ID and Creation [split from] Evolution: The Facts

[CFLarsen]

We also need to clarify claudistics

Freudian slip? :p

ETA:

You (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=119671#post119671)

love (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=85984#post85984)

me (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=85933#post85933)

so. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=85782#post85782)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Freudian slip? :p

Worse! A a bad habit I just can't seem to break despite knowing better.

In my head I pronounce it "claw"distics, so I keep spelling it "Claude"istics. Grrrr. Cladistics.

[CFLarsen]

Write it 50 times, chisel and stone.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Just imagine where creation might have begun.

Let's say that in the beginning there was a positive side, and a negative side. Both sides were equal in scope. Both sides began to create.

The positive side is the side where truth is told and truth is kept.
The negative side is the side of deceit and lies.

Due to being truthful, the positive side created by using a step by step process, never stepping over anything because that would violate being truthful. And so the process is slow, but being truthful, being real, it allows the creation of an actual reality.

The negative side on the other hand, creates in a fictitious manner because truth is not within their game. But since truth need not be followed, a step by step form of creation also need not be. The rate of creation becomes staggering, but it is more of a spirit world due to it NOT being actually real, thanks to the absence of truths.

Eventually the positive side seems like almost nothing at all when compared to the vast negative side. The positive side becomes a thin slice of the big picture. The positive side is limited to what is called the present time. The positive reality moves across time such that the step by step creation can continue. The positive truthful side, evolves, hence evolution.

Humans eventually evolve on the positive side. Eventually they will outgrow beliefs and will be able to see truths directly. They will achieve true consciousness.

The negative side has no world.

The negative side decides to steal the positive sides world. They send a visitor prior to the time when mankind is no longer dependent upon beliefs. The visitor tells the people that they are all sinners and that the true evolution is a farce and that they are the offspring of sinners known as Adam and Eve.

The humans are still believers, and so they will believe anything. Now that they are happy to be sinners, they are beginning to become just like the negative deceitful ones. They are told that they must believe, and must continue to do so. This prevents the normal evolution because it prevents the normal rate of closing in on all truths that one experiences as one moves further away from dependance upon mere beliefs, because the people have chosen not to pursue truths but to remain as believers instead.

Truth falls behind, and deceit begins to rule. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, crime grows, sex and drugs go out of control, politicians lie to the public, etc. Once again, the negative deceitful side is winning the battle.

Soon the negative side will proceed with their plan. They wish to split this reality into two such that it is no longer composed of absolute truth, and so it becomes theirs.

One of the two sides is a world that is better than the old earth, and on the other side of the split reality is a world that is worse than the old earth. With the truth destroyed, by destroying its creator, these two worlds will continue to fly apart since there is no truth to pull them back together.

One world becomes a Heaven, and the other becomes a Hell. Those of the original earth who knew to much truth, must therefore be thrown onto the hell side such that they can not spread the truth. The liars, thieves, murderers, etc. will end up in the Heavens.

The negative side must therefore inform the humans that it is the good folk that end up in the heavens and the bad in the hell, such that they do not know of the truth and will therefore not know be ripped in two as truth becomes ripped in two.

As the negative side deceives all mankind, the negative side must inform them that the entire world will be deceived, and the foolish humans will think that this refers to a future event.

The positive side had planned to visit their world at the time when man was ready to receive vast truths. The negative side gave this visitor a name, the Anti-Christ.

And so man got it all wrong. The God was the Satan, the Satan was the God, the Christ was the Anti-Christ, and the Anti-Christ was the Christ.

Christ came to the world at an earlier date than he had planned, and did so in a desperate attempt to save the people. He was tossed to the side for he spoke in truths. Truths are beyond the limited scope of mere beliefs, and so to the believers, truths were seen as lies, for truths are beyond belief.


Well, I am off. I think I will go and create another reality, only this time I will use a different approach.

[John Hewitt]

Sure, and as long as the critique is fair and balanced, I think that's a good thing.

Glad you're here, I was going to drop you a PM, because of your interest in the field.


OK, here five critiques of "evolutionary theory," as that phrase is most usually used.

I will very briefly summarize the points I am making. Please note that when I use the term "evolutionary theory" I do not mean the theory that organisms have evolved or are evolving. I use the term theory in the same way it is used elsewhere in science. Thus, we are dealing with evolutionary theory as a mechanistic interpretation of the processes of change as they apply within the biosphere and the predictions that can be derived from those interpretations.

My critiques are

1. Lack of foundation.
Evolutionary theory lacks a foundation in the more fundamental sciences. Excepting my own work, which is not mainstream, it is not possible to derive an evolutionary theory from physics or chemistry. This means that evolutionary theory simply sits in isolation and does not slot properly into the larger corpus of science.

2. Undefined terms
The theory evolution lacks defined terms. Some of the most basic terms used in evolutionary theory are undefined or have definitions that are subject to ongoing debate. For example, none of the following terms can be defined unequivocally in a way that applies to all situations – organism, species, gene, replicator and reproduction. What is more, there is a continuing tradition among theorists to "solve" problems by inventing yet more undefined terms, rather than thinking seriously about the entities that are really needed in the theory. Examples that come to mind are order, class, family, clade, meme and vehicle, but I am sure you could easily find many others.

3. Vacuity
Evolutionary theory fails to make predictions. It is very good at interpreting observations but it is very bad at predicting them. This is the old charge of vacuity and it remains largely valid. Evolutionary theory succeeds in predicting relationships between organisms but it largely fails to predict anything about the properties of individual organisms.

4. Arbitrary dividing lines
These are drawn all over biology but they also infest the theory of evolution itself. There are many such but there are two that particular annoy me. One is the issue of the "unit of selection" (AUD - another undefined term), linked to the declaration "all selection is based on the gene not the group (AUD) or the organism." That declaration is plainly ridiculous.
The second is "abiogenesis is separate from evolution." Really – why? Is this anything but a piece of indefensible tripe?

5. Social distortion and authoritarian, prior expectation
By this, I mean the manner in which evolutionary theory has become co-opted by a social debate that has no genuine bearing on the scientific issues. Science is not about the existence or non-existence of God. So far as evolutionary theory is concerned, one could have put God into the list of undefined terms in section 2. Criticism of evolutionary does not equal commitment to faith and neither does evolutionary theory prevent commitment to faith.
The scientific issue is the structure and utility of evolutionary theory. The social issue is how such criticisms can be presented and discussed without confronting mobbing and bullying from "evolutionists." In this context, I use the word "evolutionist" to mean the so-called scientists, who claim expertise and may even possess it, but who do not debate the scientific issues. Instead, they bring their social prejudices to the discussion and behave in ways that are very analogous to the worst excesses of the religious bigotry they claim to oppose.

Well, those are my opinions. If anyone wishes to discuss them, I am easy about their order but let's do just one at a time.

[cyborg]

John, until your ideas are mainstream I respectively submit that you accept that you either haven't made the proper case for them, they may be wrong but NOT that you are some sort of misunderstood genius.

As such you can take your 'novel' ideas elsewhere and leave this thread to what are known to be the facts of evolution.

[John Hewitt]

John, until your ideas are mainstream I respectively submit that you accept that you either haven't made the proper case for them, they may be wrong but NOT that you are some sort of misunderstood genius.

As such you can take your 'novel' ideas elsewhere and leave this thread to what are known to be the facts of evolution.
I cannot see the point you are making here.

[cyborg]

The point is that new research cannot be considered to be a valid part of an 'Evolution: the Facts' thread by the very nature of the fact that new research is going to be contended.

I know you don't like that but that's tough.

[John Hewitt]

The point is that new research cannot be considered to be a valid part of an 'Evolution: the Facts' thread by the very nature of the fact that new research is going to be contended.

I know you don't like that but that's tough.
Actually, I only mentioned my own work to the extent of excepting it. In the circumstances, I still fail to see your point.

[The Atheist]

Here's a site that focusses specifically on Kent "Dr Dino" Hovind's drivel (http://www.kent-hovind.com), a burden the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently has to bear. However, Hovind's so-called "arguments" are like litter in more ways than one: they are also frequently recycled.

This is the part I'd like to keep the smallest bit of the whole thing. On its own, a good strand on evolution should read like a short story, backed by facts and be bulletproof defence against IDiots. Because of that, I'd like them to have as small a presence as possible - half a page of the most-common, specious arguments they use, so I won't be focusing on any one IDiot.

Thanks for the link, though - obviously we're going to have to read some of this drivel to find out what they do .... um, I hesitate to use the word "think" there.... find out what they claim, sounds better.

... but then again, what Creationist ideas aren't blown away by reality.

Precisely.

OK, here five critiques of "evolutionary theory," as that phrase is most usually used.

Excellent - looks like some good stuff in there and it deserves discussion. I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread on your critiques here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89091).

I see that there are a couple of stickies already up in here and I'm going to see if we can get this thread put up there and I don't want to lose sight of the OP. I imagine your critiques will be contentious to say the least!

I'll stay in it and make sure it's kept seemly - not like I'll be contributing much otherwise!

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm short on time and bandwidth, but I wanted to address JH's "critiques" in brief tonight. I'll have more time and bandwidth this weekend.

1. Lack of foundation.

Evolutionary theory is the foundation for the science of biology and related areas like zoology, geology and heavily influences other areas like medicine. I think it's bizarre to suggest that evolutionary theory has "no foundation" when it itself serves as a foundation for several other areas of science. Evolutionary theory is also interconnected with other areas of science like geology, ecology, meteorology, biochemistry and microbiology. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in willful blindness.

2. Undefined terms
The theory evolution lacks defined terms. Some of the most basic terms used in evolutionary theory are undefined or have definitions that are subject to ongoing debate. For example, none of the following terms can be defined unequivocally in a way that applies to all situations – organism, species, gene, replicator and reproduction.

Sheer insanity. Organism and reproduction are tightly defined. Gene and replicator are well defined. And species, while elastic, is defined sufficiently to serve its purpose in developing phylogenies.

3. Vacuity
Evolutionary theory fails to make predictions.

Ignorance. If one looks at the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution essays on Talk Origins, ever single one is predicated on a prediction made by evolutionary theory. The most obvious one, rooted in Darwin's own writings is that our closest evolutionary relatives would be found in Africa, and that we would not find evidence of human evolutionary relatives in the Americas. Guess what? Totally validated. Evolutionary theory, just like all good theories, is entirely predicated on predictions - or are you ignorant of how the Tiktaalik roscea fossils were discovered?

4. Arbitrary dividing lines
The second is "abiogenesis is separate from evolution." Really – why? Is this anything but a piece of indefensible tripe?

Obfuscation and blurring of lines. Evolutionary theory is about extant life so how that life came to be has nothing more to evolution than the astrophysics of how heavier atoms came to exist has anything do to with chemistry.

5. Social distortion and authoritarian, prior expectation
By this, I mean the manner in which evolutionary theory has become co-opted by a social debate that has no genuine bearing on the scientific issues.

This issue exists only in the minds of Creationists. Science is agnostic, be it chemistry, engineering, medicine or biology. Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the foundational theory behind biology, it's only Creationists who have tried to make it a social/political issue.

If these are your only objections to evolution, then they are based on your personal biases and not on the science. I'd rather discuss the science, but I find very few anti-evolution advocates who either want to or are capible of doing so.

[qayak]

Evolutionary theory is the foundation for the science of biology and related areas like zoology, geology and heavily influences other areas like medicine. I think it's bizarre to suggest that evolutionary theory has "no foundation" when it itself serves as a foundation for several other areas of science. Evolutionary theory is also interconnected with other areas of science like geology, ecology, meteorology, biochemistry and microbiology. To suggest otherwise is an exercise in willful blindness.

Evolution also has a strong foundation in physics.

"If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis that

All things are made of atoms-little particles that that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.

In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied." (Richard Fenman)

"A poet once said, "The whole universe is in a glass of wine." We will probably never know in what sense he said that, for poets do not write to be understood. But it is true that if we look in glass of wine closely enough we see the entire universe.

There are the things of physics: the twisting liquid which evaporates depending on the wind and weather, the reflections in the glass, and our imagination adds the atoms. The glass is a distillation of the earth's rocks, and in its composition we see the secrets of the universe's age, and the evolution of the stars. What strange array of chemicals are in the wine? How did they come to be? There are the ferments, the enzymes, the substrates, and the products. There in wine is found the great generalization: all life is fermentation. Nobody can discover the chemistry of wine without discovering the cause of much disease. How vivid is the claret, pressing its existence into the consciousness that watches it!

If in our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts - physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on - remember that nature does not know it! So let us put it all back together, not forgetting ultimately what it is for. Let us give one more final pleasure: drink it and forget it all!" (Richard Feynman)

When you understand physics you understand molecules and atoms. MInteractions between molecules and atoms are very much a major part of biology and evolution is dependant upon these interactions and variations in them.

[The Atheist]

Sorry guys, but can we take the answers to the critique to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89091).

Cheers.

[articulett]

The Primordial soup -> life step makes me cringe a little. Perhaps I missed something earlier in the thread but do you intend to tackle abiogenesis as well, or is there a more definitive way to start the evolution story?

Removed text Like all those who support an alternate "hypothesis" such as "intelligent design"-- they flip the conversations to abiogenesis's gaps when the normal 5 "conundrums" are answered yet again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


No personal attacks; attack the argument, not the arguer. I have edited this post to remove the personalization of the comment.

[fishkr]

:)

[fishkr]

I often share forums (http://www.arthwollipot.com/links/forums/) with creationists/ID supporters who are quite well-read. They usually admit to having read even Dawkins.


Lucky you. I live in a ski resort town in the middle of Idaho. People don't often read books here, they just "hear about them".

Good news is Idaho is a bright red state, where most people are anti-environment, pro-life, and pro war, so one is rarely more than a barstool away from winning an arguement.:D

m

[articulett]

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s) I call you an apologist and John Hewitt groupie... not a creationist. I wish you'd get my aspersions straight. Jeez.

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s)

[articulett]

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s) I call you an apologist and John Hewitt groupie... not a creationist. I wish you'd get my aspersions straight. Jeez.

Edited for civility - Attack the argument, not the arguer(s)

But... he inferred... and so I... aw... okay. I apologize TA. "kisses"

[CFLarsen]

But that is not evolution. The formation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You may convey everything as one simple concept, but do not call it something which it is not.

It's the same error Creationists make.

[The Atheist]

But that is not evolution. The formation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You may convey everything as one simple concept, but do not call it something which it is not.

No, it has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, but it clearly has everything to do with the evolution of conditions which enabled life to commence.

The word "evolution" does not apply solely to the ToE - it has uses from motor vehicles to metaphysics.

[steenkh]

The word "evolution" does not apply solely to the ToE - it has uses from motor vehicles to metaphysics.
When you are debating with creationists - as I think is the issue here - it will only confuse matters if you use the word 'evolution' to denote anything else than the ToE.

[CFLarsen]

The word "evolution" does not apply solely to the ToE - it has uses from motor vehicles to metaphysics.

Because motor vehicles "evolved"?

[CFLarsen]

Try this:
...
Let's credit the readers with enough understanding that they won't confuse the two. (I'll make sure I use "biological evolution" where appropriate. ;) )

But that's precisely it: The possibly biggest misunderstanding about evolution is that it is just "change". That's where the Creationists' idea of "random" stems from.

If you include evolution to include such things as motor vehicles, then you are saying that the (ill-)famed Watch in the Desert (http://skepticreport.com/creationism/watchdesert.htm) is a valid argument. If you point to motor vehicles as an example of Evolution, then you are using a Creationist argument. Motor vehicles "evolved" because there was a creator: Namely humans.

It is the worst thing you can do, if you plan on creating a guide on "Evolution for Dummies". Anything you write in that guide will be shot down, and rightfully so.

But, if you want to be viewed as a Creationist, go right ahead and use that argument.

Seen it all, which is why I'm not bothered by what creationists think.

This should be a place for those with the desire to gain knowledge of the processes involved in getting us to 2007. Creationists are plain nuts and I see no reason why a knowledge base should be designed with them in mind. You can't cover all the nutcase ideas they come down with and I couldn't be bothered trying.

Truth be told, I'm beginning to think an "ID rebuttal" section's probably a bad idea. Stuff their strawmen, let 'em think what they like.

That will be seen as an inability to counter the strawmen.

The idea is facts presented in a stoopid-friendly manner.

Yeah, that will certainly attract a lot of people. "Hey, come read this! It is written so even stoopid people like you can understand it!" :rolleyes:

[The Atheist]

But that's precisely it: The possibly biggest misunderstanding about evolution is that it is just "change".

Seriously, and this is not an ad hominem attack, but this is simply a case of your English letting you down. As was pointed out, the word "evolution" is NOT automatically related to ToE. Evolution is simply change. The Theory of Evolution refers to Biological Evolution, and as has been recently noted, the two are very different.

In the same way, cars have evolved and only an idiot would conflate the evolution of cars from steam-powered buggies to the Bugatti Veyron with IDiot arguments like the watch. Now, I know you're not that stupid and I'm not too worried that readers are either. Several varieties of Japanese cars even label their models "Evolution 3" and so on.

Maybe you spend too much time in skeptical circles, because the word "evolution" is very widely used in the English language and it holds no special connotations for people who aren't ID-phobic.

If you want to start an anti-ID thread, there's an entire forum available for your use.

This one certainly isn't the place for it.

[CFLarsen]

Seriously, and this is not an ad hominem attack, but this is simply a case of your English letting you down. As was pointed out, the word "evolution" is NOT automatically related to ToE. Evolution is simply change. The Theory of Evolution refers to Biological Evolution, and as has been recently noted, the two are very different.

In the same way, cars have evolved and only an idiot would conflate the evolution of cars from steam-powered buggies to the Bugatti Veyron with IDiot arguments like the watch. Now, I know you're not that stupid and I'm not too worried that readers are either. Several varieties of Japanese cars even label their models "Evolution 3" and so on.

Maybe you spend too much time in skeptical circles, because the word "evolution" is very widely used in the English language and it holds no special connotations for people who aren't ID-phobic.

If you want to start an anti-ID thread, there's an entire forum available for your use.

This one certainly isn't the place for it.

In your OP, you specifically talk only about biological evolution, and how to counter ID claims. So, it is very relevant to talk about anti-ID.

If you want to include the Watch-in-the-Desert type of arguments, then you are effectively destroying the goal of getting people to understand what biological evolution is.

You also exhibit a total lack of understanding what biological evolution is.

[The Atheist]

So, it is very relevant to talk about anti-ID.

Tell you what then - you talk about that if it will make you happy. I'll just ignore it and go on my merry way.

Cheers

You also exhibit a total lack of understanding what biological evolution is.

My word, you really are after Randi's mio aren't you. Are you secretly a psychic?

Claus - if you want to obfuscate, irritate and evacuate, please find another thread to do it in. You're quite welcome to carry on posting in this one, but I shall be ignoring you totally from here on. There are quite a few highly knowledgeable scientists in the thread, so I'm quite sure my ignoring your input [?] won't be detrimental to the project.

Bye now!

[CFLarsen]

Tell you what then - you talk about that if it will make you happy. I'll just ignore it and go on my merry way.

You opened this thread, wanting to counter ID claims. But now, you don't want to talk about it?

Claus - if you want to obfuscate, irritate and evacuate, please find another thread to do it in. You're quite welcome to carry on posting in this one, but I shall be ignoring you totally from here on. There are quite a few highly knowledgeable scientists in the thread, so I'm quite sure my ignoring your input [?] won't be detrimental to the project.

Those people have been feeding you input on Creationism and ID.

[articulett]

You opened this thread, wanting to counter ID claims. But now, you don't want to talk about it?



Those people have been feeding you input on Creationism and ID.

I concur.

[The Atheist]

You opened this thread, wanting to counter ID claims. But now, you don't want to talk about it?

If you'd been keeping up with the thread, I had explained how it had evolved as well and that I intended making it a factual resource rather than a rebuttal one. If that doesn't suit your agenda, I repeat that you're most welcome to start a thread doing just that.

Those people have been feeding you input on Creationism and ID.

Gosh, I hadn't even noticed - just how cunning are these people? I was referring to Dr Adequate, Paul C Anagnostopoulous and Taffer, please point out which creationist/ID arguments they have presented, so that I can avoid them in future.

Thanks for that - close shave!

[CFLarsen]

If you'd been keeping up with the thread, I had explained how it had evolved as well and that I intended making it a factual resource rather than a rebuttal one.

A resource about what?

[articulett]

TA thinks Hewitt a brilliant biologist though he knows very little biology, hates Dawkins, and can't summarize Hewitt (who can?) If it helps those who find him maddeningly impossible to talk to on the subject, you aren't alone.

In fact, I have hypothesized that he is a theist calling himself "the atheist" so he can be the boorish person he imagines atheists to be and give them a bad name. Because I don't recognize this personality amongst the non-theists I've met and hang with.

[The Atheist]

For those, like me, who are rather confused...

That's what happens when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Try either reading the entire thread.

Failing that, you maybe need to realise the difference between people working on a discussion thread on the internet and the real world.

[CFLarsen]

That's what happens when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Try either reading the entire thread.

Failing that, you maybe need to realise the difference between people working on a discussion thread on the internet and the real world.

What a rude answer.

[kjkent1]

The level of 'scope creep' has reached a point where it would not be surprising if key (expert) stakeholders were considering withdrawal from the project - although the sunk costs are not insignificant, the likelihood of receiving a profitable return on their investment is rapidly diminishingConcur. This thread should not be a "sticky," not because Atheist didn't mean well by starting it, but rather because it's already turned into a typical internet argument, rather than a reference for objective facts.

[The Atheist]

What a rude answer.

To a rude and inaccurate statement.




Still waiting for the creationist arguments presented so far, as asked for above.

Thanks

[The Atheist]

Concur. This thread should not be a "sticky," not because Atheist didn't mean well by starting it, but rather because it's already turned into a typical internet argument, rather than a reference for objective facts.

Fancy that happening.

Given the work that Dr Adequate and others have already put in, I think it'd be a shame to let it drop.

This thread was always going to be the place to collate information rather than the final result, so it isn't too much of a problem - I'll just ignore the garbage and concentrate on the good stuff, of which there is plenty.

[Miss Anthrope]

Please remember to keep to the topic and refrain from making this personal. Argue the point, not against the poster. This thread is quickly becoming a candidate for a split to AAH.

[CFLarsen]

Still waiting for the creationist arguments presented so far, as asked for above.

Thanks

So, it is very relevant to talk about anti-ID.

[The Atheist]

Please remember to keep to the topic and refrain from making this personal. Argue the point, not against the poster. This thread is quickly becoming a candidate for a split to AAH.

No, please leave it up here.

I'd really like it to stand as a monument to skepticism.

Not one of the people derailing the thread are anything less than 100% behind the ToE, yet their pettiness (and in arti's case, complete obsession) is ruining it.

C'est la vie.

I just feel a bit sorry for the good doc who's actually spent time writing and researching.

[six7s]

That's what happens when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
YOU don't understand and, instead of thinking and sceptically assessing independent criticism, your knee-jerk response is to project your failure on to me simply because I am the latest person to question your agenda
Try either reading the entire thread.
What makes you assume I haven't? Instead of shooting from the hip, try thinking about the real reason

To be honest, I haven't understood every post.

Some of the experts have described concepts that are beyond the comprehension of non-scientists like me, and you

Some of your posts are incomprehensible too - but, sadly, for an altogether different reason

Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that I am part of some conspiracy to discredit you. This is not the case. You don't input from anyone else in that regard

Failing that, you maybe need to realise the difference between people working on a discussion thread on the internet and the real world.

Maybe? Actually, no. You are again projecting your shortcomings; a failure to grasp what 'people (plural) working' means

My experience and understanding of both forum based Internet communities and the real world eludes you to a point you will never grasp, as long as you continue to employ bully-boy tactics to get your own way

[Dr Adequate]

Look, as someone who is trying to do something useful here, could I please ask anyone who doesn't want to do so to ...

SHUT UP.

And if Miss Anthrope wants to send the stupider bits of this thread to AAH, I agree.

[The Atheist]

edited:

Dr A's idea is much better, I've PMed MA to remove the dross to AAH.

Kudos to you for sticking with it, doc.

[mijopaalmc]

Perhaps the author should request that this become a moderated thread.

[Iamme]

Every day I grow in wisdom (I hope).

Where I currently stand on this entire debate is that it really doesn't matter much if evolution caused everything or not. Seriously. It's a waste of topic using it to prove anything.

If you think about it...say that evolution becomes so proven that even the Pope can no longer deny it. Do you think he will cave and say there is no God? That evolution did it?

The whole objective behind atheists bringing evolution into the discussion is with intent to prove there is no God.

Well, I hate to lay this on you but this in and of it's own self will prove nothing. All this will beg is the new question as to where did evolution come from! That surely evolution did not think itself into existance. That all the forces that derived from energy just did not evolve themselves from nothing. That somehow, the entire workings of the universe and the obvious intracies of our Earth were the lucky results of something entirely mindless?

That nothing else that we know of can make something intracately complex by itself, by building upon itself through any random mutations or selections, or ?. Nothing else works like that.

Until atheists can show how all the 'forces' came about that have allowed even the universe itself to evolve to somehow cause hydrogen to exist so that it then could make helium, so that it then could make...(what comes next?), etc., so that in the end of all this you wind up with this incubatory Earth that is like some womb, protected by magnetism, and has this precious rain cycle that knocks fertilizer out of the air, and buried aquifers, and heat vents in the ocean that gave rise to life like some birth canal out of the Earth, which spawned more complex cellular structures all by chance?, to then live in harmony amongst each other so that one creatures waste even becomes another creatures sustanance...so that every niche becomes filled, literally encompassing land, air and sea creatures.

Have any of you really sat down to watch The Animal Planet for hours on end looking at al the sea creatures...the bioluminescense creatures, the creatures with all kinds of clever ways to catch other prey...that there are like 1.5 million species of insects in the Amaszon rain forest alone that one can easily in a few words discredit as being proof of evolution?...reasoning that no God would sit around making 1.5 million of anything that resembled each other (genetically linked perhaps would be the claim)...and blow everything off to evolution with no 'mind' behind all this marvelous wonder and complexity where no matter what you look at it all operates like some machine.

That evolution in and of itself proves ANYTHING?

[DangerousBeliefs]

If you think about it...say that evolution becomes so proven that even the Pope can no longer deny it.

Uh... hum.. you might want to read a bit... hum...

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

[Iamme]

Uh... hum.. you might want to read a bit... hum...

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

I read what your link said. And that is exactly what I was getting at! You see, they are going to end up accepting evolution! But they will NEVER EVER say evolution is the root cause of how everything randomly just made itself. They will still credit God with creating evolution! Don't you see? It is a hopeless waste of time to debate evolution in hopes to make religion/God seem silly/silly theory. It will never happen.

[The Atheist]

That evolution in and of itself proves ANYTHING?

Sorry, Iamme, but you've entirely mistaken the purpose of the thread.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with disproving god.

The thread is designed to educate on the facts of evolution, that is; evidence which has been researched, peer reviewed and demonstrably correct. Those facts should support nothing beyond the position: "That biological evolution happened".

Accordingly, your concerns are unnecessary and misplaced.

May I politely suggest that if you want to debate whether or not evolution proves/disproves god, open a new thread.

[Iamme]

Originally Posted by Iamme
The whole objective behind atheists bringing evolution into the discussion is with intent to prove there is no God.

arthwollipot reply: Oh really? Since when?

Personally I started discussing evolution when I realised that creationists were telling outright lies about it.

I rest my case. You simply did all but say, "...but..."

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Iamme

arthwollipot reply:

I rest my case. You simply did all but say, "...but..." If you have a point to make, it would be better made coherently.

[Iamme]

All you people can talk about chimps, fusing, chromosomes, genes... till you are blue. And I could talk about chocolate, nuts, batter, and the relationship between brownies and chocolate cake and their similarities. Who made those 2 separate blasted things?!

Have you guys ever considered that you are outsmarting yourselves?

A certain amount of evolution is believable. But do you really believe that we share a comon ancestor with a rose bush or those clear sea creatures that have bioluminescence?...and on and on? And think you can make it seem so by simply saying it took millions of years?

Don't you think that just maybe there might be some truth to the creation story AND evolution, and they meet somehow in the middle? And that is why both sides think they are right, because each side is partially right?

You think our bodies, with every feature we have?...EVERY feature, and there are tons of them...just happened to create this machine that is far more complex than a robot? Do I have to stoop to start making a list of everything about our bodies, abilities, talents, diversity, etc., that seem unlikely it happened just buy building upon itself and honing itself over time, without instruction from some higher energy source? That we KNOW magic is magic?, yet something far more magical than magic...our bodies, just happened, with their 6 trillion cells, or whatever, that work in harmony like a walking factory with a brain? While you wallow in technicalities about evolution?

The Bible has it right that says such people will be blinded regarding the truth. It is man's ego. They use another word for it, like haughtyness and pride and other words, that cause man's hearts to harden and to believe in ridiculousness.

And I only brought up our bodies! Nothing about how the world suits us as if we designed it for ourselves to provide us with every want and desire for our pleasure. Not just survival. The beauty, the abundance of stuff. Think about that beautiful vacation trip you took. Had noithing to do with adaption/survival. Luck? It is ALL luck?

[The Atheist]

Have you guys ever considered that you are outsmarting yourselves?

I'm glad you asked that question, because the answer is YES!

See, that's kind of how science works - a scientist posits a hypothesis, he studies the idea to see if results are consistent, using control groups to ensure accuracy. If it does, it gets published as a theory and the subject is then approached by a whole bunch of other scientists. If all of those scientists agree, then it becomes part of our knowledge base.

Because those scientists are scared stiff of being shown to have outsmarted themselves, they are extremely cautious to ensure that it doesn't happen. Obviously, it still does, but only occasionally. The worst thing in the world for a scientist would be to be exposed by some ignorant bighead with a large vocabulary and an enquiring mind, so they do tend to be over-cautious rather than the other way around.

[UnrepentantSinner]

But do you really believe that we share a comon ancestor with a rose bush or those clear sea creatures that have bioluminescence?...and on and on?

I don't believe that. I know that based on the evidence.

[Iamme]

If you have a point to make, it would be better made coherently.

Review of previous posts:
Iamme Quote:
The whole objective behind atheists bringing evolution into the discussion is with intent to prove there is no God.

arthwollipot reply:
Quote:
Oh really? Since when?

Personally I started discussing evolution when I realised that creationists were telling outright lies about it.

.................
arthwollipot's first paragraph answer to my statemnt implies that it is not true that evolutionists are trying to disprove God.

Yet in his next paragraph...what does he do but show that it is the Creationists account(God) that needs to be put in it's place.

In other words, evolution is not being discussed just for it's own sake. Not just for gaining knowledge about evolution. But it really is about showing that evolution occured with no need for God. Please don't deny this. And also, why do you think scientists are so gleeful when discussing possible life forms on other planets? They think this is going to prove no God was necessary. That life just happens.

As if THAT proves anything.

I bet atheists think that Creationists are going to all go "shucks!", if life is discovered all over the universe, and bow their heads in defeat and act like they've wasted their whole lives believing in a God. That is what I bet you think, right?

Nah. Not any more. Maybe back in the year 1000, but not now. Religious people aren't as narrow thinking now. Nobody going to get burned at the stake anymore. If life teams in the Universe, all one has to say is God used his power to create everywhere. And IF *I* had the opportunity to have played God, I would have done the same thing so I could see what life forms would come about and interact in a way I find becoming to myself.

[Iamme]

I don't believe that. I know that based on the evidence.

Don't leave me in suspense. Let me make some popcorn first.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Don't leave me in suspense. Let me make some popcorn first.

Start here.
http://www.tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

[arthwollipot]

Review of previous posts:

.................
arthwollipot's first paragraph answer to my statemnt implies that it is not true that evolutionists are trying to disprove God.

Yet in his next paragraph...what does he do but show that it is the Creationists account(God) that needs to be put in it's place.

Ummmm, ummmmmmmmm, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........no.

Personally I started discussing evolution when I realised that creationists were telling outright lies about it.

Read that bit again. Please. Think just a little bit about the referent to the preposition "it". What is is you think "it" is referring to in my paragraph?

Get it now? Creationists tell lies about evolution. People hear these lies, and believe them. But they are still lies. I talk about evolution to creationists to show people that the things that the creationists are saying about evolution are lies. God doesn't even enter into the discussion, unless it is brought up by a creationist - which, in my experience, it usually is. For example, someone recently said this in a thread about evolution:

The whole objective behind atheists bringing evolution into the discussion is with intent to prove there is no God.

It is the evolution-deniers and the creationists who bring God into the discussion, not me. I have no desire to disprove God. I even belive that it is impossible to disprove God, just like it's impossible to disprove the invisible dragon in my garage.

[godless dave]

?

A certain amount of evolution is believable. But do you really believe that we share a comon ancestor with a rose bush or those clear sea creatures that have bioluminescence?...and on and on?


Yes.


And think you can make it seem so by simply saying it took millions of years?


No. We make it seem so by presenting the overwhelming evidence that led scientists to conclude it.


?
Don't you think that just maybe there might be some truth to the creation story AND evolution, and they meet somehow in the middle?

Which creation story? There are thousands among all the cultures of the world.



You think our bodies, with every feature we have?...EVERY feature, and there are tons of them...just happened to create this machine that is far more complex than a robot?

No, evolution theory says nothing of the kind.

?
Nothing about how the world suits us as if we designed it for ourselves to provide us with every want and desire for our pleasure. Not just survival. The beauty, the abundance of stuff. Think about that beautiful vacation trip you took. Had noithing to do with adaption/survival. Luck? It is ALL luck?


Yes.

[jimbob]

Iamme, are you arguing that evolution was directed?

[articulett]

Iamme, are you arguing that evolution was directed?

Iamme is a long time creationist... maybe even young earth... he hasn't altered his views much in his long time here. He thinks because he can't understand the info., we must be outsmarting ourselves, when it's obvious that the simplest of facts are outsmarting him. I don't think he makes a lot of sense except to himself... but it is interesting how people keep the magic alive.

[Iamme]

Start here.
http://www.tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3

From your link above:



"Eukaryotes probably emerged from prokaryotic ancestry about 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago (Knoll, 1992). The evolutionary diversification of eukaryotes has involved invention of organelles, and their modification. "

...............

So? As I have been saying; what does all this prove? Don't you guys (and gals?) get it?

As WE can create RELATED items sharing common ingredients (even MODIFY chocolates and metals to suit our neds), as SEPARATE entities...such as brownies/chocolate cake, or kettles/frying pans...just because you guys learn that there are these "relationships" and that they modified...WHO was the modifier? There was a WHO you know. The entire process of this all happening is a result of some God-force at work. Things do not happen by themselves. Nothing else works this way, except you all embrace with open arms how things way more complex than the most complex things we have ever made, somehow decided for themselves to modify, adapt, or whatever words you care to give it...with no instructive energy force. You guys are all hung up on this GOD being this giant man in the sky that you think is a myth/fairly tale. Think 'instructive energy force', instead till I come up with maybe something more descript.

[steenkh]

So? As I have been saying; what does all this prove? Don't you guys (and gals?) get it?
You seem not to get what we are saying.

As WE can create RELATED items sharing common ingredients (even MODIFY chocolates and metals to suit our neds), as SEPARATE entities...such as brownies/chocolate cake, or kettles/frying pans...just because you guys learn that there are these "relationships" and that they modified...WHO was the modifier? There was a WHO you know. The entire process of this all happening is a result of some God-force at work.
In the example of brownies/chocolate or kettles/frying pans there is a WHO behind it, but in the case of biology, there is the evolutionary force which is a combination of mutations and selection, and there is not a WHO behind it.

Things do not happen by themselves.
You are right. It happens through evolution, which is not the same as things that happens of itself. You can say that evolution is the result of many other forces working together, such as influences that cause mutations, and the environment that cause selection.

[Dr Adequate]

From your link above:

"Eukaryotes probably emerged from prokaryotic ancestry about 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago (Knoll, 1992). The evolutionary diversification of eukaryotes has involved invention of organelles, and their modification. "

So? As I have been saying; what does all this prove? Well, if it is true, it proves that eukaryotes probably emerged from prokaryotic ancestry about 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago and that the evolutionary diversification of eukaryotes has involved invention of organelles, and their modification.

[Taffer]

A certain amount of evolution is believable. But do you really believe that we share a comon ancestor with a rose bush or those clear sea creatures that have bioluminescence?...and on and on? And think you can make it seem so by simply saying it took millions of years?

Yes. Because the genetic data is clear. Because the morphological data is clear. We aren't imagining it, Iamme. Evolution ocurred.

It is ALL luck?

No. It is luck, driven by selection.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So? As I have been saying; what does all this prove? Don't you guys (and gals?) get it?

{snip slighly crazy C/IDer rant}

Get what? That imperfect reproduction, genetic drift, symbiotic relationships, etc. resulted in prokaryotes evolving into eukaryotes and Eukaryotes evolving into roses and humans? What's so implausable about that, especially considering all the evidence we have.

Look up the Mixotrich paradoxus and get back to me.

[Iamme]

In the example of brownies/chocolate or kettles/frying pans there is a WHO behind it, but in the case of biology, there is the evolutionary force which is a combination of mutations and selection, and there is not a WHO behind it.




We'll never come to terms.

Of COURSE there is a higher power behind it all! It is to obvious.

Nothing else happens in the way everyone readily accepts evolution, just doing it... for no pre-thought-out reason. Nothing else builds stuff complex upon itself. And on top of that we have the interaction between us and other things that we can enjoy visually, with taste, with sound, with feel, etc.

Think about a star burning out in space. Now think about us, sitting at a computer... and also ipods and digital cameras and rockety ships to explore the very outreaches that we are curious about. All that happened merely as a result of stars? And one thing just led to the next with no superior mind behind it? COME OFF WITH IT!!!

[Taffer]

We'll never come to terms.

Of COURSE there is a higher power behind it all! It is to obvious.

Nothing else happens in the way everyone readily accepts evolution, just doing it... for no pre-thought-out reason. Nothing else builds stuff complex upon itself. And on top of that we have the interaction between us and other things that we can enjoy visually, with taste, with sound, with feel, etc.

Think about a star burning out in space. Now think about us, sitting at a computer... and also ipods and digital cameras and rockety ships to explore the very outreaches that we are curious about. All that happened merely as a result of stars? And one thing just led to the next with no superior mind behind it? COME OFF WITH IT!!!

Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity, Iamme? Are you saying that it can't possibly happen if you don't understand it?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Nothing else happens in the way everyone readily accepts evolution, just doing it... for no pre-thought-out reason. Nothing else builds stuff complex upon itself. And on top of that we have the interaction between us and other things that we can enjoy visually, with taste, with sound, with feel, etc.{snip crazy inappropriate C/IDer analogy

Ummm, so you're an advocate of Intelligent Vulcanology? Because the Hawaiian islands resulted from well known purely naturalistic processes which "built" the islands, and migration of species resulted in the ecosystem found on them which is complex, visually enjoyable, tasty in some cases, noisey in others and can be felt.

By your logic, God specifically placed the Pacific plate hot spot to "create" Hawaii and placed all of the species found there on it.

Actually, before you explain to me how we detect Intelligent Vulcanology, could you explain Intelligent Falling and Intelligent Raining to me first? I want to see how pervasive this ID concept goes in the realm of science.

[articulett]

After the chromosome fusion... close relatives would carry the same fusion in their gametes... and so they could mate successfully, while those who didn't have the fused chromosomes could not produce offspring with each other--okay it had to have been incestuous at first... but no matter how you slice it that's how much life came about and all life is, after all, related if you go back far enough in time.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/11/hypothesis-first-degree-inbreeding.html

[steenkh]

We'll never come to terms.
I think you are right-

Of COURSE there is a higher power behind it all! It is to obvious.
It is not obvious to me.

Nothing else happens in the way everyone readily accepts evolution, just doing it... for no pre-thought-out reason.
What do you mean by "nothing else" in this case? I would say that practically everything happens for no reason at all: Everything outside the Solar system, and even here on Earth, most things happens without humans being involved.

Nothing else builds stuff complex upon itself.
OK, so life is special. But we do not know how special, given that we do not have access to the forces and almost unlimited time that we think is needed to produce life. We know that the possibility of life is greater than zero, because we know life has happened once, but it could also be a certainty, or anything in between. Added to this is the fact that there is not a trace of evidence that there exists supernatural forces that could have produced life in any other way.

And on top of that we have the interaction between us and other things that we can enjoy visually, with taste, with sound, with feel, etc.

I do not see the point you are trying to make here.

Think about a star burning out in space. Now think about us, sitting at a computer... and also ipods and digital cameras and rockety ships to explore the very outreaches that we are curious about. All that happened merely as a result of stars?
What do you mean 'merely'? At a friend's house, last year his cellar was flooded, and water ruined everything, including much electrical equipment on the upper floors because of an electrical shorting and false wiring. And all this merely because of rain?

And one thing just led to the next with no superior mind behind it? COME OFF WITH IT!!!
Yes, you are right, we will not meet here. I see lots of things happen, and nowhere do I see even the slightest hint of a superior mind, and for that matter, at many activities here on Earth I hardly recognise even an inferior mind.

[krazyKemist]

So? As I have been saying; what does all this prove? Don't you guys (and gals?) get it?

As WE can create RELATED items sharing common ingredients (even MODIFY chocolates and metals to suit our neds), as SEPARATE entities...such as brownies/chocolate cake, or kettles/frying pans...just because you guys learn that there are these "relationships" and that they modified...WHO was the modifier? There was a WHO you know. .

Does that mean chemical reactions needs somebody to make them happen ? To put the little molecules together ? Crap ! I guess I'll have to stay late in lab tonight...:)

No seriously, if a scientist becomes content with a "God did it", why should he investigate ? Why should he do science at all ?

Science is done in the mind that all phenomena can be explained using natural/physical laws. Now you will ask "who" designed the laws ? That, you see, is the domain of philosophy and religion. You can say it's god if you wish. It does not change them, and their application.

If you get cancer, for example, science is about trying to understand how it happened, and how it works, so that a doctor understands how to cure you. Not why happened to you, or why this suffering happens to humans. Those are philosophical/religious questions.

Most people who do not know science think that the questions and understanding somehow demean the beauty of what is observed. I can tell you from my experience, and from most of the other scientists I know, that this is not the case. I even think I'm better placed, knowing all these things, to appreciate the beauty and uniqueness of life.

Science is not out to prove there is a god or not. It does not care whether there is a god.

the Kemist

[fishbob]

arthwollipot's first paragraph answer to my statemnt implies that it is not true that evolutionists are trying to disprove God.

Yet in his next paragraph...what does he do but show that it is the Creationists account(God) that needs to be put in it's place.


Two entirely different concepts conflated, perhaps deliberately.

1 above - Evolutionists, in general, could barely care less about god. Your statement is indeed not true.

2 above - Yes indeedy, the creationists account of god needs to be refuted because the creationists are a bunch of lying weasels.

I know that grasping concepts is difficult for some, but did you notice how 'refuting lying weasels' and 'disproving god' are in no way similar?

[articulett]

Two entirely different concepts conflated, perhaps deliberately.

1 above - Evolutionists, in general, could barely care less about god. Your statement is indeed not true.

2 above - Yes indeedy, the creationists account of god needs to be refuted because the creationists are a bunch of lying weasels.

I know that grasping concepts is difficult for some, but did you notice how 'refuting lying weasels' and 'disproving god' are in no way similar?

I just want to say that you make slogging through Iamme posts worth it.

[articulett]

Yes, you are right, we will not meet here. I see lots of things happen, and nowhere do I see even the slightest hint of a superior mind, and for that matter, at many activities here on Earth I hardly recognise even an inferior mind.

Moreover, why do the believers in the superior mind always seem to be the ones with an inferior mind?

[Iamme]

[Sorry but something happened to the computer and it is not accepting my "loged in" status to be able to quote...at least on this post.]

Taffer said:

"Have you ever heard of the Argument from Incredulity, Iamme? Are you saying that it can't possibly happen if you don't understand it? "
__________________

Let's turn the tables. Believing it happened with no guiding hand is QUITE incredible, no?

I'm a reasonable person. Not a fundy kook. I have tried to look at all this objectively. I have considered that our universe is nearly, as far as to mankind's size, infinite.

That could mean that nature has been experimenting in the cosmos trillions of times. I've considered this. That may explain why there are other planets, that are not totally barren, either. Why there are other planets just in OUR solar system that have ice, gases, etc. It is a start. Not life, but at least they share certain things we do. It shows that there is/was a dynamic creation process out there that was not just restricted to the Earth.

Billions of planets are probably out there, which means then that the probabilities increase that stars, churning out light, heat, gases...burning-up and leaving other heavier metals behind, and whatever all that happens that leads to planets, carbon, etc.,...that just maybe there could be other anamolies out there that start replicating our situation here on Earth.

Is this plausible?, I've asked myself. COULD it really be that life like this was bound to happen, all by itself?, out of the sheer chances due to perhaps trillions of interactions going on in space?, I have wondered...to try to be fair and objective about all this?

Could it be that we can't comprehend infinity (or 'near-infinity', I'll call it) to be able to grasp the possibility that there is a planet out there that mirrors ours, except for say on July 2nd, 2,879,785,356 (year after planet created), that everything was the same on our planet as THAT planet, but there was only ONE difference, and on that day, some creature on that planet had a hair wiggle a different way. (Do you understand this paragraph? What I am getting at is a grasp of infinity. In infinity, it be consceivably plausible, very hard to grasp though, that you could have 2 planets that developed, that out of all the possible combinations of different ways they COULD have developed, that they developed identically to have all the same plants, creatures, water...everything the same, except one day a wave tumbled differently, or a hair was blown differently.)

As I see it, this is the only plausible answer to how all this magnificense could have happened, if there is no God; that the sheer immensity of it all allowed it to happen.

But do *I* believe this explanation IS plausibe,...seriously?

No.

Why not ?

Different reasons. Not only the sheer complexity of just ONE item (say, us) on earth, but the complexity of everything. The complexity of things that are unrelated. The complexity of how things just so happen to uniformally and harmoniously work as a unit.

Take man: Man has 6 trillion cells (although if one man weighs 300# and the next man weighs 150#... :) ). Say each cell rivals the number of stars and planets in the whole universe. But then each of these cells is like a factory in and of itself and nobody can grasp how the human cell works, I don't think. But then add to this complexity the complexity that all these cells are positioned to perform certain tasks in certain parts of the body and perform unbelievable function. Then consider the relationship between us and how what we have at our disposable to work with......

How we are supplied with food and water. And that this food and water also nurtures trees. Trees we cut down for wood and use for houses. And how this odd organic material does not wither up as some plant would when cut! (How LUCKY for us, eh?) So then we are smart and cut down a tree to use for building a house. Then it so happens that we have nails, glue, steel for nuts and bolts to use, and we just so happen to have an earth that provides us to have sand to make glass (how odd glass is when you think about how colored stuff can melt to make clear stuff), and then we have stuff for cement, asphalt, sheetrock, swimming pools, furnaces, a/c units, refrigerators, light bulbs, fans, radios, t'v.s, computers, water heaters, washing machines, dryers, lawn mowers...I could go on and on with just the HOUSE aspect. We're not just talking how LUCKY it would be that we'd have a planet that would provide us with shelter,... say a straw hut. But look around your house and all that is in it that goes way beyond survival.

Now that is just the house. Now consider transportation. It be a luxury, a gift, that we have 2 legs to get to where we want to go. A horse would be spectacular. But no. Get ready for more: We have all the stuff to make sophisticated cars out of. And luckily the fuel to run them. Then we have asphalt and concrete to make real nice roads out of (not a necessity either, but these are more luxurious again, than dirt roads), then we have all the materials to make signs, reflectors, sensors for traffic lights, police with radar equipment, tire gauges so we can check our tires, compression and vacuum gauges to check the performance of our engines. Etc. I could go on and on again, about just transportation, that is light years ahead of our simple ability to get from point a to point b.

Now I have just convered a smidgeon on houses and cars and how these greatly add to the luxury of our living. I could similarly go on and on with other stuff: Like water; crafts, play toys, pools, scuba equipment, re-breathers, insulated wet-suits, ......Cruise ships! You ever watch tv shows on all that is involved and on-board a cruise ship?; and we're not talking survival here, either! Military water craft! On and on!

The odds keep increasing, in my mind anyway, that start putting the odds at all this stuff just happneing at even more than what any huge closed universe could possibly produce, without a designer. It is way, way too much spendid things that have had to occur and work in harmony for our pleasure. Yes, pleasure, not just survival. Porridge and huts, and riding a horse is closer to survival. But we are WAY beyond survival.

This stuff was put here for us to discover... to live in eternal bliss! (in the end) That is why we are here on Earth! Our mission is to become so in-tuned with creation and what it offers us that we can solve everything, and become more in a state of bliss the more we learn and solve, to the point we come full circle and become Gods, as we ARE of God. That is why all this is. The end game will be our discovery of other planets, other peoples, seeded in the universe, the sharing of knowledge, all information will be learned, all diseases and death will be no more. That is the end result of the universe. It has been there the whole time, for us to discover. For all information is contained within the eternal God-force. It is profoundly metaphorically Biblical.

[Iamme]

Moreover, why do the believers in the superior mind always seem to be the ones with an inferior mind?

You are then implying that peope who believe in evoltuion as the ROOT CAUSE to all life existance, have the superior minds? Says who? And what is the percentage disparity? Haven't there been lots of scientists and astronauts who acknowlege after they have beheld outer space and look back at the Earth, as some jewel in the sky, that surely there must be a God?

If you simply try to disect the religious argument with evolution, without looking at the complete picture... deciphering the root cause that even allowed evolution... then you aren't being knowledgeable, intelligent or truthful about the whole thing.

[The Atheist]

Iamme - please start a thread elsewhere - this is NOT the place to be arguing your beliefs.

Thanks.

[fishkr]

[QUOTE=Iamme;2925912I'm a reasonable person. Not a fundy kook. I have tried to look at all this objectively. I have considered that our universe is nearly, as far as to mankind's size, infinite.

For all information is contained within the eternal God-force. It is profoundly metaphorically Biblical.[/QUOTE]

You are, in fact, a fundy Kook, by your own words. Read more, find out what "peer reviewed" means, and don't bother us with this ridiculous drivel until then.

M

[Dr Adequate]

Iamme - please start a thread elsewhere - this is NOT the place to be arguing your beliefs.

Thanks. Yeah, Iamme, what he said.

---

P.S: this is kind of tangential but I just wrote Laws of Nature, to go in the Principles of Science section. Again, please let me know what you all think.

[articulett]

You are then implying that peope who believe in evoltuion as the ROOT CAUSE to all life existance, have the superior minds? Says who? And what is the percentage disparity? Haven't there been lots of scientists and astronauts who acknowlege after they have beheld outer space and look back at the Earth, as some jewel in the sky, that surely there must be a God?

If you simply try to disect the religious argument with evolution, without looking at the complete picture... deciphering the root cause that even allowed evolution... then you aren't being knowledgeable, intelligent or truthful about the whole thing.

Yes... I think that those who understand evolution are superior minds by far. They also tend to spell better, reason better, have better grammar, be more honest and less arrogant. Your astronaut observation is irrelevant... There are plenty of people who accept evolution and believe in a god-- less now, because, god seems rather a bumbler now that we see DNA up close. I can't even understand what you are trying to say, but I bet most people would have trouble parsing your sentences. I am quite knowledgeable, intelligent, and truthful-- especially when it comes to evolution. Religionists seldom are. Francis Collins is a notable exception. Evolution doesn't rule out God-- but all of science rules out young earth creationist and the facts are not illustrative of any sort of intelligent design or guided process--too much waste, weird cobbled together appendages, vistigial structures, old genes now nonfunctional, and the like. Too much suffering... too many gametes...

Moreover we know humans have been inventing explanations for eons when they don't understand things. Gods and demons have been very popular-- souls and ghosts too-- angels and fairies and sprites and incubi are also popular-- little green men or grays are recent delusions...

But so far, there is no evidence that any of these things exist... In FACT-- despite eons of belief we haven't even got an iota of measurable evidence to show that any kind of consciousness can exist outside a brain. Neurons seem to be a requirement for consciousness and the invisible immeasurable entities people make up don't seem to have them-- in fact, they are amazingly indistinguishable from the known ways people have been deluded.

Get a clue. If believing your sky buddy makes you feel special and superior, you might not want to proselytize here. You really are poorly equipped across the board and like all woo you are too stupid to know whom you might learn from while being certain that it's you who have something to tell us.

But you do amuse. And you are persistent. Completely meme infected... but it's a nice reminder to be grateful that I'm not.

[Miss Anthrope]

Per repeated requests, these derails have been split out of the original thread and moved to religion, as they lean more toward that aspect. This is still a public area and I request adherence to the MA, emphasis on rules 11 and 12.

[The Atheist]

Well, I'm going to make one post only in this thread, to note that it should in fact, be a nonexistent thread...

Given that there are no facts at all which support either creationism or ID.

Enjoy