Evolution and Creation

[Hellbender]

There is a very big difference between the type of evolution that is true, and the part that is still a theory.

No there isn’t. Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? I am starting to think you aren't terribly interested in discussing things, you just come here to make broad, unsupported statements in the hopes that you'll eventually convince somebody.

Changes in DNA structure have been studied and proven. All living things have small changes that occur from generation to generation because of natural selection. This is why skin color, and other characteristics are different in people from different geographical areas.

Then why is macroevolution impossible again? Oh that’s right, you never said why.

However, there is absolutely no proof that humans evolved from the same ancestor as monkeys.

Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? Care to back up this broad statement with evidence?

There is absolutely no proof that all animals and people have a common ancestor.

Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? Care to back up this broad statement with evidence?

There is also absolutely no proof that says the Christian version of creationism is incorrect.

Have you read any of our posts concerning this matter? Care to back up this broad statement with evidence?

You can't say that creationism is a bad argument just because you can't see God or prove that he exists.

First of all, yes you can, second of all this is only one reason why creationism is a bad explanation.

I'm not trying to preach here, but The Bible says you won't see God until you die.

The problem isn't visually seeing him, if he exists, he is beyond our senses. Basically, science has no room for the supernatural.

So how can you expect to see God now? Just because you can't see him, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

True, but the argument goes both ways. Assuming something whose existence is iffy as a mechanism is not scientific and explains nothing. As an aside, evolutionary theory does not say that god doesn’t exist or doesn’t use evolution as a means of change. You just don’t like this because its not what the bible says.

[ed84c]

I read once a good, argument, that can be a comprimise.

 

Religion tells us WHY

Science tells us HOW

[JPQuiceno]

I read once a good' date=' argument, that can be a comprimise.

 

Religion tells us WHY

Science tells us HOW[/quote']

 

I would have to disagree on that, at least when speaking of the Christian Religion.

 

The bible tells us that god created the universe with his words. The bible also says that god is omnipotent, allmighty and etc. These ideas are illogical. And as we know, science is logical. Thereofore, trying to reconcile the Christian Religion (illogical) and science (logical) is technically impossible.

[ed84c]

Who wrote the bible, God? Oh wait, yeh i remember men did. So men know exactly everything god means?

[swansont]

However' date=' there is absolutely no proof that humans evolved from the same ancestor as monkeys. There is absolutely no proof that all animals and people have a common ancestor. There is also absolutely no proof that says the Christian version of creationism is incorrect.

[/quote']

 

Oh, please. That's as laughable as saying there's no evidence that says the moon isn't made of cheese.

 

You really are having a serious fling with willful ignorance. Have you set a date? Do you expect a serious response to a statement with such blatant indifference to the facts?

[Mokele]

You have the right idea, but you should be more precise. The way you stated it, a layperson could think that an individual organism can evolve in its lifetime. You should say that evolution is the process that results in heritable changes in a population over generations. The key is generations, not simply time.

 

I disagree (see other thread); if you specify generations, you lose a lot of important processes, like natural disasters imposing unusually harsh selection (on a sub-generational timescale) or founder effect.

 

However, the way Hellbender defined it could be misconstrued; the way I put it is the same, but 'in a population' is added, so that it's specified that the genetic change is occuring at the population level, rather than in the individual.

 

(Side thought: What about selfish genes? How do those fit into either definition?)

 

I believe that there are changes within DNA from different generations. I also believe in natural selection. Some characteristics of animals and humans have probably changed a lot. However, I do not believe that humans evolved from animals, or that animals evolved from amino acids.

 

Then you are quite simply guilty of blind faith. The acceptance of the former means that the only way to deny the latter is to deny evidence and depart from logic.

 

Anything that disagrees with The Bible can't be compatible with the Christian religion.

 

Except you're taking the Bible literally, a position that has *no* theological merit and is considered a joke by every theologian, christian or otherwise.

 

Mokele

[LucidDreamer]

Except you're taking the Bible literally' date=' a position that has *no* theological merit and is considered a joke by every theologian, christian or otherwise.

[/quote']

Except of course, for those Christian theologians that take the bible literally.

[Mokele]

Except of course, for those Christian theologians that take the bible literally.

 

...who are regarded as ignorant cranks, fools, and demagogues by every serious theologian, and given as much credence in serious academic theological circles as the Flat Earth Society is given in a geography dept.

 

Mokele

[LucidDreamer]

...who are regarded as ignorant cranks' date=' fools, and demagogues by every serious theologian, and given as much credence in serious academic theological circles as the Flat Earth Society is given in a geography dept.

 

Mokele[/quote']

No true Scotsman...

[herme3]

Ok, I guess I will never fully understand evolution. Also, I'm sure you all will never understand creationism. I'm going to leave these evolution threads and return to the Computer Sciences threads...

[ydoaPs]

it's not hard to understand: an imaginary creature creates the universe.

 

you will never understand evolution because you have a willfull ignorance and are content with your intellectual dishonesty.

[Severian]

A quick description of biological evolution is simply "change in allele frequency over time."

 

It seems to me that this is a rather bad definition since Darwin himself wouldn't have understood it. Genetics may provide a mechanical basis for evolution but it does not encompass the definition. A definition free from the mechanism should be given.

 

Further, Lamarck's theory was also "evolution", just by a different (wrong) mechanism. In fact, we would do better debating "Natural Selection".

[Mokele]

It seems to me that this is a rather bad definition since Darwin himself wouldn't have understood it.

 

So? We've progressed in understanding since then. Would you object to a definition of gravity involving curved spacetime or something else Newton would not have understood.

 

Genetics may provide a mechanical basis for evolution but it does not encompass the definition. A definition free from the mechanism should be given.

 

The definition *is* free of mechanism; it talks about measurable results. The mechanism is natural selection, the changes in allele frequency are the observable result. It's like throwing a ball. Gravity is the mechanism which governs the path, and the position it lands at is the observable result.

 

Further, Lamarck's theory was also "evolution", just by a different (wrong) mechanism. In fact, we would do better debating "Natural Selection".

 

Well, there's two problems: 1) some creationists deny evolution itself, as a result, regardless of mechanism and 2) most creationists realize that if they let themselves get drawn into debating natural selection, they'll be soundly defeated, so they avoid the discussion either by constantly shifting the goalposts, throwing constant red-herrings (like abiogenesis), or gibbering nonsense about accepting microevolutioon but not macro (which is like accepting the existence of snow but not ice).

 

Mokele

[swansont]

Ok, I guess I will never fully understand evolution. Also, I'm sure you all will never understand creationism. I'm going to leave these evolution threads and return to the Computer Sciences threads...

It's really a bit of self-delusion to think that the reason creationism is rejected as science is because people don't understand it. It's rejected because it's not science (unfalsifiable) and in the cases where it makes testable predictions, it invariably fails, often spectacularly. Creationism is understood too well - that's the problem. Some people pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

[sorcerorston]

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.

2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.

3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.

5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).

6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.

7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.

8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.

9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

 

Do not be deterred by your quest to search for a higher power dear Herme3. Some people are merely so wrapped in their "science" that they cannot fathom anything that is beyond their comprehension, such as the majesty that is the supreme being.

 

And as for proof do you think that a random act could create the beauty that is a butterfly? The beauty of a symphony that was created by the complexity of the human soul surely cannot be the result of a feeble amino acid? Surely something as primitive as a ape could not have painted the beauty and elegance that is the Mona Lisa?

 

If it is not quantifible by their flawed and incomplete physics or biology or other incomplete sciences they automatically judge it as falsehood. It is the thinking of primitives who cannot see past their own subjective and prejudice minds to see the true grandeur and beauty of the holographic universe that was created by the one true surpeme being.

 

No offense to any in here of course.

[Mokele]

And as for proof do you think that a random act could create the beauty that is a butterfly? The beauty of a symphony that was created by the complexity of the human soul surely cannot be the result of a feeble amino acid? Surely something as primitive as a ape could not have painted the beauty and elegance that is the Mona Lisa?

 

By that logic, crystals cannot be the product of simple molecular interactions, a statement that is every bit as transparently wrong as yours.

 

Mokele

[AzurePhoenix]

Surely something as primitive as a ape could not have painted the beauty and elegance that is the Mona Lisa?

The dearly departed Ruby the Elephant loved makig paintings, which in my opinion, were far prettier than that dreary portrait called the Mona Lisa. Gorilla's also make paintings that often prove to be quite nice (as well as creative).

[Hellbender]

Ok, I guess I will never fully understand evolution.

We have all explained it ad nauseum to you, posted links, cleared up any questions you had, etc.. The biology section in any library is sure to be stocked with lots of books about evolution. It would be simple to learn and understand it. The problem is that you don't want to.

[Dak]

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.

2. God is a possible being' date=' and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.

3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.

5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).

6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.

7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.

8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.

9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.[/quote']

 

thats flawed. your assuming that "there can be nothing greater than god" is a fact, but also, for the sake of example, supposing that god doesnt exist. You cant assume both at once. ie, you cant simultaniously assume, for the sake of example, both that god doesnt exist, and also assume that a statement (whos validity is based on the assumption that god exists) is unquestionably true.

 

if god is simply an idea (as we supposed in part 4) then the very idea that nothing can be greater than god would also be simply an idea -- not a fact; this flips the focus on which of the two contrary ideas in part 7 is false.

 

ie point 8 should read 'if god only exists as a concept in our mind, then the idea that nothing could be greater is flawed, because if god actually existed then hed be greater.

 

that, of course, assumes that we accept point 3 (which is debatable)

 

but anyway, the whole thing, when corrected, boils down to "if god doesnt exist then the idea that nothing can be better than him is false" which is pretty obviouse given the supposition that he doesnt exist, or another way of correcting your logic (by replasing the assumption in part 4 with the assumption that god exists) would basically yield the statement "if god exists, then the idea that he exists soley as a concept in our minds is false", which again is inherently obviouse given the starting supposition.

 

 

Here is proof that it is flawed. im assuming that the non-existance of the flying spagetti monster is an accepted fact, and will now use your logic to 'prove' that he exists.

 

1. the Flying Spagetti Monster exists in our understanding*. This means that the concept of the Flying Spagetti Monster resides as an idea in our minds*.

2. the Flying Spagetti Monster is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of the Flying Spagetti Monster does not bear internal contradictions.

3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

4. Suppose (theoretically) that the Flying Spagetti Monster only exists in our understanding and not in reality.

5. If this were true, then it would be possible for the Flying Spagetti Monster to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).

6. This would mean that the Flying Spagetti Monster is a being in which a greater is possible.

7. This is absurd because the Flying Spagetti Monster, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.

8. Thus it follows that it is false for the Flying Spagetti Monster to only exist in our understanding.

9. Hence the Flying Spagetti Monster exists in reality as well as our understanding.

 

see?

 

also, it has to be said that your (flawed) proof could just as easaly be applied to the hindu gods, or the shinto gods etc.

 

And as for proof do you think that a random act could create the beauty that is a butterfly?

 

natural selection is not random

 

The beauty of a symphony that was created by the complexity of the human soul surely cannot be the result of a feeble amino acid?

 

science says nothing about souls, nor about their existance or non-existance, and it definately does not say that souls are created by amino acids.

 

note that i spelt souls correctly this time. i hope everyone is happy

 

Surely something as primitive as a ape could not have painted the beauty and elegance that is the Mona Lisa?

 

you are correct. an ape did not paint the mona lesa.

 

well done. have a cookie

 

O

 

If it is not quantifible by their flawed and incomplete physics or biology or other incomplete sciences they automatically judge it as falsehood. It is the thinking of primitives who cannot see past their own subjective and prejudice minds to see the true grandeur and beauty of the holographic universe that was created by the one true surpeme being.

 

what do you mean by 'holographic', pray tell?

 

 

Id sujjest reading this thread. you may find it informative.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*well, some of ours at any rate

[Dak]

Herme3: what specifically do you not understand about evolution?

[ydoaPs]

he thinks it says people came from monkeys

[LucidDreamer]

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.

2. God is a possible being' date=' and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.

3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.

5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).

6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.

7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.

8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.

9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

[/quote']

This makes no sense. If God is an imaginary being and there are no such things as dieties, then it is not possible for God to be greater than what he is, an idea.

Do not be deterred by your quest to search for a higher power dear Herme3. Some people are merely so wrapped in their "science" that they cannot fathom anything that is beyond their comprehension' date=' such as the majesty that is the supreme being.

[/quote']

Believing in God and believing in an extremely well-founded theory of science are not incompatible. Many people who believe in God also believe in evolution, and vice versa.

And as for proof do you think that a random act could create the beauty that is a butterfly?

They are not random acts. They are acts that are controlled by the forces that control the universe. Just like a black hole is created when certain conditions are present so does life evolve when certain circumstances are present.

The beauty of a symphony that was created by the complexity of the human soul surely cannot be the result of a feeble amino acid?

Whether man has a soul or not and what it is made of is not relevant to this discussion.

Surely something as primitive as a ape could not have painted the beauty and elegance that is the Mona Lisa?

No one is saying that a chimpanzee created the Mona Lisa. We all know that a human being did.

If it is not quantifible by their flawed and incomplete physics or biology or other incomplete sciences they automatically judge it as falsehood. It is the thinking of primitives who cannot see past their own subjective and prejudice minds to see the true grandeur and beauty of the holographic universe that was created by the one true surpeme being.

Funny, I thought we were talking about two scientific models and not the existence of God. Obviously we are not. Obviously creationism is about religion. It's about starting with a model of the universe, according to an interpretation of a religious text, and trying to mold science until it matches that viewpoint.

 

Ha, I started this post before other people posted, had lunch, then finished and found that Dak had already given almost the exact same answers as I did.

[herme3]

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.

2. God is a possible being' date=' and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.

3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.

5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).

6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.

7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.

8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.

9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

 

Do not be deterred by your quest to search for a higher power dear Herme3. Some people are merely so wrapped in their "science" that they cannot fathom anything that is beyond their comprehension, such as the majesty that is the supreme being.

 

And as for proof do you think that a random act could create the beauty that is a butterfly? The beauty of a symphony that was created by the complexity of the human soul surely cannot be the result of a feeble amino acid? Surely something as primitive as a ape could not have painted the beauty and elegance that is the Mona Lisa?

 

If it is not quantifible by their flawed and incomplete physics or biology or other incomplete sciences they automatically judge it as falsehood. It is the thinking of primitives who cannot see past their own subjective and prejudice minds to see the true grandeur and beauty of the holographic universe that was created by the one true surpeme being.

 

No offense to any in here of course.[/quote']

 

Thank you for your post. You are exactly right when you said the people here have problems believing in things that are too complex for them to comprehend. I agree with everything that you said.

[ydoaPs]

can you make a single post that doesn't have a fallacy or obviously incorrect information in it?

[sorcerorston]

can you make a single post that doesn't have a fallacy or obviously incorrect information in it?

 

You amoeba of a man, trying to explain my intensely deep knowledge to one as yourself (a common soccer hoodlum) is like trying to explain mathmatethics to a dog. The dog will never understand.

 

 

And you are welcome Herme3. I am glad i can help you.