust Rome more that I trust science.
GOOOOOOOO CATHOLICS!
is this not sarcasm?
i sure hope it is :headbang:

Just one or two comments... not arguments, really. :)

The Hebrew makes it possible to make very liberal interpretations about the duration of a 'day' of Creation. A 'day' can just be 'a period of time'... which COULD be an entire epoch of the 'lifecycle' of a world. Viewed that way, science and religion do not really argue about the 'days' of Creation.

My point exactly, the "days" are representative, not either literal 24 hour "days", nor necessarily direct relations [1 day = 1000 years (or a million or a billion)]...


'Man from Clay' could ACTUALLY be seen as describing abiogenesis... the base molecule (dirt) becomes something new. If one perceives 'god' telling abiogenesis to happen, there is no disagreement.

My point as well... Saying "formed from clay", in no way affirms that it was an absolute direct formation... A good metaphor of the process of abiogenesis...


From your 'Calvinist' comment, is it safe to assume that you believe evolution (if genuine) was DESIGNED to make 'us'.... specifically?

Yes... Basically (philosophically) everything occurs according to a divine plan... Each individual event, itself, only being a smaller part of a larger scheme (and not necessarily one that is easily divined)... But the whole working together for a divine purpose (including the evolutionary process).

[The last is also a difference between "Calvinism" and the more vocal "Hyper-Calvinism" version of things... Unlike the hyper-calvinist, I must realize that even my own actions are part of the entire scheme of things... The hyper- version assumes that their actions are seperate from the scheme...]

Meanwhile, if "science is pathetic," you should really step away from your pathetic computer, stop taking any pathetic medicines, get out of your pathetic climate-controlled home with pathetic synthetic materials and pathetic sources of energy coming in. You should stop wearing clothes made by anything other than your own hand, from animals you hunt with whatever you can make with your own hands, and you should be living either in a cave, or some sort of hut you can make without technology.
This one does always bother me. Particularly given that the Creationist/ID bunch try to claim that their nonsense is a science (it isn't very close, it's just that they couldn't get this crap into science classes in the 'States if they claimed otherwise).

Indeed, I see that, now I pay a little more attention.

A pretty meaningless number, really... since there could be ten to the power of 40,000 chemical reactions on this planet every SECOND, for all I know.

.


Here is a good way of estimating the number of protons and neutrons in the universe.

A) 1 mole (6.023 x 10 ^ 23) of protons or neutrons weighs 1 gram. 1 kilogram is therefore 6.023 x 10^ 26 protons or neutrons.

b) If we take the density of the earth to be the same as silicon, the most abundant element, this is 2330 kg/m^3. The earth is approximately 12,756 km in diameter. Its volume is therefore 8.694 x 10^21 m3. Its mass is 2x10^25 kg. The total number of protons and neutrons in the entire earth is about 1.219 x 10^49. Which is actually not that big a number if you think about it.

c) What if the entire universe was the density of the earth? The radius of the universe is (I think) about 15 billion light years (I think). This is aproximately 1.419^26 metres. The Volume of the universe is therefore 2.857 x 10^78 m3. Using the same calculation as in 2, the number of protons and neutrons combined is only about 4 x 10^105.

WHile there are a few 'things that are smaller than protons or neutrons it seems to me that there are probably less than 1 x 10^110 particles (things?) in the universe. Therefore 1 x 10^40000 is still hugely significant in this context. (The age of the universe is about 4.734 x 10^23 seconds. So even if there were 1 interaction per second there have only been 1 x 10^133 interactions (very roughly)). Even if I've underestimated everything hugely it would be very difficult to see the total number of interactions in the universe exceeding 1 x 10^200.

Nonetheless I agree with everyone who says that Wickramsinghe is making stuff up off the top of his head!

Here is a good way of estimating the number of protons and neutrons in the universe.

-snip-

The radius of the universe is (I think) about 15 billion light years (I think). This is aproximately 1.419^26 metres.

ERROR: Presupposition...

That is the approximate observable radius of the universe... Not necessarily it's actual radius... [and even if it were larger, given limitations, we would not be able to observe it from our refference frame]...

So really, your estimate is the number of protons and neutrons in the known and observed universe... Not necessarily in the entire universe itself.

ERROR: Presupposition...

That is the approximate observable radius of the universe... Not necessarily it's actual radius... [and even if it were larger, given limitations, we would not be able to observe it from our refference frame]...

So really, your estimate is the number of protons and neutrons in the known and observed universe... Not necessarily in the entire universe itself.



I'm not sure exactly sure I would call it an ERROR - Absolutely every single thing you have ever uttered deal with a presupposition of ssome kind. That is more or less the point of Cogito Ergo Sum. Descartes of course then went on to prove everything else from this single 'fact'. However in this case while you are indeed correct that 15,000,000 light year diameter is only the 'observable' universe I think that there are good scientific reasons to believe that the universe is not much bigger (I'm afraid I'm a molecular biologist not a cosmologist, so I can't rememember exactly why.).

However, how much larger do you suppose the universe is? Even if we are only seeing 0.0000001% of the universe we are still not really approaching the 1 x 10^200 interactions figure. Sure these are all back of the envelope calculations, but I thought it would be an interesting excercise to show people the numbers we might be dealing with.

Even more importantly I would hate it if anyone used this calculation to argue for the existence of a God. While I am slightly more Agnostic than Atheist (depending on the day of the week and just how much of a pain in the ass my experiments are being) I am a firm believer in the Occams Razor opinion of the universe. Why add an extra level of complexity (i.e. God) to any rational explanation of life (i.e. evolution).