U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-19-2010, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Richland, Washington
4,070 posts, read 4,967,252 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Engines are also not error prone self-replicating machines, and that complex objects (like a combustion engine) do not form complex piece by complex piece. The modern cell was not the "first life." The Cell is a complex organism itself having underwent evolution.
Creationists are under the presumption that life was as complex at the beginning as it is now. What they don't understand is that it has taken billions of years to become this complex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2010, 06:52 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,688,375 times
Reputation: 12214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Yes, I used the combustion engine to bring home the idea that a human cell is far more advanced. And it requires a greater intelligence to make all the detailed works funtion together. And such a funtion, does not occur by accident, or chance. I have worked in the chemical industry for years. And I have seen first hand the chemical processes require to produce even a simple product. Yet when speaking of a human cell. To believe all of this came about by itself, or natural selection. The whole idea is laughable. The human body, has always been the most advanced machine in existance. With even advance abilities to repair itself. It is beyond anything science could even dream of. Yet, some would still have us believe it just happened? What total nonsense. Only a master designer could of ever conceived such a biological wonder, which to date, is beyond human understanding.
Humans are far from the most advanced organisms...Even the "lowly" newt is far more complex. We share most of our basic biological systems with just about every other vertebrate on the planet - each species "tweaks their setup" to be only as complex as they need to be to cope with and take advantage of environmental niches. This is because of evolution, not any "master designer".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2010, 07:07 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,585 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Humans are far from the most advanced organisms...Even the "lowly" newt is far more complex. We share most of our basic biological systems with just about every other vertebrate on the planet - each species "tweaks their setup" to be only as complex as they need to be to cope with and take advantage of environmental niches. This is because of evolution, not any "master designer".
Agree. Humans, as I recall, have the largest brain structures per body weight of any mammal. We got ourselves some great brains. Geckos can climb any surface, because their "toes" make a connection at the atomic level with the surface. Birds can fly into the air at a moments whim. Birds also have magnetoception, allowing them to find magnetic north and south and guide them. That is a natural compass. Research into human versions has shown that humans do posses the physical capability for the sense, but we are unable to use it. Humans are far from perfect designs compared to other animals.

And of course, we all know how ridiculously backward the eye is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2010, 08:15 PM
 
354 posts, read 677,949 times
Reputation: 81
i feel frustrated. i cant remember this microbiologist(?) that one poster mentioned. i googled him and he has a youtube vid explaining how he is making bacteria evolve out of nothing. if someone can tell me who i am talking about... i WANTED to reply so bad when i read it 3 wks ago, but i can't post for 3 weeks. and i forgot and cant find that post that mentions his name. anyway,,,

according to the vid as i remember he made this computer program.. to create different situations so the evolution of the bacteria will happen sooner. does it not prove without a shadow of a doubt then that there really is a God, behind all these natural process(or as many people call evolution)? i mean if these bacterias need these computer program that triggers natural occurence to initiate "evolution"?

you will understand it better if i get the name of this person and link you to the youtube vid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2010, 08:23 PM
 
3,614 posts, read 2,952,585 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post
i feel frustrated. i cant remember this microbiologist(?) that one poster mentioned. i googled him and he has a youtube vid explaining how he is making bacteria evolve out of nothing. if someone can tell me who i am talking about... i WANTED to reply so bad when i read it 3 wks ago, but i can't post for 3 weeks. and i forgot and cant find that post that mentions his name. anyway,,,

according to the vid as i remember he made this computer program.. to create different situations so the evolution of the bacteria will happen sooner. does it not prove without a shadow of a doubt then that there really is a God, behind all these natural process(or as many people call evolution)? i mean if these bacterias need these computer program that triggers natural occurence to initiate "evolution"?

you will understand it better if i get the name of this person and link you to the youtube vid.
Our limitation in technology does not provide evidence for a deity any more than our gap in knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2010, 11:06 PM
 
2,952 posts, read 2,254,371 times
Reputation: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post
i feel frustrated. i cant remember this microbiologist(?) that one poster mentioned. i googled him and he has a youtube vid explaining how he is making bacteria evolve out of nothing. if someone can tell me who i am talking about... i WANTED to reply so bad when i read it 3 wks ago, but i can't post for 3 weeks. and i forgot and cant find that post that mentions his name. anyway,,,

according to the vid as i remember he made this computer program.. to create different situations so the evolution of the bacteria will happen sooner. does it not prove without a shadow of a doubt then that there really is a God, behind all these natural process(or as many people call evolution)? i mean if these bacterias need these computer program that triggers natural occurence to initiate "evolution"?

you will understand it better if i get the name of this person and link you to the youtube vid.

YouTube - Spontaneous DNA, The Rapture, and The Rise to Fourth Density
One problem for me, I have real doubts about man's ability to achieve absolute-sterile conditions.
There are pyrogenic proof animals that can for sure survive the enclaves; one being the water bear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2010, 11:49 PM
 
354 posts, read 677,949 times
Reputation: 81
oooh i remember him. i remember he was on a ted conference so i googled it and found him on science section of speakers on the website. anyway here is the vid.


YouTube - Craig Venter: On the verge of creating synthetic life

around 20 minutes on the vid they are on q&a and he specifically said what he is making is NOT out of nothing or dont need to make all of life from scratch since they found a code or make codes that are now used as boot ups to do what they want. he is into making bio fuels. which is cool.

anyway, after watching it proves me more that there is a God although i think these people on vid are atheists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2010, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,038 posts, read 30,688,375 times
Reputation: 12214
Quote:
Originally Posted by baket View Post
oooh i remember him. i remember he was on a ted conference so i googled it and found him on science section of speakers on the website. anyway here is the vid.


around 20 minutes on the vid they are on q&a and he specifically said what he is making is NOT out of nothing or dont need to make all of life from scratch since they found a code or make codes that are now used as boot ups to do what they want. he is into making bio fuels. which is cool.

anyway, after watching it proves me more that there is a God although i think these people on vid are atheists.
Interesting concept designing fuel producing life with computers.
I did find the few words that probably convinced you that there is a god....He said "all life is derived from other life", and that is certainly true today....Too bad he neglected to say that word "today" I certainly understood what he meant though.

We call it evolution, but what do you think the FIRST life forms on earth were? I'll give you a hint.....Earth's atmosphere contained almost no oxygen (3% or less) until about 650 million years ago, Certainly not enough to support life as we know it today. Sometime during the late Archaean era an oxygen-containing atmosphere began to develop, apparently from photosynthesizing algae which have been found as stromatolite fossils from 2.7 billion years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2010, 04:34 AM
 
34,545 posts, read 8,914,192 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobeable View Post
yeah-the monkeys all got together and decided to evolve

why dont we humans get together and decide to evolve into somethin better

ok so there might be 1 gene that mutated for the better to prevent malaria that dos'nt mean that every species dramatically evolved into a completely different species

i think for that to happen their would have to be constant mutations going on and if thats the natural way of life then would'nt their still be constant mutations going on or have all the species decided that their genes are ok the way they are

ok so i might not know everything about the evolutionary theory but at the end of the day its still just a theory
This is such a collection of Creationist cliches that I would almost take it for a wind - up.

No -one 'gets together' and 'decides' to evolve. It's as natural as life and death.

On the other hand, you have a point. We humans can think and we don't have to play with the hand that evolution dealt us. We can decide to 'evolve into somethin better'. Getting rid of unfounded beliefs like religion is a first stage.

I don't know everything about evolutionary theory either. I had to get to grips with it because it has become so important in the religion debate. All I'm asking for you to do is consider whether the evidence points that way or not. Remember that evolution being true does not neccessarily mean that there is no god.

You are right that there is continuous mutation going on. Of course, not all mutations are 'useful'. That depends on the conditions. I recall that some people were found to have a mutation that protected against malaria. But, since they didn't live in a malaria area, it gave no advantage and so those people will not 'out- survive' the others who do not have the mutation. In time, the mutation would be reabsorbed (as I understand it) into the gene pool.

You are also right that any particular species didn't neccessarily evolve into a different species. Some could remain as they were with only minor changes (such as Caelocanth - just to show that they have evolved from the fossil Coelacanth and, thus that a living fossil does not prove Young Earth). If I follow your point, you may be suggesting that such changes within species does not mean change from one species to another.
Without going into the semantics. Evolution is 'just a theory' in that evolution from one species to another is not clearly demonstrable. I have looked at the claims of one species changing to another - plants and fruit flies but the point is well taken that they are still fruit flies.

I might point out that evolution is an accepted fact. It is accepted even by Creationists. It is accepted, provided that it is limited only to evolution within a species (micro-evolution). It is not accepted that one species can change into another (macro -evolution).

I would say that the evidence suggest otherwise. The DNA evidence suggests that there are genetic links and the fossil evidence suggests that such changes actually happened. There are transitional forms; so many that the idea that all the forms are to a greater or lesser extent transitional seems to be current thought.

It seems odd to me that artificial limits should be be imposed on evolution - that those who object to evolution cannot accept that, given enough time, the physiological and genetic changes are so marked that the diverged animals cannot interbreed and actually look rather different.

The theory has support. All I'm asking is that you and others who dismiss evolution, get abreast of the arguments and hear the explanation. That you are here is the first step.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2010, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,069,422 times
Reputation: 3717
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
There are several flaws in your argument. The first is that you don't understand what chance and randomness are. You're using them as if they mean that something 'just happened' for no reason.

Quote:
rifleman: Precisely, AG. This poster makes a lot of superficial assumptions using the layman's definition of a term, but then applies that definition, with a dismissive wave of the mind, to an advanced technological question. This is a basic and recurring flaw in his argument.

All sorts of things happen out there based on basic chaos theory, which notes the randomness of certain actions which then create an array of options. But their outcome has consequences, and when the outcomes are "sorted" by trial within another system, specific outcomes can then take place.

I know; aristocratic gobbledy-gunk for "if it fit's wear it!". We had simple chemicals existing in groups in primordial ocean water, interacting according to a pretty limited set of "rules" (as we define them). Given the near-uncountable number of opportunities for test interactions (given, for instance, the number of molecules within a simple liter of sea water, multiplied by the number of liters in the ocean, multiplied by the available time pre-life; several billion years) we can easily provide 1) a very large number of test opportunities, and 2) multitudes of new chemical arrangements.

Of course, when you start with only a few complex organic chemical combinations, there's a lot more opportunities for previously untried combinations to occur than there are now, given our billions of years of existence.

To just gaze on all the naturally existing organic compounds today and go into "Jaw-Dropped, Awe-Struck" mode is to ignore the obvious. But let's also never forget: Christians WANT to be in that Awe-Struck mode, to give thanks and praise an imaginary god. it's all the "proof" they need, even if the facts argue against their conclusions.
This is false though. Chance and randomness are just labels for something we don't currently know. Also, you're assuming that because man made objects require someone to create them, then that means nature(meaning life/chemical reactions) works the same way. This is not true and something creationists fail to understand.

Quote:
rflmn: Actually, they do know this, and they do know better, but it's an argument they cling to in desperation.
Another flaw is that you claim that evolution says life just came about all by itself. This is untrue though. Biological evolution isn't predicated on the belief that life 'just happened.' It works by processes and laws.

Quote:
rflmn: Again, we'll apparently hear for the rest of time that "Evolution requires something to come from nothing!". Poppy-****! The errant lessons thrashed into their heads by such luminary sites as Answers in Genesis are hard to shake, it's true. That Evolution can't explain the origins of life. Of course it can't and doesn't.

Such a simple-minded mistake has been corrected time after time, and yet, when one simply parrots others' errant thinking, what can we expect?
Also, I'm curious if you know what natural selection even is. Another flaw is that you assume the body is a machine. This is also untrue. It's also rather sad that the only two options you can conceive of are that life 'just happened' or that a master designer created everything. Neither science nor atheism say life 'just happened.' Life can be explained through laws and chemical processes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden View Post
Engines are also not error prone self-replicating machines, and that complex objects (like a combustion engine) do not form complex piece by complex piece. The modern cell was not the "first life." The Cell is a complex organism itself having underwent evolution.
Quote:
rflmn: A simple chemical array can function, "processing" molecules it comes into contact with in predictable ways, as simple as latching on to it, and then bending its shape slightly. We can demo this in the biology lab with a simple enzyme which then alters a sugar molecule it comes in contact with.

Then, this "bending" can facilitate the attachment or interaction with yet another different molecule, and so on and so on. Such truly simple, lab-demonstrable events, mediated as they might be by temperature, light, time, salinity changes, etc., all led to molecules that reacted predictably with others in their mutual environment.

Obviously, when some such chance chain of reactions creates conditions or even more reactive molecules, under simple but common conditions, the outcome might promote duplication of that reaction. It might promote, by random chance, a protective condition, or a more robust and thus more surviving molecule.

All of this simple stuff confounds the dedicated Creationist, but not because they really can't comprehend it. It's because following through on the possibilities and consequences of such events and their inherent logic frightens the Creationist mindset and paradigm by it's implications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier View Post
Creationists are under the presumption that life was as complex at the beginning as it is now. What they don't understand is that it has taken billions of years to become this complex.
Quote:
rflmn: Yep. They look at an eye and cannot imagine that some cells, by the simple input of ambient light energy, might change their configuration, and in the right simple combination, might, say, bend a molecule they are attached to, causing it to affect an attached string of other molecules, and so on.

"Eyesight" is simply a reaction of molecules to incoming light energy. The complexity of the reaction has developed over time, from simple light-sensitive reactors that we can isolate in plants (and is why they bend towards the morning light) to early arrays of same that "tickle" an early oceanic organism to move towards the dark shadow of a possible prey species, to the black and white eyesight of a dog or cat, and finally, to the sensitivity to a range of colors, but by no means all colors, that the early primates experienced. All the better to see you with, mate!

And yet, if you simplistically go directly to the end product, say, a Ferrari F1 car, and compare it to Henry Ford's first creation, you are awestruck, and can't possibly understand how the two are related.

http://pics.shinbox.com/sports/cars/...mula_1_001.jpg

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...Model-T-PO.jpg

The final, glaring fault in the "Jaw-Dropped, Awe-Struck" Creationist argument is when they look at a fully evolved primate eye, and say "It's just too complex to have 'evolved" through some chance process!". First-off: "Too complex" for whose mind, I'd ask? This simplistically ignores the understandable and logical process of additive functionalities that have occurred over long time spans, where different chance encounters tried out countless opportunities, where countless interactions tested the utility of some chemical organization. And it ignores that a simple advantage in organic structure might then facilitate the next step. As happens in organizational design all the time.

It's sort of like a caveman's first weapon, a big dull rock, then a sharpened rock, and then he lashes it to a stick, and then when he's happier and not so preoccupied with staying alive, because he''s now warm and well-fed because of improved hunting success, he can sit in his cave and his simple mind wonders if a sharper point on a smaller rock might not work better, so he tries it out, and a long time later we have a SCUD missile.

The really, truly unlikely scenario, far more colossally implausible, nay impossible, is that one single Creator type, invisible to all, and never bothering to show Himself to anyone, ever, just MAGICALLY physically and logically structured and organized the entire universe as we now are beginning to know and understand it, all in a day or so. Of course, the original biblical authors had NO IDEA of how big and complex it really was, and they were easily "Jaw-Dropped and Awe-Struck".

In fact, they actually preferred to be "Jaw-Dropped and Awe-Struck", to be in the dark. It kept them in power! However, when we "moderns" re-consider, in light of what we now DO know of physics and molecular interaction, that it's all organizing itself through trial and error, according to those rather straightforward rules of engagement, it all starts to make logical sense. And finally, it's not even all done yet, another flaw in the "It's all complete according to God's Holy Grande Plan!" concept. We're still finding suns and planets forming, and others dying, for instance. Ooopppsss.

Time and logic, m'boy. Time and logic.
QED, as they say. Again.

Last edited by rifleman; 03-20-2010 at 07:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top