Fatal Flaws in the Theory of Evolution (translation, atheism, priest)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Roxolan

Well, basically, the Intelligent Design* argument is "complex things must have been build by a more complex being". Which allows us to use the "turtle" argument. The theory of evolution, however, shows that complex things can emerge from simpler things. Thus, no need for a "designer's designer".

I would dispute the ID description you use as the bogus one of the Discovery Institute frauds. Real ID simply asserts that evolution is guided and proceeds by design (whose components we have identified . . DNA, RNA, survival motivation,etc.) . . . NOT random(an artificial mathematical expression of our ignorance) indifference.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by cleatis

wow, this thread turned into a big ol mess

as i said before, evolution doesn't take more faith per se, just a lot of knowledge that the average joe isn't likely to have, thereby making creation the easier answer.

honestly, try looking up some anthropology. Darwin did play a large role, but as the pioneer of evolution he didn't know what we do now. yes, his finches are still finches, but can you explain the change they underwent, or the near match between chimp DNA and human DNA? if i can find it, there is an article that shows that chimps have one more chromosome that we do, but if you look at it, we have a fused one that is pretty much the extra one they have, tied to another.

really, if you guys are going to knock evolution, learn about it at least know more about it than the jerry fallwell cookie cutter statements.

also keep in mind, that many of the medicines we use all the time, were formed using evolution, so if creation really is the answer, you shouldn't be taking antibiotics.

Creationism is spectacularly easier to handle intellectually than are the still somewhat unknown minute details that Evolution has wrought. Many of us, including the oft-mis-quoted (on purpose, BTW) Dr. Dawkins, have allowed as how we just might be the result of some other-world's PhD experiment. No way of knowing until they land and some new Doctoral candidate shows us his/it's new Certificate for it's work in eco-forming here on good old Planet #523A-©˙•Â¶()(666.

Of course, the spectacularly twisted tone and messages in Ben Stein's movie use highly selective quote-mined tripe, such as catching just enough of Dr. Dawkins' comments to then state that he believes only in alien intelligence, so "why not "God". Why not? Because Dawkins never said that, and is capable of seeing and evaluating the widest range of possibilities that might be, rather than accepting the curiosity-crushing "must be" jackboot of Christendom.

Otherwise, science is used by folks to try to figure how the stuff we do know, we can see, have documented and have proven already might fit into a larger picture. We are equally happy accepting that we're not there yet, and our very limited intellect, just enough to make a lot of humans arrogant and humorless, maybe won't ever let us figure out stuff that may be child's play to the alien Gliggonites from Gligon that Dr. Dawkins speculates about.

(They left us crop circles, for heaven's sake. They MUST be out there! Just ask the USAF!).

Originally Posted by hazah

actually i feel i have to disagree with the fact that creationism is easier to accept. i feel that with the mass media and education level rising in the world it becomes increasingly difficult to find faith in something apparently so farfetched. i know myself as a christian believer it is difficult to stand firm while so many put pressure on me to prove my god. so maybe taking that leap to believe in something that is so hard to see could actually be harder to accept.

on another note. i don't know how many of yall have seen the movie "Expelled! no intellegence allowed" featuring Ben Stein. it brings up how in the science community many scientist are being black listed for the mear mentioning of intellegent design.

"Black-listed" in what way? "Many" means? Two? five? Twenty? This turns out to be a massively off-base statement, BTW, one of many in this highly hostile so-called documentary by the defensive/hostile Religious Right.

so i feel that most of the research provided today is biased. in a way we see the evolution community holding a sort of "dictatorship" over the science society. it doesn't hesitate to eliminate those who chose to stand against it or even those who slightly consider the idea of some higher being whether it be a god or an extra-terestrial.

With respect, hazah, please provide accurate links to this. There is no "evolution community"; what there is are literally tens of millions of both newly minted (graduated) and existing, experienced ethical professional scientists in geology, biology, genetics, evolution, archeology, cosmology, paleontology and a few others that all accept the ever-growing body of information that fully supports the logical common-sense and biochemically proven facts of Evolution. In fact, almost ALL research projects today, in the vastness of topics open to inquiry, are un-biased and ethical. When it's not, it's us scientists who uncover it and admonish the unethical.

There's simply no world-wide conspiracy as you suggest. Rather, the conspiracy to hide the truth resides in places like "Answers in Genesis" and Ben Stein's silly movie. But then, it was aimed at the less intellectual, those who want to see some semi-eloquent support for Creationism in spite of the proofs to the contrary. Cutesy phrases and purposeful mischief do not cut it with intelligent movie-goers.

If you were to take the time to do a bit of reading about the basics, of the Lego™ building block simplicity of it once DNA/tRNA was in place, how extemely complex things can, quite simply, arise from basic building blocks, you'd have no alternative but to realize that Evolution is a fact.

To Mystic's denials and obfuscatory comments about "nature", my personal philosophical epiphany was simply, but elegantly, that "observable nature" proves & accurately predicts Evolution. The "fit" of it's seemingly complex interactions are visible and obvious to any objective observer, but only in an uncluttered and truly wild setting. Exactly what one would see if they were to use a time-machine and go back about 250,000 years to an area absent human "management".

Is my personal philosophy complete? Inasmuch as it allows me to live happily and understand to my satisfaction what I want to, yes. Does it answer all possible questions as does an evangelical version? Nope, but then, who wants a bunch of all-inclusive "goddunnit" answers in lieu of the truth anyhow?

Nature is but an outcome of the beautiful simplicity of Evolution. Evolution per se does not require any ID for it's complexity to have happened. It's self-guiding, self-enacting, self-regulating. Unaided but for the classic simplicity and functionality of DNA and genetic drift. That's the true beauty of it, and to realize that is to become unfettered from the limits of man's immature intelligence.

Having seen this, one is faced with a decision about whether or not a God is somehow thus required as part of the entirety of the observable and spiritual world. Certainly not, in fact. That decision is simply one's personal choice, based on one's personal experiences and deep spiritual needs. Having made the decsion to include a supreme being doesn't entitle one to assume it's thus some higher truth.

Big bad words and condescension do not make a God necessarily true.

Originally Posted by ZugZub

There is no conundrum as you very well know. I don't believe in any supernatural creator of any sort. Do I have an answer for how everything originally began? Nope. So what? That doesn't mean I immediately grasp at straws and proclaim that a god did it, or weasel around the subject of a god by calling it "intelligent design". I'm not so fearful of the unknown as to need an answer to everything right now. If you want to believe in that sort of thing, go for it. But don't patronizingly tell me it's Truth unless you can back it up with scientific fact.

Precisely, ZZ. In fact, ID's obvious agenda is to superficially distance ID from religious doctrine so they can insist it be incorporated into an objective Science curriculum. Sadly for them, and obviously apparent to anyone who isn't in the chanting, swaying, arm-waving, eyes-half-closed, feeding-frenzy evangelical mob, is that this is not science in any way. That's immediately obvious to the more rational amongst us, even those with no secular or religious axe to grind.

Also, religion's supporters are, in the majority case, wholly uneducated about what science is, and thus cannot defend against it, and don't even try to apply it to their so-called evidence for Intelligent Design. If they did, honestly and ethically, it would fall on it's face in an instant. Silliness, illogic and deliberate obfuscation are readily apparent, especially to the clear-eyed and open-minded of us.

Those who realize this but still staunchly rise to defend it regardless of its indefensibility are thus ethically bereft. And yet they claim to be good and honest Christians. It boggles the mind! Satan's hand in their efforts seems possible!

[Boxcar Overkill]

The best evidence we have today, as flawed as it may be, is that we are a product of evolution. That theory is better supported by the available evidence than any other theory currently proposed, including the theory that a big sky daddy used a magic wand to defy the laws of physics and poofed us into existance.

Christianity requires faith. Faith is not the belief in that which is most likely to be true. That's would be simple logic. Instead, faith is the belief in things which the evidence shows is not likely to be true. To have faith, you believe despite the evidence, not because of the evidence.

That is the conflict between Christianity and Science. Scientist believe because of the evidence, Christians believe despite the evidence. Whether one is talking about the origin of man, the origin of the world, what happens after one dies, or (in the past,) whether the earth is the center of the universe.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

The best evidence we have today, as flawed as it may be, is that we are a product of evolution. That theory is better supported by the available evidence than any other theory currently proposed, including the theory that a big sky daddy used a magic wand to defy the laws of physics and poofed us into existance.

Just curious . . . how would that be different from "Big Bang"-ing us into existence?

Christianity requires faith. Faith is not the belief in that which is most likely to be true. That's would be simple logic. Instead, faith is the belief in things which the evidence shows is not likely to be true. To have faith, you believe despite the evidence, not because of the evidence.

A common straw man . . . true for some . . . not all . . . besides many scientists believe in an indifferent purposeless nature because of a lack of sufficient evidence of a purpose or design (I guess to them a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack).

That is the conflict between Christianity and Science. Scientist believe because of the evidence, Christians believe despite the evidence. Whether one is talking about the origin of man, the origin of the world, what happens after one dies, or (in the past,) whether the earth is the center of the universe.

Pretty blanket statements and all are not supportable. What evidence do the scientists have for the origin of the world or for what happens after one dies?

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

What evidence do the scientists have for the origin of the world or for what happens after one dies?

Surely you must know the mountains of evidence that exist for both of those issues. Lets just take the second one for example - what happens after we die.

If we can get past a 14th century understanding of the way the mind works, we will understand that sapient thought is not a product of a "ghost in our machine." Instead, modern science has shown that sapient thought - consciousness, is a product of the electro-chemical reaction that occurs when the synapses of the brain fire. We have known that for a long, long time.

If, for whatever reason, those synapses stop firing, sapient thought ends. For example, if the part of your brain that controls long term memory is destroyed, you will no longer have long term memories. If the part of the brain that controls short term memory is destroyed, you will have no short term memory. If both are destroyed, you have neither long, nor short term memory. When we die, both the long term and short term memory stop working, the synapses stop firing. Thus, there's no reason to believe that we would still have long or short term memory after that point.

The same is true of all the other functions of the brain. We will not have logical thought when the part of our brain that controls logical thought stops working.

Death, by definition, is when the brain stops functioning altogether. Everything we know about the way sapient thought works tells us that when the brain dies, so too does all thought. At that point, it's all over. We will no longer be self-aware. At that point, we are no more than an inanimate object like a rock.

To deny the above is to view the world through a 14th century lens. Electro-chemical reactions in the brain cause thought, and nothing else. When that is gone, so is our consciousness.

If you believe sapient thought is possible after your brain synapses stop firing, then you believe despite the evidence, not because of the evidence.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Just curious . . . how would that be different from "Big Bang"-ing us into existence?

The Big Bang is a coherent scientific theory backed up by evidence we can actually observe.

A common straw man . . . true for some . . . not all . . . besides many scientists believe in an indifferent purposeless nature because of a lack of sufficient evidence of a purpose or design (I guess to them a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack).

Choosing the simplest explanation when there are multiple frameworks which make identical predictions is not the same as having faith in something which has no evidence to support it.

What evidence do the scientists have for the origin of the world or for what happens after one dies?

Don't confuse "no evidence to confirm what my religious faith tells me has to be the right answer" with "no evidence".

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

What evidence do the scientists have for the origin of the world or for what happens after one dies?

There it is... "The scientists", as though the applicators of a rigorous and well-developed Q&A system are homogenous. It's that popular global conspiracy thing, one must of needs assume yet again...

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

The Big Bang is a coherent scientific theory backed up by evidence we can actually observe.

Choosing the simplest explanation when there are multiple frameworks which make identical predictions is not the same as having faith in something which has no evidence to support it.

Don't confuse "no evidence to confirm what my religious faith tells me has to be the right answer" with "no evidence".

I will add, KC, that their definition of "evidence" differs significantly from ours. Their's requires no follow-up, no documentation, no validation, no cross-referencing, no peer review, no Ocham's Logic, nada, zilch.

Just "If it fits into Creationism's fairy tale, it must be good, man, 'cause I like it, and then, 'course, there's them d@nged conspiratorial lyin' 'scientists'...!"

And then, there's this level of spectacular objectivity rampant in their community of ideas:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03...-spring-water/

Plus, they will not consider alternates to save their souls, so to speak.

And yet, this is done regularly. When I see such obvious logic and common sense as you've written here, I just gotta re-post it. You know, if case some readers missed or glossed over it. Perhaps color can help the intransigent?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

The Big Bang is a coherent scientific theory backed up by evidence we can actually observe.

And that same evidence wouldn't equally back up a change of language to "Poof" . . . Why?
Too "poofy" . . . not poofy enough" . . . Just because we can explain the after-effects of the "poof" . . . How does that disqualify it and not the Big Bang? Need we call it the BIG Poof?

Choosing the simplest explanation when there are multiple frameworks which make identical predictions is not the same as having faith in something which has no evidence to support it.

How does that address my post? The wholepoint is you have no evidence to support it. It is the LACK of evidence that you use as evidence of a LACK.To repeat:

. . . many scientists believe in an indifferent purposeless nature because of a lack of sufficient evidence of a purpose or design (I guess to them a lack of evidence is evidence of a lack).

It is a preference . . . period.

Don't confuse "no evidence to confirm what my religious faith tells me has to be the right answer" with "no evidence".

I said nothing about what my religious faith tells me. I asked for the evidence for the origin of the world. to repeat:

What evidence do the scientists have for the origin of the world or for what happens after one dies?

Oh . . . and what DOES happen after one dies to the energy that was transformed into conscious intellect (self)? Isn't conservation of energy kinda basic?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

There it is... "The scientists", as though the applicators of a rigorous and well-developed Q&A system are homogenous. It's that popular global conspiracy thing, one must of needs assume yet again..

Just trying to keep you guys honest while you have your fun with the IDT's . . . rifleman. At least be humble enough to admit the areas that we simply don't know about or are simply the preferred beliefs.

[Boxcar Overkill]

MysticPhd,

Let me ask you directly:

Based on everything you know about how the human brain works, do you believe that we will still be capable of thought after our brain is dead?