Masquerouge
Deity
Plus, Behe conveniently ignore the fact that the eye has evolved dozens of time throughout evolution - in insects, in fishes, in batracians, in mammals... There is not just one eye.
Evolution?
- Thread starter Chandrasekhar
- Start date
Plus, Behe conveniently ignore the fact that the eye has evolved dozens of time throughout evolution - in insects, in fishes, in batracians, in mammals... There is not just one eye.
Behe's persistance with the concept of irreducible complexity was laughable. Im not sure if it was Behe or not, but many similar intelligent design supporters like to claim there are no mutations that are favorable to any organism's survival, that they are either neutral or detrimental. That is a load of baloney in itself. Flowers that have mutations in relation to genes that code for certain pigments to be present will have a great potential for attracting a variety of pollinators that are honed in to the new color of the plant species.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
Not only that, you come from your parents doing the dirty!
Worse: you came from your grandparents doing the dirty!
Bluemofia
F=ma
Speaking of irreducible complexity, irreducible complexity has been proven to exist, and it has been proven to evolve with computer simulations. (Avida). They have evolved 1 in a trillion chance computer programs in reasonable time just by having the programs start out with 2 capabilities: Copy themselves. And make occasional mistakes while copying.
I haven't the time to respond to everything in detail here, but I support the Theory of Evolution (not Darwinism--that's a made-up word by creationists to make this theory look a little more like somebody's opinion than solid science and also ignore the other biologists of the 19th and 20th centuries).
However, you may be interested to know that according to the Miller-Urey experiments, compounds vital to organic life form within what was proposed to be the early Earth's atmosphere. Then, they discovered the formula for that early atmosphere was wrong...so they repeated the experiment with the corrected atmosphere. Lo and behold, they had a higher yield (!). The skeptics are claiming the atmosphere is incorrect again...but I have to wonder what would happen if they try the Miller-Urey experiment again with yet another atmosphere.
Also, if you have a bunch of slightly polar lipids (essentially what your cell membranes are made of), they will spontaneously form a bubble that regulates its internal conditions due to the semi-permeable nature of the lipids. It's surprising, but the implication is that if you have the organic molecules present, they will naturally form something that looks like a cell. My now-deceased biology professor referred to it as "soap bubble metabolism".
As far as I can tell, there is no way to know yet what happens after these "soap bubbles" form and come in contact with all those elementary amino acids that have formed, etc., but you have to wonder. It seems as if another piece to the puzzle is discovered every year...I'm waiting for the big breakthrough. Whoever makes it gets a Nobel Prize!
All in all, even if an event is highly improbable, the probability of it occuring increases with successive repetitions. And, with billions of years, there is plenty of time for quite a few repetitions.
Bluemofia
F=ma
Basically you can't state an event is impossible if it is improbable on a small scale.
Which brings me to something I've noticed that people often use as an argument. Just because we haven't discovered something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or if we haven't seen it, it doesn't happen. Someone once claimed that comets do not form because we have not seen one form, basically implying that we humans are at the peak of our knowledge, and we are omniscient, effectively implying that we are god.
Which brings me to something I've noticed that people often use as an argument. Just because we haven't discovered something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or if we haven't seen it, it doesn't happen. Someone once claimed that comets do not form because we have not seen one form, basically implying that we humans are at the peak of our knowledge, and we are omniscient, effectively implying that we are god.
Thank you so much for posting that! I agree whole-heartedly. The concept of the unknown is accounted for in science, but is not in religion--because God or some other divine being(s) are responsible for everything.
Bluemofia
F=ma
Yes. God of gaps arguments.
From lightning, to germs, to evolution. Everyone at that time claims that the previous was just people not educated, and don't know any better, but now they are. Wonder what will be next.
From lightning, to germs, to evolution. Everyone at that time claims that the previous was just people not educated, and don't know any better, but now they are. Wonder what will be next.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
My bets are on conscious thought. That's the next "big" thing in line as far as I'm concerned.
Pegasos
Deities' Favourite Horse
Answered 5. Not beliveing in evolution but intelligent design, god etc. is just thinking: "I don´t like the idea that I´m just a product of random evolution. I think there must be a meaning, some reason why I´m here." Human has always searched for the meaning of life. It seems to be impossible for someones to realize there is no special meaning for us to exist, just staying alive long enough to breed descendants as much as possible. Due to that evolution has created survival instincts to every being, and human has some more "sophisticated" instincts bacause of bigger brains. One of those instincts is believing that there´s a special reason for human to live. It keeps us trying to live as long as possible and keeps us organized. Religions are based on this, and some scientists have proved that members of any religion live longer than those who don´t. So believing in god keeps us alive longer causing us to breed more descendants and the race survives.
I´ve thought: "Well, it´s practical to be a believer, but it´s hard to truly believe in any upper force when right side of my brains are rebelling against it"
PS: Praying really helps, it relaxes the mind and you´ll forget your worries and duties.
I´ve thought: "Well, it´s practical to be a believer, but it´s hard to truly believe in any upper force when right side of my brains are rebelling against it"
PS: Praying really helps, it relaxes the mind and you´ll forget your worries and duties.
Answered 5. Not beliveing in evolution but intelligent design, god etc. is just thinking: "I don´t like the idea that I´m just a product of random evolution. I think there must be a meaning, some reason why I´m here." Human has always searched for the meaning of life. It seems to be impossible for someones to realize there is no special meaning for us to exist, just staying alive long enough to breed descendants as much as possible. Due to that evolution has created survival instincts to every being, and human has some more "sophisticated" instincts bacause of bigger brains. One of those instincts is believing that there´s a special reason for human to live. It keeps us trying to live as long as possible and keeps us organized. Religions are based on this, and some scientists have proved that members of any religion live longer than those who don´t. So believing in god keeps us alive longer causing us to breed more descendants and the race survives.
I´ve thought: "Well, it´s practical to be a believer, but it´s hard to truly believe in any upper force when right side of my brains are rebelling against it"
PS: Praying really helps, it relaxes the mind and you´ll forget your worries and duties.
So you reject evolution and accept intelligent design purely off of an emotional fullfillment basis?
No, he says that he doesn't reject evolution, and gives an explanation for why people accept intelligent design and reject evolution. The first sentence of his post says that he answered #5 (Agreement with the theory of evolution). 
No, he says that he doesn't reject evolution, and gives an explanation for why people accept intelligent design and reject evolution. The first sentence of his post says that he answered #5 (Agreement with the theory of evolution).
Oh, I didn't realize it was a summary of what ID people think
My bad Pegasos
CartesianFart
Deity
Why can't teachers in public school say of creationism and other theories are only simple meta-narratives at best.Sad,that most public schools do not teach philosophy as a compulsory course for all students in my country.It will surely allows the kids for the next generation to understand and the freedom to choose whatever narrative that is beneficial for their own choosing and allow tolerance for others having different ones of their own.
The fact is, if they want to teach creationism, they should put it in a college theology class or an ancient literature class where it belongs. Not in a science class.
I whole-heartedly agree with teaching a philosophy class--I took one as a random elective to meet an ethics requirement...and I never regretted it. It's really a great experience.
I whole-heartedly agree with teaching a philosophy class--I took one as a random elective to meet an ethics requirement...and I never regretted it. It's really a great experience.
Pegasos
Deities' Favourite Horse
The problem of creatonism as an ideology is that it only tries to transfer christianity to a science. So now christianity is a scientical theory like evolution, but it should be considered only as a religion. This problem seems to be only in United States where christianity is much more daily and part of every day life, while in Europe any kind of religion is commonly separated from every day life (southern catholic Europe makes an exception). So in Europe science and religion are strongly separated and in US they are not so separated making people think that intelligent design is science as much as evolution thory, which is not true. There is no scientifical evidence that any intelligent being could have created and shaped life. Life can be totally explained by evolution theory, but that doesn´t stop people from believing in God, Allah, Brahman or any other such thing.
They would argue it's not just Christianity, that many religions have creation myths and therefore there must be some common creation that everybody draws a myth from. I would say that just because every civilization on Earth made up stories of where they came from does not change the fact the evidence indicates we developed over billions of years and not simply appeared fully grown one day 6,000 years ago.
The fact is, the "evidence" that creationists typically put forth is "Wow, this is so complicated there is no way I could understand it. God must have done it." Well, that's not evidence, that's surrender. Thanks creationists, great game.
Now, if anybody finds God's copyright stamped on every single living being, saying "I, the Christian (or any other religion) God created all life on Earth and Evolution is complete BS", then I would get suspicious...
The fact is, the "evidence" that creationists typically put forth is "Wow, this is so complicated there is no way I could understand it. God must have done it." Well, that's not evidence, that's surrender. Thanks creationists, great game.
Now, if anybody finds God's copyright stamped on every single living being, saying "I, the Christian (or any other religion) God created all life on Earth and Evolution is complete BS", then I would get suspicious...
The problem with teaching (and easily discrediting) Creationism, even as an exercise, is that it specifically targets a major religion and shows how the (previously) popular interpretation of their text is false.
It seems kinda mean. It would be like stating that some people believe that people evolved from clams, and then proving that we weren't. It's just not necessary.
It seems kinda mean. It would be like stating that some people believe that people evolved from clams, and then proving that we weren't. It's just not necessary.
But their religion is targeting science. If it was purely theological/philosophical in its claims, there would be no reason to be so harsh with it, but they try to manipulate science in blatantly false ways to fit their religious agenda.
