NationStates Jolt Archive

Rather then starting a new thread, this seems like a good place for an evolution news article.

Butterfly evolution observed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm

I think Darwin's "Survival of The Fittest" is too simple to put it up there with all that beauty and diversity of our planet. Although I'd never say one should take the Bible by the word in that matter, I'd say that there seems to be - I hope there to be, at least - some kind of plan in evolution, and even if the plan is put up the relevant lifeforms themselves. I'd say we should consider Lamarckism a more serious theory than we do now.

I'd say we should consider Lamarckism a more serious theory than we do now.

Why ? If I chop your arms off your children will almost certainly not be born without arms.

I think Darwin's "Survival of The Fittest" is too simple to put it up there with all that beauty and diversity of our planet. Although I'd never say one should take the Bible by the word in that matter, I'd say that there seems to be - I hope there to be, at least - some kind of plan in evolution, and even if the plan is put up the relevant lifeforms themselves. I'd say we should consider Lamarckism a more serious theory than we do now.

I may not be understanding Lamarck's theory, but if it were true in the way I understand it, wouldn't that mean that Doberman pinschers would be born with ears standing up, rather than needing part of the ear clipped while they're puppies in order to make them stand up?

I think Darwin's "Survival of The Fittest" is too simple to put it up there with all that beauty and diversity of our planet.

A few hundred years ago you would have been defending Ptolemy's Geocentric model against Gallileo's Heliocentric model because Gallileo's was just 'too simple'. ;)

Have you ever heard of the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)?

A few hundred years ago you would have been defending Ptolemy's Geocentric model against Gallileo's Heliocentric model because Gallileo's was just 'too simple'. ;)

Have you ever heard of the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)?

I think we covered something like that in Calc 2. As the number of permutations increases, the arc length of the inscribed region goes to infinity, but the area contained within the region remains definite. Or something like that.

I always thought it was really cool.

Maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Edit: Ah, sorry. I was thinking of the Koch Snowflake.

This is an absurd argument. Life is...enjoy.

This is an absurd argument. Life is...enjoy.

Like fast food!

Like fast food!

Or promiscuity.

Or promiscuity.

Fast promiscuity food?

Fast promiscuity food?

Takes "eating out" and "eating on the go" to a whole new level :D

Takes "eating out" and "eating on the go" to a whole new level :D

A whole new… SEXUAL level. :p

Why ? If I chop your arms off your children will almost certainly not be born without arms.

No... it's not about chopping them off. Nobody would seriously put such a theory up for discussion. The question is: Am I better off in my life without using my arms? If yes, according to Lamarck, this shouldn't make my children be born completely without arms, but, over the course of many generations with the identical experience of arms being useless, the arms degenerate and one day, they are gone. In effect, this would be the same as Darwinism, only downright research of the DNA reveals that it doesn't work that way.

I may not be understanding Lamarck's theory, but if it were true in the way I understand it, wouldn't that mean that Doberman pinschers would be born with ears standing up, rather than needing part of the ear clipped while they're puppies in order to make them stand up?

As I wrote above, changes need their time, not only in Darwinism, but also in Lamarckism. It could take dozens of generations, but finally, it should work that way, yes. And what I'm saying is not that we should take Lamarckism by the word, but we should consider wether a Lamarckism-like facotr could play a role. Even today, scientists are discovering that an individual lifeform is capable of altering the outcome of what its DNA tells it by changing the way the DNA is read. This is something that seems to me to be more Lamarck-like than Darwin-like.

A few hundred years ago you would have been defending Ptolemy's Geocentric model against Gallileo's Heliocentric model because Gallileo's was just 'too simple'. ;)

Have you ever heard of the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)?

Be invited to visit my thread on Quantum Mechanics.

No... it's not about chopping them off. Nobody would seriously put such a theory up for discussion. The question is: Am I better off in my life without using my arms? If yes, according to Lamarck, this shouldn't make my children be born completely without arms, but, over the course of many generations with the identical experience of arms being useless, the arms degenerate and one day, they are gone. In effect, this would be the same as Darwinism, only downright research of the DNA reveals that it doesn't work that way.What does degeneration mean here?

Or promiscuity.

Whichever. Both. Why have to choose?

I would vote evolutionist, but then there would no longer be 666 people for evolution, which is just too ironic.

I would vote evolutionist, but then there would no longer be 666 people for evolution, which is just too ironic.

*takes screenshot, sends to Kansas school board* :p

when the power of love exceeds the love of power we will know true peace.

when the power of love exceeds the love of power we will know true peace.the peace of death, yes

what do u mean.

when the power of love exceeds the love of power we will know true peace.

Patron Saints: Dolly Parton and Celine Dion.

Word.

I would vote evolutionist, but then there would no longer be 666 people for evolution, which is just too ironic.

The irony was passed about 50 voters ago in that particular persuasion.

I would vote evolutionist, but then there would no longer be 666 people for evolution, which is just too ironic.

Nah... Irony would be 666 voters for Creation! ;)

If you also think peanut butter disproves evolution, i'm not going to bother with the links.

Also, your poll sucks. You can have 10 options and you choose to have only 2???

I'll tell you something that DOES disprove evolution: a used car.

Cars do not get better with use over time; they get worse. No used car on earth runs as good as it did when it was new, unless the engine (and in some cases the transmission may need it too) has been thoroughly overhauled and/or replaced.

Cars break down; they rust; the fuel injectors get clogged; the battery cables develop shorts; the tires wear out; the motor oil gets dirty and has to be changed; the oil filter gets clogged and has to be changed; the brake pads and rotors wear down to nothing and have to be changed; etc. etc. You have to continually maintain and keep up a car or it will not run.

Also, have you ever noticed that many grocery items have "sell by" dates? If the stuff sits on a shelf after it goes "out of date", it will not taste as good as if it is still "in date". Canned goods, if left long enough, will spoil and burst the cans, producing botulism in some cases. Bread and pastries go stale soon after they're opened. Meat spoils; vegetable oils and shortenings turn rancid, etc. etc.

What grocery store stock clerk doesn't know to "rotate" merchandise (put the freshest in back and move the older up to the front)?!

EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC; it is a FAIRY TALE FOR GROWN-UPS.

There is education, learning, growth, and development, but EVOLUTION is a HOAX concocted in a desperate attempt on the part of mankind as a whole to get rid of God his Creator, because God gave mankind something called a "conscience" that tells him/her that s/he will stand before this Creator and give personal account of his/her life to Him, and mankind cannot tolerate the thought of that, so s/he runs to "science" (referred to in the Bible as "science FALSELY SO CALLED", 1 Timothy 6:20), "religion", "education", and "philosophy" to try to explain Him away and pretend He doesn't exist.

I'll tell you something that DOES disprove evolution: a used car.


Wait, is he serious? One can never tell with the nooblets...

Wait, is he serious? One can never tell with the nooblets...

Yes I am serious; read the rest of the post.

Evolution is contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that there is always entropy in a closed system, that is, everything RUNS DOWN.

A winding watch RUNS DOWN. You have to wind it up in order to keep it running. If evolution were true the watch would wind itself up.

For that matter, if evolution were true:
Cars would run better as time passed, without any maintenance or upkeep whatsoever. Also, while driving, the gas tank would get fuller instead of emptying.
Bread would come out of the oven stale and get fresher and fresher with time.
Vegetable oils and shortenings would START rancid and get fresher over time.
Meat would be in a spoiled state immediately after the slaughter of the animal, but gradually become suitable for eating later.
Only recently canned goods would go bad and burst their cans; if they managed not to do so, the product would become fresher with time.

None of those scenarios make sense; therefore neither does evolution.

Things do not get better with time. Things run DOWN; they fall apart; they rust; they rot; they spoil; they degenerate; they go from order and organization towards randomness and chaos. They start out good but end up bad.

I don't see how the used car thing proves anything.

Also, what if one were to believe that a god created the evolutionary process? How would one vote?

Also, what if one were to believe that a god created the evolutionary process? How would one vote?

"Indecisive" *nod*

Things do not get better with time. Things run DOWN; they fall apart; they rust; they rot; they spoil; they degenerate; they go from order and organization towards randomness and chaos. They start out good but end up bad.

People age and die. I think thats as fair as you can compare these two, as cars and bread don't breed.

"Indecisive" *nod*

Not at all. If its no far-fetched to believe a god created everything as is now 6000 years ago, why would it be "Indecisive" to believe a god created the universe millions of years ago, and got the ball rolling so that life could spawn itself?

I don't see how the used car thing proves anything.

Read 3 Blocks' second post; it might help you understand a little better:

if evolution were true:
Cars would run better as time passed, without any maintenance or upkeep whatsoever. Also, while driving, the gas tank would get fuller instead of emptying.

Yes I am serious; read the rest of the post.

Evolution is contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that there is always entropy in a closed system, that is, everything RUNS DOWN.

A winding watch RUNS DOWN. You have to wind it up in order to keep it running. If evolution were true the watch would wind itself up.


You forget that life is not a closed system.

For that matter, if evolution were true:
Cars would run better as time passed, without any maintenance or upkeep whatsoever. Also, while driving, the gas tank would get fuller instead of emptying.



Hmmm been reading Ashby Camp have we?


*snip*

Read 3 Blocks' second post; it might help you understand a little better:

I read it. You can compare a car to a human - Both deteriorate over time, but need to refuel to continue running. But as comparing the "lifespan" of a car to millions of years of evolution, it really isn't an adequate metaphor. As with the bread and the other perishables.

Not at all. If its no far-fetched to believe a god created everything as is now 6000 years ago, why would it be "Indecisive" to believe a god created the universe millions of years ago, and got the ball rolling so that life could spawn itself?

*shrug* So long as you've got your god in there, why bother with evolution? Just say he made us last Thursday exactly as everything is now. You could have him do anything, why should he conform to Evolution?

My preference for science over gibberish leads me to favour evolutionary biology over creation myths.

The term "evolutionist" is ridiculous, however, as it implies that "evolution" is some kind of ideology, whereas in reality it is a process by which organisms adapt over generations.

Evolution IS an ideology, and a false one at that; "adaptation over generations" is a myth. Individual organisms adapt to their environment by experience and learning, but are incapable of genetically passing such an adaptation on to their offspring because such adaptations are not written into their DNA.

You forget that life is not a closed system.

It is only not a closed system because from time to time GOD intervenes on behalf of His creation to delay/postpone/slow down the inevitable degradation of the universe, both physical and MORAL.

Without GOD, life certainly IS a closed system.

Hmmm been reading Ashby Camp have we?

Who is Ashby Camp?

*shrug* So long as you've got your god in there, why bother with evolution? Just say he made us last Thursday exactly as everything is now. You could have him do anything, why should he conform to Evolution?

Because Ozztopia apparently WANTS Him to. Mankind "makes" God in his own image.

Evolution IS an ideology, and a false one at that; "adaptation over generations" is a myth. Individual organisms adapt to their environment by experience and learning, but are incapable of genetically passing such an adaptation on to their offspring because such adaptations are not written into their DNA.

Basic mendalian genetics says otherwise.

Another example (at the top of my head) Sickle Cell and Malaria prone areas.

Ever read Natural Selection?

It is only not a closed system because from time to time GOD intervenes on behalf of His creation to delay/postpone/slow down the inevitable degradation of the universe, both physical and MORAL.

Without GOD, life certainly IS a closed system.

I will give you a cookie if you can point out the assumptions.

Who is Ashby Camp?

Ahhh a pawpet are we?

He wrote a few arguments about Automobiles and evolution that seem to be parroted by the faithful.

*shrug* So long as you've got your god in there, why bother with evolution? Just say he made us last Thursday exactly as everything is now. You could have him do anything, why should he conform to Evolution?because you know people will argue that life exsisted before last thursday thus God didn't create life. ;)

and it's not Him conforming to Evolution just as it's not Evolution 'conforming' to Him.

one neither supports nor disproves the other.

Evolution IS an ideology, and a false one at that; "adaptation over generations" is a myth. Individual organisms adapt to their environment by experience and learning, but are incapable of genetically passing such an adaptation on to their offspring because such adaptations are not written into their DNA.In other words you have no fucking clue how evolution works.

1. in evolution there is no 'adaption' over generation, there are only (environmental or other) circumstances that favor natural genetic variations over others. there is no active adaption there is only passive selection.

2. learning has nothing to do with evolution, except maybe cultural evolution, but that is not the issue here.

evolution is not an ideology, it is an obvious process in nature.

Basic mendalian genetics says otherwise.

Another example (at the top of my head) Cycle Cell and Malaria prone areas.

Ever read Natural Selection?

Sickle cell. Sickle. The blood cells do not take the shape of motorcycles.

because you know people will argue that life exsisted before last thursday thus God didn't create life. ;)

and it's not Him conforming to Evolution just as it's not Evolution 'conforming' to Him.

one neither supports nor disproves the other.

As long as we're going say god did it, why so he did it with evolution? Any other way is just a plausible.

Sickle cell. Sickle. The blood cells do not take the shape of motorcycles.

O gee I speld ron. Sari!

O gee I speld ron. Sari!

I don't think you misspelled sickle. You replaced it with a completely different word.

...Spelled 'cycle' right though, kudos?

As long as we're going say god did it, why so he did it with evolution? Any other way is just a plausible.

If we're going to say that God created life. Why nitpick on the how?

Did Evolution occure? yes.

Does Evolution disprove God's exsistance? No.

Does the belief in God require one to not aknowledge that Evolution occured? No.

*shrug* So long as you've got your god in there, why bother with evolution? Just say he made us last Thursday exactly as everything is now. You could have him do anything, why should he conform to Evolution?

Why not? The above statements are not my beliefs. In fact, I have none. The way I see it, there is no real way to definately say "X is right, Y is wrong." and I make no assumptions either way. What I am saying is that not everyone can be lumped into the two categories above. I have spoken with both people that don't believe in the possiblity of god, and people who believe in creation (99% of whom follow Abrahamic religions). The first believe that life spawned itelf. And why not? I had a Christian tell me that chances of evolution actually happening are too slim. But living in our universe of uncountable stars and planets, working will extremely big, and more to the point, extremely small numbers becomes very plausable. But in that, in this universe of near infinate possibilities, why is the concept of a higher being so far-fetched? I say to both groups "extremely improbable doesn't equal impossible." Both groups seem to be very closed mined about it all. And I'm not lumping everyone into these groups, just some of the people I've spoken too. Some of the evolutionist seem to forget that evolution is still just a theory, and the creationists are stuck in the cycle of "I believe in god because my holy doctine says so, and my holy doctine was written by god." and refuse the idea that their book may not be totally factual history.

I would think that if there is a god, that there would be a scientific explaination for its existence as well. We just don't have the capacity to figure it out YET.

And what really gets me about it all is, wouldn't the best way to praise a holy creator to discover everything it's created, including how it works?

Evolution IS an ideology, and a false one at that; "adaptation over generations" is a myth. Individual organisms adapt to their environment by experience and learning, but are incapable of genetically passing such an adaptation on to their offspring because such adaptations are not written into their DNA.

I was always taught that evolution was basically:
1. Child has an irregularity from parents
2. If Child's irregularity helps survive its evironment better, it lives, else, it doesnt survive
3. Genes are past on from child, new subspecies outsurvives previous.

I realise its far more complicated than that, but that sums up what I was lead to understand about it.

Did Evolution occure?It is an ongoing process.

Does Evolution disprove God's exsistance?Science disproves the bible, and thus automatically disproves the biblical god.

Does the belief in God require one to not aknowledge that Evolution occured?Depends on how literally you take the bible. In my experience the ordinary Christian is too dumb to even understand evolution.

It is an ongoing process.Same difference. Evolution occured in the past as it is occuring now.

Science disproves the bible, and thus automatically disproves the biblical god.nope. God does not exist only in the Bible. His word, recorded by Humans can be found in the bible, but God is not found only in the Bible.

That's like saying United Beleriand does not exist in my apartment, I can prove this with science, thus United Beleriand does not exist at all.
Science cannot prove or disprove God's existance.

Depends on how literally you take the bible. Yep. and it's a sad truth that there are some that take the bible too literally.

If we're going to say that God created life. Why nitpick on the how?

Did Evolution occure? yes.

Does Evolution disprove God's exsistance? No.

Does the belief in God require one to not aknowledge that Evolution occured? No.

Yes, yes, all well and good. Of course, evolution doesn't have to have occurred once god's in the mix. Which is to say

Why not? The above statements are not my beliefs. In fact, I have none. The way I see it, there is no real way to definately say "X is right, Y is wrong." and I make no assumptions either way. What I am saying is that not everyone can be lumped into the two categories above. I have spoken with both people that don't believe in the possiblity of god, and people who believe in creation (99% of whom follow Abrahamic religions). The first believe that life spawned itelf. And why not? I had a Christian tell me that chances of evolution actually happening are too slim. But living in our universe of uncountable stars and planets, working will extremely big, and more to the point, extremely small numbers becomes very plausable. But in that, in this universe of near infinate possibilities, why is the concept of a higher being so far-fetched? I say to both groups "extremely improbable doesn't equal impossible." Both groups seem to be very closed mined about it all. And I'm not lumping everyone into these groups, just some of the people I've spoken too. Some of the evolutionist seem to forget that evolution is still just a theory, and the creationists are stuck in the cycle of "I believe in god because my holy doctine says so, and my holy doctine was written by god." and refuse the idea that their book may not be totally factual history.

I would think that if there is a god, that there would be a scientific explaination for its existence as well. We just don't have the capacity to figure it out YET.

And what really gets me about it all is, wouldn't the best way to praise a holy creator to discover everything it's created, including how it works?



Any of your 'in the middle' people only have an issue with classification if they've made the issue for themselves. They could wish the trouble away if they wanted to, that's where the omnipotent bit comes in. You're talking about a lot of stuff that has very little to do with what I'm saying.

By the by, 'I have no beliefs' is just a silly statment, escpecially considering the little speech that follows. Unlesss... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Ruler_of_the_Universe)

nope. God does not exist only in the Bible.Yes he does, there has never been any other source for the biblical god. The historical and archaeological record is devoid of any traces of the biblical god prior to the era of Persian rule in the Levant (4th and 5th centuries BCE, the time after Judah returned from the "Babylonian Captivity"). The biblical god was obviously invented (i.e. arbitrarily fabricated out of many existing traditions) then and there, and was subsequently written into texts that were later collected into the bible in the Hellenistic/Ptolemaic era (starting around 300 BCE, when Ptolemy Soter ordered the assembly of the Septuagint)

By the by, 'I have no beliefs' is just a silly statment, escpecially considering the little speech that follows. Unlesss... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Ruler_of_the_Universe)

he only believes in what he sees with his eyes and ears (and doesn't seem too certain of that, either): anything else is hearsay

Actually thats pretty much the jist of it.

Yes, yes, all well and good. Of course, evolution doesn't have to have occurred once god's in the mix. Which is to say"doesn't have to..." but apparently it did.

Any of your 'in the middle' people only have an issue with classification if they've made the issue for themselves. They could wish the trouble away if they wanted to, that's where the omnipotent bit comes in. You're talking about a lot of stuff that has very little to do with what I'm saying.

By the by, 'I have no beliefs' is just a silly statment, escpecially considering the little speech that follows. Unlesss... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Ruler_of_the_Universe)the main reason is that people are trying to use science to disprove Religion. So it's not an issue we made ourselves, but an issue thrust upon us by people who love to generalize. and if you think we don't get the same browbeating from the Fundies about heretic thoughts, then you really are blind to what those in the "middle of the road" are going through.

Using science to try and disprove Religion is like comparing Apples and stones. two totally different things. so far, the majority of those arguing for Creationism are Bible Literallists. but by using the generalized 'Christians', the faithful who argue against Creationism are also being insulted and attacked, even those that believe in God also trust the evidence supporting evolution.

"doesn't have to..." but apparently it did.

the main reason is that people are trying to use science to disprove Religion. So it's not an issue we made ourselves, but an issue thrust upon us by people who love to generalize. and if you think we don't get the same browbeating from the Fundies about heretic thoughts, then you really are blind to what those in the "middle of the road" are going through.

Using science to try and disprove Religion is like comparing Apples and stones. two totally different things. so far, the majority of those arguing for Creationism are Bible Literallists. but by using the generalized 'Christians', the faithful who argue against Creationism are also being insulted and attacked, even those that believe in God also trust the evidence supporting evolution.Science and religion are not different at all. Both describe nature to the best of ability. But it is pretty clear that religion fails to produce accurate descriptions that can be verified. Christianity has nothing else to offer besides "goddidit". That concludes it.

"doesn't have to..." but apparently it did.

Hard to say what's apparent under those conditions. I return you to Last Thursdayism.

the main reason is that people are trying to use science to disprove Religion. So it's not an issue we made ourselves, but an issue thrust upon us by people who love to generalize. and if you think we don't get the same browbeating from the Fundies about heretic thoughts, then you really are blind to what those in the "middle of the road" are going through.

Using science to try and disprove Religion is like comparing Apples and stones. two totally different things. so far, the majority of those arguing for Creationism are Bible Literallists. but by using the generalized 'Christians', the faithful who argue against Creationism are also being insulted and attacked, even those that believe in God also trust the evidence supporting evolution.

You're talking past me a bit here. If you've got a faithful arguing against Creationism, they know exactly where they should vote and you're discussing an entirely separate issue from the one I commented on.

Yes he does, there has never been any other source for the biblical god. The historical and archaeological record is devoid of any traces of the biblical god prior to the era of Persian rule in the Levant (4th and 5th centuries BCE). The biblical god was obviously invented (i.e. arbitrarily fabricated out of many existing traditions) then and there, and was subsequently written into texts that were later collected into the bible in the Hellenistic/Ptolemaic era (starting around 300 BCE, when Ptolemy Soter ordered the assembly of the Septuagint)again, that doesn't prove that God is ONLY in the Bible.

It only shows that YOU believe that God is only in the Bible.

again, that doesn't prove that God is ONLY in the Bible.at least it proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. 1. there is absence of evidence for the biblical record. 2. there is abundance of evidence of other religions followed by the folks in the area at issue, i.e. against the biblical record

It only shows that YOU believe that God is only in the Bible.Then show otherwise. Show me the evidence of divine interaction with humans (outside the biblical text).
Further provide evidence to me that people in pre-Persian times believed in the biblical Jew-ish god, show to me that the bible is accurate in this way.

Hard to say what's apparent under those conditions. I return you to Last Thursdayism.hard to say what's apparent unless you make rediculous claims like your Last Thursdayism.

so what is your problem?

I choose to believe in God. You choose not to. I have no problem with that. Do you?

I choose to believe that Evolution is HOW God formed us and life on Earth without any proof that supports this belief. You choose to believe that Evolution has NOTHING to do with God without any proof that supports this belief. so what's the problem as I say "Teach Evolution in Science, and Teach Creationism in Theology"?

So far, your only problem is that I believe in God and you don't, NOT the fact that I support Evolution and you support Evolution.

You're talking past me a bit here. If you've got a faithful arguing against Creationism, they know exactly where they should vote and you're discussing an entirely separate issue from the one I commented on.except when you got arguments like...
Christianity has nothing else to offer besides "goddidit". That concludes it. Christianity... not Bible literalist or Creationists. lumping all the faithful together under the umbrella of "Christains don't believe in Science."
if u believe in god
ur wrong.
I think it was a little obvious that when I said "u are wrong" I implied association with belief in God.
No one who expects me to believe in him, without ever giving me a reason to, will ever deserve my belief. And if he is up there, wanking off his own creation, annoyed that I don't believe in him, I hope he considers himself lucky that I'm not there to kick his arse! Because if he truly exists, why doesn't he do something about all the shit that goes on in the world?!
*calms down*
I'm wasn't annoyed at a person. I am annoyed by the people who follow a fictious character that complacently fails to address the problems of our corrupt, broken and ultimately imperfect world. If God is real, he is idol. What annoys me is you accept that.
Trollish, but still lumping all the faithful together and attacking the belief and not Creation vs Evolution.

look back through the thread and you'll see alot of that type of lumping one group together by their belief in God or Non Belief in God which is NOT the argument for Evolution or For Creationism.

Science and religion are not different at all. Both describe nature to the best of ability. But it is pretty clear that religion fails to produce accurate descriptions that can be verified. Christianity has nothing else to offer besides "goddidit". That concludes it. Nope. they are different.
Science is baised on belief backed by Repeatedly proven truth. Theories are tested repeatedly and results recorded. In other words, Not Belief or Faith, but KNOWEDGE.

Religion is Faith based. Belief baised not on what can be scientifically proven but what the person feels and believes outside the realm of "Scientific Facts and Evidence". Thus not KNOWLEDGE but Belief and Faith.

Science cannot prove or disprove Religion. And Religion has no effect on the Scientific process.

and I hope you realize that this post of yours UB is an argument to TEACH Religion as Science because you just said.
Science and religion are not different at all. Both describe nature to the best of ability.
Science books are updated when they fail to produce accurate discriptions or even correct discriptions.

at least it proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. 1. there is absence of evidence for the biblical record. 2. there is abundance of evidence of other religions followed by the folks in the area at issue, i.e. against the biblical record

Then show otherwise. Show me the evidence of divine interaction with humans (outside the biblical text).
Further provide evidence to me that people in pre-Persian times believed in the biblical Jew-ish god, show to me that the bible is accurate in this way.

I wonder if you realize that you're arguing as a Bible Literalist yourself. "the Bible is not factually correct thus God doesn't exist." sounds just like "Goddidit because the Bible says so."

Kettle, meet Pot.

I'll leave you two alone now.

hard to say what's apparent unless you make rediculous claims like your Last Thursdayism.

so what is your problem?

I choose to believe in God. You choose not to. I have no problem with that. Do you?

I choose to believe that Evolution is HOW God formed us and life on Earth without any proof that supports this belief. You choose to believe that Evolution has NOTHING to do with God without any proof that supports this belief. so what's the problem as I say "Teach Evolution in Science, and Teach Creationism in Theology"?

So far, your only problem is that I believe in God and you don't, NOT the fact that I support Evolution and you support Evolution.

...Do you have me confused with someone?

except when you got arguments like...
Christianity... not Bible literalist or Creationists. lumping all the faithful together under the umbrella of "Christains don't believe in Science."


Okay, hold on now. What do you think I'm arguing in this thread?

...Do you have me confused with someone?


Okay, hold on now. What do you think I'm arguing in this thread?

right now? between the two of us? that believing in God and Knowing about Evolution (and thus not believing in Creationism) is somehow being "indecisive."
"Indecisive" *nod*
Yes, yes, all well and good. Of course, evolution doesn't have to have occurred once god's in the mix.
*shrug* So long as you've got your god in there, why bother with evolution? Just say he made us last Thursday exactly as everything is now. You could have him do anything, why should he conform to Evolution?

I didn't vote because the general tone of this thread has been and still is (in reguard to most posters) Christian Faith vs Science. not Creationism vs Evolution.

right now? between the two of us? that believing in God and Knowing about Evolution (and thus not believing in Creationism) is somehow being "indecisive."

Sounds off. I think anyone who says "I believe in both so I can't vote in this poll" is "indesicive"

Sounds off. I think anyone who says "I believe in both so I can't vote in this poll" is "indesicive"

Well I voted Evolution, though I believe that some "divine" (or something's thats beyond any human logic or comprehension) powers had something to do with it.

Well I voted

Hence my having no issue. :D

Hahaha.

Seeing that Americans do believe in Evolution, I compared them to fanactical Muslims.

It happened, people.

Also, what if one were to believe that a god created the evolutionary process? How would one vote?

Sounds off. I think anyone who says "I believe in both so I can't vote in this poll" is "indesicive"and that's the problem. 'Technically' he didn't say he believed in both, but that he believed in God and that God created the Evolutionary process. not Creationism per se since it's not the six days/man made from dust/woman made from man's rib/etc...

He bascially said "I believe in God and Evolution." that's not being 'indesicive'. to distill it down to the original intent of this thread. He said "I believe in Evolution."

But it seems (and I say seems) like you call him indecisive because his belief in God should run counter to his support of Evolution. The prevailing line of argument used by most of those fighting against Creationism. thus his not knowing how to vote, and the reason why I didn't vote.

Even UB is arguing that Belief in God = Creationism. to have one you have to follow the other... A.K.A. Bible Literalists/Creationists.

Hahaha.

Seeing that Americans don't believe in Evolution, I compared them to fanactical Muslims.

It happened, people.Muhahahahaha

Seeing that I am an American and I do hold Evolution to be true... you just failed.

Nice generalization there do all 'your people' think that way? ;) :p

and that's the problem. 'Technically' he didn't say he believed in both, but that he believed in God and that God created the Evolutionary process. not Creationism per se since it's not the six days/man made from dust/woman made from man's rib/etc...

Technically he didn't say that, but are you telling me that was not what was implied? If he didn't mean "Creationism" by "belief in God", then his statement doesn't make much sense. The way I saw it, he was tying to say 'What if you're under both options?'.

Infact, if that's true, then he's the guy equating belief in god with Creationism.

Muhahahahaha

Seeing that I am an American and I do hold Evolution to be true... you just failed.

Nice generalization there do all 'your people' think that way? ;) :p

Honest spelling mistake.

*Murders witnesses*

Technically he didn't say that, but are you telling me that was not what was implied? If he didn't mean "Creationism" by "belief in God", then his statement doesn't make much sense. The way I saw it, he was tying to say 'What if you're under both options?'.

Infact, if that's true, then he's the guy equating belief in god with Creationism.

Also, what if one were to believe that a god created the evolutionary process? How would one vote?

I guess I was. What I was trying to say was "What if evolution was created?"

Technically he didn't say that, but are you telling me that was not what was implied? If he didn't mean "Creationism" by "belief in God", then his statement doesn't make much sense. The way I saw it, he was tying to say 'What if you're under both options?'.

Infact, if that's true, then he's the guy equating belief in god with Creationism.How is that?

Because he used the word 'God' and 'Created' in the same sentence?

Did he not say that evolution happened? yes, by saying God created Evolution.

Did he say that God "Created Evolution?" Yes.

So how would that fall under Creationism unless you define Creationism to be the Belief in God?

If Evolution occured and he believed that Evolution occured. would that not put him/her under the catagory of Evolution? (according to the poll.)

So how would the belief (since it can't be proven true or false) that God Used/Created the process we call 'Evolution' shift his belief that Evolution happened to an Indecisive unless YOU (who said it would be indecisive) equate 'Belief in God' and 'Creationism' to be the same.

I guess I was. What I was trying to say was "What if evolution was created?"

*shrug* Well then the issue is with varying definitions of 'Creationism'.

*shrug* Well then the issue is with varying definitions of 'Creationism'.

yep.

every time an argument like this comes up, I get more and more definitions and smaller and smaller catagories.

as if it's a driving need to catagorize people. :rolleyes:

Hence my having no issue. :D

Ah, I see your point.

How is that?

Because he used the word 'God' and 'Created' in the same sentence?

Did he not say that evolution happened? yes, by saying God created Evolution.

Did he say that God "Created Evolution?" Yes.

So how would that fall under Creationism unless you define Creationism to be the Belief in God?

If Evolution occured and he believed that Evolution occured. would that not put him/her under the catagory of Evolution? (according to the poll.)

So how would the belief (since it can't be proven true or false) that God Used/Created the process we call 'Evolution' shift his belief that Evolution happened to an Indecisive unless YOU (who said it would be indecisive) equate 'Belief in God' and 'Creationism' to be the same.

Because otherwise there would have been no point to his question. The answer would have been Evolution and he would have known that already. If he's asking the question and it isn't rhetorical, there's gotta be some kind of dilemma, right? The only possible dilemma in regards to this poll is Creationism or Evolution, if he's not talking about those, what the hell is he asking? There's no 'Belief in God' option for him to be considering in the first place.

what part of the Evolutionary theory disproves that God may have created the process?

None as far as I can tell.

New question: Is there any form of Creationism WITHOUT a god?

I guess I was. What I was trying to say was "What if evolution was created?"

let me try again since I didn't word my other post well.

In your mind, how would the Creation of the process of Evolution remove you from the Evolution choice in the poll?

yep.

every time an argument like this comes up, I get more and more definitions and smaller and smaller catagories.

as if it's a driving need to catagorize people. :rolleyes:

If we made six billion separate categories in our minds we wouldn't have room for the people they belong to.

None as far as I can tell.

New question: Is there any form of Creationism WITHOUT a god?

Define god.

let me try again since I didn't word my other post well.

In your mind, how would the Creation of the process of Evolution remove you from the Evolution choice in the poll?

I imagine it would put me in both.

None as far as I can tell.

New question: Is there any form of Creationism WITHOUT a god?

some religions believe that an animal(s) created life with their droppings. (a Hippo I believe.)

Other older religions have a plethora of Spirits creating the world.

Some have it as Titans (not Gods per se)

Some even believe in that we were seeded by advanced alien races.

and some just don't touch upon the creation.

Well I voted Evolution, though I believe that some "divine" (or something's thats beyond any human logic or comprehension) powers had something to do with it.What is that belief based on?

I imagine it would put me in both.

Seee! Seeeeeeeeeeee? Now Junii can stop being mad at me.

Creationisim is a load of nonsencical gibberish belived in by idiot redneck Christians who marry their cousins.and their children.

Creationisim is a load of nonsencical gibberish belived in by idiot redneck Christians who marry their cousins.

Define god.

haha. good point.

I'm gathering when people in this thread say "god" they're talking about a being that created all things.

Hmmm, so what if our know universe was created by another (much much bigger) species' scientist in a lab. Would he be a god?

If we made six billion separate categories in our minds we wouldn't have room for the people they belong to.Yet it seems that's not stopping us. ;)

I imagine it would put me in both.
How? isn't the basis for Evolution the process that life evolved? if that process was created, how would that then redefine Evolution into creationism since there is nothing to say that Evolution didn't start with divine intervention.

Seee! Seeeeeeeeeeee? Now Junii can stop being mad at me.
Dina. I am not mad at you. infact, though out this whole conversation, I never had an angry thought pointed at you. I apologize if I said anything to make you think this.

:fluffle:

Dina. I am not mad at you. infact, though out this whole conversation, I never had an angry thought pointed at you. I apologize if I said anything to make you think this.

:fluffle:

*sniffle* o-Okay... :fluffle:

haha. good point.

I'm gathering when people in this thread say "god" they're talking about a being that created all things.

Hmmm, so what if our know universe was created by another (much much bigger) species' scientist in a lab. Would he be a god?

Could be.

For all we know. The primordial ooze that started the whole process could've been a space ship/critter taking a pit stop. ;)

so next metaphysical question would be where did those creatures/Scientist come from? :p

Could be.

For all we know. The primordial ooze that started the whole process could've been a space ship/critter taking a pit stop. ;)

so next metaphysical question would be where did those creatures/Scientist come from? :p

Actually, some might go to "are they relevant?"

Even if the scientist could dump and sanitize the test tube that is us, would our actions have any effect on when or if that happens?

Yet it seems that's not stopping us. ;)


How? isn't the basis for Evolution the process that life evolved? if that process was created, how would that then redefine Evolution into creationism since there is nothing to say that Evolution didn't start with divine intervention.

Is the basis of creationism that life can't evolve?

I'm seriously asking.

Could be.

For all we know. The primordial ooze that started the whole process could've been a space ship/critter taking a pit stop. ;)

so next metaphysical question would be where did those creatures/Scientist come from? :p

haha, "Hang on dear, I'm just gonna pull the spaceship over. Gotta take a leak. Oh shit, I started life."

Yes I am serious; read the rest of the post.

Evolution is contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which states that there is always entropy in a closed system, that is, everything RUNS DOWN.

A winding watch RUNS DOWN. You have to wind it up in order to keep it running. If evolution were true the watch would wind itself up.

For that matter, if evolution were true:
Cars would run better as time passed, without any maintenance or upkeep whatsoever. Also, while driving, the gas tank would get fuller instead of emptying.
Bread would come out of the oven stale and get fresher and fresher with time.
Vegetable oils and shortenings would START rancid and get fresher over time.
Meat would be in a spoiled state immediately after the slaughter of the animal, but gradually become suitable for eating later.
Only recently canned goods would go bad and burst their cans; if they managed not to do so, the product would become fresher with time.

None of those scenarios make sense; therefore neither does evolution.

Things do not get better with time. Things run DOWN; they fall apart; they rust; they rot; they spoil; they degenerate; they go from order and organization towards randomness and chaos. They start out good but end up bad.

Oh dear lord noyoudin't.

:eek:

Please tell me you have a happy place you can hide.

Is the basis of creationism that life can't evolve?

I'm seriously asking.



haha, "Hang on dear, I'm just gonna pull the spaceship over. Gotta take a leak. Oh shit, I started life."

"This is the third time too...I really should see somebody about this ureagenesis thing that's going around..."

Without GOD, life certainly IS a closed system.
Oh puhleeeeeeeeze. :rolleyes:

Bumpersticker heave-n.
Your argument implies that atheists can't bear children. Perhaps you'd care to disprove that.

it is an obvious process in nature.

I'm noting the OBVIOUS part of your post, and agree with you.
Perhaps a few people need to take note.
*bows*

Sickle cell. Sickle. The blood cells do not take the shape of motorcycles.

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

Oh puhleeeeeeeeze. :rolleyes:

Bumpersticker heave-n.
Your argument implies that atheists can't bear children. Perhaps you'd care to disprove that.

Actually it sounds like it implies god is the sun or something...

Actually, some might go to "are they relevant?"

Even if the scientist could dump and sanitize the test tube that is us, would our actions have any effect on when or if that happens?wouldn't that be a case for the Biblical Apocolypse?

the Rapture is 'God calling the faithful home." so it could be this 'scientist' picking out the subjects he believes passes the experiment and 'scrubbing' the rest. ;)

wait... the famine and pestilence... when the 'experiment' stops, there would be no more food. the energy would be cut off and any protection from outside contanimants removed...

the Ring of fire... a... *Gasp* Sterilizing apperatus? :eek:

The inaction to 'right the evils in the world' would be a Scientists detached observations. Look but don't interfere... :eek::eek:

IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!!! :p

Is the basis of creationism that life can't evolve?

I'm seriously asking.
Being that the basis of Creationism is that man was created from dust and woman from man's rib. the evidence on Creationists viewpoint is not that we evolved from ape like creatures.

haha, "Hang on dear, I'm just gonna pull the spaceship over. Gotta take a leak. Oh shit, I started life."
"I told you not to order the special at that resturant!" :D

If we're going to say that God created life. Why nitpick on the how?

Did Evolution occure? yes.

Does Evolution disprove God's exsistance? No.

Does the belief in God require one to not aknowledge that Evolution occured? No.

This is very very likely to come up again in the future.
*bows*

"This is the third time too...I really should see somebody about this ureagenesis thing that's going around..."

Haha!

The word "Ureagenesis" is the best thing to come out of this thread. Everyone stop posting, Dinaverg wins.

Actually it sounds like it implies god is the sun or something...

True, true.
Good point.

I've no qualms with worshipping the obvious.
N'er the obvious heliotropic impetus. :)

isn't the basis for Evolution the process that life evolved?Not life as such. Only life forms.

Haha!

The word "Ureagenesis" is the best thing to come out of this thread. Everyone stop posting, Dinaverg wins.

Woo! My first Evolution thread!

Woo! My first Evolution thread!And the conclusion of the thread would be that around 16.17 percent of the folks in this forum lack basic understanding of this world.

Oh puhleeeeeeeeze. :rolleyes:

Bumpersticker heave-n.
Your argument implies that atheists can't bear children. Perhaps you'd care to disprove that.
... why am I reminded of an Old Phil Foglio comic I once read.

the Devil and God looked down on the Earth.
Devil: you had your chance with Jesus, now it's my turn.
God: do say...
Devil: Yep... The Stars are right on this night. I'll corrupt two pure souls and from their union this night my Messiah will be born.
God: *yawn* I'm sure you think it'll work.
Devil: (pissed) hell yea. hmmm... those two would fit the bill.
*Devil zaps a man and woman sitting at a bar. they notice each other and begin talking. later they go to her place for kinky sex. The two watch.
God: If that's the best you can do...
Devil: Hey... they're going to have sex and they're not married.
God: Guess I have nothing to worry about.
Devil: Oh Yeah?
*suddenly the couple start by having very kinky sex. Anal, She penetrating him, B&D, S&M... she even brings her two dogs into the action... until daybeak.*
God: Hmm... not bad.
Devil: Not BAD!!! that was some of the nastiest acts around. Not bad indeed.
God: Well, I'll be leaving you now. Since I'll have no problems with your "messiah".
Devil:??? what do you mean?
God: Think about it.... I'm sure it will come to you in about 9 months or so...
Devil: [Realization dawning] Wait... they never... they didn't... Aaaarrrrrgh!
God: yep... as I said... No worries at all. :D

Woo! My first Evolution thread!

http://www.cameronannemason.com/images/parade_flowers.jpg

...best i could do on short notice.

Devil: [Realization dawning] Wait... they never... they didn't... Aaaarrrrrgh!
God: yep... as I said... No worries at all. :D

Bwahaha! :D

*Devil zaps a man and woman sitting at a bar. they notice each other and begin talking. later they go to her place for kinky sex. The two watch.


Reminds ME of "Mars Attacks"
...
I suppose the two of them also enjoyed watching pustules growing on the special bits of Job.
"Expurgated version of Job?"

Bwahaha! :DWhy? Mary and "God" also didn't...

I'll tell you something that DOES disprove evolution: a used car.

Cars do not get better with use over time; they get worse. No used car on earth runs as good as it did when it was new, unless the engine (and in some cases the transmission may need it too) has been thoroughly overhauled and/or replaced.

Cars break down; they rust; the fuel injectors get clogged; the battery cables develop shorts; the tires wear out; the motor oil gets dirty and has to be changed; the oil filter gets clogged and has to be changed; the brake pads and rotors wear down to nothing and have to be changed; etc. etc. You have to continually maintain and keep up a car or it will not run.

Also, have you ever noticed that many grocery items have "sell by" dates? If the stuff sits on a shelf after it goes "out of date", it will not taste as good as if it is still "in date". Canned goods, if left long enough, will spoil and burst the cans, producing botulism in some cases. Bread and pastries go stale soon after they're opened. Meat spoils; vegetable oils and shortenings turn rancid, etc. etc.

What grocery store stock clerk doesn't know to "rotate" merchandise (put the freshest in back and move the older up to the front)?!

EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC; it is a FAIRY TALE FOR GROWN-UPS.

There is education, learning, growth, and development, but EVOLUTION is a HOAX concocted in a desperate attempt on the part of mankind as a whole to get rid of God his Creator, because God gave mankind something called a "conscience" that tells him/her that s/he will stand before this Creator and give personal account of his/her life to Him, and mankind cannot tolerate the thought of that, so s/he runs to "science" (referred to in the Bible as "science FALSELY SO CALLED", 1 Timothy 6:20), "religion", "education", and "philosophy" to try to explain Him away and pretend He doesn't exist.

The Earth isn't a closed system, we have something called 'The Sun' which which sends out vast amounts of energy every day.

P1: If your perverted understanding of the second law was correct babies wouldn't be able to grow into adults.
P2: Babies grow into adults.
C: You've been misled by Creationist liars.

I'll tell you something that DOES disprove evolution: a used car.


If one used car could beget more used cars... and if each was carrying the potential to be different, and if there were potential environmental factors that could make some new designs more appropriate than others, and if the process were allowed to continue over a greatly extended interval, with no artificial interference...

...then, there might be a comparison.


Otherwise, all you've done is erected a very clumsy strawman.

EVOLUTION IS UNSCIENTIFIC; it is a FAIRY TALE FOR GROWN-UPS.

There is education, learning, growth, and development, but EVOLUTION is a HOAX concocted in a desperate attempt on the part of mankind as a whole to get rid of God his Creator, because God gave mankind something called a "conscience" that tells him/her that s/he will stand before this Creator and give personal account of his/her life to Him, and mankind cannot tolerate the thought of that, so s/he runs to "science" (referred to in the Bible as "science FALSELY SO CALLED", 1 Timothy 6:20), "religion", "education", and "philosophy" to try to explain Him away and pretend He doesn't exist.

1 Timothy in full. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=61&chapter=6&version=31)

Read in context, 1 Timothy 6:20 tells people not to follow the "wisdom" of those who literally believe "money buys happiness". The passage has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Evolution IS an ideology, and a false one at that; "adaptation over generations" is a myth. Individual organisms adapt to their environment by experience and learning, but are incapable of genetically passing such an adaptation on to their offspring because such adaptations are not written into their DNA.

Science people, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I figure "natural selection" (often misunderstood as "random chance") occurs:

1. New species ("Species A") develops.
2. As new generations of Species A develop, alterations are made in the gene pool ("mutations"). Some are beneficial, others are not. The beneficial ones survive.
3. If the mutations get varied and beneficial enough to produce a completely new variant of Species A, another "new species"- Species B- evolves from Species A.
4. Continue ad infinitum.

People seem to think that "random chance" should produce something like a horn on my wrist or fish that bark. It doesn't happen that way. Mutations *are* random (as DNA has no ability to consciously know if its variation can be successful), but only those mutations that are able to provide a benefit to the species (or, at least not prevent it to breed) are able to survive. Genes don't continue unless those who possess that gene can breed and keep it going- and not every mutation will allow that.

at least it proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. 1. there is absence of evidence for the biblical record. 2. there is abundance of evidence of other religions followed by the folks in the area at issue, i.e. against the biblical record

Then show otherwise. Show me the evidence of divine interaction with humans (outside the biblical text).
Further provide evidence to me that people in pre-Persian times believed in the biblical Jew-ish god, show to me that the bible is accurate in this way.

Several Biblical figures *are* present in the archaeological record, for example: Hezekiah (Sennacherib's annals), Omri (The Mesha Stele), Ahab, Jehu (both in Shalmanesser's annals), Ahaz, Pekah, (both in Tiglath Pileser III's annals), Mannaseh (Esarhaddon's annals) and possibly David (the Tel Dan Stele reports of a king "from the House of David"). In addition to this, the presence of Yahwistic names (Hezekiah, Jehu, Mannaseh, Ahaz, Pekah, Ahab) suggests that the Jewish religion (which believes in Yahweh) existed before the Persian period. It is true that much of the Old Testament was written during Babylonian captivity, but that was because the Jews were worried about losing their heritage, so they wrote everything down- and, maybe surprisingly, quite a lot of the history written in the Old Testament has shown to be historically accurate. There's no doubt some of the stories are just that- stories- but the figures are still very real.

bah w.e I dont trust a book thats been edited by a church for a few hundred years..plus evolution makes a hell of a lot more sense than some "being" going BAM i create life.

bah w.e I dont trust a book thats been edited by a church for a few hundred years..It's good sense not to trust any book whose sole purpose is to play upon your insecurities, to the extent that you worship it.
Seriously.

plus evolution makes a hell of a lot more sense than some "being" going BAM i create life.They're not really at odds persay, but this thread dances around that a lot anyway.

It's good sense not to trust any book whose sole purpose is to play upon your insecurities, to the extent that you worship it.
Seriously.
They're not really at odds persay, but this thread dances around that a lot anyway.

Depending on the side, it really depends on either how deluded you are, or how dismissive you are.

I'd say there are plenty of people who believe in god who also agree with evolution, just as there are many people who agree with evolution who don't completely discount the possibility of a god.

*snip*

Excellent analysis. To answer your question, I'll quote a (UB I think) catchphrase that I've become a bit fond of:

Natural selection is the non-random selection of random mutations.

Depending on the side, it really depends on either how deluded you are, or how dismissive you are.

I'd say there are plenty of people who believe in god who also agree with evolution, just as there are many people who agree with evolution who don't completely discount the possibility of a god.Ayup.
I don't have any reason to discount the possibility of "a" "god". I simply don't do the typical arrogant egocentric kick about making it/them out to be a reflection of me.

It's good sense not to trust any book whose sole purpose is to play upon your insecurities, to the extent that you worship it.
Seriously.
and thus, the entire genre of Self-Help book Publishers just shook in fear.
:D

and thus, the entire genre of Self-Help book Publishers just shook in fear.
:DGood, there's this book i've been meaning to bring up that could help! :p

I voted creationist as a joke.:p

I'm an evolutionist, but I of course believe in a God. Afterall, something had to create all of that matter that exploded outwards with the big bang 12-13 billion years ago.

Besides, the law of conservation of matter shows that matter can't be simply created by natural means. Something had to happen.

I voted creationist as a joke.:p

I'm an evolutionist, but I of course believe in a God. Afterall, something had to create all of that matter that exploded outwards with the big bang 12-13 billion years ago.

Besides, the law of conservation of matter shows that matter can't be simply created by natural means. Something had to happen.

But on the flip-side, who's to say that the universe has always operated according to the laws we acknowledge as constant today?

Can we know for sure?

I voted creationist as a joke.:p

I'm an evolutionist, but I of course believe in a God. Afterall, something had to create all of that matter that exploded outwards with the big bang 12-13 billion years ago.

Besides, the law of conservation of matter shows that matter can't be simply created by natural means. Something had to happen.

That's actually not entirely true. While at a classical level, energy is generally conserved, at the quantum level, when you get right down there, energy isn't conserved for small units of time. I'd pull up the wiki page on it, but it's late, I'm tired, and it can wait til morning.

That's actually not entirely true. While at a classical level, energy is generally conserved, at the quantum level, when you get right down there, energy isn't conserved for small units of time. I'd pull up the wiki page on it, but it's late, I'm tired, and it can wait til morning.

Is there proof that energy of any form can be created from nothing?

I DIDN'T THINK SO!

Science people, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I figure "natural selection" (often misunderstood as "random chance") occurs:

1. New species ("Species A") develops.
2. As new generations of Species A develop, alterations are made in the gene pool ("mutations"). Some are beneficial, others are not. The beneficial ones survive.
3. If the mutations get varied and beneficial enough to produce a completely new variant of Species A, another "new species"- Species B- evolves from Species A.
4. Continue ad infinitum.


Actually, 2 is a little more tricky than that. Those individuals with more beneficial traits to a given environment have a higher tendency of survival. It's not a guarentee of survival, just a higher likelihood. As well, what constitutes a "beneficial" trait gets even stickier. For instance, sickle cell anemia and malaria is a great example of how a trait which is often viewed as non beneficial can actually be beneficial in certain circumstances. As well, color-blindness, often associated with being a non-beneficial trait, actually in certain circumstances can be far more beneficial than "normal" sight(Easier to pick up silhouettes of camouflaged things, as well as easier to see in low-level light settings).

Basically, for almost any non-beneficial trait, there is an instance where it can be beneficial, and that beneficial traits are not guarenteed to be passed on, only have a higher likelihood to do so.

As for number three, more or less. However, this often results in the development of subspecies of the original species. This can eventually, given time and several generations(Somewhere up in the hundreds give or take, there really isn't a set number of how many it takes, as a species can infact remain unchanged for such a period of time for several reasons) become a new species, or it might not. It all depends on a number of factors, from reproduction rate to genetic drift and variation.

But basically, you do have the right idea. It's just rather complicated when you get into.

Is there proof that energy of any form can be created from nothing?

I DIDN'T THINK SO!

Yes. There is. More or less, anyway. In complete vacuums, tiny sub atomic particles have infact "popped" out of nowhere. We didn't create it, really, it just popped up.

Is it really so foolish to think both theories can coexist? I believe completely that there is a God that made it all happen, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore the scientific community, does it? Of course, Religion and Science eally don't belong together....

It's not foolish at all.

Is it really so foolish to think both theories can coexist? I believe completely that there is a God that made it all happen, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore the scientific community, does it? Of course, Religion and Science eally don't belong together....

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/creationism.gif

Excellent analysis. To answer your question, I'll quote a (UB I think) catchphrase that I've become a bit fond of:

Natural selection is the non-random selection of random mutations.

I believe that's a Dawkin's quote. Not sure though.

Is it really so foolish to think both theories can coexist? I believe completely that there is a God that made it all happen, but that doesn't mean I can simply ignore the scientific community, does it? Of course, Religion and Science eally don't belong together....

One is a theory, the other is a phylosophy. As such, they cannot actually be at odds unless one specifically states the other cannot be true, which neither infact does. So, basically, they can co exist.

Actually, 2 is a little more tricky than that. Those individuals with more beneficial traits to a given environment have a higher tendency of survival. It's not a guarentee of survival, just a higher likelihood. As well, what constitutes a "beneficial" trait gets even stickier. For instance, sickle cell anemia and malaria is a great example of how a trait which is often viewed as non beneficial can actually be beneficial in certain circumstances. As well, color-blindness, often associated with being a non-beneficial trait, actually in certain circumstances can be far more beneficial than "normal" sight(Easier to pick up silhouettes of camouflaged things, as well as easier to see in low-level light settings).

Basically, for almost any non-beneficial trait, there is an instance where it can be beneficial, and that beneficial traits are not guarenteed to be passed on, only have a higher likelihood to do so.

As for number three, more or less. However, this often results in the development of subspecies of the original species. This can eventually, given time and several generations(Somewhere up in the hundreds give or take, there really isn't a set number of how many it takes, as a species can infact remain unchanged for such a period of time for several reasons) become a new species, or it might not. It all depends on a number of factors, from reproduction rate to genetic drift and variation.

But basically, you do have the right idea. It's just rather complicated when you get into.

Thanks. I knew I simplified things- it's always more complicated the deeper you get into it. I wondered, though, if I should have used instead "mutation that won't prevent breeding", because that's basically what it is- the only mutations that are allowed to continue are those that will allow the animal to breed. Huntington's Disease is another fine example of a "non-beneficiary" gene that is allowed to continue, since it strikes after an age when we have our children. We also have a tailbone for some reason (although I've heard that if you break your tailbone you could also break your spine- or severely damage it). I am curious though- how does colourblindness allow one to see silhouettes better?

Thanks. I knew I simplified things- it's always more complicated the deeper you get into it. I wondered, though, if I should have used instead "mutation that won't prevent breeding", because that's basically what it is- the only mutations that are allowed to continue are those that will allow the animal to breed.
[/quote

Indeed. So long as a mutation does not impede reproduction, it can be passed on. That's the major problem with Darwinism, and "survival of the fittest". To an extent, yes it is true. However, it is not a hard and fast rule. Those who are not "fit" to the environment don't necessarily die off or do not spread their genetics, they just have a lower frequency of doing so. That is why there are genetic diseases still present: Not all are wiped out by such malignancies before they reproduce. As well, a disease or malignancy may remain dormant within the genetics, as would happen with dominant and recessive genes, only showing up in offspring later on, while the genetics still remain intact.

[quote]
Huntington's Disease is another fine example of a "non-beneficiary" gene that is allowed to continue, since it strikes after an age when we have our children. We also have a tailbone for some reason (although I've heard that if you break your tailbone you could also break your spine- or severely damage it).

Well, it is very difficult, and takes a very long time, for traits that have been aquired by the general populace of a given specimen to "lose" those traits. We basically still have a tailbone(Albeit the bones are much, much smaller than and more compact than in others mammals) because it doesn't necessarily pose a problem to have it. As such, we will likely have a tailbone for a very, very long time.


I am curious though- how does colourblindness allow one to see silhouettes better?

Well, nobody is absolutely sure, but the going idea is that due to a lack of color signals, textures and differences in light intensity become more apparent. Of course, there are some instances where this is not the case(Zebras are a great of example of how an animal has adapted to "trick" color blind predators). The thing about *most* camouflage is that it is done to blend in with the colors of the given environment, as it is easier and simpler to simulate color than it is to simulate textures. Of course, there are many types of camoflauge(Stripes and spots for example are confusing to pick up the exact outline of a speciment, and confuse those who are trying to figure out exactly what they are looking at). It's just that color mimicking is very common, and colorblindness seems to be more advantageous.

If that makes any sense. :D

But on the flip-side, who's to say that the universe has always operated according to the laws we acknowledge as constant today?

Can we know for sure?

To an extent. There are several factors such as the Cosmological Constant which can't have been too different at the beginning of the Universe or the Universe would never have come into existence. We can also be sure that the weight-ratio of protons to neutrons has been fairly constant because of the existence of atoms, and we can deduce other constants in a similar fashion. For example:

http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/agenda07/?action=view&current=carbon1450000years2.jpg

This graph compares the dates given by a range of independent dating techniques. It's not conceivable that they could all be independently wrong while maintaining such a tight correlation, so we can be sure that they have remained fairly constant.

Does this answer your question?

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/creationism.gif

That graphic makes the entire thread worthwhile.