Devil advocates for Creationism

[Lalilulelo]

Yeah, I don't care to.  It is pretty easy to research on your own, if the research and arguments available by a simple Google search aren't compelling to you, then I don't really care to waste my time explaining something as easy to understand and as well documented as the fossil record.  I really don't care if you want to be scientifically illiterate.

 

Hello,

 

I did not ask whether you cared to educate me.

I asked you to back your claims with *one* piece of evidence or valid argumentation, so as to move on from the tired fallacies and rhetorics repeated in your postings.

 

Also, I believe I have been cordial. Perhaps, in return, you could work on your tone a little bit.

This is after all FDR, not the comments section of Youtube, where one would expect skepticism to be met with puerile arrogance and dogmatism: We have all the evidence, we win; you have Biblical creationism and illiteracy, you lose.

 

Anyway, because I don't like to write postings without at least adding a relevant ponit, I will present this:

 

- Being scientifically literate and convinced the fossil record is compelling evidence for Darwinian evolution, how do you account for the fossils that have not evolved in hundreds of millions if not billions of years (sulfer bacteria comes to mind)?

 

Bear in mind, as I am sure you know, neo-Darwinian theory rests on mutations being its permanent and inevitable driving force: they occur in the most optimal conditions.

 

@ Ray H

 

Even assuming there can be a high enough rate of mutations in the nuclear genome that when selected would counter the accumulation of deleterious mutations in mtDNA [this seems to be suggested more out of necessity and analogy than from evidence], the question remains: what is the compelling evidence in mtDNA?

[WasatchMan]

- Being scientifically literate and convinced the fossil record is compelling evidence for Darwinian evolution, how do you account for the fossils that have not evolved in hundreds of millions if not billions of years (sulfer bacteria comes to mind)?

 

Bear in mind, as I am sure you know, neo-Darwinian theory rests on mutations being its permanent and inevitable driving force: they occur in the most optimal conditions.

 

As I have already explained to you:

 

 

 "Natural Selection via evolution is the best explanation/model that the human species has been able to construct.  If you wish to overthrow it, you have a mountain of evidence to explain.  If you are whetted to the idea that we have it wrong, you have a lot to overcome.  However, give it your best, if you think that science has it wrong, we can only benefit from continued scientific exploration into this topic."

 

What this statement means is that evolution is the most consistent model with the best explanatory capability for the diversity of species that we see.  You are coming in and trying to poke holes in the most complex parts of a huge theory, but if you really wanted to overthrow it you would have to develop a competing theory with the explanatory power of evolution, not just complain that you think that eyes are "hard to imagine" or "very unlikely".  This is nitpicking at its finest.

 

So you still think you can point to one thing that may have some subtlety to it and think you can overthrow a well established scientific theory? Where is your competing theory with explanatory power? Sounds like you are still nitpicking a theory that has fossil evidence illustrating that life has in fact evolved over time which proves that the predictions of evolution are true.

 

Occam's Razor would say that it is more likely that there is an explanation to your bacteria claim than the fossils we have, that show life evolution, is wrong.'

 

Or you could have taken my advice to do a quick Google search and found scientific explanations such as this one:

 

 

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

 

“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

[Ray H.]

Define "compelling evidence", because you insist on repeating the request for such, in spite of being presented with scholarly evidence. There are links to three studies that support the claim that the nuclear genome changes to save male fertility. It is not a suggestion or an analogy. This is the second time I've called you out for misrepresenting this one study. I won't bother to do it again.

 

You're clearly smart enough to understand the written word and to find the relevant research on your own. Perhaps, you can link to some research that I haven't been able to find that is evidence for some other mechanism for the speciation of the planet.

 

I also request an example of some "compelling evidence" in some other field that erased some skepticism that you held. 

 

Do not think that your bare skepticism is compelling to me. 

[notjam]

I was wondering what sort of evidence existed or purported to show that evolution was invalid. I have heard that there are some sort of compelling arguments against it and was just curious if anyone had studied the creationists side ver much. I'd be really interested in hearing what they / you got.

 

holla back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_symbiotic_relationships

symbiotic relationships, (which evolved first) (how did one survive without the other).... 

 

natural selection (only "selects" pre existing genetic information, it does not "create" new genetic information)

 

(micro evolution) or "variations/mutations" does not equate (macro evolution) one kind of animal "transforms" into a different kind

"if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale.. but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science". Kent Hovind. 

 

the big bang theory = something comes from nothing

abiogenesis = life comes from non life

 

Kent Hovind Debates

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6988326B6B0D9F1A

Well, you heard wrong my friend.  The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith.

 

All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

light year,^[2] is a unit of length used informally to express astronomical distances. Because it includes the word year, the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

Well, you heard wrong my friend.  The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith.

 

All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that.

https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Light-year

light year,^[2] is a unit of length used informally to express astronomical distances. Because it includes the word year, the term light-year is sometimesmisinterpreted as a unit of time.

Well, you heard wrong my friend.  The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith.

 

All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that.

 

The fossil record.

"the fossil record" would have to show "transitions". to be evidence of "macro evolution". 

since man is still in search of "the missing link" the jury is still out.  

even darwin admitted that we would NEED to find transitional fossils to PROVE his theory. :

 

 

The fact is, many species, in fact many major groups of animals, appear in the lowest part of the fossil record. This phenomena is called The Cambrian Explosion.

Please see information about The Cambrian Explosion on The Fossil Record: Evidence of the world wide flood of the Biblepage of this website.

“

I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed

 at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”

“The case most frequently insisted on by paleontologists of the apparently 

sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that of the teleostean fishes

, low down in the Chalk period.”

“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which

numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks

.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. 

To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer

.”

“

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained

.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

Well, you heard wrong my friend.  The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith.

 

All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

light year,^[2] is a unit of length used informally to express astronomical distances. Because it includes the wordyear, the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

[notjam]

Well, you heard wrong my friend.  The only possible way there is evidence for creationism is if you accept that the creator made reality look like creationism is false as a test of peoples faith.

 

All you have to do is look out at the night sky to prove that the universe is older than 6000 years given that we can see stars more than 6000 light years away and much greater than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year 

light year,^[2] is a unit of length used informally to express astronomical distances. Because it includes the wordyear, the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

The fossil record is limited because it is extremely rare for fossils to form.  People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record.

 

 

 

See Canis lupus familiaris (aka dogs)

 

 

 

Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies.  Especially given that there is no evidence for this.

"People who spend their lives in the field as scientists do not think there is a problem with the fossil record."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority 

Argument from authority

 

"Its hard to imagine something as complex as on all powerful omnipotent being creating and running a universe where he a created a species after his own image, on one spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies.  Especially given that there is no evidence for this."

nice diversion to the issue of complexity. why not just scream "flying spagetti monster" and throw monkey feces.

how do complex systems come to "evolve" with many complex interconnected mechanisms that need to work together. how did they evolve seperately? 

 

also how do we know earth is a "spec of dust on the outer edge of 1 out of 100s of billions of galaxies" . ?

all we really know empirically (scientifically) is that when we look up we see alot of little dots of light in the sky. most of which do not move. never have moved and never will move. which contradicts the idea that everything is just hurling thru space at millions of miles per hour all being pushed and pulled by random gravitational forces  ad finitum. 

 

also as for your agrument about some stars being 6000 light years away :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year

light year,^[2] is a unit of length used informally to express astronomical distances. Because it includes the wordyear, the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

 

as for your claims about the "fossil record" :

The fact is, many species, in fact many major groups of animals, appear in the lowest part of the fossil record. This phenomena is called The Cambrian Explosion.

Please see information about The Cambrian Explosion on The Fossil Record: Evidence of the world wide flood of the Biblepage of this website.

“

I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed

 at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”

“The case most frequently insisted on by paleontologists of the apparently 

sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that of the teleostean fishes

, low down in the Chalk period.”

“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which

numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks

.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. 

To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer

.”

“

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained

.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

Yeah, I don't care to.  It is pretty easy to research on your own, if the research and arguments available by a simple Google search aren't compelling to you, then I don't really care to waste my time explaining something as easy to understand and as well documented as the fossil record.  I really don't care if you want to be scientifically illiterate.

 

The fact is, many species, in fact many major groups of animals, appear in the lowest part of the fossil record. This phenomena is called The Cambrian Explosion.

Please see information about The Cambrian Explosion on The Fossil Record: Evidence of the world wide flood of the Biblepage of this website.

“

I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed

 at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”

“The case most frequently insisted on by paleontologists of the apparently 

sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that of the teleostean fishes

, low down in the Chalk period.”

“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which

numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks

.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. 

To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer

.”

“

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained

.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

[notjam]

I was wondering what sort of evidence existed or purported to show that evolution was invalid. I have heard that there are some sort of compelling arguments against it and was just curious if anyone had studied the creationists side ver much. I'd be really interested in hearing what they / you got.

 

holla back

some include :

 

symbiotic relationships. how did one exist without the other? which "evolved" first? 

 

natural selection (selects pre existing genetic information, it does not create new genetic inforamtion)

 

[Alan C.]

[WasatchMan]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year 

light year,^[2] is a unit of length used informally to express astronomical distances. Because it includes the wordyear, the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

 

 

 

I am choosing not to respond to most of notjams non-sense, however this one I think should be addressed so not to murky peoples understanding of a very important concept.

 

There is no misinterpretation of time in the concept of light year as I put forward. 

 

A light year is the distance a light particle travels in a year (velocity x time = distance). 

 

If we see light coming from a source one light year away, we know that that light originated one year ago (distance / velocity = time).

 

If we know that the galaxy known as z8_GND_5296 (furthest galaxy ever observed) is 13.1 billion light years away, we know that the light we are seeing originated 13.1 billion years ago, making the universe older than 13.1 billion years because we could not see that light unless enough time had elapsed for that light to travel to us (distance / velocity = time).

[Lalilulelo]

Hi Ray H,

I'll try to answer your points in their respective order:

1/ As you can see by scrolling back through the topic, the request to articulate "compelling evidence or argumentation" was made to cut short the unaccessible appeals to huge amounts of evidence.
You elected to answer this question, and to qualify what you brought up as "quite compelling". Naturally, my reply deals with whether the evidence measures up to the strength of the claim.
You are free to qualify the "evidence" you offered differently if you wish.

2/ Much of the ideas in scholarly works of this nature rest on the premise that endosymbiotic theory is true. The fact however is it is as riddled with problems as, and no more an example of established scientific knowledge, than abiogensis.

This is why you will not find me telling you I know how it happened and this is how, certainly not out of a necessity to provide an alternative to some scriptural narrative.

 

- Also, I have read through all works linked in the footnotes, and none of them make your claim.

 

One of them shows genetic variants in nuclear DNA of wild populations can overcome mitochondiral mutations. This is not an unpredictable finding, if one is aware of mito-nuclear cooperation.

 

Another one, going in the same line, highlights the presence of a gene in a certain anthropod species that makes its males resistant to maternally-inherited male-killing organisms. Neither of these is a demonstration of a nuclear response through mutations, much less evidence of a mechanism of adaptation that counters the accumulation of deleterious mtDNA mutations.

 

I include the following quotes from the paper about the implications of mitochondrial variation because I think it summarises the extent of the evidence nicely, and has this to say about mitochondrial-nuclear coadaptation:

 

Knowing that deleterious mutations in mtDNA can accumulate within populations because of genetic drift[21], there certainly seems to be scope for mito-nuclearco-evolution to proceed via a ‘compensatory’ model. Under this model, deleterious mutations accumulate in the mitochondrial genome, with selection then favouring an adaptive response in the nuclear genome to restore any compromised metabolic function [24]. In effect, mtDNA mutations will act as the drivers of adaptive evolution in nuclear genes. This scenario is not unlikely, given that more than 1000 nuclear-encoded proteins, which are essential for metabolism, are transported into the mitochondrion [25].

 

Given the potential for male-expression-specific deleterious mtDNA mutations to accumulate through genetic drift and for mtDNA mutations with sexually antagonistic effects to be fixed by positive selection in females, there should be intense selection on compensatory mutations in nuclear genes to restore any compromised function to male fertility traits. Support for this idea comes from studies that show the existence of testes-specific isoforms of both the nuclear-encoded COX VIb subunit [71] and the cytochrome c subunit [72] in mammals. Such isoforms might have evolved to accommodate the high energy production that is required for high-quality sperm production and to alleviate ailing function resulting from mutations in the mitochondrially encoded subunits of the respiratory enzyme complexes. Convincing evidence for the presence of such compensatory nuclear genes would be provided by examples in which the disruption of coevolved mitonuclear gene complexes leads to depressed sperm function or depressed male fertility. Currently, no such examples exist.

The role of mito-nuclear fitness interactions on the general dynamics of adaptive evolution deserves further attention. Previously, we reviewed evidence that indicates that epistatic interactions between mitochondrial and nuclear genes, within populations, can account for a significant amount of variation in fitness [13,14] and could be ubiquitous. How genetic variation can be maintained within populations in the face of directional selection represents a general problem in evolutionary biology [75]. The existence of mito-nuclear fitness interactions might contribute to the maintenance of this genetic variation. Furthermore, recent experimental studies have detected mtDNA–nuclear-DNA–environment interactions for fitness [14,16], which indicates that the fitness of any given mito-nuclear genotype is contingent on the environment. Spatial environmental heterogeneity is one factor that can contribute to the maintenance of genetic polymorphism [76]. Whether environmental heterogeneity might have a role in upholding variation in the mitochondrial genome within populations, via environmental selection on the mito-nuclear interaction, deserves theoretical attention.

 

As you can see, the evidence supporting your claim that new changes in nuclear DNA act as counter-adaptations to the accumulation of deleterious mutations is not there. After all, such changes are a rare occurence, and organisms having to counter new challenges, such as ATB for instance, have to rely on sweeping loss-of-function mutations more than the rare and specific mutation.

 

All one can claim in light of the above is:

Provided Darwinian evolution is true, compensation for the lack of selection must have happened through some other mechanism of selection. Mitochondrial-nuclear interaction might be one such mechanism that is thought, when evidence is considered, not to be unlikely.

 

To say these scholarly works show changes in nuclear DNA to be the answer to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in mtDNA is departing from evidence and entering the realm of wishful speculation.

 

More importantly though, assuming the absence of selection on male-specific mtDNA poses no problem to Darwnian evolution, the question remains:

- How is the existence of mtDNA and the knowledge of its mode of transmission, which you brought up, quite compelling evidence in favour of the mechanisms constituting Darwinian evolution?

 

______

 

Hello WasatchMan,

Thanks for the prompt reply again. Allow me to enumerate what I think are errors in a separate posting for more clarity:

1/ I do not have to develop a competing theory to Darwinian evolution in order to point out how its mechanisms are inadequate. That's saying: model A is not falsifiable, for as long as there is no alternative way B. Thankfully, science does not work this way.

2/ Like I pointed out previously, mystifying Darwinian evolution with fallacious appeals to mountains of evidence without *one* valid argument to back that up, is just an expression of dogma.

3/ Occam's razor is a tool of logic. It does not support what is, at least in a topic centred around evidence, fallacious argumentation from authority and repetition.

4/ Being scientifically literate and well versed in logic, you know an explanation is "scientific" and satisfactory not because it came from a scientist or Google.

I think had you been in less of a hurry to reply to my posting, you would have noticed I specified the example of sulfer bacteria (and other living fossils) was about *neo-Darwinian* theory.

In neo-Darwinian theory, as am I sure you know, mutations are the primary engine moving the evolutionary cursor, not the need for adaptation as dictated through the interaction of the organism with its environment. This, in effect, makes the quick explanation offered by the scientist in question and which you describe as "scientific", an obsolete one: mutations do not work like natural selection.

[by the way, anyone who interprets evidence that is potentially for or against a model by starting with "it is a fact" is a dogmatist. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203104131.htm]

What we have therefore is:
- Mutations do occur in optimal living conditions where little or no adaptation to the environment is required (e.g., replication errors).
- Mutations in neo-Darwinian theory provide a wide range of raw material for selection, so much so that they explain the sudden appearances and diversification of life.
- Neo-Darwinian theory predicts such inevitable mutations will accumulate over a period covering most of biological history (billions of years) and result into change.
- The hard evidence, of organisms found in fossils from then as well as living today, shows no change. In other words, the logical prediction following from proposed mechanisms is patently false.

 

By the way, you still have not produced one argument to back your strong claims and fallacious appeals. Just to keep this exchange going, I took the initiative and produced one to undermine them.

Please make sure your next reply is devoid of disruptive fallacy and focused on valid argumentation and evidence of your claims.

[WasatchMan]

I think had you been in less of a hurry to reply to my posting, you would have noticed I specified the example of sulfer bacteria (and other living fossils) was about *neo-Darwinian* theory.

 

In neo-Darwinian theory, as am I sure you know, mutations are the primary engine moving the evolutionary cursor, not the need for adaptation as dictated through the interaction of the organism with its environment. This, in effect, makes the quick explanation offered by the scientist in question and which you describe as "scientific", an obsolete one: mutations do not work like natural selection.

 

 

That is a pretty interesting accusation, given the fact that I provided you a quote from the department head over the scientific team that discovered this sulfur bacteria, explaining how the discovery of a lack in evolution of the sulfer bacteria not only is not in conflict with Darwinian evolution but supports it (because they are in a stable environment where mutations would not have been advantageous, and therefore would not have been selected for).  After this omission and acting like I did not address your sulfur bacteria nitpick to a demonstrable theory (we have fossils, btw), and even trying to claim I was in a hurry so just missed it, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

[Ray H.]

To be clear, when I said changes in the nuclear genome, I meant changes in a population's allele frequency. I did not mean to imply that mutations occurred rapidly in an individual in response to some need. As I'm sure you know, mutations occur randomly. They are errors. Once in the genome, however rare they may be, they have the potential to be expressed in response to some environmental pressure. That expression may be positive, negative, or null. This expression is then selected for or against (or not), leading to changes in a population's genetic makeup. All variations of a gene originate through mutation. In fact, all genetic material is ultimately a result of error that has persisted. The mtDNA-nuclear fertility relationship is no exception. There are strains of rice, maize, beets, and other crops that scientists routinely use to take advantage of this mechanism. By turns, breeding in or out the sterility of the crop.

 

You won't find anyone arguing that mutations are directed or purposeful or that they are mostly beneficial. Only that the ones that are beneficial, if occurring in the right time and place, will become more prevalent.

[AccuTron]

Not a student  of Creationism, but there are a few arguments.  Take redwood trees, for example.  These things live thousands of years.  How could that have evolved?  The time between generations is so huge, even geologic time doesn't seem long enough to allow it.

 

Here is an inexhaustible source of Creationist arguments.

Redwoods become sexually mature in 5-15 years, although the seeds aren't much viable until age 250 or so.  Reproduction of coast redwood

 

They don't need to be almost dead to decide to reproduce.  Almost all animals are that way.  Even then, 1000 years within say 10,000,000 years (oldest fossil) is still 1 in 10,000, so if it did wait a thousand years to reproduce, it would have 10,000 generations to do so (in this example).  

[GuzzyBone]

 

Guzzybone,

 

Mutations are thought to be random in the sense that they occur without regard to their cost or benefit. They are produced without direction. Copy mutations and chemical/radioactive mutations have no intent. They aren't a response to environmental pressures. They just happen and the mutations are either beneficial, detrimental, or null. That's what is meant by random. It's not that scientists don't understand how they come about. They do. The copy and repair mechanisms in the cell aren't perfect and make mistakes. The resulting mutations are then, possibly, acted on by the environment. Mutations that are beneficial increase in the population, and vice versa. 

 

Of course, genetic recombination should not be forgotten as the other driver of evolution.

Is this the scientific definition to the word "random": "without regard to cost or benefit"? Nope. Darwin advocates that the mutations occur toward "benefit" and anything that contradicts this proposal is just 'random and stuff'. Not quite a solid theory or explanation of anything.

 

I find it interesting how so many responses to this thread have occured but yet only one person even bothered to try and argue against my common sense point. This is the same kind of unquestioning blind faith and support of Scientific authority that enables absurdist theories like "Pangea", the magical island of one-ness and ice bridges, to become standard faire in scientific thought. I literally exposed Darwinism as fallacious childs play. A bunch of fancy jargon for saying "shit changes to survive better, but anything that contradicts this is just random shit", but the man and his theories are held with such god-like reverance that the common sense heresy I speak goes ignored. I am here to tell you that the Emporer is bloody naked.

 

I have never heard of a species dieing out because it grew a gimpy leg. If mutations were truly occuring at random at all without cause, effect, method, pattern, etc, you would see never see a large group of the same species adopting these same traits, instead it would be a wide variety of utter randomness with no uniformity. The lazy cop-out that is "Random Mutation", a fancy way of saying "fuck if I know, shit changes and stuff", also completely ignores the fact that no where in the world right now do we see a species with a half-formed leg or arm or wings. Instead we see fully developed and functioning species that have remained unchanged over long periods of time.

 

Anyone care to prove how I am wrong about any of this, or were you too busy downvoting and trying to shame me and ostracize me into oblivion for questioning the authority of the cult of St. Darwin?

[Lalilulelo]

Hi WasatchMan,

 

Ok if you choose to abandon this conversation. After all, you provided no evidence for your claims and nothing other than fallacious argumentation.

It is odd that your reason for doing so is my comment about you writing a hurried posting (you did, in fact, simply quote your fallacies and someone who, in his oversimplified or at least simple explaining, wasn't addressing my point to you). The excesses in your earlier contribution certainly did not dissuade me from replying to you.

 

Also, no need for more drama and big words like "accusation". Someone who reasons by presupposing his premise is unquestionably true is a dogmatist.
It is only natural that the head of a project (see my link) and the body of proponents of Darwinian theory are not exempt from having their affirmations questioned, though I understand how that may come as surprising to someone who, once again, has shown nothing besides unfailing dogmatism.

- Regarding your response that all change would have been selected out (this was not in your previous posting):
As you know, in neo-Darwinian theory, the introduction of new material is slow, incremental and its expression not necessarily non-neutral. This means natural selection is in effect unable to wholly and directly act on it, let alone be able to filter out a two-billion-year-plus worth of it.

This is why such explanations are simply wild wishful speculation with no real basis. Better ones with more substance and plausible mechanisms are in order.

- Also, though at this point I can't honestly say I await your valid counter-argumentation:

how do you reconcile your explanation with the fact that there are so many organisms, whose environments can't be suggested to have remained undisturbed, that did not change and have been classified by Darwinian jargon as having been in "evolutionary stasis" over extended periods of time?

 

I will post a reply to Ray H. as soon as I have more time.

[WasatchMan]

It is only natural that the head of a project (see my link) and the body of proponents of Darwinian theory are not exempt from having their affirmations questioned, though I understand how that may come as surprising to someone who, once again, has shown nothing besides unfailing dogmatism.

 

- Regarding your response that all change would have been selected out (this was not in your previous posting):

As you know, in neo-Darwinian theory, the introduction of new material is slow, incremental and its expression not necessarily non-neutral. This means natural selection is in effect unable to wholly and directly act on it, let alone be able to filter out a two-billion-year-plus worth of it.

This is why such explanations are simply wild wishful speculation with no real basis. Better ones with more substance and plausible mechanisms are in order.

 

Sorry if I put my confidence in scientist who have made professional careers studying things.  I have no reason to doubt them outright.  Do they get things wrong? Sure they do they are human, but I don't believe they are inherent lairs.  This is why I don't see a need to carry on this dialogue.  Our premises are not the same.  I don't see how I can have a scientific discussion with someone who accuses (not a big dramatic word, btw) me of being dogmatic for using the discoveries and  interpretations of scientists as a basis for knowledge. For complex ideas I can only provide you the arguments of scientists who have studied these areas because I myself have not spent the time studying them and I do not bring with me the premiss that science actively tries to subvert the truth.

 

I just want to come back in and make sure you didn't miss the quote I provided you (see below), because you are acting like it never happened still.  Why do you not accept this argument?  It can't just be because a scientist said it.. It is a reasoned argument using the framework of a scientific theory.  It is easy to argue against things when you make your own definitions and rules, tell people what "neo-Darwinian theory" is and then show how based on your own definitions it doesn't work. Notice the difference in definitions between how a scientists describes evolution and how you do?  What real basis do you have?  Have you spent your professional life studying this field of natural science?  Or are you doing what you accuse me of "simply wild wishful speculation with no real basis".

 

 

“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

 

“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

[GuzzyBone]

 

It is easy to argue against things when you make your own definitions and rules

This is exactly what was done when I showed how including the word "random" in scientific theory automatically undermines it's authenticity and utility.

 

Random has a specific meaning that is culturally and linguistically understood, yet it was redefined in this thread as "without cost or benefit" which is a made up definition that has no reflection on the word "Random" in any field of study.

 

There is no such thing in nature as "Random" and random generation like the roll of a die is only the illusion of random, and everything in nature has cause & effect, method, reason for why it happens (whether we know the reason yet or not). If you accept this as a basic truth in any field of study, then the most appropriate response to any theory that proposes "random" as an explanation should be treated with criticism, revision, and total skepticism. If I were to propose a theory and call it "The Theory of Randomness" and go through great effort to use fancy words and alleged "proofs" as to how everything is just random shit happening WITHOUT REASON, this theory should be shamed out of the room for laziness: the lack of desire to find reason, lack of utility, lack of explanation, lack of understanding anything, and how it contradicts all reason.

 

In other words, if we can scrap this whole "random mutation" thing, then maybe we can actually learn something instead of just assuming there is no answer.

 

If elements of evolution are true, and species change and adapt to better survivability within their environment, then how does this not prove a form of conscious intent AKA intelligent design. Intelligent design and theories of evolution are in not necessarily incompatible. However dogmatic worship and unwavering loyalty to flawed and questionable premise will never see the two theories unite. I make this accusation of BOTH sides in general.

 

I mean for gods sake we live in a world where the scientific establishment declares that Dinosaurs are cold-blooded lizards despite all research and common sense observation shows this to not only be impossible but that they are prehistoric giant birds (flightless or not). Even a casual comparison of an Emu (closest living relative) and Ostrich skeleton to a Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor reveals this basic truth, yet people go on believing this giant Lizard bullshit with loyalty and unquestioning faith. This is what public school does to the health of our minds.

[WasatchMan]

In other words, if we can scrap this whole "random mutation" thing, then maybe we can actually learn something instead of just assuming there is no answer.

 

 

 

I think you are getting wrapped around language games and missing the point.  "Random mutation" is just a way to communicate a process that is extremely complicated, and almost impossible to predict.  Sure, there are causal relationships deep down in the cell division process that result in millions of different ways a cell can mutate, and is ultimately not "random", just millions of possibilities that results in what is identical to random in effect.

 

This is not not even an important point about the theory of evolution and the process of natural selection.  The important part is that cells do mutate in millions of ways, these mutations end up being advantageous or disadvantageous to the survival of a organism in a changing environment, and the advantageous cell mutations thrive and the disadvantageous ones do not, leading to a process of an organism becoming more and more adapted to its environment through time.

 

Whether or not mutation is truly "random" does not take away from how this process fundamentally works.

[Ray H.]

Holy crap! The way I described "random" is absolutely consistent with its definition. "Without regard to cost or benefit" is just another way of saying "undirected", "unplanned", "nonspecific", "made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." No one claims that mutations occur without cause. Causation does not determine nonrandomness. Intent does. There is no intent behind mutations.

[Pelafina]

False dichotomy.  Why is it that if creationism is BS, therefore evolution is correct?  I think they're both BS.  Evolution is a pseudoscience.

[shirgall]

Evolution is a pseudoscience.

 

Evolution is the best explanation (actually, it's a closely-related set of explanations of various processes) of the available verifiable evidence without relying on supernatural agents. If a better set of theories exists, it would attract a lot of people, as a lot of evolutionary mechanisms are difficult to grok.

[GuzzyBone]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

 

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events.^[1] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

 

You say tomatoes, I say tomatos.

 

It does mean the lack of a pattern, method, cause, reason, explanation. I could cite you endless sources to confirm this, however in the above definition, you can also clearly see that there is no random and everything occurs with reason (and often detectable probability) regardless of our ability to predict the final results, therefore there is no such thing as anything actually happening at random. In fact, much work goes into setting up the illusion of random generation in programming code, which in some ways is like playing god and creating your own little sub reality, especially in the world of video games.

 

Religion says it is intelligent design and everything happens for a reason. Science, at it's best and most humble admits things happen with reason, whether we can detect this reason or not. Reason, consciousness, reason, consciousness... Things happen for a reason? Kinda sounds like consciousness. You say tomatoes, I say tomatos.

 

Militant Athiest proponents of Evolution often ascribe random generation in place of a conscious and universe of reason (intent), yet they are also inconsistent and use Science that admits no such thing is ever truly random, beyond our ability to detect the reason. In fact, the more you look into anything, the more reason and explanation eventually becomes evident and understanding is possible. This is the entire incentive and process behind study, which we would not even bother with if things were just happening all sporadic, random, and inconsequentially.

 

Consciousness allows us to use critical reasoning (the process of examination and tracing the dominoes of consequence), it allows us to act with reason, and it see how things happen with reason. Consciousness and reason itself are not very far apart. A universe with reason, can easily be allegorically described as and perceived consciousness and intent, as nothing happens without purpose, method, reason. Our understanding of God is simply the allegory for a conscious and consequential universe.

[Ray H.]

Well, those are certainly words you typed into your computer machine.

[Alan C.]

Snake fossil with four legs discovered

 

 

[AncapFTW]

Snake fossil with four legs discovered

 

 

Well, that proves the Garden of Eden existed, then.

[jnabors]

Darwinism Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods of time. Selection of a particular trait over generations of offsorng. IMO, a more compelling Theory of Evolution would be quite the opposite. Abrupt adaptations to immediate and substantial environmental changes where those with certain traits survived, others perished. The fossil record bears this out.

 

I don't see intelligent design at odds with either version of evolution and admittedly I am a conservative Christian, with strong libertarian leanings. Don't label me please, I'm not religious, I'm Christian, there is a difference.

 

By the way, I'm new to the site. I just found FDR and am very interested in participating and learning.

[dsayers]

I don't see intelligent design at odds with either version of evolution and admittedly I am a conservative Christian, with strong libertarian leanings. Don't label me please, I'm not religious, I'm Christian, there is a difference.

 

By the way, I'm new to the site. I just found FDR and am very interested in participating and learning.

Welcome to FDR! Thank you for participating and I hope to learn from you also Namely, I'm not sure what the difference between being religious and being Christian is. I'd be interested in hearing it. So forgive me if my next input comes across as uninformed or mismatched in some way.

 

When I was a child, I was raised in Christian dogma. Non-denominational, so there wasn't really much in the way of rituals outside of going to church every Sunday. I was also forced to attend government schools. My parents were divorced when I was young. From what I could gather, my father was allowed generous visitation compared to other divorced men at the time. Part of this was often spending the night on Saturday night. Sundays often consisted of church and maybe a trip to the mall before returning us home.

 

I was about 12-13 when I was walking in the mall one such Sunday, shortly after church. Passing by a record store, I noticed an album cover that depicted the evolution of man from Cro-Magnon man. This was the day that I learned what cognitive dissonance was. I was surprised at my own capacity for error. Up until that point in time, I hadn't realized that I believed that man had evolved from lesser species AND I believed that man was created by God. I asked my dad about this and his off the cuff answer was that they were NOT competing claims because God could've made the world in such a way that Darwinism explains how we came to be.

 

I didn't talk back to the man that once, in this very mall, not 20 feet from where we were standing at the time, hit my sister with a shopping bag that had a relatively large metal miniature, splitting her skin at the top of her eye socket (thank goodness he didn't hit her eye itself!), sending her to the emergency room bleeding like I had never seen before. But on this day, even at that young age, it occurred to me that the Bible specifies that God created the universe in 7 days. Would you agree that this in fact puts the idea of intelligent design at odds with Darwinism?

[Will Torbald]

Darwinism Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods of time. Selection of a particular trait over generations of offsorng. IMO, a more compelling Theory of Evolution would be quite the opposite. Abrupt adaptations to immediate and substantial environmental changes where those with certain traits survived, others perished. The fossil record bears this out.

 

I don't see intelligent design at odds with either version of evolution and admittedly I am a conservative Christian, with strong libertarian leanings. Don't label me please, I'm not religious, I'm Christian, there is a difference.

 

By the way, I'm new to the site. I just found FDR and am very interested in participating and learning.

 

Welcome, jnabors. I used to have a similar idea of how a theist theory and evolution wouldn't be at odds, but the more I learned about science and evolution, I had to give up the position as it just doesn't work when both are examined carefully. Here's a short video that explains ideas of evolution that make the case that it doesn't have any intelligent design at all:

[jnabors]

This being my first post, I worked on a good response introducing myself, explaining my belief on evolution, and the way I view Christianity and Religion. I had almost finished and the post disappeared, embarrassing for an IT manager! I'm taking the family camping this weekend, just one night as it will be the kids first time to go. We're taking off early in the morning and just got the truck packed. I didn't want to post and not respond at all, but I also want to devote some time to providing a good response. I'll post Sunday once we get back.

 

@Will, thank you for the video. I'll give it a look this weekend.

[jnabors]

OK, back from our camping trip, Kids loved it!  So let me try again to post a proper response to the two posts above.  I’m going to write in the Word this time and Paste it into the web interface so I don’t lose anything this time. 

So, first let me give you some background about myself.  Hopefully this will serve as a means of introduction and give you an idea of the thought processes behind my opinions.

 

Background:  My School / Church background is fairly similar to @dsayers.  I grew up in a small conservative, southern town, attended government schools, and went to Church with my family every Sunday.  I wasn’t a fan of Church and at some point my parents decided I was old enough to decide for myself, so I stopped going.  High-school was mainly college prep-stuff, w/ concentration in Science and Math.  I have a BS in Microbiology (pre-med) with minors in Physics and Chemistry and a MS in Biomedical Engineering.  I also served in the Military (Army) for many years after college.  Career started with a 5 year position in Pharmaceutical Research and then approximately 25 years in IT (mostly technical positions from hands-on development to the Director level).  

 

Let me now try to answer the two questions.  Since both deal with religion, this can be a sensitive topic for many.  All I ask is that everyone respect my opinion as I will, in turn, respect theirs.  I’m not asking anyone to agree with me, nor am I claiming that my belief is the only “true” belief.  It’s simply what I believe.  I don’t pretend that my opinions are absolute, nor do I try and force them on anyone else.  I didn’t grow up with any real “faith” or “Religion” outside of a general belief in deity.  I mainly identified as an Agnostic Deist; some intelligent external power created everything, wasn’t involved in running or monitoring anything, and there was no proof, or any way to prove, who/what this this external entity was or what it was up to.

 

Evolution v. Intelligent Design:  In Genesis, if you interpret the story of creation as God creating the universe in 168 hours split in 7 equal parts, more knowledgeable people than I have calculated the age of the Earth to be around 6000 years.  This is clearly disproven in fossil records, Carbon dating, Astronomical observations, etc….  If you immediately dismiss the Bible, it’s very easy to side with Evolution; although Darwinian Evolution has flaws.  Since there were no witnesses, by definition, to Creation, no one can say with any certainty what happened.  The same is also true with the “Big Bang theory”.  All we have are scientific evidence and stories passed down through the ages. 

 

My belief is that when the Bible describes a “day”, it doesn’t translate to the 24-hour period that we recognize today.  A “day”, for the divine, may have been more like a week, a month, years, or centuries.  Human logic and definitions cannot be applied.  So, on the 5^th day, when God created all the creatures in the oceans, he may have painstakingly created each specific species exactly as they appear today, or he may have created a “basic” life form(s) and it(they) evolved over some timeframe.  The latter would align with Evolution. 

 

There isn’t any scientific evidence supporting Creation, It is a matter of faith.  The more I learned about the complexity of our universe, how intricately ordered and efficient everything is, the more it seems unlikely this is all just a result of random chance.  Suppose the universe was created by an explosion roughly 13 billion years ago, there was no intelligent design, and no creative mind was involved; it logically follows that nobody designed our brains for the purpose of thinking.  It is merely when atoms, electrical signals, and chemicals inside our skull arrange themselves in certain ways that we get a sensation that we call thought.  If this is true, how can we trust that our thoughts are true?  It’s not much different than dropping a number of containers of paint and expecting the way they splash will result in a picture of the Mona Lisa.  If I can’t be certain of my thoughts leading to Evolution, I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else.

 

Christianity v. Religion:  This one, hopefully, is easier.  To sum it up, Christianity is Belief in Jesus, Religion comprises all the rules, prejudices, and judgments that mankind imposes on people that don’t believe the same way they do.  As an example, let’s take Homosexuality.  I’m don’t mean to offend anyone and I hope any homosexual reading this will understand the point I am trying to express. 

 

 

If asked, I would have to save that Homosexuality is a sin; the Bible says it and I believe the Bible.  Now, not to isolate or single out any group of people, the Bible also says the Sex outside of marriage is a sin, Sex with anyone other than your spouse is a sin, simply thinking about sex (lust) is a sin.  I won’t disclose any details, but I believe I’ve broken at least 8 of the 10 commandments; I am a sinner, as are all Christians.  So, with all that in mind, it is misleading to say “Homosexuals are sinners”.  It’s much more accurate to say we all are sinners and no sin is any better or worse than any other.  Additionally, it’s not my job to point out or try to correct anyone else’s sins, I have plenty to deal with of my own to deal with.        

 

Nowhere in the bible does Jesus instruct his followers to go out into the world and criticize or judge people with different beliefs than our own.  His most frequent directive to us was “do not fear”, the second was “Love each other”.  All people were created in the image of God, therefore to mistreat or discriminate against someone is to dishonor something that God created.  Are there Evil people in the world?  Yes.  We all have free-will to choose our own path; that was God’s intention.  So if I try to force my thoughts or beliefs on anyone else, am I not at the minimum influencing their free-will?  If a government forces ideologies on someone, certainly they are going against God’s intention.  This is what I call Christianity; living as Christ instructed and demonstrated.

 

 

Religion, on the other hand, is all the other crap that we are told.  It serves mostly to divide people, to force one group’s morality on others, and increase the power/wealth/influence of the Church and its leaders.  In the bible, the people the Jesus had the most issues with were the religious and ultimately it was the religious that had tortured and put to death.

 

I hope this clarifies both topics.  I welcome any feedback on either.  

[Torero]

Hi jnabors, welcome back from the camping trip, glad it was good.

So, on the 5^th day, when God created all the creatures in the oceans, he may have painstakingly created each specific species exactly as they appear today, or he may have created a “basic” life form(s) and it(they) evolved over some timeframe.  The latter would align with Evolution. 

 

There isn’t any scientific evidence supporting Creation, It is a matter of faith.

If I can’t be certain of my thoughts leading to Evolution, I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else.

 

 

I hope this clarifies both topics.  I welcome any feedback on either.  

 

You list two possibilities:

- pure Creation - ongoing today

- Creation + Evolution - the only process today would be evolution

 

You state that science has taught you a lot about nature, yet you still say "I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else". Do you consider yourself a nihilist? Or agnostic at this point?

 

I also wonder how you see modern, clear "evolution" in play. For instance dogs (chihuahuas and huskies are both dogs but they do not look alike. They are "created" by humans. If Evolution would not be something you believe in, what process causes those genetical and physical variations?

 

 

According to most research life has formed (or you may say created) some 3.8 billion years ago (that's about 3,800,000,000 years!).

 

The real life explosion did not happen at or just before (Ediacaran fauna) the Cambrian Explosion, approximately 540-520 million years ago. So in 3.26 billion years the oceans were full of life, but that life was very basic (unicellular organisms).

 

How does that fit into your idea on what happened on our beautiful blue-green planet? First Creation, then a pause of 2/3 of the planets existence and then finally the real life explosion?

 

Cheers.

[jnabors]

I would have to say I believe in the Creation + Evolution view.  God started things in motion and the Evolution took over.  

 

The phrase "I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else".  Was an attempt to explain my thoughts on a purely Evolution stance.  I completely support Evolution,with the exception that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be incorrect in some ways.  Overall though, I have no issue with Evolution, genetics, selective breeding, etc....  

 

Most everything I have read on the subject indicates that Evolution typically takes place over very short periods of time in response to sudden and dramatic changes in environment as opposed to Darwin's theory where Evolution takes place over long periods of time in response to genetic mutations.  Both probably occur, but the first much more so than the second.

 

I have been Agnostic, but now I identify as Christian; but Christian as I defined in my post above.  Not the Christians you see on TV refusing to issue marriage licenses or in huge Churches asking for donations.     

[Torero]

I would have to say I believe in the Creation + Evolution view.  God started things in motion and the Evolution took over.  

 

The phrase "I have no reason to believe in Evolution, or anything else".  Was an attempt to explain my thoughts on a purely Evolution stance.  I completely support Evolution,with the exception that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be incorrect in some ways.  Overall though, I have no issue with Evolution, genetics, selective breeding, etc....  

 

Most everything I have read on the subject indicates that Evolution typically takes place over very short periods of time in response to sudden and dramatic changes in environment as opposed to Darwin's theory where Evolution takes place over long periods of time in response to genetic mutations.  Both probably occur, but the first much more so than the second.

 

I have been Agnostic, but now I identify as Christian; but Christian as I defined in my post above.  Not the Christians you see on TV refusing to issue marriage licenses or in huge Churches asking for donations.     

 

Ok, clear, thanks, also on your views on your own Christianity.

 

I agree with you; stress situations (due to environmental factors) lead to evolutionary changes. A nice example is insular dwarfism; due to limited resources and space huge animals start to shrink and evolve into smaller species. Notable examples are:

 

- the Dwarf elephants of the islands of the Mediterranean Sea

- the Flores-man

 

Evolution would take place all the time (mutations) but the result of it can be best observed over large periods of geological time or with condensed sections where evolution shows its results rapidly (the forcing described above).

 

The problem is that the fossil record is not only fragmented but also biased. In drastic events many more fossils are found and it is these drastic events that lead to forced evolution (adaptation to the drastically new environment).

 

On top of that the Earth is alive and most rocks have been buried (and not exposed again), eroded or altered (metamorphism).

 

The task of the geologist/paleontologist is to try to solve these puzzles with little data, huge uncertainties and free space for interpretation. A nice task, if I may say so.

[dsayers]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I hope you won't mind if I have some critiques.

 

All I ask is that everyone respect my opinion as I will, in turn, respect theirs.  I’m not asking anyone to agree with me, nor am I claiming that my belief is the only “true” belief.  It’s simply what I believe.  I don’t pretend that my opinions are absolute, nor do I try and force them on anyone else.

I have some issues with your terminology here. When somebody makes an objective claim, they are also claiming that there's such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. I'm not sure how you've concluded that opinion enters into it. If I say chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla, there is no, nor possibility of an objective proof. That is how we know it is a matter of opinion. Also, I find the word "belief" to be equally useless here. The way I see it, a belief is only useful if it motivates us to test the theory in order to either discard it as not accurately describing the real world or upgrade it to truth.

 

I mainly identified as an Agnostic Deist; some intelligent external power created everything, wasn’t involved in running or monitoring anything, and there was no proof, or any way to prove, who/what this this external entity was or what it was up to.

I used to think this also. Later I came to understand that this was just a way of excusing myself for NOT thinking it through. I hope you will allow me to make the case. This is directly derived from Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy youtube series. Something I hope you will take the time to watch because I really found it helpful in helping me to think rationally at all, let alone on the topic of the supernatural.

 

When a person makes the objective claim that "God exists," they are making a number of additional claims: 1) Consciousness exists without matter or energy. This does not accurately describe the real world. 2) Only one consciousness exists without matter or energy. This is a seemingly impossible claim as nothing in the universe exists in uniquity. 3) The deity you were taught about as a child happens to be that one consciousness. After all, let us not forget that throughout human history, hundreds if not thousands of deities were referenced. 4) The single consciousness outside of matter and energy that you were taught about intervenes. This is so important, I wanted to elaborate upon it.

 

Suppose for a moment that ghosts exist. One of two things will be true: Either they will impress upon our senses or they will not. If they do, then we can measure and substantiate them. If they do not, then for them to exist would be functionally identical to not existing. This is how we arrive at the conclusion that if "God exists" is true, it is only a meaningful claim if he intervenes. This opens up a whole can of worms that would serve to reveal that if God exists, he is not the "good guy" or worthy of praise or worship. It would mean he both creates and allows evil and suffering in the world. The Bible speaks of things like the good Samaritan, but God could accomplish this with a mere thought. So much more efficiently than a human can. Also, accept me and my commands or burn in hell for eternity is neither rational nor benevolent.

 

In Genesis, if you interpret the story of creation as God creating the universe in 168 hours split in 7 equal parts...

 

My belief is that when the Bible describes a “day”, it doesn’t translate to the 24-hour period that we recognize today.  A “day”, for the divine, may have been more like a week, a month, years, or centuries.  Human logic and definitions cannot be applied. 

I see a number of problems here also. Saying "a square triangle is valid because it exists in a universe where a two dimensional shape can have both 3 and 4 sides simultaneously" does nothing to substantiate existence in our universe. Also, wasn't the purpose of the Bible to be read by humans? Of what use would it be if it wasn't communicated in a way that could be received by its intended audience? Are you suggesting that an omnipotent and omniscient (mutual exclusivity of these concepts notwithstanding) being lacks the capability of precision or communication? Finally, wouldn't a text being open to interpretation indicate that it cannot be used as a standard of what people ought to think and do?

 

There isn’t any scientific evidence supporting Creation, It is a matter of faith.  The more I learned about the complexity of our universe, how intricately ordered and efficient everything is, the more it seems unlikely this is all just a result of random chance.

First of all, when somebody says faith, they're saying "I believe this because it's what I want to believe." To believe something before gathering any relevant data is prejudice. To believe something AFTER receiving relevant data is bigotry. Also, we're NOT talking about faith here. You are free to believe whatever you want for whatever reason you want. However, the moment you say "God exists," you're not believing, you are putting forth an objective claim.

 

Also, it's dismissive to say "random chance" in the context of "therefore impossible." The chances of you winning a multi-million dollar lottery pool is astronomical, but this doesn't mean that combination of balls can never come up. I agree with you that looking around at how gorgeous some of Earth's landscape is, how resolute and complex humans and life in general is, it's really hard to accept that it is all a result of random chance. But the reality is that this result is not only possible, but a certainty. In the universe, there is likely uncountable instances of the conditions we recognize as the basis for life. There are probably many that didn't play out the way it has for Earth. There are probably some that advanced more than us in the same amount of time, or in a different, perhaps more efficient way.

 

The most important part of all, and I'm happy to say I came upon this myself, even while I was still religiously uncertain and hadn't yet happened upon philosophy and rational thought: What difference does it make? If we were created or we evolved, how does this alter my daily life? Is State power more valid either way? Is child abuse more valid either way?

 

If asked, I would have to save that Homosexuality is a sin; the Bible says it and I believe the Bible.

Do you not see that this is a competing claim compared to "Human logic and definitions cannot be applied"? This goes back to what I was saying before that if you get to pick and choose, then you are confessing there is no objective standard and it cannot be used for anything other than a story book. It has some good ideas, but as you reveal right here, there is no sound methodology behind it.

 

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say it's damaging IN THE EXTREME and for reasons you touch on when you say that we are all sinners. I had a crisis of identity when I was growing up. It was a "sin" to masturbate, I wanted to serve God, but I couldn't stop. I experienced such a level of despair over something that turns out to be completely normal. I'll end it there because I don't want my rational input to be dismissed as emotional bias.

[Will Torbald]

I completely support Evolution,with the exception that Darwinian Evolution has been proven to be incorrect in some ways.

 

[citation needed]

 

The religious debate is better had with the other people engaging with you already on it, but I find the scientific talk more interesting. I often find that people who talk about Darwin in the same breath with the words "proven to be incorrect" have almost certainly never read "On the Origin of Species" or any of his writings, nor any of the modern Neo-Darwinian theories involving modern genetics. Usually religious and spiritually inclined people like you hear about evolution from people who deny it and make the most outlandish and misinformed strawman arguments against it. No other branch of science gets so many childish and petty contrarians as evolutionary biology - not saying you are one, but those denialists go on to misinform people of good will about the real theories and the way it really works.

 

So far as it has stood for 150 years, Darwinian evolution by natural selection has been confirmed and reconfirmed enough times to make anyone's head spin for another 150 years. There has been no evidence against it, even when it is clear what kind of evidence would disprove it. On the contrary, every single branch of science from chemistry, geology, physics, and now genomics confirms all the required parameters for evolution to occur. It's not that "some of it" has been wrong. All of it has been right.

 

If you have some as of yet unknown piece of evidence to discredit evolution, even "in some ways" as you say it, I'm all ears and eyes on it.

[Torero]

[citation needed]

 

The religious debate is better had with the other people engaging with you already on it, but I find the scientific talk more interesting. I often find that people who talk about Darwin in the same breath with the words "proven to be incorrect" have almost certainly never read "On the Origin of Species" or any of his writings, nor any of the modern Neo-Darwinian theories involving modern genetics. Usually religious and spiritually inclined people like you hear about evolution from people who deny it and make the most outlandish and misinformed strawman arguments against it. No other branch of science gets so many childish and petty contrarians as evolutionary biology - not saying you are one, but those denialists go on to misinform people of good will about the real theories and the way it really works.

 

So far as it has stood for 150 years, Darwinian evolution by natural selection has been confirmed and reconfirmed enough times to make anyone's head spin for another 150 years. There has been no evidence against it, even when it is clear what kind of evidence would disprove it. On the contrary, every single branch of science from chemistry, geology, physics, and now genomics confirms all the required parameters for evolution to occur. It's not that "some of it" has been wrong. All of it has been right.

 

If you have some as of yet unknown piece of evidence to discredit evolution, even "in some ways" as you say it, I'm all ears and eyes on it.

 

Hi Will, not to discredit your post, well explained, but I (think I) see where jnabors is coming from (albeit from a completely different angle).

 

The "Darwinian" idea that natural selection alone is enough I do not support. Environmental factors are just as important in evolution as in everything Stefan talks about (going against determinism). So not only "waiting for a recessive/unnecessary evolved feature to die out" (natural selection solely) but more importantly the effect the environment has on the species.

 

I am a geologist, so centered around evolution. But in my opinion forced evolution, or evolution based on stress situations has a lot more value to me than "slow steady evolution". Although the one doesn't discard the other, I think that evolution speeds up because of the environment and especially the changes therein. Just like with humans; in a war situation we develop our necessary strengths much faster than in quiet peaceful times. That is really the driver for evolution; our changing planet.