cornelius_sulla Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I go evolution every time. Gods just don't do it for me. I would be interested to what the great minds of UNRV think about this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Demetrius Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 I go evolution every time. Gods just don't do it for me. I would be interested to what the great minds of UNRV think about this topic. I lay no claim to being a great mind, but since you asked, I think this kind of topic is provocative and leads to the two viewpoints simply arguing both unprovable points of view. None of us were around then, and either you believe the Bible or you don't, either you believe in spontaneous generation of DNA or you don't. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornelius_sulla Posted February 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 mind, but since you asked, I think this kind of topic is provocative and leads to the two viewpoints simply arguing both unprovable points of view. None of us were around then, and either you believe the Bible or you don't, either you believe in spontaneous generation of DNA or you don't. But that's just me. Nice. Yes, the topic is provocative and is provocative on purpose. As to the points being unprovable, consider this. DNA can prove a man or a woman's guilt if they are accused of a crime. Mitochondrial DNA is proof of our connection to a common Austrolopithecine ancestor, whom the boffins have dubbed 'Lucy', I think (don't quote me on the monkey's moniker) This negates the need to believe in evolution, because at present, DNA evidence in inarguable. Whereas you could argue til the cows come home about Adam, Eve, Noah, animals two by two etc and still not be able to produce one iota of proof other than the Bible and it's associated literature. By the way, thanks for the reply M.Demetrius. I was sure this topic was headed for Tartarus, (well, it still might be.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 It's ok to be provocative. It's more likely to end up in the arena than tartarus, but yes, we'll move it if necessary. As for the subject at hand, while I do not believe in creationism, it's also important to recognize that "evolution" is still an evolving theory as it relates to the beginning and early stages of life on earth. While there is relative scientific consensus that life has definitely evolved and adapted and has been manipulated by environmental influences over great spans of time, it doesn't answer for everything in the definitive. While most people, even the most ardent of religious scholars, will acknowledge species evolution (understanding that there are some differences of opinion as to how much, when, which forms of life, etc) the origin of life is currently unprovable. (ie the development of the first simple proteins, etc.) While those of the non religious ilk reject creationism as a matter of course, evolution in it's entirety should not be accepted completely as the only possible scientific alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segestan Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 I go evolution every time. Gods just don't do it for me. I would be interested to what the great minds of UNRV think about this topic. -----Intelligent Design---- There is Not nor has their ever been two person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 I don't care cause I don't know and I probably never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 Science has proved conclusively that life - in the main - is shaped by evolution. My opinion is that to deny this is like denying that the earth is a globe, and it is high time it stopped being controversial. Although a 'free thinker' (atheist) myself, I fail to see why evolutionary theory annoys some religious people so much. Why should it deny the existance of God? If I were religious myself, I would embrace evolutionary theory like a long lost friend - It is more marvellous that God created things painstakingly over billions of years, rather than waking up one morning in a few thousand years ago and saying: 'oh, I think I might create a universe'. To paraphrase Einstein, 'God does not make airfix models'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 Evolutoion works, but there's something else lurking under there. Notice how there's an explosion of new species whenever disaster strikes the worlds continents and climates. Its like nature is primed to diverge rapidly under certain circumstances. PS - this post is not proof of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klingan Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 The creation was formed to make us believe that we were evolved to test our faith. Only those faithful enough to receive Gods grace. No I'm not a Creationist, but I've been faced with this argument. As I don't believe it has s*** all to do with the truth it does point out one important thing: We do not know. I normally place myself among the evolutionists, but I consider that there might be something starting the whole chain of reactions. Therefor I guess I tend to draw against Intelligent design. I have also seen a calculation on how large the statistical chance that life could exist without God is. It's unbelievably low. However it's a worthless argument since the universe is infinite and those places without life would obviously not complain on their own no-existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 I have also seen a calculation on how large the statistical chance that life could exist without God is. It's unbelievably low. However it's a worthless argument since the universe is infinite and those places without life would obviously not complain on their own no-existence. Maybe, but we are discussing evolution - not the origin of life itself. Life developing and changing due to environmental factors is a proven fact, and it does NOT rule out the existance of a god. Why should it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Demetrius Posted February 15, 2008 Report Share Posted February 15, 2008 I have also seen a calculation on how large the statistical chance that life could exist without God is. It's unbelievably low. However it's a worthless argument since the universe is infinite and those places without life would obviously not complain on their own no-existence. Maybe, but we are discussing evolution - not the origin of life itself. Life developing and changing due to environmental factors is a proven fact, and it does NOT rule out the existance of a god. Why should it? That species become extinct is not arguable. I've never seen a velociraptor, nor would I want to. Today, species become extinct when they cannot adapt to changes in the environment, or over predation brought on by a large number of causes. No more jackrabbits in Wyoming, so the wolves and coyotes are now attacking a larger number of calves and lambs. This will provoke the ranchers to deplete the predators, which will cause... In Texas, we have a South American species of fire ant, that was introduced sometime early in the last century on the East coast, and has spread westward. They eat the hatchlings of ground nesting birds, like quail. There are very few quail. This decreases the rattlesnake population. These ants are also driving out the native ants, as they enter their mounds and eat their young. Several species are on the verge of extinction, including the famous Texas Horned Lizard. Natural selection is a fact of nature. Variations within a species are facts of nature. Case in point, all dogs are Canis Familiaris. Same species, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane. If left to their own devices for a dozen generations or so, most of our familiar breeds would disappear, and a generic dog would emerge, likely around the size of a German shepherd, and litters of pups would have more variety, floppy ears along with erect ears. Breeds can be made, hybrids produced, but that's not evolution. Just selective breeding. Evolution, as I understand it, proclaims that simple organisms on one way or another become new species of increasingly complicated organisms through a process of gradual adaptations. To oversimplify, amoeba becomes yeast becomes eventually man. That's the part that is not clearly proven: that one species becomes another, over and over, as if by some unseen force. Water flows downhill unless energy is used to raise it uphill. Entropy will be maximized, not minimized, unless energy is expended to prevent it. It's true that Prime Cause is not essential to evolutionary theory, but common sense says that if the planet is not eternally existant, then there must have been some strand of replicating DNA spontaneously generated somewhere, somehow, quite a long time ago, else there would be no DNA today. Since there is, it had to come from somewhere. At that point, a person makes a "faith decision" to believe that it happened as a result of random chemical combinations, or that it was created by an external force, such as God. Random accident, or deliberate design. That's where the argument becomes unprovable. Anyone is free to choose whichever (s)he wishes, and I'm not browbeating anyone over their choice. From my personal perspective, I don't see why the hard line evolutionists are so worried about just presenting the information and data as we find it, giving the models that would support whichever theories exist, and letting intelligent students work through the scientific process and arrive at the most likely conclusion, based on their . If one or more theories don't measure up to the known evidence, then reject them and continue to narrow down the field to as few choices as may remain. OTOH, to slant the discussion in any direction on the basis of a "faith decision", is to depart from true scientific thought, and begin to indoctrinate based on non-factual assertions. At the same time, I don't see why creationists are afraid to allow evolutionary theory to be explained. At least the creation theory addresses the issue of Prime Cause. Either way, it's not productive for people on either side of the argument to call the others by derogatory names, or imply that a belief in God is archaic or small minded. I point out that Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal and Albert Einstein believed in God, and few doubt their intelligence or belittle their scientific achievements. Just my view. Not being contentious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus Vulcanius Posted February 16, 2008 Report Share Posted February 16, 2008 Evolution is a theory. Though close to fact as science allows, it's still just a theory. I find it difficult that life has no purpose and that everything around me is just for my temporary amusement. I believe that there is a divine hand but that's as far as I care to take it. It's all to complex in it multiplicities of elements for nature to throw together. Ponder the universe and it's infinity and atomic structure in it's infinitesimal smallness, that seems too go on forever in each direction. Intelligent design? Why not. It's just as insane as nothing at all. One thing is for sure, we'll know in the end, or maybe not. LOL! TItus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted February 16, 2008 Report Share Posted February 16, 2008 The creation was formed to make us believe that we were evolved to test our faith. Only those faithful enough to receive Gods grace. No I'm not a Creationist, but I've been faced with this argument. As I don't believe it has s*** all to do with the truth it does point out one important thing: We do not know. I normally place myself among the evolutionists, but I consider that there might be something starting the whole chain of reactions. Therefor I guess I tend to draw against Intelligent design. I have also seen a calculation on how large the statistical chance that life could exist without God is. It's unbelievably low. However it's a worthless argument since the universe is infinite and those places without life would obviously not complain on their own no-existence. The universe is not infinite (though it is pretty big and apparently growing in size). The universe has built in limits, physical properties that cannot be exceeded. There is a limit on how fast you can travel, how hot something can be, how small it can be etc etc. Infinity is a concept to use instead of an impossibly large value. Its easier to comprehend that concept that trying to visualise just how big something is. I'm stunned that someone would use maths to 'prove' the existence of god. Thats ridiculous. God is a human concept, not an absolute truth. He's an invented figurehead as a social focus, a human face on the mysterious unknown. How can maths prove he exists? You could just as easily use maths to prove that Grubbo, Lord of the Fleas (Bow down unbeliever!) created the universe. Science has opened up much of the universe to us, but I suspect there's an element that it can't. Does that mean God is out there waiting for the inevitable discovery? Wishful thinking. Christianity (and other religions too) thrives on providing convenient answers to mysteries, even if some of those answers are bizarre or completely stupid. I guess you can prove anything with statistics. Intelligent design? No, it seems nature is an experimental system that tries different mutations until one species with the right characteristics dominates its enviroment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatius Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Creationism, Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it is not science. It is faith and a religious belief and should not be taught as an alternative to science. I took many Theology courses in college because I enjoyed them very much and religion is a basic component of human history but it has no place in science. Maybe Matthew Arnold recognized this too http://www.poetseers.org/the_romantics/mat...ary/dover_beach . Finest poem in the English language in my opinion (which means nothing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Fine poem indeed; thanks for that link. Thanks God the topic is not still at Tartarus; it is provocative basically because it is confusing. Horatius got it right; Religion and Science are not comparable with each other. We are discoursing here on apples and oranges, as science is (by any definition) verifiable knowledge and religion (by any definition too) implies faith, ie, non-verifiable knowledge. When you call Evolution a "theory", you don't use this term as synonymous of "hypothesis" (ie, a mere conjecture, assumption or guess), but rather as "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena" (American Heritage dictionary). Scientifically, Evolution has been and is quite "provable", which is not the same as saying it is an established and permanent "law". In fact, there are not truly scientific "laws" (that was a positivist conception). At least since Popper, we know that Science is, by its very nature, dynamic and unstable; scientific truth is not what you "prove", but rather what you can't disprove after an extremely thorough research (scientific method). You're constantly finding better and better explanations for any fact. If you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts