This was the old evolution thread, go to the new thread to post

[Darkblack]

If you believe in god and there is no god you sacrafice little but, if you don't believe in god and god exists you sacrafice your eternal soul.

And this right here is my proof that their is no god and if there is he is not YOUR GOD.

Any being that would create all that we know would not make me able to think and reason only to damn me to hell for not having enough fact to believe in him.

I am not afraid of your god.

[Mountain Dew]

My friend made me believe in both Creationism, Evolution, and all of that.

His theory was that time extended infinitely backwards and forwards, so there was never a start or a stop - It just 'is'.
Assuming that evolution always happens, and if time happens infinitely back, then something had to happen before us, and that's where theirs the idea of a higher being. Humans are higher then say, a dog. So what's to say that the higher being isn't just a more evolved version of us? In theory it could work if you somehow find a way around the big bang/crunch theory. I believe this theory, and with creationism, if something extends that far back, we can't be the first to figure out gene therapy, and all that other exciting and fun stuff, so we could also be the spawn of the 'higher creature' in our or someone else's evolution scale.

Also, with this idea, the higher being always has a higher being above that, and there's always a lower being in the future below us, so there's no 'true' higher being, just those that show themselves above humans, or whichever is above them.

[THE MAC GOD]

interesting article...

http://www.msnbc.com/news/935413.asp?0ql=c9p

[sportsrule101]

Man's logic is failed (including mine), he will never figure out how the universe came to be with his current logic, and mental abilities. The only way he will know is if he evolves into a creature with a different unknown logic pattern, or he goes and meet a "creator" in the next life. My guess is something started the pattern, because i have never heard a completly sound reason for how matter was created from nothing.

[papermachesatan]

Originally posted by sportsrule101
Man's logic is failed (including mine), he will never figure out how the universe came to be with his current logic, and mental abilities. The only way he will know is if he evolves into a creature with a different unknown logic pattern, or he goes and meet a "creator" in the next life.

The belief of a God comes from Man's illogic. Logically, there is no reason to believe in a God. You also strike me as someone with an ego; because you can't figure out how the universe came about, "no one possibly could either".

My guess is something started the pattern, because i have never heard a completly sound reason for how matter was created from nothing.

According to the theory of relativity, time began with the Big Bang. For that reason, all the matter in the universe already existed when time began. As a result, there was no matter created from nothing.

[bermuDa]

why does there have to be a beginning to the universe? can't we just accept that time is cyclical and the universe has always been, and probably always will be?

[debaser]

We could accept that, but is it true?

[THE MAC GOD]

It's funny you say that because you say it like you know it is fact. There is no more probability that is true than the Universe was created...

Originally posted by bermuDa
why does there have to be a beginning to the universe? can't we just accept that time is cyclical and the universe has always been, and probably always will be?

[bermuDa]

just about every natural process is a cycle in some form or another, why wouldn't that extend to the depths of space? I'd say the probability of that is greater than the creationist argument of 'there's a higher spiritual being who decided to create the universe, the earth, and all creatures on it just for us humans, his "greatest" creation'

[merkerguitars]

I believe in a little bit of both...but i dont' have a definitive answer do too lack of evidence to support either side.

[DR_DEATH]

Okay, here is the theory i subscibe to about how OUR universe as we know it came to be. Scientists have recently been theorising over what is called a "white" hole. I the centre of our galaxy, there is a great big mass of stars and matter, seemingly coming out of nowhere. But matter is also dissapearing. Black holes suck matter in, they even suck light in. Scientists believe that there are other universes, and we are just one black holes "stomach", what is in our universe is what the black hole has eaten. The matter comes in FROM the black hole on the other side thru a WHITE hole, which spews matter, light and energy everywhere. The black holes in our universe are believed to lead into other universes, and so forth. Our big bang may have just been the creation of the black hole on the other side, and henceforth the creation of our universe. I am a big believer in evolution, there is no way in hell any entity would create such an imperfect thing that is our universe. Anyone wishing to challenge me, feel free to do so

[debaser]

Originally posted by DR_DEATH
Okay, here is the theory i subscibe to about how OUR universe as we know it came to be. Scientists have recently been theorising over what is called a "white" hole. I the centre of our galaxy, there is a great big mass of stars and matter, seemingly coming out of nowhere. But matter is also dissapearing. Black holes suck matter in, they even suck light in. Scientists believe that there are other universes, and we are just one black holes "stomach", what is in our universe is what the black hole has eaten. The matter comes in FROM the black hole on the other side thru a WHITE hole, which spews matter, light and energy everywhere. The black holes in our universe are believed to lead into other universes, and so forth. Our big bang may have just been the creation of the black hole on the other side, and henceforth the creation of our universe. I am a big believer in evolution, there is no way in hell any entity would create such an imperfect thing that is our universe. Anyone wishing to challenge me, feel free to do so

A very elegant theory, but unfortunately that is not how Black Holes work.

Black holes are local phenomenon. Universes are somewhat larger.

A Black Hole is just a collapsed neutron star. Although it is refered to as a "singularity", the term is a misnomer. It has a definite volume, and that volume grows as it accumulates matter from other objects.

The only theory similar to yours(and one not adhered to by many, I might add) regarding what happens to a Black Hole is that eventualy the matter (and therefore energy) contained in the singularity reaches a "critical mass" of sorts and manifests as a quasar. Again, let me stress the disclaimer that there is very little hard science behind this, it is speculation at best.

[sportsrule101]

Originally posted by papermachesatan

According to the theory of relativity, time began with the Big Bang. For that reason, all the matter in the universe already existed when time began. As a result, there was no matter created from nothing. [/B]

Where did the matter come from to create "time"

[B]The belief of a God comes from Man's illogic. Logically, there is no reason to believe in a God. You also strike me as someone with an ego; because you can't figure out how the universe came about, "no one possibly could either".

Those were not my words "no one possibly could either". I just think that mans logic is flawed in some unforseeable way. No man has solved where we have come from yet, so its not just me who can't figure it out, its you as well. Theory of relativity, is still just that a theory. creation hasn't been proven. nothing has been proven yet.

[papermachesatan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sportsrule101

Where did the matter come from to create "time"

err rephrase the question please. Matter didn't create time...

Those were not my words "no one possibly could either"

Originally posted by sportsrule101 Man's logic is failed (including mine), he will never figure out how the universe came to be with his current logic, and mental abilities. The only way he will know is if he evolves into a creature with a different unknown logic pattern, or he goes and meet a "creator" in the next life.

Read the bold text. You stated that you and the rest of humanity can't figure out how the universe was created. I just was paraphrasing what you said.

I just think hink that mans logic is flawed in some unforseeable way.

Wtf do you mean by "man's logic"?

No man has solved where we have come from yet, so its not just me who can't figure it out, its you as well. Theory of relativity, is still just that a theory. creation hasn't been proven. nothing has been proven yet.

I quote John Rennie:

Originally posted by John Rennie
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

[DR_DEATH]

debaser
your quote regarding black holes. Scientists claim that in the very centre of the galaxy is a giant black hole, which, along with all the little black holes, suck matter, energy, pretty much anything that comes too close. According to Newton Magazine, white holes are not a local phenomenon, but exist in ares of space that are too cluttered to examine thoroughly.

[debaser]

debaser
your quote regarding black holes. Scientists claim that in the very centre of the galaxy is a giant black hole, which, along with all the little black holes, suck matter, energy, pretty much anything that comes too close. According to Newton Magazine, white holes are not a local phenomenon, but exist in ares of space that are too cluttered to examine thoroughly.

By local I was refering not to objects nearby, but rather a definable point, which is absent in the case of a "white hole", ie local vs. global (or in this case universal).

The matter at the center of galaxies in general is not coming out of nowhere. It is, in many cases, moving inward toward what are theorized to be supermassive black holes. The acceleration and condensation of this matter can itself form stars in addition to the ones being pulled towards the center already. Even in cases not involving black holes the tidal forces at the center of a galaxy can create stars rapidly (< a million years). These stars don't live very long, as they are usually the victims of collisions or the same gravity that formed them.

Unfortunately a star cannot survive being pulled into a black hole, it is a long process, and it invariably destroys the star. Therefore it would be highly unlikely to discover an object that ejected whole stars (if you were implying that in your first post, you may not have been).

[THE MAC GOD]

You guys are forgetting that black holes are still theories. We have pictures of things we THINK are black holes, but that's it.

[debaser]

Originally posted by THE MAC GOD
You guys are forgetting that black holes are still theories. We have pictures of things we THINK are black holes, but that's it.

Although still theoretical, black holes are accepted by the scientific community as a whole. Not only is the science behind them solid, they show up where predicted and behave as predicted. Of course you can't take a picture of a black hole, that is impossible by the very nature of the object, but we can watch the behavior of objects around (and behind) black holes. This behavior is our "picture" of the 'hole.

[bermuDa]

so... anyone had some good australian beaver cheese recently?

[Fibrosa]

Originally posted by papermachesatan
I quote John Rennie:

Looks as though someone has read SCIAM.

[papermachesatan]

Originally posted by Fibrosa
Looks as though someone has read SCIAM.

[THE MAC GOD]

Originally posted by debaser
Of course you can't take a picture of a black hole, that is impossible by the very nature of the object, but we can watch the behavior of objects around (and behind) black holes. This behavior is our "picture" of the 'hole.

I totally agree with that description... its almost like describing God... Just replace 'black hole' with 'God'.

[CSflim]

Originally posted by THE MAC GOD
I totally agree with that description... its almost like describing God... Just replace 'black hole' with 'God'.

Thats ridiculous. Just because we can't SEE something, doesn't mean that we don't know it exists. We can't see gravity, but we can observe its effects. We can't see atoms, but we can infer their existence. We cannot see planets outside of our own solar system, but we can observe the effect that they have on objects close to them.

[docbungle]

I find it both hillarious and a little bit frightening that so many people spout "facts" about the origin of all things as if they were actually there, watching it all begin.

I believe in God, but none of us have the "facts", so don't be such assholes to one another just because you don't agree on something. If there is a God, he is a GOD, and you are His creation, which means it's probably not even possible for you to understand His methods or His reasons, much less how He did it all, what His "formula" was.

And if there is not a God, then no one has anything to worry about. Rapists and murderers and Sunday school teachers will all rot together, side by side, forever.

[Fibrosa]

Originally posted by docbungle
I find it both hillarious and a little bit frightening that so many people spout "facts" about the origin of all things as if they were actually there, watching it all begin.

What would you suggest? We all live in a solipsitic paradigm and never attempt to figure out our world? You know you don't have to see something to know it's there...right?

Originally posted by docbungle
I believe in God, but none of us have the "facts", so don't be such assholes to one another just because you don't agree on something. If there is a God, he is a GOD, and you are His creation, which means it's probably not even possible for you to understand His methods or His reasons, much less how He did it all, what His "formula" was.

I also believe in God, and I accept both evolution and the big bang. I don't see a conflict between the three. It's only when people start asserting that their 2000+ year old book should be taken as authority, especially when it not only contradicts itself, but also science.

[shAzb0t]

I have only read through the first page of this thread, and I'm not sure if what I'm about to say has been said already, but here it goes anyways.

1st what are these holes in evolution, like Phoenix said? Every time it has had to step up and prove itself to skeptics, it has stood it's ground.

People keep saying we can't see evolution happen, but there are common examples happening all around us. Take resistant bacteria. Say someone has the flu; we pump them full of medicine and kill almost all the virus cells except for the ones that have some type of resistance to the drug. These survivors then multiply, passing their genes on, and voila a new version, hell arguable a new species of the influenza bug is born within a few generations. Now this is with human intervention, but the same thing happens in the natural world, accept with things other then massive waves of poison thinning the population, more simple things like predators, food shortages, and droughts. Those animals best suited to survive these events pass on their traits, and after generations, these traits become the norm.

Now what about the making of new species? What makes a group of animals not only separate by a few traits, but by their ability to breed with each other? Lets take our own evolution (as well as explaining why there are still apes in the world). A group of apes are separated when the Great Rift Valley is formed; one group remains in a forest, and evolves into the great apes we see today, perfectly adapted to live in the trees. Now the other group is in a much more severe condition. They have to adapt to the grasslands that they now inhabit. To look over the tall grasses to avoid predators and find food, they learn to stand on their back legs, freeing up their hands for the creation of tools (of course this takes millions of years to happen). These half monkey, half man creatures do appear on the fossil record. Fossils like those of Lucy, or homo habillis, or homo erectus..or the ones with the longer names that I’m far to tired to try and spell and to lazy to look up at the moment.

In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, evolution is described like a tennis tournament. Obviously, in any tournament, there must be a winner, and in a game of skills, this of course is the most skilled. But in nature you have to throw luck and random chance into it, so lets say after each point, the loser has to play Russian roulette. Now there is still a higher probability for the most skilled player to win the tournament, even with luck. As is the case with those that are best suited to survive pass on their genes.

Many people think that it is impossible for a molecule as complex as DNA to occur by chance. But in nature, those things that are best suited to be together, stay together. Take the sentence TOBEORNOTTOBE. By randomly typing in letters, it would take billions of combinations before you eventually got this. But lets say you first get the T, then after that the O, after that the B, all the way until the whole sentence is complete. This would just take a few hundred tries, and explains how, if the proteins, molecules and atoms found in DNA would stick to each other, and eventually form the entire strand (which wouldn't be nearly as complex as it is today)

Humanity isn't the last step in evolution, in fact we are just another branch in the great tree of life. And ya i believe in evolution over creationism

[Uocom]

"You're right, a one and two chance each time, but in order to address combined probability you have to multiply independent probabilities. So for the flipping of the coin 10 thousand times and only getting heads the probability for this is (1/2)^(10,000). A very small number."

I don't know why Creationists continue to use this argument. Basically, the amount of possible "things" that could have happened is high enough to be infinity. There is a 1 in a high number chance of anything happening.... Our evolution wasn't the only possible thing that could have happened. What you are saying is the same as saying since there is an INCREDIBLY small chance of my genes ending up like they did, I must not exist. And it is the same thing. There are many others ways I could have ended up though. Evolution could have followed a different path. Open your mind and realize that even though humans can't comprehend senses outside the kind we have, or a different kind of life, doesn't mean it isn't possible. Also, evolution is selective, not random. There is a higher probability of animals that are more genetically fit surviving, and as a result, new more complex and efficient life forms arise. Why are apes still alive? It's call isolation, and the fact that animals evolve to adapt to their environments. This is key. If a species spreads itself out in two different environments, the path of evolution each group follows will be different, and result in two different species after millions of years. It really makes plenty of sense. So much sense that to deny it takes place or is at least very possible is quite illogical. How could someone choose the accounts of the Bible over that?

[Fibrosa]

I agree with you Uocom, it's a post-hoc argument.

I can't remember who it was, but someone stated it like this: Take 52 cards and pick out five cards at random. After you pick them out, realize that the probability of picking those specific cards is very slim.

Same goes for evolution.

[Booboo]

I did a search on this but it was hard to narrow it down to find anything.. so here it goes..

I was just very curious as to what everyones thoughts were about this.

All the time, I see people who refuse to believe in the evidence of evolution.. as well as people who beleive the grand canyon was created in a matter of days from the flood. Earth created in a matter of days, ect. What does everyone here think?

Personally I am not a very religious person, its just something that has never been in my life. As such, evolution is how I see things...

I apologize if there is a huge discussion on this I just didn't see it.

[Lebell]

Five pages.

Knock yourself out

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ight=evolution

[Booboo]

Thanks=)

[JazzmanAl]

Qucikest ....thread....ever.

[Fibrosa]

Actually it's usually called creation v. evolution, because it's primarily a Christian fundamentalist position. There are entire MB's devoted to the topic (I should know, I moderate one ).

[numist_net]

from a buddy's profile, I found this link: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

in it are science fair projects based around creationism. One or two were very... entertaining, heres the best I found:

Middle School Level:

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.

Now I dont really intend to start a flame war, although this is perfect tinder for such, there are equally outrageous projects that try to support Darwin's theories too, but in order to keep the middle line here, I find it interesting to note that the Pope even said that the theory of evolution may be more than a theory and could be used to explain God's plan of creation. (paraphrased, I dont remember exact wording)

Now why cant we all get along like that guy's political mind?

[CSflim]

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

Oh sweet fuck! I haven't laughed so hard in a LONG LONG time! I feel so guilty laughing at a 13 year old!

Thank you for posting that all the same!

[prosequence]

I should have used that instead of the damn volcano ... what was I thining... everyone does the stupid volcano.....

[static]

social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay

Ah! That's hilarious! Man if i could just get away with that kind of logic all the time....

Until about 5 years ago i didn't actually realise there were people in the world who beleived in 'creation' the entire concept seemed in the same league as Santa or the Easter Bunny - boy was in for a shock! I still find it utterly silly and am yet to see one serious arguement for it. (no, i'm not asking for one, that five page waste of space contained enough).

[Killconey]

Here's an interesting way of explaining creation and evolution in the same breath that I discovered recently:

Imagine if you will, God playing Sim Life. He lays the groundwork and sets everything up, but then proceeds to get bored and hit the speed up button until things look the way he wanted. Thus God used both creation and evolution to solve his problems.

Try whipping that puppy out in either conservative or liberal groups. Everyone hates the middle man!

[happyraul]

Everyone hates the middle man because he's not very interesting. It tends to be the easy way out.

This is a bit more complicated than it's usually made out to be.

I'll start with the scientific side....

This is mainstream biology:

Evolution, or decent with modification is fact. This is no longer debated, it is the mechanisms by which this happens that are debated.

Darwinian mechanism - This is pretty solidly accepted. This is that variation and selection business, its responsible for novelty and adaptation. And something that is extremely important in all of this, but often not understood: it is not intrinsically progressive. In other words all that stuff about an evolutionary ladder is just popular fiction, a human is as 'evolved' as a cockroach.

Those two concepts are not what biologists are debating, its other mechanisms that are currently being talked about: genetic drift, mass extinctions, etc...

There are also lots of open questions:

Is change concentrated in speciation? In other words, do organisms undergo drastic change when there is a split or is it gradual?

How does sybiosis play a role? For example, it is believed that modern eukaryotic cells arose from sybiotic relationships between primitive cells. Mitochondria have their own DNA and are thought to have been independent cells are some point.

Basically, mainstream biology thinks evolution is Darwinian, but not always gene-centered, gradualist, etc.. Impo

Now, other disciplines factor into evolution as well. Physics for example, has non-equilibrium thermodynamics. What this is is not important, just realize that if mainstream biology's evolution is thrown out the window, so must a lot of physics, notably modern physics. (Creationists often have a problem with modern physics but they love Newtonian physics, and this ties into purpose.)

Now to the creationist side...

There are people who are anti-science creationists, in other words the only infallible truth is the Bible, and so much the worse for anything that contradicts it. They pretty much think science is bunk.

Then there are young-earth creationists, who are what most people think of when we say creationists. They do not dislike science, in fact they respect it greatly, which is why they try to give their arguments scientific credibility. Young-earth creationists interepret the Bible literally, that is they believe that there was a worldwide flood, that the earth was created in literally six days some 6000 years ago, that our ancestors are Adam and Eve, etc....

Next there are old-earth creationists. They think science is good, they are ok with the scientific age of the earth, but they still do not believe in a common ancestor.

There are also progressive creationists, and their beliefs are most easily described with a diagram. Visualize a tree of the species evolving from a common ancestor as mainstream biologists suggest. Now, progressive creationists see it like this, whereever there is a branching off, each one of those events is a creation itself. So their tree is not connected.

There are also guided creationists, who believe that life does have a common ancestor, but they do not buy the Darwinian mechanism, they don't believe species arise from selection, but rather that evolution is 'guided' somehow.

There is also the intelligent design camp, who insist on explicit design, leave age issue open. There is also New Age Evolutionary Creation (descent OK, mechanism not; immanent spiritual unfolding), and Non-religious anti-Darwinism (left-wing: oppose competitive elements)

So as you can see, people can be all over the map when it comes to this stuff. If you analyze the different positions, you will see that a fundamental difference between what is scientifically accepted as evolution and what is creation is purpose. Creationists say that there must be a driving force for everything at some level, a reason. The secientific community, on the other hand acknowledges that there is no purpose, or even progress that it is all just random.

Here is where the rejection of modern physics by creationists comes into play. If you only know of Newtonian physics, then nothing is random. Everything that exists has a cause. So if you are given every possible variable in a situation, if you could take everything into account, you would be able to predict the outcome of a seemingly random event, such as the roll of a die. By the same logic you could predict all of the evolutionary changes by knowing all of the variables. Basically everything happens for a reason, at some level.

Modern physics throws all of that upside down with the notion that quantum events are truly random. Given all of the facts (which itself is not possible, since there is no way to observe some things), there is no way to predict the outcome of an event. Everything exists without reason, it just is. This is very counterintuitive, but that is how modern physics is often described. So, since the big bang was a quantum event, random and not progressive, so must everything that follows be, without purpose.

[Killconey]

Maybe its a little more complicated than people think, but its also not mutually exclusive. Darwin couldn't find evidence to disprove the actions of God and Christians for the most part support science. The only thing still seperating the two camps is the stubborn conclusion that one of them has to be right and the other has to be wrong.