Evolution/Creationism flamewar goes here

Little Faith said:

Also known as the Anthropic Principle.

Hang on, doesn't the Anthropic Principle boil down to "if it weren't the way it is, we wouldn't be here to observe it"? I don't think there is any implication that someone or something therefore made things that way. Indeed the reverse, since it counters claims of the type "things are set up perfectly so that we can exist (or exist here); that's too much of a coincidence, so there must be a creator/god/whatever". The Anthropic Principle doesn't claim that we are special at all, but just a product of the circumstances.

Respectable cosmologists have resorted to the Anthropic Principle, in particular with respect to the question about why the rate of expansion of the universe is so well balanced.

KoolKat said:

Just look at your hand, there is no way it can't be from design, IT IS SO SOPHISTICATED THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL IT "EVOLVED" FROM SOME FREAKIN' OOZE! Now take an even closer look; DNA, nobody can even begin to fully comprehend its full function or purpose. The stuff itself is made from molecules that are ultimately designed.
Back later- KK

Thats insane.

1. Just because *I* think something is complex doesnt mean that it is objectiveley so. you cant measure the complexity of the hand by the PERSON WHO THE HAND IS PART OF.

2. Once again, i didnt say that there is no creator, and that evolution is perfect (in fact i dont think anyone in the thread has said this) but simply that its MUCH more logical than the olod "holy" works. Your excactly right no one can fully comprehend DNA- that doesnt mean its wrong just because we dont understand it perfectly yet.

3. I could Just as easily make the same agrument Look at how complex the world is, how could one being be so smart and brilliant as to be able to plan out all of this? Look at you hand, its far too complex to be created by a supreme executive being, she would have HAD to haev been super-intelligent!!! Therefore, life *must* be the result of complex chemical evolution over billions of years of time, i mena theres just no way it could have been born out of nowhere all at once

Grazza, I don't know about that term, but I did already post about anthropocentrism, which is a projection of human characteristics and principles on to the world; inevitable, but being carried away by it is what creates these weird tales of great creator lords.

Little Faith said:
Evolution touched by some kind of divine intervention allowing the thinking, self-conscious man, pinnacle of creation, to appear: A very common viewpoint indeed. Also known as the Anthropic Principle.

I say: "Bullshit!" Just another stupid try to define humanity as something ontologically different from anything else.

Heh that's just it. I Don't think humans are any more or less important then any other living thing on the planet except for the fact that I am one (I think) and I should look after my own. I'm saying that I don't believe any Form of life evolved be accident.

there is not definite or known distinction between "accident" and "will" or "fate", that's the projection I'm talking about.

evolution (life adapts and changes over time, not made)

...and everything came from nothing...???????????????????

I haven´t heard any scientist till now explain (at least in an acceptable way) where the universe begins and where it ends (to speak in simple words), just because it´s unexplainable for science, IMO. Infinity of the universe seems to be beyond human comprehension. Maybe a prove of the existence of God? (since God can´t be measured and is everywhere?)

*EDIT*: what I´m trying to say is: we could come to a blend idea of the first unit of life being created by a superior entity (maybe God), thus accepting the theory of creationism, and then that unit has evolved to every kind of living beings nowadays, thus accepting the theory of evolutionism. Both in harmony.

BTW, this thread = Scientist´s (the DW member) delightful playground :)

GS-1719 said:

Empty vessels... I do not support evolution because it is so flawed - like I said ages ago (it seems):

I said:
Many sources

If you think that it is so obvious to see that evolution is flawed and creation is correct, you shouldn't have any trouble explaining it to us. Please do.

KoolKat said:

Just look at your hand

Yes, look at your hand! Then look at the hand of a mole, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise and the wing of the bat.
Then read "The Origin of Species"

The Origin of Species: 'We have seen that the members of the same class, independently of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organisation. This resemblance is often expressed by the term "unity of type"; or by saying that the several parts and organs in the different species of the class are homologous.'

'What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat should all be constructed on the same pattern and should include similar bones in the same relative position?'
-Darwin

Every four-footed vertebrate animal has the same five-fingered design with the same set of bones in modified form. The bones of the arm, wrist and hand that are found in humans can also be found in modified form in all other four-limbed animals with backbones.

What rational explanation can there be other than that these similarities are the result of a descent from a common ancestor from whom the similar features are a genetic inheritance?

So yes, look at your hand and see Evolution!

Cacodreams said:

BTW, this thread = Scientist´s (the DW member) delightful playground :)

I like it here :-D

fraggle said:

All these worlds are yours except Europa.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE

Exactly. I think Arthur C. Clarke was onto something...

Cacodreams said:

I haven´t heard any scientist till now explain (at least in an acceptable way) where the universe begins and where it ends (to speak in simple words), just because it´s unexplainable for science, IMO. Infinity of the universe seems to be beyond human comprehension. Maybe a prove of the existence of God? (since God can´t be measured and is everywhere?)

We are just tiny specks in the universe with limited perceptions, just little mortals, and so is humanity as a whole. We will never know "everything" and you could even conclude there is no such thing as everything. We may learn a bit more about some things and how "stuff" works, sure, and that's what science is about. As for "proof" of a God, or anything like that, that's pure delusion, since the fact that we are finite speaks nothing of the necessity and gives no clue of such an "infinite supreme being" But since the beginning of time (heh) wise (or, more appropiately, cunning?) people have understood that since we cannot know it all, we can always resort to filling the blanks with something if we need to.

"When God created man, she was just kidding."

"When I created this post, I was just kidding"
:)

Scientist said:

"When I created this post, I was just kidding"
:)

Then why continue?!?

Pbbft, now I got a headache. :P

"She" could be someone else... let's say, God's lover.

I'm not going to copy and paste pages of text to 'prove' a point, so here is a very brief summary:

Fossil Record
The fossil record has absolutely no evidence of one species turning into another. This is a very necessary condition for evolution - Darwin projected in his 'On the Origin of Species' that such evidence would be found when the fossil record was available.

Cells
Darwin also worked under the assumption cells were simple. However, now it is known that they are an incredibly complex and brilliantly designed aspect of nature. Thus the grounding for his theory is further weakened.

Mutations
Evolution requires genetic mutations to take place to improve the genes of the species. However, there is very little chance that if mutated, this will take place. The opposite is what happens, except in extremely rare circumstances.

Birds
There is no evidence of birds evolving from any other species.

DNA
Information is coded into every living thing - highly complex arrangements of data that make each being what it is. No such information has ever been observed to be generated on its own. Meaningful information cannot be arranged randomly.

Evolution has become a religion for biologists, unwilling to accept scientific evidence that falsifies their views.

If you want more details, read a book - preferably not one of the mainstream textbooks (read the sig to find out why) - or do a search on the internet "Evidence against evolution."

wtf? I didn't know there were religious forums at doomworld! that's kinda strange.

well...

evolution if fact. bacteria and viruses do it all the time.

natural selection is a theory but so is gravity.

umm... and I personally don't believe in magic / religious mystical powers.

hah, i can't believe all these doomers in here talking about this :)

Crix said:

wtf? I didn't know there were religious forums at doomworld! that's kinda strange.

It's not really a religious forum; this is just the "miscellaneous" forum. Until recently it was called "Rants and Raves", but so many of those rants seemed to be about politics and religion that the powers that be decided to change the name. This is also the forum where polls go.

GS-1719's sig:
“Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it.”—H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution”

hahaha :-D,

look closely at what Lipson is saying.
First he calls evolution a religion:
"evolution became in a sense a scientific religion"

and than explains why he thinks evolution is a religion:
"almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it."

Sure Lipson is taking a bash at Evolution, but only because it resembles religion!
His quote tells us that he thinks religious people are prepared to bend their observations to fit their ideas;
He's taking a bash at every religion, not just Evolution. He's talking about every religion, including Christianity!

And it seems Lipson is right;
You read this quote somewhere and was prepared to bend your interpretation of it to fit your anti-evolution view!

You interpretated it as a statement that was anti-evolution and pro-creation!

You have to admit, it's pretty ironic. :-)

GS-1719 said:
If you want more details, read a book - preferably not one of the mainstream textbooks (read the sig to find out why) - or do a search on the internet "Evidence against evolution."

If you follow the advice of Lipson, you should treat all religious work (including all christian) as "bend to fit their ideas".

Evidently all your "Evidence against evolution" is at least just as bend as evidence on Evolution.

I'll get back to you on the five topics you mentioned earlier; it'll take me some time formulating my response...

Anyway could you elaborate on why the complexity of cells would weaken the Evolution-theory. I really don't see the problem there. :(

please read this:
human eye

[edit] make sure you also read the "A creationist responds" to this article. [/edit]

If God really did make life, he's done a hell of a good job making it look like evolution did it. ;P

Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homeys working in the field of evolutionary science.
Check it!

Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen Jay Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
beause kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

Scientist said:

His quote tells us that he thinks religious people are prepared to bend their observations to fit their ideas;
He's taking a bash at every religion, not just Evolution. He's talking about every religion, including Christianity!

And it seems Lipson is right;
You read this quote somewhere and was prepared to bend your interpretation of it to fit your anti-evolution view!

You interpretated it as a statement that was anti-evolution and pro-creation!

You have to admit, it's pretty ironic. :-)

err... NO.

It has become clear that scientists are willing to bend their observations to fit in with this out of date and fallacious theory - it has become that fundamental to them. Thus it has become a scientific 'religion' - religion being defined as a way of life, for them.

I have mentioned nothing of creationism thoughout this thread. It's very convenient that you've used this deliberate (otherwise stupid) misunderstanding to avoid the real issue of the evidence that exists against evolution.

GS-1719, I'm curious as to how this relates to what you said above about "empty vessels." What was that? Is there any sort of further explanation... please try to make it short if you can, my attention span is wandering in ethereal space since it left me who knows when.

Thus it has become a scientific 'religion' - religion being defined as a way of life, for them.

So religion is defined as "way of life".

And "evolution" is a "religion".

That defines "evolution" as "way of life".

Congratulations, I think you just stated that evolution is right.

GS-1719, I'm curious as to how this relates to what you said above about "empty vessels." What was that? Is there any sort of further explanation... please try to make it short if you can, my attention span is wandering in ethereal space since it left me who knows when.

An old saying in the UK - something used for children whose minds are empty - they do not think and are always making noise, trouble and being stupid.

Congratulations, I think you just stated that evolution is right.

No I didn't - evolution has become so important for scientists they will do whatever they can to defend it. It became a way of life for them.

Here we go again, another Thread where all you people out there can compare brain sizes. And show off new ways of looking at things that are impossible to understand with our minds. It also seems that most people will still believe almost anything that is in a book or is taught to them by someone with more "experience".
For me the only question here with any relevance seems to be:
Why do so many people feel they need to understand where they come from? Your here aren’t you? So enjoy where you are. It is a beautiful planet and we are the dominant life forms. That's basically all you need to know. IMO
So from the words of the wisest man I know:
“Live long and prosper”.

And please feel free to bash me as hard as you like.

Bash what? Who is this "we" who is the dominant species? What is a species? Dominant... in respect to what? Beautiful... hmm... always, all of it? I do not understand your post. But I do like certain ways of looking at things that are impossible to understand... and is this avoidable? Should it be? What should we say? Why should we?

GS-1719 said:

I have mentioned nothing of creationism thoughout this thread.

Even if you're not a creationist you still cannot deny that...

Scientist said:

Evidently all your "Evidence against evolution" is at least just as bend as evidence on Evolution.

_____

GS-1719 said:

It's very convenient that you've used this deliberate (otherwise stupid) misunderstanding

Well excuse me! All your references point to the idea of an allmighty creator that created all life.
So I'll ask you:
"Are you a creationist?"

Now to get to your questions:
fossil record
Indeed Darwin claimed that such evidence would be found in the fossil record. But the fossil record is incomplete. You shouldn't think that we have a fossil of every living thing that ever existed. Our fossil record is very limited and will never be complete. Just because we haven't found a fossil of an intermediate does not automaticly mean the intermediate did not exist.
But there is some evidence for intermediates:
example

cells

GS-1719 said:Darwin also worked under the assumption cells were simple. [/b]

Like I said earlier, I really don't see how the complexity of cells weakens the evolution-theory. please elaborate. :-(

mutations
When we look at horses it is hard to see mutation and natural selection. But when we look at virusses (like Crix said) we can see evolution. This is because a virus reproduces much much faster than a horse.
Think of HIV. There are numerous medicine against it, but the problem is that after a sort time the virus becomes resistant. How is this resistance possible?
answer: mutation and natural selection; the virusses that have a mutation that protects them against the medication become resistant to the medication and survive to reproduce. The chance that such a mutation occurs is indeed very small but the number of individuals in the virus population is enormous and the time it takes them to reproduce is extremely short.
HIV is proof that mutation and natural selection exists. How else can one explain the virus becoming resistant? There simply is no other rational explanation.

Birds
O look my good friend Sinosauropteryx. Three fossils of the species have yet been found. These were pretty good preserved. The fossils show that the integument (skin) bore discrete filamentous structures (proto-feathers).
And I'm sure you've heard of Archeopteryx.

DNA
cumulative natural selection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GS-1719 said:[...]to avoid the real issue of the evidence that exists against evolution.[/B]

WTF?! Perhaps you've heard of a site called doomworld. Try the forums there, and read "Evolution/Creationism flamewar goes here".

GS-1719 said:

evolution has become so important for scientists they will do whatever they can to defend it.

Sure I'll defend Evolution. But trust me, if I could proof evolution wrong I would! I'd be responsible for the greatest revolution in Biology since Darwin. I'd get worldfamous and a Nobel prize and everything. The reason scientists uphold Evolution is not because of some doctrine, but because there simply is no other rational explanation.

If you're not a creationist/evolutionist I'd like to know how you would answer these questions:
1. How do new species come into existense?
2. How do you explain that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat are all constructed on the same pattern and include similar bones in the same relative position?
3. How do you explain the absurd construction of the human eye?
4. Why do virusses become resistant?

If you can come up with a rational explanation other than Evolution please do!

No I didn't - evolution has become so important for scientists they will do whatever they can to defend it. It became a way of life for them.

I wonder who the scientists you're speaking of are. There is no (real) scientist that blindly follows any theory. If evolution some day gets proven wrong, scientists will change their minds, but the way things are today, evolution is compatible with nearly all observations, and there's absolutely NO other scientific theory for life that even comes close. There are a lot of arguments why evolution is wrong, but none of them directly proves it so. Most of them are uneducated bullshit. A few of them are the result of evolution being an incomplete theory and everything not yet being known.

GS-1719 said:

err... NO.

It has become clear that scientists are willing to bend their observations to fit in with this out of date and fallacious theory - it has become that fundamental to them. Thus it has become a scientific 'religion' - religion being defined as a way of life, for them.

If this were true why didn't Lipson say:
"Evolution became in a sense a way of life for them."

He didn't say that, he said:
"Evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it."
—H. Lipson

Don't you find it strange that he explicitly uses the word religion here?

GS-1719 said:

An old saying in the UK - something used for children whose minds are empty - they do not think and are always making noise, trouble and being stupid.

Ah, just a flame, and I thought there was some substance behind it. Up to now you have not said anything other than insinuating that Darwin's theory of evolution is dogmatic and false. I had thought maybe the 'empty vessels' expression had something to do with these ideas that so clearly negate evolution, driving you to post here...

Well, I recall something fraggle said above.

LOL Fraggle! :D