 |
| |
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
Here are some more arguments:
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Episcopalian:
They are currently part of the worldwide Anglican communion, though they may leave soon.
|
That's news to us!
John Spong is a former Episcopalian bishop. Last year our adult class read his autobiography. Born and rasied in North Carolina, his first parish came under attack by the KKK. He began to come to prominence here in Lynchburg in the 1960s. He was an outspoken advocate of civil rights then. He eventually was named bishop of the Newark diocese in New Jersay, wear he also championed female and gay priesthood.
I think you'd probsbly find Bishop Spong's concept of theology a little too liberal for your tate however. His believes are more akin to Deism or Unitarianism than to the traditional believe enshrined by the creeds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Here are some more arguments:
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.
4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.
5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God. |
If you see think the reason that god must exist is,
that there must be someone who created the universe,
you move the Problem just a stage higher,
as you then must ask how God was created 
Or, to cite Hawkings Introduction into his Book "A Brief History of Time":
quote:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the
sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection
of stars called our galaxy.
At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at
the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish.
The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
tortoise."
The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is
the tortoise standing on?"
"You're very clever, young man, very clever,"
said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."
|
So, how do you think this Problem could be solved,
as I doubt that you believe that it´s gods all the way down? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
God is supernatural, so there does not exist that problem (the isue if dealing with the 'creation' of god)
but actually, there is possibilities that don't require god also
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
I am not saying that the entire fossil, geologic, genetic, and biological records are somehow lying are false. I am simply saying that they have been misinterpretated. It has been shown that the fossil record could have been caused by a global flood. And it has been shown that a global flood could have deposited the fossils in the order that they have been found in. |
It's funny how you move from one bald assertion to another, claiming "it has been shown." But it has NOT been shown, and any geologist would laugh at this assertion. The geologic record absolutely does not jive with a Global Flood:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq....html#georecord
http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/flood.htm
Believing in a worldwide flood necessitates such a ludicrous suspension of disbelief--you do know that the amount of water required to raise the water to the level claimed in the Bible does not even exist in the world?--that you'd have to be intentionally ignorant of science to believe it.
And a perfect example of how creationists distort evidence to support their claims:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm
quote:
There is also supporting evidence such as marine fossils found in landlocked desertic areas, and erosion patterns that are caused by flood waters. So, I think it is possible that the geological record has been misinterpretated and could be evidence of a catastrophic flood. |
The marine fossils are completely explicable by basic geology. Bodies of water sometimes get closed off and become landlocked. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions can cause upheavals of long-buried marine fossils up to the surface. For instance, clam shells have been found in mountains in the Himalayas. This is simply proof of tectonic plate movement (which you ALSO have to reject to believe in creationism).
quote:
Furthermore, as that article on fossilization that I posted pointe out, fossilization of transition forms is rare. Therefore, as extensive as the fossil record may be, it probably only represents a very small portion of all life that existed. |
Do you just not read what is posted? As I said, it doesn't matter that the fossils we have are only a small portion of the entire potential fossil record--we have more than enough fossils to clearly show a pattern of evolution. That fact that it is incomplete only reinforces the fact of evolution!
quote:
Biology has shown us the intricate, complex mechanisms of life, showing us that the odds of life are incredibly small. For me, biology shows evidence of design because of the multiple mechanisms that evolution cannot explain. |
Odds of what? Abiogenesis? Any claims as to the "odds" of abiogenesis are complete speculation. We have no idea what exactly the odds are, only that it IS possible. That's all we need to know. The anthropic principle applies here--claiming "odds" is pointless, because the fact is we ARE here, so the odds don't matter!
Tell me about this complexity. Creationists use this word all the time, but they don't understand what they're talking about. Guess what? Increased complexity in organisms is evidence of BAD design, not GOOD design. Animals tend to be unnessicarily complex. We are rife with evolutionary remnants (how about that tailbone? Appendix?) that are not good for us. Our sinuses are another example. They're fine...if you're a quadruped who walks on all fours. But by walking upright, we are prone to sinus infections. Another brilliant design.
quote:
Genetic is the "language of life". Its intrincacies and complexities and mechanisms only illustrate the design nature of life. |
No, because any engineer will tell you: simpler is better. Unneccessary complexity contradicts intelligent design. Why is our eye unneccessarily complex, when the squid's eye is simple and superior? Who designed that?
quote:
When we build computers, we burn code in the microprocessors so that it functions a certain way. The fact that life has a code that governs how it works, illustrates intelligent design. |
Ah, the "watchmaker" fallacy. The fact that our DNA processes information is no evidence of a "programmer." Since we know abiogenesis is possible, and we know the processes by which simple molecules can become proteins, basic RNA and then DNA, no intelligent design is necessary to explain the arising of information.
quote:
The idea that the universe, basically an inanimate lump of energy and matter, organized itself and formed life and sentient life all by itself, is absolutely preposterous!!! |
Who says the universe was ever inanimate? We don't know that. You're making another bald assertion based on unfounded beliefs on the way the universe has to be.
The idea that an invisible supernatural being created the entire universe with a snap of his fingers, all for the benefit of us little people, is absolutely preposterous!!! It's even more preposterous to believe it, since it has never been proven such a being exists or CAN exist. Hey, if you're so interested in metaphysical stymies, explain where this supernatural being came from! If something has to come from nothing, where did he come from? You're in the same quandary!
quote:
Small variations are unlikely to add up to big variations, because wereas there are mutations that are positive, there are also mutations that will be harmful. The positive mutations will not necessarily outweight the negative mutations. The species may end up "taking 1 step forward and 1 step back". |
This is a fundamentally flawed understanding of genetic variation. The quality of a mutation depends on the environment of the organism. If the mutation is negative, the organism will be naturally unselected. If it is positive, the organism will be naturally selected. It doesn't matter if only 1 out of 10,000 organisms has a successful variation, as long is it has it, and that variation enables it to survive better in its environment, that variation will be passed on to descendants. Now take a population of millions of organisms over thousands of generations, and the variations will accumulate to such a degree that there are dramatic changes. You keep making the claim that it is unlikely...that's speculation on your part...but even if it is unlikely on an individual organism basis, it is entirely likely when one considers a huge, diverse, interbreeding population of organisms. Once again, you'll note that 99.9% of every species that has ever lived is extinct. What is alive today is a miniscule fraction of everything that has existed. All those other species got deselected. Ours happened to survive. It has nothing to do with divine providence...it has to do with random chance + natural selection.
quote:
Furthermore, if a new species does emerge, but it is not able to sustain itself through reproduction, won't it die out? If you get one mutation that leads to one individual belonging to a new species, won't it automatically die out since it is the only member of its species and therefore can't reproduce with anyone? If a new species emerges but the members of the new species are geographically isolated, they won't be able to reproduce and the new species will die out? |
New species don't arise this way! It isn't that one generation suddenly becomes a new species from its predecessor. It is a gradual process. It will take several generations before speciation occurs.
quote:
There are many conditions, geography, environment, negative mutation, natural disaster, etc that can lead to a species to become extinct! It seems to me that there are a lot more ways for a species to die than for new species to succesfully emerge and prosper. |
That's why 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived are extinct. Duh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
Well Boris, one doesn't have to be some silly creationist or want to "dismiss the fossil record" to have a questioning attitude toward evolution. I was once a highly outspoken evolutionist, uniting my campus against the silly Topeka schoolboard which outlawed it's teaching. I don't think anyone here has any problem with evolution's study, or that there is a great deal of knowledge that can be gleamed from it. It's just not the final solution to everything that so many make it out to be. That's where our only real disagreements lie, Bory.
Fundamentalist creationists and fundamentalist evolutionists will continue pushing their own agendas with no end in sight. That's why these debates are so futile. The truth is that neither the creationists or evolutionists have it completely right, and eventually they will both realize it. You know I think you're a great guy Boris, and I know you're basing your arguements on what you know, and that's fine. Like I said, I have no problem with evolution, by far, much more good than bad has come from it's study. But just be careful, people can get trapped into their own dogmas and fundamentalisms without even realizing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Here are some more arguments:
1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.
2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.
3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how long they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God. |
These are the same arguments, variations on Aristotle and Aquinas. And they've already been shown to be logically flawed:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html
"The second class of arguments for God are cosmological arguments. Also called the "first cause" argument, it was famously employed by Aristotle and later by Thomas Aquinas. The argument states that every event which happens in the universe has a cause; but every cause is itself caused by something else, and so on. To avoid an infinite regression of causes, we must postulate a first cause which is itself uncaused and thus eternal - an Unmoved Mover who transcends the laws of cause and effect. This first cause, the argument claims, can only be God.
However, the incisive reasoner will recognize that the cosmological argument is, at its core, nothing more than special pleading. It assumes that everything needs a cause - except God. But why is this? Why should God be exempt from the chain of causation? Why doesn't he need someone to cause him to exist?
The theist might answer that God, by definition, is uncaused. But, again, this is special pleading. If something can be uncaused, we might as well conclude that this uncaused something is the universe, existing eternally and giving rise to all other cause and effect. (While the evidence is strong that this universe began with the Big Bang, it is possible that this universe was created by the Big Crunch of a former universe, or that this universe is one of the infinite universes of the quantum many-worlds hypothesis, or that this universe was "pinched off" from a singularity in another universe. There is no way to tell.) To argue that the universe must be caused by God is merely to move the problem of ultimate origins back one step - it solves nothing. If the universe needs a cause, then so does God; if God does not need a cause, then neither does the universe. In either case, postulating God merely adds an extra layer of assumptions without adding anything useful to our knowledge, and thus Occam's Razor leads us to conclude that the God hypothesis should be rejected.
But even ignoring all of this, there is yet another way to defeat the cosmological argument. Even if all its basic premises are granted - that the universe must have been created by an uncaused first cause - this still does not prove anything about the existence of God. At best, the cosmological argument can prove that there was a first cause, but it tells us nothing about what this first cause might be. It is not necessarily transcendent, all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful, or even intelligent. It might be a purely natural phenomenon. Indeed, there are several phenomena in nature that fit this bill. One, predicted by quantum mechanics, is what as known as vacuum fluctuations - particles of matter and energy flashing into existence uncaused out of the void and then returning to nothingness, within the time allotted by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These fluctuations are constantly occurring all around us, on the subatomic scale, and some theories postulate that just such an event could, under the right circumstances, have given rise to the universe.
Finally, one can recognize that, like the ontological argument, the cosmological argument rests on an unproven assumption. In this case, the assumption is that there must have been a first cause. Why? What prevents us from postulating an infinite regression of causes? Such a thing is hard to imagine, since humans are limited to finite brains, but that does not make it impossible."
quote:
4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God. |
This is ridiculous as an argument for God. "Goodness" and "badness" are labels assigned by humans as descriptions for things in the world. How do they denote God? Is goodness or badness absolute? No, it's very much dependent on who is doing the defining.
In evolution, "goodness" is solely determined by the suitability of a variation for its environment. It is "good" if it enables the organism to survive better. What is "good" in one environment will be "bad" in another (which is why flippers don't work to well on land).
"The second type of moral argument, that our standards of good and bad only make sense in comparison to God, who is the ultimate goodness, suffers from a problem first articulated by Socrates and attributed to a character named Euthyphro. Euthyphro's dilemma is this: Does God approve of certain acts because they are right, or are they right because God approves of them? To suppose the former is to say that there is a standard of right and wrong that is higher than, and independent of, God. In this case, the morality of atheists as well as that of theists can be said to rest on this ultimate standard, and God is merely an unnecessary extra assumption. But to suppose the latter is even more theologically tricky - it means that morality is based on nothing more than God's whim. If God approved of rape and murder (as he does in several places in the Bible), then raping and murdering would be right. If God disapproved of justice and mercy, then being just and merciful would be wrong. If this were the case, then theists as well as atheists would have no absolute basis by which to judge the morality of an action. "
quote:
5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God. |
More baseless assumptions. You assume things are moving towards goals. What goals? How do you know there are any goals? Claiming there are goals is unfounded belief.
"The third class of arguments for God are teleological arguments, also called arguments from design. This argument, which found its best-known formulation in the works of William Paley, states that the world is lawful and orderly, not chaotic, and that objects in nature appear to have design, purpose and goals. Since we know that the minds of humans produce things which are orderly and have purpose, we can conclude that the orderly and purposeful world was also produced by a mind, a much greater mind than that of any human. This intelligence behind nature can only be God.
There are too many flaws in this to list here, but I will go into a few of the more significant ones. Most important is that this argument too rests on an assumption: that only intelligence can create and design complex things. However, science has taught us that this is not so. There are many examples in the natural world of emergent behavior and intricate systems that possess the ability to self-assemble and self-organize, requiring only a few basic physical laws. The best example, of course, is the theory of evolution, which explains how life arises, changes and diversifies over time, adapting to marvelously match its environment, through only the two simple principles of mutation and natural selection. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and has easily destroyed the simple-minded objections of creationists who maintain that life must be the direct creative work of God.
The key flaw in the teleological argument is that it provides no way to distinguish between actual design and unintelligent natural forces, such as evolution, that produce only a semblance of design. Proponents of this argument claim that only design could give rise to a world such as ours, but how do they know this? Do they have an example of an undesigned world we can hold up next to ours and note the similarities and differences?
And of course, we again note that the teleological argument is built on special pleading. It assumes that the complex and intricate world must be the product of a designer. But surely the mind of any being who could design such a world must be even more complex and intricate than that world is. Who designed God's mind? If God doesn't need a designer, why does nature?"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Well Boris, one doesn't have to be some silly creationist or want to "dismiss the fossil record" to have a questioning attitude toward evolution. I was once a highly outspoken evolutionist, uniting my campus against the silly Topeka schoolboard which outlawed it's teaching. I don't think anyone here has any problem with evolution's study, or that there is a great deal of knowledge that can be gleamed from it. It's just not the final solution to everything that so many make it out to be. That's where our only real disagreements lie, Bory.
Fundamentalist creationists and fundamentalist evolutionists will continue pushing their own agendas with no end in sight. That's why these debates are so futile. The truth is that neither the creationists or evolutionists have it completely right, and eventually they will both realize it. You know I think you're a great guy Boris, and I know you're basing your arguements on what you know, and that's fine. Like I said, I have no problem with evolution, by far, much more good than bad has come from it's study. But just be careful, people can get trapped into their own dogmas and fundamentalisms without even realizing it. |
I'm sorry that the Creationist propaganda has snookered you into doubting the fact of evolution, monkie, but you're young and will hopefully use your intelligence to honestly evaluate the evidence and make a better choice.
The claims that I or anyone who believes in scientific answers are "evolutionary fundamentalists" is just proof you've fallen into their propaganda. Belief of evolution is not the same as belief in some sort of dogma, any moreso than belief of gravity or heliocentricity is belief in a dogma. It is nothing less than a belief that the very foundations of science are a reliable means of explaining the phenomena of our universe.
I would strongly encourage you to read Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock. He quite succinctly refutes the notion that belief of evolution is some sort of dogma akin to religious fundamentalism.
The basic gist is that science is not about picking a theory and adhering to it to the ends of reason. Most evolutionary biologists are theists, whether they be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, etc. And they all overwhelmingly accept evolution as a proven fact of nature. Should there be scientific evidence contrary to natural selection, scientists all over the world would be happy to consider it. Should it hold muster, it would have to be accepted into science. The scientists who proved it would make a mint, not to mention become instant celebrities. Has that happened? No. Scientists look at what Creationists offer as "evidence" and see it as the junk that is.
The mechanisms of how evolution occurs are debated--hotly, at times--but not the fact that evolution occurs. The findings of all these biologists are peer reviewed, subjected to intense scrutiny and argumentation. Unless it is very sound, it will be rejected. As new evidence emerges, often old theories are discarded or modified to accomodate the new evidence. This is an important difference between science and theology.
Creationism isn't peer reviewed, it isn't subjected to any testing, it isn't viewed as something that is capable of change--it is considered immutable Truth with capital "T."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
Worse still is the overwhelming number of times Creationists have blatantly distorted and lied about evolution and what it says to further their beliefs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darrow.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kouznetsov.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
Scientists let the evidence speak for itself, and any false scientific claims are going to be torn to shreds by their peers in review.
The notion belief of evolution is akin to some sort of religious dogma is, frankly, bunk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:29
|
|
Creationism = Anthropocentrism = Denial that we ware just another species. Geology and Biology prove your wrong, Diplomat, so shut the f*ck up. I should know because I have an intrest in biology and geology, and I am knoledgable in both fields so I know your arguments aren't worth sh!t.  to believe in creationism is to be ignorant of the natural world. I find the story of life on Earth, from the first procaryotes in deep sea volcanic vents 4 billion years ago to today, to be facinating. religion has no place in science. Creationists like to deny evolution by using the watch and watchmaker anology, that great effects require great causes, but Natural Selection disproves that notion. Nothing in Biology makes sense unless in the light of evolution. Evolution is to Biology what Newton's laws are to physics, it the framework of all other parts of biology.
I am also ticked off by people who misinterpret evolution as progress towards intellegence. Large brains only evolved in 4 groups: Mammals, Dinosaurs (including birds), Sharks, and Cephalopods (octopuses, squid, etc.). A big brain is not needed to be successful. To a snail, a starfish is a predator from hell, even though Echinoderms have no central nevous system. Corals are very succesfull, and so are sponges. little Paramecium is only a single cell, but that single cell is much more complex than any individual animal cell. Horseshoe Crabs haven't changed in over 500 million years, and are still prolific in the east coast of North America, and is the closest thing to a trilobite we will ever see alive. Don't hate evolution, EMBRACE IT!!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Believing in a worldwide flood necessitates such a ludicrous suspension of disbelief--you do know that the amount of water required to raise the water to the level claimed in the Bible does not even exist in the world?--that you'd have to be intentionally ignorant of science to believe it. |
Uh? Why is it ludicrous? The sea level only rose ~20 ft, according to Gen 7:20.
quote:
Do you just not read what is posted? As I said, it doesn't matter that the fossils we have are only a small portion of the entire potential fossil record--we have more than enough fossils to clearly show a pattern of evolution. That fact that it is incomplete only reinforces the fact of evolution! |
With all due respect, I think it does matter if we only have a small portion of the entire fossil record. If I show 1 million pieces of a puzzle, but it is only 5% of a puzzle, do you think you would know what the picture was on the puzzle? No because 5% of the puzzle would not be enough to be able to discern the entire picture.
quote:
Odds of what? Abiogenesis? Any claims as to the "odds" of abiogenesis are complete speculation. We have no idea what exactly the odds are, only that it IS possible. That's all we need to know. The anthropic principle applies here--claiming "odds" is pointless, because the fact is we ARE here, so the odds don't matter![?QUOTE]
Again, with all due respect, I think the odds due matter. If someone wins a lottery 4 times in a row eventhough the odds of such a thing are say 1/10^10, which is most likely that he really did beat the odds or that he cheated? If the odds are so much better that he cheated, then the most probable conclusion is that he cheated.
[QUOTE]Increased complexity in organisms is evidence of BAD design, not GOOD design. |
I disagree. Complexity depends on number of subcomponents. The more subcomponents in a system, the more complex. Poor or good design depends on how the subcomponents interact. A system where the various subcomponents interact in a ineficient manner, will be a poor design.
It is possible to have a simple but poor design (a system with only 2 components where the 2 components are too far away from each other to interact efficiently). Likewise, it is possible to have a complex design that is very good. (A system with 100 components but where components are layed out so that components that need to interact with each other are adjacent to each other).
quote:
Animals tend to be unnessicarily complex. We are rife with evolutionary remnants (how about that tailbone? Appendix?) that are not good for us. Our sinuses are another example. They're fine...if you're a quadruped who walks on all fours. But by walking upright, we are prone to sinus infections. Another brilliant design. |
Just because you don't understand the design, does not neccessarily make it bad. You may not understand the design of a computer, and as a result you may think the design is stupid, but the designer may still have had a purpose in the way it was made!
quote:
Why is our eye unneccessarily complex, when the squid's eye is simple and superior? Who designed that? |
The squid lives under water, humans don't. The squid does not need to see the same way we do!
quote:
Who says the universe was ever inanimate? We don't know that. You're making another bald assertion based on unfounded beliefs on the way the universe has to be. |
What are you saying? The universe may be sentient or alive?
The definition of "inanimate" is, "Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms". The universe is simply the sum total of all matter and energy. So, how is it unreasonable to suggest that the universe is inanimate?
Last edited by The diplomat on 28-07-2003 at 09:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Odin
|
|
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
With all due respect, I think it does matter if we only have a small portion of the entire fossil record. If I show 1 million pieces of a puzzle, but it is only 5% of a puzzle, do you think you would know what the picture was on the puzzle? No because 5% of the puzzle would not be enough to be able to discern the entire picture. |
 I't is more like 20%. Creationists always said that and it always came to bite them in the @ss. The fossil record is getting better all the time, especically now we are seaching new areas. The picture of the Cambrian period, for example, is getting more and more complete, and explain the feathered dinos found in China. 
Some parts of the fossil record are good enough to see, for example, a species of Apatosaurus ("Brontosaurus") evolve into a new species, we can see in the span of about 5 million years the average length of Bronto's femurs increase by about 3 feet untill Bronto went extinct at the end of the Jurassic along with many other sauropods.
No organism is perfectlly adapted for it's enviroment, dispite what creationists say. For example, the "perfect" biped would never have back pain.  Back pain is a result of that our back is not designed for being vertical, we still have yet to evolve strong, stable vertabrae to prevent pain. Our back needs to catch up with our hips and legs.
Diplomat, everything creationists say is ludicrous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odin
I't is more like 20%. Creationists always said that and it always came to bite them in the @ss. The fossil record is getting better all the time, especically now we are seaching new areas. The picture of the Cambrian period, for example, is getting more and more complete, and explain the feathered dinos found in China.
Some parts of the fossil record are good enough to see, for example, a species of Apatosaurus ("Brontosaurus") evolve into a new species, we can see in the span of about 5 million years the average length of Bronto's femurs increase by about 3 feet untill Bronto went extinct at the end of the Jurassic along with many other sauropods.
No organism is perfectlly adapted for it's enviroment, dispite what creationists say. For example, the "perfect" biped would never have back pain. Back pain is a result of that our back is not designed for being vertical, we still have yet to evolve strong, stable vertabrae to prevent pain. Our back needs to catch up with our hips and legs.
Diplomat, everything creationists say is ludicrous. |
I hate to say this comrade, but that post looks like it could have been written by Fez.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
quote:
Why is our eye unneccessarily complex, when the squid's eye is simple and superior? Who designed that?
|
The squid lives under water, humans don't. The squid does not need to see the same way we do!
|
But shouldn´t in this case Fish, which obviously also live underwater, possess Eyes which bear more Resemblance to the Eyes of Squids than to the Eyes of humans?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
But they weren't in the early days of Christianity. It was only after the early purges of "heretics" and gnostics that a "fundamentalism" appeared...
|
Berzerker:
By definition creeds are a standardisation of Christianity, therefore, your critique renders all such creeds meaningless. They had no need for creeds in the early church because no one challenged these essential tenets. As Christianity grew, only then did it become necessary to invoke some kind of definition for what Christians believe, hence the use of the creeds.
Boris
Good, I waited for an on-topic post.
When asked about people who don't sin,
Well then, please show me a specimen and then we can get into the real debate. Has there ever been anyone without sin besides Christ?
quote:
If Christians are to accept the scientific truths of evolution, they should reject creeds that allude to Original Sin?
|
I don't really see the two in conflict with the concept of original sin, unless one makes some metaphysical presuppositions into the scientific data.
Also, neither creed seems to deal with original sin, so I have to ask which passage do you feel alludes to original sin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
obiwan, sorry for the threadjack, I know this wasn't your intent for the thread.
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Uh? Why is it ludicrous? The sea level only rose ~20 ft, according to Gen 7:20. |
This is just an example of how patently ludicrous the Genesis flood account is.
7:19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
As Berzerker pointed out, 20 feet wouldn't cover much of anything, much less Mt. Ararat or any other "high hill." Coastal areas can get 20-foot floods, and while damaging, are hardly catastrophic enough to cause the kind of geologic features you claim.
quote:
With all due respect, I think it does matter if we only have a small portion of the entire fossil record. If I show 1 million pieces of a puzzle, but it is only 5% of a puzzle, do you think you would know what the picture was on the puzzle? No because 5% of the puzzle would not be enough to be able to discern the entire picture. |
Where do you get 5% from? You've posted so many unsupported claims, I want to know where you get this?
Regardless, you're mistakenly assuming that the fossils are somehow evenly missing. That's not the case. The further back you go, the more sparse the record is. But the more recent fossil record, which still dates back hundreds of millions of years, is quite full, and demonstrates evolution unequivocably. Life has existed for ~3.5 billion years, and what is missing is a good deal skewed towards the front end of that. But several hundred million years worth of fossils is more than enough evidence, because the picture they paint is very, very clear.
quote:
Again, with all due respect, I think the odds due matter. If someone wins a lottery 4 times in a row eventhough the odds of such a thing are say 1/10^10, which is most likely that he really did beat the odds or that he cheated? If the odds are so much better that he cheated, then the most probable conclusion is that he cheated. |
First, there have been cases where people have won the lottery more than once. The odds against this are supposedly astronomical, but it has occured. Are you saying that something that is against the odds won't happen?
Second, as I mentioned, Creationist claims as to the "odds" of abiogenesis are speculative BS. They have pulled the numbers out of their arse. One of the big faults is that, like you, they seem to locked into this idea that Earth is special, as if the Universe were made for Earth's existence and benefit. This is coloring all of their notions of odds.
The odds that any particular individual will win the Powerball jackpot are obscenely remote, to the point where many people (like myself) don't bother to waste time on it. But the odds that any person will win is much greater (though not certain). But it is certainly true that people do win it and will continue to do so. Is this evidence of some sort of divine intervention? If so, why would the omnipotent creater of everything care about who wins Powerball?
Likewise, the odds of life arising on any particular planet are extremely remote. So if you give Earth this unwarranted pedastal, yes the odds are slim. But if acknowledge that the Earth is just one of a massive number of planets where live could have originated, the odds aren't slim at all.
There are, according to astronomers, at least 70 SEPTILLION stars in the known universe. Since we know basic chemicals can create organic material from inorganic (has has been proven in the lab), the odds seem to be pretty strongly in life's favor!
I'm sure, however, on all of the quadrillion of other planets out there with sentient life, there are folks just gasping in amazement about the odds of them being there...
At any rate, I suggest reading this page. It is quite succint in showing why the "odds" arguments of Creationists are simply wrong:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
quote:
I disagree. Complexity depends on number of subcomponents. The more subcomponents in a system, the more complex. Poor or good design depends on how the subcomponents interact. A system where the various subcomponents interact in a ineficient manner, will be a poor design. |
This is just ignoring my point, that complexity isn't necessarily good, especially when the complexity is unneccessary. Our eyes are unneccessarily complex. Unneccessary complexity is evidence for evolution, not against it. Our obvious vestigial remnants don't in any way point to a designer. Claiming there is some sort of "goal" is simply unfounded speculation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html
"Complexity" is a ludicrously untenable argument for ID. The patterns within a kaleidoscope are very complex, and extremely organized (in the sense of symmetrical patterning) but are not designed. Snowflakes have extremely complex patterns, but is anyone stupid enough to think some intelligent being crafts every snowflake?
quote:
It is possible to have a simple but poor design (a system with only 2 components where the 2 components are too far away from each other to interact efficiently). Likewise, it is possible to have a complex design that is very good. (A system with 100 components but where components are layed out so that components that need to interact with each other are adjacent to each other). |
This is utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is, unequivocably, needless complexity in organisms, which is evidence against intelligent design.
Are you familiar with a small creature called a "Volvox"? This is a small spherical animal that lives in the water and is made up of individual cells of algae.
Separate algae cells have been observed organizing into a Volvox, with the advantage of being able to propel itself in a way similar to an octopus, and capture food inside the sphere. The algae cells operate in a unified manner, just as the cells in a larger organism do.
Here is a clear example of increased complexity for the sake of survival. Since mutation is factual (i.e. we have observed mutation, so it is not conjecture), why do you find it so hard to believe that increasingly complex organizations of cells, combined with favorable mutations, can result in a higher form of life?
quote:
Just because you don't understand the design, does not neccessarily make it bad. You may not understand the design of a computer, and as a result you may think the design is stupid, but the designer may still have had a purpose in the way it was made! |
This argument is so fallacious, I'm amazed you even posted it. First, arguing that we can't intelligently assess a poorly working "design" in nature is silly. Second, this argument renders your own purported claims as to "good design" moot. If we can't assess if design is bad, we can't assess it as being good, either! This is just another bullshit "God in the gaps" argument, relying on the utterly untenable "You don't know the will of God!" argument. You don't, either! Your entire argument is based upon brash assumptions of what the will of a supposed God would or wouldn't do, yet you have the gall to say I can't honestly assess bad design when I see it? I suggest you reread the NT for Jesus's thoughts on hypocrisy!
quote:
The squid lives under water, humans don't. The squid does not need to see the same way we do! |
YOU were the one who claimed that the best designs had been "copied" by the designer for use in all species. If this were true, we should have the squid eye, because the squid eye would be better for our own use.
http://www.ciwemb.edu/course_0202.6..._03/SciAm50.pdf
"Various parts of the headand neck become problematic with disturbing regularity as people age. Consider the eye. The human version is an evolutionary marvel, but its complexity provides many opportunities for things to go wrong over a long lifetime. Our vision diminishes as the protective fluid of the cornea becomes less transparent over time. The muscles that control the opening of the iris and the focusing of the lens atrophy and lose responsiveness, and the lens thickens and yellows, impairing visual acuity and color perception.
Further,the retina—responsible for transmitting images to the brain—can detach fairly easily from the back of the eye, leading to blindness. Many of those problems would be difficult to design away, but the squid eye suggests an arrangement that could have reduced the likelihood of retinal detachment."
http://www3.open.uoguelph.ca/de/ide.../malfunc_2.html
This article is quite amusing, in that it shows, using Creationist logic, how God must have designed the Universe for the benefit of the giant squid:
http://www.addesigninc.com/wierd/squid.html
quote:
What are you saying? The universe may be sentient or alive?
The definition of "inanimate" is, "Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms". The universe is simply the sum total of all matter and energy. So, how is it unreasonable to suggest that the universe is inanimate? |
Another meaning of "inanimate" is also "inert," which is the meaning I was ascribing to. Again, your claim that something had to come from nothing is unfounded assumption, since we "nothing" is, as far as we know, a fictitious concept.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Another meaning of "inanimate" is also "inert," which is the meaning I was ascribing to. Again, your claim that something had to come from nothing is unfounded assumption, since we "nothing" is, as far as we know, a fictitious concept. |
If nothing does not exist, then you are back to a "turtles all the way down" problem! The reason is that if nothing does not exist, then the universe had to be in some form or another with no beginning!
I apreciate the debate. You have given me a lot to think about. The fact is that you have your position, and I have mine.
let's return to the original topic, shall we?
I disagree with Spong, because I think that the creeds define christianity. If you give up the fundamental beliefs that define Christianity, then you cease to be a Christian.
Also, there is no conflict between science and religion.
Religion does not explain the natural world (That's science's job!), but it can provide an underlining meaning to everything.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2003 04:04
Creationists always annoy me because thier crap is a bunch of BAMs and Psudoscience.
|