Rambuchan
The Funky President
That's natural selection in action for ya folks! 
*grips the rock and takes aim on the remainder*
*grips the rock and takes aim on the remainder*
Do you beileve in evolution? Why or why not?
- Thread starter Xanikk999
- Start date
Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Everybody needs a hobby
Xanikk999
History junkie
^ I had deja vu about those last two posts. 
I believe that 'selfish DNA' is a huge cause of our actions.
In fact, one could say that my viewpoints on life/death are a natural fit for the theory that my DNA is coded such that I seek to preserve the integrity of my DNA.
In fact, one could say that my viewpoints on life/death are a natural fit for the theory that my DNA is coded such that I seek to preserve the integrity of my DNA.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course I believe in evolution! Only ID wackjobs don't, and that is because their more gullible than the Heaven's Gate cult.
Abaddon
Deity
I know evolution to be the reason for all the diversity around me. It doesnt explain very well how things began.. or where the world came from.
people seem to forget that.. all it is about is how species are not eternal (as the bible says) and were not all plonked down on earth.
On the 7th day god rested, Chuck Norris took over
people seem to forget that.. all it is about is how species are not eternal (as the bible says) and were not all plonked down on earth.
On the 7th day god rested, Chuck Norris took over
shadow2k
Emperor
Let's get something straight right now. The Theory of Evolution does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. Nor does it attempt to answer the question of how life began.
The ToE is a working theory that explains how life changes from generation to generation. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for "holes" in the ToE, be very careful with this one. As it can easily be turned against you. But the assertion that we know nothing because we don't know everything is absurd. There are many, many facts that do point towards evolution. Can you say the same about your own theory or belief?
The thing about science is that it answers questions the best we can based on the evidence we have. When new evidence comes to light, often times our explanations need to be changed to fit this new evidence. Does your theory or belief change based on proven facts, or does it ignore these things, and assert that everything is already known...and has been for thousands of years?
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Dogma. Rufus (Chris Rock) says, "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."
The ToE is a working theory that explains how life changes from generation to generation. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for "holes" in the ToE, be very careful with this one. As it can easily be turned against you. But the assertion that we know nothing because we don't know everything is absurd. There are many, many facts that do point towards evolution. Can you say the same about your own theory or belief?
The thing about science is that it answers questions the best we can based on the evidence we have. When new evidence comes to light, often times our explanations need to be changed to fit this new evidence. Does your theory or belief change based on proven facts, or does it ignore these things, and assert that everything is already known...and has been for thousands of years?
Reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Dogma. Rufus (Chris Rock) says, "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
'Reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Dogma. Rufus (Chris Rock) says, "I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier."'
That's a good a quote. I've seen that movie a few times, but not in the last few years. I'll remember that one
That's a good a quote. I've seen that movie a few times, but not in the last few years. I'll remember that one
Shaihulud
Deity
Well I answered without reading through the whole thread.
I don't know why noone corrected you, it should be left-handed. Sugars on the other hand is right handed. No protein is ever synthesized without the benefit of a biological process, most of this process is called life. All life on Earth produce 'left-handed" protein or amino acid, therefore it can be theorized that the first RNA or DNA produced "left-handed" protein and that all life are descended from that ancient branch through process of evolution.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Where did you get this "googol" idea? I don't think there is any reason to believe that god was needed to get life started. Gradual chemical processes very likely started life.VRWCAgent said:
Heh! Just a big honkin' number, nothing more. I could have said 1 in a million, or any other rather large number, but I figured, "Hey, go for the gusto and pick a truly huge number."Perfection said:
You're right, by the way. Gradual chemical processes did very likely start life. God was behind those gradual chemical processes.
If something has a "one in a [hugenumber]" chance to occur, we can't simply say "Well, it's so unlikely that it must've been God." There are several problems with this:
Firstly, how do we determine the statistical odds of a creator existing or creating? We may calculate the odds of abiogenesis as being one in a googol, yet what if the odds of a creator existing are even slimmer? We can't begin to calculate that and work out which is more likely. To say one thing is more likely than the other, we need to know how likely both are. To simply dismiss one as unlikely and default on the other is a fallacy.
Secondly, an impossibility is not the same as an improbability. It is rational and logical to say "There is a one in a googol chance that this event happened; yet, here we are, so therefore it did." It is more sensible than the alternative "There is a one in a googol chance this event happened; therefore, it did not."
Finally, at what point do we stop putting God behind the process? We discover animal life, and so we place God behind it. Then we determine animal life is the work of evolution, so we place God behind evolution. This is the extent of our knowledge, but let's say that (theoretically) we may determine that evolution is the work of abiogenesis or exogenesis. Do we place God behind both these events? At what point does God become unnecessary, and we simply include God, without any reasoning, to satisfy our need for an equation that requires God?
Firstly, how do we determine the statistical odds of a creator existing or creating? We may calculate the odds of abiogenesis as being one in a googol, yet what if the odds of a creator existing are even slimmer? We can't begin to calculate that and work out which is more likely. To say one thing is more likely than the other, we need to know how likely both are. To simply dismiss one as unlikely and default on the other is a fallacy.
Secondly, an impossibility is not the same as an improbability. It is rational and logical to say "There is a one in a googol chance that this event happened; yet, here we are, so therefore it did." It is more sensible than the alternative "There is a one in a googol chance this event happened; therefore, it did not."
Finally, at what point do we stop putting God behind the process? We discover animal life, and so we place God behind it. Then we determine animal life is the work of evolution, so we place God behind evolution. This is the extent of our knowledge, but let's say that (theoretically) we may determine that evolution is the work of abiogenesis or exogenesis. Do we place God behind both these events? At what point does God become unnecessary, and we simply include God, without any reasoning, to satisfy our need for an equation that requires God?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
No, I don't not believe in evolution because it is actually scientific, and I don't believe in science or technology. Thats why I am using my telepathy to connect to the internet and post this message and not the fancy-smancy Fiber Optic cables that you pagans use.
Where is the proof for the Bible being the divine word of God? It has no more proof than any other religious text, so therefore, if the Bible is it's own proof, all other religious scriptures are true. If all religious scriptures are true, then all other religious scriptures are false. We have ourselves a paradox.
Perfection
The Great Head.
In what why was god behind those, chemical processes?VRWCAgent said:Heh! Just a big honkin' number, nothing more. I could have said 1 in a million, or any other rather large number, but I figured, "Hey, go for the gusto and pick a truly huge number."
You're right, by the way. Gradual chemical processes did very likely start life. God was behind those gradual chemical processes.
Okay, we're getting off track here, and quite frankly I just answered that question in a different thread. I believe in evolution, but I think it was guided/put in motion/whatever by God. There, I answered the thread question.
EDIT: To perfection: How should I know? I wasn't there when God did all of this.
EDIT: To perfection: How should I know? I wasn't there when God did all of this.
I do not believe in macro-evolution. A few billions years is not enough for the kind of end result we\ve got, pluss the puzzle pieces would have to bridge wide chasms.
And then there\s the breath of life, which is a religious argument, but I believe the two former arguments should suffice.
And then there\s the breath of life, which is a religious argument, but I believe the two former arguments should suffice.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Perfection said:
Perfection, see its evident to me that you just don't understand Religion and the concept of faith altogether. Why was god behind those chemical processes? Well, why wasn't he?
Why the subject of God and divinity, its sometimes not applicable to ask why because alot of the time the answer with regards to God is "It just was" or "He made it that way".
People who are part of the a religion believe because they have faith it is true and you can't really prove their doctrine false. Your basic assumption that everything has to have a scientific explanation is an assumptionn we don't believe in.
For the record, I do believe in evolution, but not abiogenesis as in the Pastuer model.
Similar threads
- Poll
