OT: Evolution is speculative

[Raymar]

You want current proof of evolution? Look at what man has evolved into over the last ten years. We've put our brain out on the internet instead of growing a bigger one. Some of us are actually starting to live in forums having arguments with people from all over the world. This is very recent. I also keep noticing people walking around having full on conversations all by themselves. This too is very recent.

 

steve

[Slowly]

Originally posted by AKA:

Originally posted by Chip Curtis:

 

The earth is just a big egg that had comet sperm smash into it. (Cliffs' Notes evolution)

 

Yeah, evolution as the explanation for creation is belief I just cant buy into.

 

It makes about as much sense as a tornado going through a junk yard and leaving behind a perfectly built car or computer.

Well, in about a million years.... Kcbass

[AKA]

[/qb]

Well, in about a million years.... Kcbass[/qb]

 

Ahhh, the MAGIC of time.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by AKA:

Dan South wrote:

 

{{{Will we learn more about stars as time goes on? Yes. Will our understanding change over time? Probably. Will this refute our current theories? Perhaps, but more likely our current theories will be amended rather than replaced.}}}

 

The point is that we really dont know.

 

We are still gathering new information and as such can not come to a

definite conclusion.

We don't know everything about physics or astronomy yet, but we with what we DO know, we have launched satellites into space, sent men to the moon, harnessed nuclear energy, send spacecraft as far as Saturn, etc.

 

Do you know EVERYTHING about music? If not, can you still effectively PLAY music? The fact that you don't know EVERYTHING about music does not negate what you actually DO know.

 

{{{Can someone please state the Theory of Creationism for me? I'm not familiar with it. If you can, could you please list any empirical data that substantiate the theory? I'd like to review these data and compare them with the observations that support the Theory of Evolution, just to see how the two compare.}}}

 

In my first post I stated, Creationism is just a THEORY and BELIEF too, just like evolution.

 

Creationism is about faith and Evolution is about science, thats why I posted in this forum.

Belief in what? What do you actually believe? Please state a synopsis or refer me to materials or links that define what you believe. What you believe must be based on something, or do you believe that a giant galactic chicken laid a magic egg and the solar system hatched out of it?

[Dan South]

Originally posted by AKA:

Jeebus wrote:

 

{{{There is overwhelming evidence supporting the process of evolution.}}}

 

I believe we are handed down the physical and many other traits from or parents.

 

But to conclude that humans evolved from a different species altogether (apes) is ridiculous to me.

 

What species are humans evolving to then?

Humans did not evolve from modern apes (gorillas, etc.). Apes and humans evolved in separate branches from older species that no longer exist. Many types of "human-like" creatures evolved, but all went extinct, perhaps because Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) hunted and killed them or took thier food. For instance, modern man is not a descendant of Neanderthal man. Neanderthal was a separate evolutionary track.

 

The future evolution of humans opens up MANY fascinating questions. Will future species be more aggressive or more well-mannered? In what ways will they be superior or inferior to us? Will the descendants of existing humans be replaced altogether? Will our descendants all die off? Will they all mutate? Will we be stupid by comparison, a race of chimps compared to the next level of intellectual evolution? Will we be treated as inferiors, slaves, pets? How will our art, culture, and engineering accomplishments be evaluated by future beings?

 

Here's an interesting idea to ponder. Perhaps future incarnations of humans will be able to understand things that we cannot. Perhaps they'll have the capacity to understand physics, cosmology, medical research, mathematics, even evolution itself in ways that we cannot. We would seem to them like a dog trying to understand calculus. The possibilities are fascinating.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by AKA:

 

IN THIS UNIVERSE, EVERY CREATION HAS A CREATOR.

 

You are projecting human qualities onto cosmological phenomena. Humans have a beginning and an endind, birth and death. We perceive everything in this context.

 

But what about a hydrogen atom? What about the hydrogen atoms that are in the water that's in your body? How old are those atoms? Possibly older than the Earth itself. When the Earth and sun are gone, those hydrogen atoms may still exist in their present form or transformed into energy. Who created those hydrogen atoms? Were they created in the Big Bang? What caused THAT? What came BEFORE that?

 

These questions lead to concepts that are difficult for humans to comprehend. For us, everything in our familiar microuniverse has a beginning and an end and doesn't last particularly long. Cosmological phenomena don't necessarily conform to these time rules. The 20 billion year old (or so) universe may have been preceeded by an infinite number of previous universes. Or it may be a small speck in a much larger and much older super-universe. The idea that everything has to have a beginning is quaintly human, but it's necessarily applicable on a cosmological scale.

[Jimbroni]

It is easy to disprove evolution.

 

Just look at the "evolution" of the first living organism.

 

The very first organism would need to SIMULTANEOUSLY develop many SYSTEMS for viability and reproduction.

 

1) The very first organism must have been able to take in nutrients. (breath and/or eat)

 

2) The very first organism must have been able to reproduce, ASEXUALLY or that would be the first and last of the specie.

 

3) The first organism must be able to excreet waste.

 

4) The very first organism ,besides taking in nutrients, must also be able to PROCESS those nutrients creating necessary protien to rebuild cells.

 

Also think about this. Intelligent man in a labratory has only been able to produce amino acid with repeated and CALCULATED trials. Man has never been able to produce real LIFE in a labratory using repeated and CALCULATED means, so why should anyone expect this kind of thing to happen by ACCIDENT?????

 

Did your wristwatch happen by accident?

 

Dan

You have a very good point here. But this doesn't disprove evolution. It proves that no one knows what created the initial spark of life. No viable or reputable scientist that I've heard of claims to Know that. After that spark, life and mother nature, took over and is in a constant state of evolution. Yes we have evidence of it, alot of those evidences have stated in this thread. Watch your plants in your yard over a period of three or fours years and see how every year they grow differently and propagate differently to evolve and adapt to situation.

[Raymar]

Your statement "EVERY CREATION HAS A CREATOR" is an absolute truth. For something to be a creation, it MUST have had a creator...

Everything is really a pattern of energy not an artifact, everything is really creating itself continuously. Actually everything is really just one thing taking on the appearence of many.

 

But the question I have for God, man or anybody else is this. We all know that we, planets, other stars and everything else exists. WHY?

We're really the universe looking back at itself. Why does the universe want to be aware of itself? I guess its more interesting that way.

 

The idea that everything has to have a beginning is quaintly human, but it's necessarily applicable on a cosmological scale.

Everything really begins right now, time is an illusion. I feel entropy starting to kick in now.

 

steve

[Gulliver]

Both are true. There WAS an act of creation AND there IS evolution constantly going on...

Is this so hard to understand?

[TheFunkman]

Gulliver says:

 

There WAS an act of creation AND there IS evolution constantly going on...

Exactly...Which is why I've always preached that the "evolution debate" involves two questions! One, of course, is the Darwinian "Origin of the Species." I'm convinced that given enough time and enough "micro" evolution, you can get "macro" evolution.

 

The other question is the actual origin of life, which can lead to the kind of stickiness Techristian brings up, known as the "problem of irreducible complexity." The very first organism would have had to come into being with a dazzling array of talents and equipment, for tasks like survival and procreation, already built-in...and that's a lot to ask.

 

"Philter and the Plasmatics'" view of life as an instrument of entropy is very intriguing. Not nearly as efficient as the planet's weather, but still very cool. BUT, does all this lead to life's cause, or is it all an effect? If I'm interpreting correctly, it makes it sound like the Earth willed life into existence, much like the erroneous view that giraffes willed their long necks into existence, so that they could reach the higher leaves!

 

Whatever your point of view, on any topic, it's good to stop and take stock once in awhile. Take a stand, and be ready/able to defend it. One of my favorite things in life is to watch a smug, all-knowing condescending a-hole squirm!!

 

http://go.sciflicks.com/movies/2001/2001_01.jpg

[Philter]

TheFunkman"

 

"Philter and the Plasmatics'" view of life as an instrument of entropy is very intriguing. Not nearly as efficient as the planet's weather, but still very cool.

Yeah, weather is pretty spectacular. But take a minute to consider how much entropy you generate in a day by way of the energy you consume in the form of fossil fuels (a product of yet another form of life). Don't forget that it's not just gas in your car- look at all your appliances and the materials that your home is constructed of- chances are they all represent massive investments of fossil fuels- the food that you eat is only possible through massive infusions of petroleum based fertilizers and petroleum-driven machinery- the tractors on the farm, the freight trucks on the highway, the air conditioning in the supermarket- all fossil fuels, all burnt to maximize entropy.

 

Take a minute to look at your favorite piece of gear- chances are that the majority of it originated in coal-powered plants on the other side of the world, and is put together from various petroleum-based materials- and then wrapped up in petroleum-based plastics and put onto a diesel powered barge and pushed around the globe, loaded onto trucks, and shipped to a store lit and cooled (or heated) by petroleum-generated electricity. And what's the first thing you do when you take it out of the box? You plug it in! Way to go, entropy slave!

 

Life on earth has actually terraformed the face of the planet. The very atmosphere of our planet that the weather occurs in has been dramatically altered over billions of years by gaseous emissions from bacteria, plankton, etc.

 

BUT, does all this lead to life's cause, or is it all an effect? If I'm interpreting correctly, it makes it sound like the Earth willed life into existence, much like the erroneous view that giraffes willed their long necks into existence, so that they could reach the higher leaves!

It's not the earth that willed life into being; it's the very behavior of reality. If you hold a flame to paper, it will catch fire. If you drop a ball, it will fall to the ground. Life springs up at the first chance that it can, just like a hurricane or vortex in your tub. Nothing wills it into being; when the conditions are permissive, it's the only state possible, because in certain conditions, life is the most efficient way for matter and energy to arrange and interact in order to maximize entropy. It's just natural law. It HAS to happen when conditions permit.

 

What is STILL not answered for me is this: why are the laws governing the behavior of the universe as they are? Are they just as they are and always have been for eternity? Can they change? Were they created?

[Philter]

Rod Swenson has also pointed out that while a hurricane can act to minimize a potential that exists between temperature differentials between air at the surface of the ocean and the atmosphere above, a hurricane cannot finish in one spot and then decide to pick up camp and head for another good looking spot. It can only follow existing conditions, and if local conditions degrade, the storm will die.

 

On the other hand, animals have developed perception, and when resources in one area run out, animals can move to new sources of energy, which may be far removed from where they currently are. And with increasing intelligence comes increasing ability to use more and more energy. So, we end up with man, the "smartest" of the animals, building up massive technological societies and burning the resources of the earth at an incredible (and always accelerating) rate.

 

The universal drive to maximize entropy production has caused the development of our own consciousness, which now allows us to recognize that fact.

[AKA]

Philter wrote:

 

<

 

There is an order, a balance, a design on the Earth because there was a designer that gave it such.

 

I believe in evolution in the sense that things get older and die, they dont stay as they were born.

 

A baby is born and eventually evolves into an old man and then dies.

 

It doesnt evolve into something other than it was.

 

In fact, everything in the universe follows this pattern, No?

 

A planet doesnt evolve into a sun and a sun doesnt evolve into a planet through

the magical and mysterious hand of father time.

 

http://www.westernwheel.com/010103/graphics/father-time.jpg

 

It just dies.

[gtrmac]

I'm still wondering if humans will allow themselves to evolve beyond our obviously primitive current state. The fact that we seem to need to murder one another in large numbers makes the question of evolution almost moot to me. Maybe we should consciously try to pull ourselves a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder now that we are the only life form on earth that may have an awareness of our own existence.

[Raymar]

The universal drive to maximize entropy production has caused the development of our own consciousness, which now allows us to recognize that fact.

The universal drive is consciousness.

 

There is an order, a balance, a design on the Earth because there was a designer that gave it such.

 

I believe in evolution in the sense that things get older and die, they dont stay as they were born.

 

A baby is born and eventually evolves into an old man and then dies.

 

It doesnt evolve into something other than it was.

 

In fact, everything in the universe follows this pattern, No?

 

A planet doesnt evolve into a sun and a sun doesnt evolve into a planet through

the magical and mysterious hand of father time

 

Not there was a creator, there IS a creator. All planets and people are made up of material from other stars.

 

I'm still wondering if humans will allow themselves to evolve beyond our obviously primitive current state. The fact that we seem to need to murder one another in large numbers makes the question of evolution almost moot to me. Maybe we should consciously try to pull ourselves a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder now that we are the only life form on earth that may have an awareness of our own existence.

There seems to be more of us around now than ever and we keep on increasing.

 

steve

[Hanshananigan]

Originally posted by AKA:

The universe is not only a place, it is a creation itself; therefore, the creator

must exist OUTSIDE of this universe...

 

Our perception can not reach outside of this universe, so its not knowable who created our creator.

 

IN THIS UNIVERSE, EVERY CREATION HAS A CREATOR.

 

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please let me know.

For your line of inquiry, I suggest starting with Aquinas' Five Ways of proving God's existence, since the causal argument you speak of is his Second Way. Here it is in (I think) it's entirety:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html

 

This page reviews Hume and Kant critiques of the five ways, and I think makes clear why Aquinas' causal argument is no longer regarded:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/aquinas.html

[gtrmac]

There seems to be more of us around now than ever and we keep on increasing.

 

steve[/QB]

Yes, more than ever but are many of us evolving? I wonder how our modern world selects the path of evolution.

[RABid]

What I always notice in these discussions is the "if you cannot prove it then it cannot be true" argument some take in the name of science. Our knowledge of science evolves over time but too many people either fail to notice, or take the attitude that they are at the intellectual pinnacle. 500 years ago scientific scholars were sure that the earth was flat and no one could prove otherwise. That does not mean that the

earth changed shape just before Columbus made his trip. It only means that those scholars are now considered to be fools who did more to stifle science rather than advance it and the Euclidean geometry you had in the ninth grade does not apply to everything in the universe.

 

Sadly this is not an isolated incident. Throughout history scientific scholars have been some of the biggest deterrents of scientific advancement. That's why someone like Jules Vern has more effect on scientific advancement than 99 percent of the scientific community.

 

I wonder if sometime in the future someone will create a digital world where the population becomes self aware. If those new beings are confined and secluded will they argue about the possibility of a creator and use the science of their computerized universe to prove or disprove the existence of a creator? Will they have a psychological make up that makes it hard for them to accept the possibility that they were created?

 

Robert

[wraub]

Phil-terrific posts, good stuff.

 

To the rest of you- You want proof of evolution?

Two words-Male nipples.

Discuss.

 

Peace,

 

wraub

[koolkid]

the author of this thread is in need of many many hours behind the books

 

evolution has been proved not only in naturalistic experiments but in the laboratory as well

 

the evidence is as compelling and overwhelming

as any other accepted scientific theory

[whitefang]

I've always championed the notion that evolution and creationism actually go hand-in-hand.

 

As scripture was purported to be written some millenia ago, and thought to be the word of God, one could argue that God, in his beleived wisdom, had the origins of Earth explained in a manner that the people of the time could best understand and comprehend. For example, ask any cleric about the first seven days, and they'll reason that with a God that is within a realm of eternity, the "days" mentioned could actually be thousands or more years long. Sounds like evolution to me. To apply a minute to minute recount of scripture history would entail too many volumes of scripture for pragmatic study. If one were to study both the theory of evolution, and Genesis, you'd wonder if the Bible were in fact "Cliff notes" of a sort for evolution. That Darwin, the "father" of evolution, was himself a somewhat devoted Christian, you also wonder if he was thinking along the same lines...

 

Whitefang

[pseudonym]

Let's assume that God did create all in the heavens and on earth, so then God must want to see the living on this earth at each other's throats for survival, then we can assume that what evolution is saying is true, that only the "fittest" can survive.

 

Maybe in a sense, all things created by God were somehow never meant to live-on, then the "nature" of the problem comes into being and where the scientific though is applied. Maybe the scientists see nature itself as an enemy that must be understood in order to be defeated or at least contained.

 

As far as I can see what Philter is talking about is that organic life-forms act like capacitors, taking energy "in" and expelling "it" out, only to find, that, not to unlike a human's breathing it constantly is in need of more of the same, and therefore shall fight to obtain it and then advance to the next "stage" of development.

 

The will to live is all around us, we want to be a success in our lives, or at least make a point about the wastefulness of it all, yet still living the way we need-to never-the-less, if we have the will to exist.

 

If there is a God, he is a complacent one at best, rarely interfering in the conquests of man over nature and man over man, to this end God shall still be waiting in the wings as we die in this play on the stage of earth.

[AKA]

Originally posted by koolkid:

the author of this thread is in need of many many hours behind the books

 

evolution has been proved not only in naturalistic experiments but in the laboratory as well

 

the evidence is as compelling and overwhelming

as any other accepted scientific theory

Evidence so compelling and so overwhelming that no one has been able to explain the proof of evolution themselves, or at least post a single link for someone else to explain it for them.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by AKA:

There is an order, a balance, a design on the Earth because there was a designer that gave it such.

If, as you argue below, that everything has a beginning and an end, who designed the Designer?

 

I believe in evolution in the sense that things get older and die, they dont stay as they were born.

 

A baby is born and eventually evolves into an old man and then dies.

You are attaching human qualities to inhuman phenomena. You are filtering the universe through your understanding of the familiar and the immediate. I've already discussed molecules, which can last, virtually, forever. The vibrate a little faster when heated, slower when cooled, but they don't disappear unless they're consumed as fuel in a star.

 

Other physical phenomena are cyclical, like light waves, radio waves, seasons, tides, planet orbits, rotations of a galaxy, etc. Cyclical systems renew themselves continuously. You can't compare all physical phenomena to the human life cycle; it makes no sense.

 

It doesnt evolve into something other than it was.

 

In fact, everything in the universe follows this pattern, No?

No. Stars evolve, change forms, dwindle into dust, which can regroup later to become new stars and planetary systems. The universe perpetually renews itself, like a garden going to seed and then blossoming again in the spring.

 

A planet doesnt evolve into a sun and a sun doesnt evolve into a planet through

the magical and mysterious hand of father time.

 

It just dies.

It just dies, an it's components are used to create new astral objects, just as the components of a deceased living thing can become components of new living things.

 

Shakespeare understood this principle and used it to illustrate an interesting political point.

 

"A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a

 King, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm."

 

- Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 3

[Dan South]

I'm STILL waiting for an explanation of creationism. What do creationists believe happened? Where did we come from? How was the Earth created? Were women really the descendants of Adam's rib? Adam and Eve had two sons - how did THEY procreate?

 

I'm waiting for a synopsis of what you believe, or do you just believe that something magical happened, and you don't really give a rat's about the details?

[Gulliver]

Originally posted by Dan South:

I'm STILL waiting for an explanation of creationism. What do creationists believe happened? Where did we come from? How was the Earth created? Were women really the descendants of Adam's rib? Adam and Eve had two sons - how did THEY procreate?

 

I'm waiting for a synopsis of what you believe, or do you just believe that something magical happened, and you don't really give a rat's about the details?

Personally I don't believe in all that "adam & eve" shit. The same thing is with the whole bible - it's a fairytale for me. However I do believe that time is god and before anything material there was only time out there and nothing else and then it (time/god) got bored and made his magic - produced some first particles, (then some more) and the jam (the universe / evolution) started.

And needless to say, I believe that all our universe exists because of time's (god's) will.

 

Oh, and I don't really give a rat's about the details.

[AKA]

Dan South wrote:

 

{{{If, as you argue below, that everything has a beginning and an end, who designed the Designer?}}}

 

Jeebus asked the same question and I wrote him a reply earlier in the thread.

 

{{{I'm STILL waiting for an explanation of creationism. What do creationists believe happened? Where did we come from? How was the Earth created? Were women really the descendants of Adam's rib? Adam and Eve had two sons - how did THEY procreate?

 

I'm waiting for a synopsis of what you believe, or do you just believe that something magical happened, and you don't really give a rat's about the details?}}}

 

Well, we both believe that something magical happened but I disagree with scientists that believe it was all a glorious accident.

 

I think we can both agree that the creation of human beings is far more complex

than anything Man has ever made.

 

A creation can not understand its creator.

 

That would mean the creation would have to be superior in consciousness than its creator.

 

It would be like a computer understanding how and why it was built.

 

Thats never going to happen, it makes good stuff for movies though.

 

The creation of the computer, its software and the infrastructure for us to be having this conversation is not an accident.

 

It took a lot of thought and design from human beings to make it happen.

 

Likewise, there is too much design, balance and symbiosis on the Earth for it to be an accident.

 

Thats proof enough for me to believe in the existence of God.

 

The question I would like to ask all the atheists / scientists here is:

 

What evidence would YOU accept as proof for the existence of God?

[Thomas Wilburn]

Who says a belief in evolution precludes a belief in God?

 

I still say you need to sit and actually read (with comprehension in mind) a basic biology textbook that covers evolution clearly and simply, because most of this discussion seems to be going over your head.

 

Intermediate forms of species have been found, to answer your questions about the changes between species. Take, for example, archeopteryx (probably spelled wrong), the feathered dinosaur. Fossils found over long periods of time show that this and other species are the link between ancient reptiles and modern birds. Evolution happened. It's just a longer process than you seem willing to concede.

 

You might also do well to look at the self-organizing nature of organic life, to explain how complex forms arise out of simplicity. Proteins, for example, fold on their own. It's just a chemical thing. If you want to find god, that's a good place to start--not "how did the eye evolve?" but "what's up with amino acids?" This does not, however, dispose of the massive amount of evidence behind evolution.

 

If you want links, I can probably hunt them down, but honestly you could google for "evolution creationism debate" and probably find more than I could ever show you.

 

And as for the proof of god, I'm an agnostic, it doesn't matter to me whether s/he exists or not.

[Thomas Wilburn]

And while I'm wasting my time, there's no reason why a computer couldn't understand itself, any more than there's any reason we can't understand ourselves. Computers are used to design and build new technology all the time. Compilers are posited on the idea that a computer can be taught to write its own programs.

 

The computer went through an evolutionary process itself. Read up on Pascal's adding machine, Babbage's difference engine, rod logic, and then Turing's original vague conceptualization, followed by the Bombes, decoding machines used by Poland in WWII. Hm, gradual changes creating more advanced and efficient ideas over time.

 

Seems like a good idea to me.

[Hanshananigan]

Originally posted by AKA:

Evidence so compelling and so overwhelming that no one has been able to explain the proof of evolution themselves, or at least post a single link for someone else to explain it for them.

AKA, you may not take this as compelling, but:

"Speciation has been observed. In the plant genus Tragopogon, two new species have evolved within the past 50-60 years. They are T. mirus and T. miscellus. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilized a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilized by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the definition of a species."

 

This came from an EXCELLENT website that really gets to the guts of the questions posted here. It starts with an intro to "evolution" then discusses criticisms and arguments for creationism in terms of the case to teach creationism in schools:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

 

As I and others have suggested before, you would benefit from reading up on the topic through links provided and your own searches. Maybe even take a class or two on biology, entomology, botany, anthropology etc. then let us know what you've found. Oh yeah, take a class on creationism (as you refer to it, in the Judeo-Christian sense), too, if you can find one. Better yet, take a class on classical beliefs about creation and how they have impacted and been influenced by various cultural traditions.