Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
One that would have died billions of years ago from all of the mutations it was bombarded with. How can you assume mutations will help a species when there is no given rule to it`s existence?
This is the infamous argument from incredulity and it comes about from not adequately understanding what scientists are saying. For one, get rid of this notion that life started out being complex. Primitive life was very, very basic, as it would have had to have been. Nothing starts out being complex. A building, for instance, starts out with a cement matrix for a foundation, into which the precursors of a steel skeleton are drilled, and it only goes up from there. Ventilation systems and electrical wiring, the finer details that make a building more complex, are added later.
We do know that the first life would had to have been a replicating molecule, one that could reproduce itself in the environment by virtue of its chemical structure. All the add-ons are just there to help it be a better replicator.
There is no "feeling" the creator that I can be open about without also being open to lying to myself. I can`t see a creator; I can`t hear a creator; I can`t touch a creator; I can`t taste a creator; and I can`t smell a creator. There is nothing that exists outside of our thoughts that suggest the presence of a deity.
"So then you must believe that ancient monuments, like Stonehenge, must have just evolved then."
Again you`re having a hard time distinguishing between evolution and origins. Evolution does not address the origin of of anything but rather how existing things evolved.
Quite the contrary about Stonehenge. While its origins are a bit shady, we have a good idea of where it came from due to old excavation records and such.
Think of how life originally was. The first cells were very, very simple compared to the cells of today; the first self-replicating molecule even more so.Also, biochemistry like this is not chance; it inevitably produces complex products. Complex molecules like amino acids are even known to form in space.
But seeing as we`re here, let`s dance.
@ akabookoo, religion is by very definition devisive, sectarian and destructive to a fair, inclusionary society. I`m assuming you`re Christian by your previous comments as to how science needs a god (your God, obviously) to kick-start life.
Not so. Evolution starts with any replicating entity (even a primitive form of a nucleotide) that can undergo change to make it a more efficient replicator. Life officially starts at the cell but evolution can still be applied to life`s precursors.
"...but when you get into the beginnings, that`s where evolution tests my faith and that`s where I can`t support it."
Evolutionary theory does not address how life started, so you can still accept it wholly to your heart`s content.
What theory are you talking about? There is no accepted theory for how life started. Abiogenesis in the science community is a collection of plausible hypotheses, which is why you can`t dismiss the notion of abiogenesis outright without looking and debating the individual hypotheses on their own merit.
"I mean, if we haven`t been able to reproduce the same things in a laboratory that supposedly happened millions of years ago by natural processes, how could you think it could happen?"
Just as humans can make complex things which nature can`t, so can nature make complex things which humans can`t. I`d be very surprised if humans were capable of making a cell because we lack information on what stages the cell originally underwent. Introducing any part of the cell at the wrong time will end in failure.
Give me sopme examples of what he has said, for...what`s the word?
People get so caught up in trying to strictly define objective "reality" that they forget what "reality" really is: subjective experiences. Why does one story (religion, god, etc.) have to be more or less "true" than another story (science, evolution, and so on.) Because that`s what they both are: stories. Science, religion, whatever you use to describe your own reality, give us context. They tell us, "This is how things are. This is where you fit in." That`s a really important thing, context is, but too often do people look outward to find context. They look to religious leaders, political leaders, scientists for some kind of grasp of what they should be spending their energy and brainpower on. My point is this: why look outward, when your true meaning, the best context you could possibly have, is inward? Use science to get a grasp on objective reality, yes. But also, don`t forget that true reali
We set our beleifs in a book supposedly completely the word of god even when we know it has been revised time and time again
What must be understood is that evolution takes place over billions of billions of years, and in the biblical era there were no scientific advances; there was not even science for that matter, therefore the sciences were not understood or known.
Furthurmore, this was a mere experiment, which was fairly short"
Furthurmore, this was a mere experiment, which was fairly short
The first question you should be asking yourself, by the way, is not how life arose from non-organic material, but rather how organic molecules arose from non-organic molecules and then go from there. Start small and simple and work your way up - that is how every form of life on this planet started.
Like I said, you don`t seem to have a well-defined idea of what spontaneous generation was. It referred to a *specific* hypothesis that has since been debunked. It`s not a general concept to be applied today. Ditch it, it`s meaningless.
"Are you saying that the quantity of life arising from life makes the difference between the two?"
I said nothing of quantity. Spontaneous generation held that new organisms are generated daily and in modern times while abiogenesis holds that life has only one origin dating billions of years ago. Besides that, the various hypotheses under abiogenesis have chemistry, biology and physics to support its arguments while spontaneous generation was just an observation lacking any scientific merit. The two are simply not equal.
God isn`t real, Jesus isn`t real - get over it! Religeon acted as an explanation before we understood the world around us.
Heres one.. god may be omnipotent and omniscient, but who created him?If your answer is "well he just is", then why can`t the universe "just be".
And for the record, there are several hypotheses of how life originated that fall under the general category of abiogenesis. Point is, spontaneous generation was a specific idea for how life was generated and is distinctly separate from claims of abiogenesis made by scientists.
"It`s not the end of Intelligent Design."
What are you talking about? ID never had a "start".
@ akabookoo - I don`t know of a time when species weren`t as defined as or were more defined than they are now. There can be a massive number of variations in a species. Look, for example, at Canis Lupus. Canis Lupus is a species known commonly as the wolf. There are hundreds of variations on the wolf, all of which fit into the species as a subspecies. This includes all the breeds of domestic dogs. There is also considerable variation in the species Homo Sapiens and even in the subspecies H.S. Sapiens which we belong to. Wiki it if you don`t believe me.
1) What`s wrong with the time span?
2) Spontaneous Generation is one theory that fits (along with many other theories) into the field of study known as abiogenesis. Look at my other post for a description of the differences between the two.
... I`ll go look it up.
In my opinion it still amazes me that people in the 21 century believe in religion and gods.Science is the only way!
yes, i really have given up debating. it`s a lost cause. i take no sides, OTHER THEN THE SIDE OF TEH GREAT CACTUAR. HE SHALL SMITE ALL ATHIESTS, THIESTS, AGNOSTICS, DIESTS, AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU CAN DISH OUT. HE ALSO LIKES JEWS OVEN ROASTED, CHRISTIANS ON A SHISHKABOB, AND ATHIESTS WITH ROCKS.
i hope i`ve offended everyone on the forums.
When you assume, you make as ASS out of U to ME
That`s funny, and true
I`d be no better than the common iab creationis if I said this link proves all
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/81968...I think there being almost zero links about disproving creationists is proof that almodt all americans are creationists...
Some may even argue that war in the east is fueled by religion.
And Hitler atted Jews.
The problem with trying to find a true beginning is that it is a paradox. if we exist because of a creator then who created our creator and so forth.
Also there is hard evidence that certain sub atomic particles don`t act in accordance to any known forces. They proven that they can appear in a total vacuum.As far as the eye configuration goes. Our cone and rod cells align the way they do because a similar arrangement helped our ancestors survive and flourish better than those with other arrangeme
But I need a counter
This provs nothing but..
If dino`s existed 6000 years ago, then I don`t think the chinnesse would think them dragons?
Right, because we all know cancer is a good thing. Feel free to speculate on how a god could deliberately design flaws (susceptibility to horrendous disease, specifically) and still be considered loving or benevolent and willing to answer prayer. Go ahead, lay out your "reasoning" here for all to see.
"If God where to create a perfect being, then that being itself would be god."
I didn`t say God needed to create a perfect being, nor do I see how photoreceptors positioned towards the front of the eye constitute being perfect or godlike.
Perhaps you have forced yourself to believe flaws were intentional and are somehow beneficial because you cannot bear to accept the alternative: that there is nothing sacred about our existence in the universe, that we are all alone on a rock drifting aimlessly through an unspectacular region of space.
Im a catholic, not a saint.
But you are still stuck with the assumption that flaws are bad. I say they are what make us humans. If God where to create a perfect being, then that being itself would be god.
maybe this doesn`t prove that eyes were evolved, but where in teh name of the lord is the counter argument, that God just made it using dust!??? its not logical, and physically impossible .. just plain ridiculous, people need to wake the I am a pretty pretty little girl up!
What are you doing on the forums at this hour, anyway - shouldn`t you be in church?
"But maybe the flawed eye is important to the creator. Like I said, who said flaws aren`t important."
Who said they are? It seems to me you`d like to believe anything in order to conserve your world view, beyond such beliefs making any sense. Only in a belief system as depraved, twisted and barbaric as Christianity (among other religions) does it make "sense" for a creator to deliberately design a susceptibility to disease and blindness and nurture intentional suffering in its creations.
Note: The Game doesn`t say whether any belief is right or wrong, but points out instead, the problems with your view of God.
But maybe the flawed eye is important to the creator. Like I said, who said flaws aren`t important.
I`m an evolutionist, but this little video does not disprove Creationism and I wish the so-called "scientifically englightened" evolutionists on this site would act a little more scientifically and methodically.
Unfortunately, finding one little internet video that talks about mollusc eyes does not disprove Creationism.
All it does is incite a God/No God war and further creates chaos, heats up anger between opposing sides, and furthers the rift between the two.
"But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species."
Not unless you concede that a creator is continually generating new species. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, and all of life that exists today is descended from the ancestors who survived. Who also can`t say the evidence points to a creator because there is nothing specific that suggests we were designed that cannot be explained by natural processes that work perfectly with the assumption there is no creator.
"Not really. Most atheist believe the world started with the big bang and that, that matter came from no where. Seems to have the same amount of faith as someone saying God created that matter."
Except that those are beliefs atheists hold separately from their atheism. In other words, atheism doesn`t inherently suggest what one must believe in addition to holding a lack of belief in a deity. That is why atheists are so varied, because they only have the one idea, necessarily, in common. By the way, matter did not not come from nowhere. I certainly don`t believe that.
"How does the eye know how to get all of the rods and cones aligned properly so that it can truly see?"
The eye doesn`t "know", per se, it`s just chance mutation that aided the organism in passing these mutations onto its young, who in turn experienced mutations that built upon what was already
Most atheists I know came about precisely by questioning their religious faith and realizing it holds no merit to them. And it`s not as if atheists have much to doubt - they hold, inherently and by the suggestion of the label alone, no faith to begin with. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. That`s it.
"No, but there really isn`t any evidence for it."
I`m not saying the eye is inherently flawed. It functions and would not have been selected and built upon into a complex structure if it didn`t serve to enhance our chances of surviving and reproducing. The eye *is* flawed, however, if one choses to claim it was intelligently designed by an omnipotent creator because in that context, the eye reflects an imperfect design. We don`t see as well as we could, as well as perfect dictates.
And many arguments for evolution, can be said for a creator. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species.
Now for my next question in ignorance. How does the eye know how to get all of the rods and cones aligned properly so that it can truly see?
And don`t worry about me asking "Why then is color blindness/true blindness recessive?" Because natural selection is the only good answer for that. But, if someone could enlighten me that`d be nice. Kthx.
looks like everyone`s turning into an atheist these days, I bet thats only because its suddenly become so `popular`...
Last word got cut off.
Also, why did you call Atheism "faith?" Atheism is, by definition, a lack thereof.
Most of us have been believers at one point, and we deconverted after seeing mountains of evidence contradictiong holy scripture and absolutely no evidence for a divine creator. Most Christians, however, have never been Atheist, and a minority of them (mainly composed of creationist fundamentalists) are willingly ignorant and outright dismiss evidence as "inaccurate and false" while claiming that their scriptures are completely true.
And anyways, the majority of Atheists (including me) are Weak Atheists, meaning we lack a belief in dieties, without completely denying the possibility of their existence. I can say with certainty, however, that the Abrahamic God, as the Bible and Quran describe him, is 100% false. A true god would be beyong human underst
I`m a just-now-ist, so where do I fit in?
i take it everybody went out and studied evolutionary science and came to their own conclusions, right? oh, you just believe it because it`s in a science book?
really, it`s not really that different either way for the majority of people.
If a religion is to be based on faith their can never be any hard evidence.
I kind of like the agnostic route. To many dead ends in the work of man to make a belief system that is supposed to be "perfect"
besides the argument that we can only exist because god made us doesn`t explain how god came into being.
Back on topic. I know many Christians that believe in evolution. Creationism can never be disproved unless we can prove that their was no creator.
If you believe in a creator then the method of creation is more of a semantic argument and if you make a big unending argument out of it I think you are missing the entire point
For those of you that keep saying a mollusk eye has nothing to do with a human eye have never heard of comparative anatomy. The eye functions the same and is comprised of the exact same structures in all organisms that have eyes. It`s the levels of complexity that change.
I think we can all agree that Evolution is as close to being proven as any theory can. I also think we can all agree that evolution doesn`t necessarily mean that creationism is disproved.
I for one think Creationism is laughable in the bang their is a full grown human man..take a rib and bam you have a woman...hell the old testament is more figurative than literal anyway.
Point being..an eye is an eye..same organ, same function. Even if it is on different organisms
"this didnt disprove anything!!!!!"
I guess you didn`t pay attention to my first post in this thread. I didn`t write the link title. Mine was originally "Evolution of the invertebrate eye" but I guess fancylad felt a need to make it controversial. I`m not satisfied with it because I think that`s why the link is receiving a lower rating than it otherwise would have. I am fully aware this video doesn`t disprove anything. I never intended for it to.
And I agree with touche...how did the eye evolve again? Maybe I missed something explained in this video...like...everything.
Why`d you make the page so darn long?! O__o
No... science demands evidence. Only mathematics deals with proofs.
Uhh... punishment of/from what? Also, that`s a pretty bleak view considering all the accomplishments and intellect humans have done and gathered throughout time. And what `truth` are you referring to?
science demands proof. religion says proof is irrelevant.
Neither says the other is wrong per se, but science does have the upper hand in the argument. The proven parts of science do have proof and evidence for them, while religion, by its own account, will never have anything going for it.
evolution has been proven in microbes and in medicine today treatments don`t work because superbugs (C.dif and XRSA) have EVOLVED to become immune.
The only reason we cannot see it in ourselves is due to the fact out rate of reproduction is so much lower. 25 years in comparison to 25 minutes!
Selective breeding in cattle anyone?!
I do believe in something out there that provided suitable living conditions (from fundimental unified forces to the proximity of earth to the sun)... but honestly, if one more person rams creationism down my throat i may well cry.
"...a system or device is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function. An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because the system has to be fully present in order for it to function.”
But the fallacy of this argument is Behe would have you believe that an eye without a lens is just as good (or bad) as having no eye at all. What? Since when? A lens helps only in the additional focusing of light. Light is still focused (via the pupil) onto photoreceptors and so a person doesn`t cease to see just because they lack a lens.
then why must some consistently believe in him if there is not any? to me, to not have proof means, must not exist... i don`t know go believe you pretty books. OMFG ITS IN A BOOK MUST BE THE ANSWER I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR.
Can you provide some reason why *not* to hold that assumption?
i know i have no basis for my argument, but just ponder what i have written.
Your assuming that flaws dont make us perfect.
Any sort of membrane overlap growth at the edges of the "basin" would act to focus the light and provide a clearer image, and so we can extrapolate there were various degrees of growth until only a hole, much like that of a pinhole camera, remained.
If I were to design an eye, one would think that I would position the photoreceptors, the specialized cells that receive and process the actual light, *towards* the light input and not *away* from it. The only way to reconcile this fact with an intelligent creator is to say the creator is on all accounts incompetent or not as "intelligent" as some would like to believe.
There are points for and against
I give the pope head, free ticket to paradise.
"Been there, done that. You can only go forward."--
Actually, you`re both wrong. When a time machine is invented - Ronald Mallett is currently working on it - you can go into the past, but only as far back as when the machine was first turned on.
WOOT WOOT, IMMINENT "SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS USED COMPLETELY OUT OF SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT" QUOTE APPROACHING FROM PRIMETIME" WOOT WOOT...
Shall I kiss the Bishop`s Ring?
"Well theres only one way to disprove one of the theories... Build a time machine!"
Been there, done that. You can only go forward.
No proof is available, but for the next best thing, check out The Life of Brian by the Monty Python crew, which is a pretty spot-on accreditation of how it probably all went down, and was many decades ahead of it`s time.
But then, you`re probably already familiar with the particular piece of satire I`m referring to, being a European and all...
So far, only the science community has provided anything that I`d consider proof.
feel free to disprove me!
Leave religious faith where it belongs, in the realm of personal belief and spiritualism. And leave science where it belongs, in the realm of reality, reason and logic, which I personally think is more appropriate for how I live my life in the year 2008. But, you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.
davymid: "Superswan, please cite your source for this holy cloth from 2000 years ago from Jesus` grave... I would have thought if they knew where Jesus`s grave was, it might be a bit of a tourist attraction by now..."
Superswan: "I said it supposedly belonged to Jesus. It could just be someone from that time. It was a while ago since I heard of this carbon dating process, so I lost track of where it was. I definately know it was seen as sacred ground."
Well, f*ck me. A cloth from a 2000 year old tomb (which may or may not have belonged to Jesus) was carbon dated to 2000 years ago? Stop the f*cking press. Maybe you`re referring to the Turin shroud, which has been proven numerous times (most recently by the BBC a couple of months ago) to be a medieval forgery.
I`ve actually gone nocturnal before.
it sucks; i don`t recommend it
Sorry about that. It is 1:32 am here, so... You know lack of concentration and crap =D
That whole part is completely irrelevant anyway because Christians and Christianity did not exist until after Jesus`s death. Jesus was himself a Jew, as were all of his disciples. The real development of Christianity as believing in the divinity of Jesus came afterwards, especially promoted by Paul (who was himself originally a Jew named Saul).
BEFORE YOU MAKE AN ARGUMENT MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU`RE TALKING ABOUT.
When you argue something incorrectly, you make yourself look stupid and detract from the authenticity of not only your argument, but of the entire point of view you were originally trying to promote.
Y`know, he can cook but really has trouble getting the DVD player to work.
There`s no way he made you guys, I`m serious.
* Evolution is every much a fact as the theory of gravity.* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.* There are no alternative scientific theories.* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...* And zero evidence against it.* The `discussion` is actually educated people trying to educate others.* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the United States.
I smell another IAB religious debate.
It`s my firm belief that this will repeat itself, and the Bible will cease to be anything more than a great work of fiction, just as Greek mythology has become.
Everyone knows that mollusk were Gods first try at making eyes.
It appears he is 10 and thinks he`s 70
No, I say he`s 13
Can you remind me- what was that quote you said- that wuote from the crusades?
Well popey, tell me, tell me about your past?
Your acting pretty ungodly for a man of god
Have you ever read Michael Crichton’s Next?
And the thing is, Allah, God, and the Jewish God, are all one god, Abraham’s God!
I need to get a Holda my history book, or go to wikipedia, that’s pretty much what happened though. a
Yeah but he wouldn`t have been some miracle performing madman. He could`ve been a preacher for all we know. That may explain why they wanted him dead. THEN he`d bring a Christian uprising
They killed Jesus because they feared a Christian uprising, end of story.
Jesus and God are lies. The Bible is a lie. Evolution could`ve taken ANY turn. It`s only a coincidence we`ve become THE most intelligent animal living on this planet thanks to EVOLUTION...
Stuff like this angers me to new extents... Religion is just some bullpoo to stop people from going crazy, I swear (yet it has backfired somewhat). Rant over. Evolution IS what made us
Nice I`m thinking of entering the archeology/anthropology field. With a side or writting books(Fiction, many some non-f`s about the field)
Even Michael Behe, the poster child for creationism (and coiner of the term irreducible complexity) was schooled when he tried to say that the immune system didn`t evolve, which it clearly does as viruses and bacteria continually change to try and colonize your body.
Pure and simple- evolution is real. Also, someone mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution? How is this possible? I`m a biochemist (a real one unlike Behe), and I know biological thermodynamics is accepted as fact.
God I hate Behe...gives biochemists such a bad name...anyone who writes a book claiming `fact` and just happens to market it to the general public and refuses peer review...Pfft, most of his `discoveries` are disproven in the next edition of whatever sorry journal publishes him...
Sorry for the rant...uhh, cookies for all!
And pope, reread your holy book, it says to kill non beleivers. Now who`s the bad christian?
There`s a differnce between ignorance and changing the words and saying "This does not apply" and doing everything
They are not observent.
If you went back in time and put in the bible that they have to die their hair blue, and scream "The power of christ capels you!" at every `non beleiver` and shoot/kill nons and hack off the genitals of homos," the extreamists would pobably do it
but, where did the light sensitive patch come from?
End of arguement
As an agnostic born Muslim, Canadian Liberal,I say this vid does NOT disprove creationism
A lot of you guys are missing the point here, they wernt saying it happened in big steps like this, it would have happened in tiny steps, 1 small mutation at a time. The example they gave was just to explain and introduce the consept to you, we all came from the sea orginally anyway so why is it that unbelievible that our eyes started to evolve in sea creatures?
Interests: Homepage: (None) Birthday: IM Type: (Decline to State) IM Name: Occupation: City: State/Province: Marital Status: (Decline to State) Sexual Preference: (Decline to State) Religion: (Decline to State) Politics: (Decline to State) Favorite Movie: Favorite TV Show: Favorite Book: Favorite Song: Favorite Food: Favorite Car:
I don`t understand WHY most Christians think that God and evolution can`t go together. The bible isn`t meant to be taken literally: the moral of the story is, God created life. This doesn`t mean that evolution doesn`t ALSO exist. When the bible was written, Darwin wasn`t around to tell them about natural selection and what not so they just didn`t know any better way to explain it(in my opinion, at least).
We have EVIDENCE for evolution. It`s THERE. Creationism doesn`t have evidence to solidify it.
Where`s Primetimekin with his horsewank story about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution and therefore proves the existence of God? I`m guessing he`ll show up in 3...2...1...
You miss my point. I don`t really care what anyone here thinks about the issue one way or the other.
There are plenty of web sites that thrive on these stupid "flame" topics. This web site *used* to stand above that crap.
Now, every frickin day there`s a God debate and stupid religious posting on this web site.
All eyes are is a group of cells that is very good at analyzing reflected light in great detail. It makes a lot of sense to me that this organ, just like anything else in someone`s body, can evolve in a way much like the process shown among mollusks. Note that the mollusks shown are in increasing stages of complexity--from mussels to the octopus. Also note that creatures living in a place where there is an absence of light don`t have eyes; evolution says that because light-sensitive cells wouldn`t help them there, they simply never developed them.
I do believe in God, but I don`t think that you need to throw out evolution because you`re religious. I do not find it impossible that God began the process of life, or perhaps directed it. I do find it impossible, in light of evidence, that evolution is flatly untrue.
What do the monkeys do? They worship imaginary gods that live in the sky for no apparent reason. I don`t get it either.
There is no god.
Blah blah Jesus, blah blah Creationism, blah blah Christians suck, etc. etc.
This site never used to suck like this back when Buddy was running it.
Seriously though, why would you rather believe that you evolved from something rubbish rather than have been created by an omnipotent, omnipresent being?
Sorry that that whole thing was a little convoluted. Please though, understand that if you do feel like slagging me off for this comment, make sure you`re educated about what you`re talking about first.
There is no evidence in mollusks showing any sort of "evolution" of the eye. Secondly, the human eye is much more complex.
Stages in between, according to evolutionary theory, would not have been beneficial and passed down to further generates.
These "stages" according to the natural observable laws of the universe are never observed anywhere anyways...so...yeah...
...we really did come from a rock didn`t we? ^_^