Chance or Design?

[Eridor]

Okay guys. I'm not sure how controversial this is going to get, but I'm going to try this out anyway. What do you think about evolution versus intelligent design theory?

Like I said before, this is a very controversial topic, and I'm going to say ahead of time that I am not trying to disrespect anybody or their beliefs. I am really hoping that this does not turn into a huge flaming match, so please, even if you really don't agree with somebody else's view, keep the flaming to a minimum.

Also, if you take a specific stance based on religious affiliation, it's fine to mention it initially, but other than that, please try to keep things based on science, math, etc. That way this doesn't turn into a battle between religions and wind up banned.

[Chromer]

RE: Chance or Design?

Personally, I'm a Christian so I don't believe in the entire Evolution theory. Man evolving from apes? Please. Tell me this, if man evolved from monkeys, why are thier thousands of monkeys still roaming around Africa and what not?

[fusi0n]

Re: RE: Chance or Design?

Personally, I'm a Christian so I don't believe in the entire Evolution theory. Man evolving from apes? Please. Tell me this, if man evolved from monkeys, why are thier thousands of monkeys still roaming around Africa and what not?

You obviously know nothing about evolution besides the fact that 'monkeys turned into humans.'

[Squeek]

RE: Chance or Design?

I guess we can tolerate one thread of this nature once in a while.

The theory of one being creating all of mankind is just absurd in my opinion. One such instance with Christianity lies in Genesis. Now, Genesis explains nothing of the dinosaurs. They didn't exist at all. The Earth started with mankind and some animals.

However, it's a fact that dinosaurs existed. We have countless fossils proving this. Therefore, I must conclude that this particular case of "intelligent design" is void.

THIS IS MY OPINION DO NOT KILL ME IF YOU HAVE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS THAT YOU HOLD DEAR.

Evolution is scientifically apt for my views. I believe that the next "upgrade" in the lifeforms of a planet occurs when the present lifeforms existant have one case of mutation. Following the laws of Natural Selection, that mutation has to be beneficial to the species, and thus, a new organism is born.

Chromer - Well, we still have bacteria too. Evolution says that we all evolved from single-celled organisms.

~Squeek

[SpookG]

RE: Chance or Design?

Apparently someone decided they weren't going to really try and understand evolution before they dismissed it. It has been proven evolution does occur, in other instances than just Darwin's finches.

And we didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys evolved from the same ancestor we did, but we're actually a part of the great apes.

I would explain this in further detail, but I'm assuming Chromer won't really care and still defend his position in the face of overwhelming logic, which I respect, but you're still wrong. You can still believe in God and evolution, because evolution doesn't say how life started but how life progressed into what it is today.

[Afrobean]

RE: Chance or Design?

Chromer, that was a terrible arguement against evolution. The way evolution works is that the species change, not necessarily as a whole, but new species can be formed based on differences in environment/diet/random mutation or something. I believe that's called speciation.

Also, I'm pretty sure this should be locked, because people here can't handle theological debates too well. It always turns into "people who believe in god VS atheists" and then it becomes god-lovers saying "it's obvious that god exists", to which the atheists respond "You're stupid. It's obvious that god doesn't exist" and the religious individuals respond with some sort of flame right back and it's a never ending cycle until a mod steps in. These types of threads always lead there, and it's stupid to think that this one won't.

EDIT: Squeek, Dinosaurs are now known as Jesus-horses if I remember correctly.

[Eridor]

RE: Chance or Design?

Also, I'm pretty sure this should be locked, because people here can't handle theological debates too well. It always turns into "people who believe in god VS atheists" and then it becomes god-lovers saying "it's obvious that god exists", to which the atheists respond "You're stupid. It's obvious that god doesn't exist" and the religious individuals respond with some sort of flame right back and it's a never ending cycle until a mod steps in.

Yeah...that's exactly what I was hoping to avoid with asking for scientific views instead of religious. However, I do have some pretty good evidence for intelligent design.

First of all, mutations don't account for macro-evolution. They definitely prove micro-evolution, adaptation within a species, but no new information is ever being created. Old information is being shuffled around which causes the DNA to be replicated slightly different than it was before. Because of this, you see a certain species of animal (like the peppered moths for example) change externally, but this doesn't cause them to become entirely new species.

It has been proven evolution does occur, in other instances than just Darwin's finches.

In regard to this: The Darwin's finches theory has been discarded as an example of evolution because the Galapagos finches are not a different species from the mainland finches. The Galapagos finches apparently were forced to adapt to their environment when the only food to be found was nuts. This caused them to have larger beaks so that they could crack the nuts open, while the mainland finches, whose diet consisted of insects and berries, didn't have a need for that particular feature.

[Mindfields]

Here's what I think:
I think that we evolved. Of course, go way back to when we were just amoebas or fishes: How could this type of life be supported? God.
That's what I think. I hope I'm not the only one, because everytime brings up this subject, I flash back to O Brother Wher Art Thou? at the KKK scene. It makes me extremely angry at how much they magnify simple problems.

[Chromer]

I didn't say, "BAM! Monkeys were put on the earth first and we evolved from them. I'm just saying that the enitre thought that we did evolve from a quadpedal to bi-pedal state from apes is absurd in my opinion. Yes, I think it does refer to dinosaurs in the bible at one point (I'll hyave to get back to you on that), but I'm not entirely sure.

But from a religious/scientific viewpoint, If God/Big Bang could create us, whose not to say that thier are other worlds just like us in alternate galaxies?

[navyseal101]

Why can't evolution and design go together hand in hand? Maybe it was part of god's plan to have his "designed creatures" evolve into other creatures which he had already fashioned prior to the evolution. It seems preety logical that an intellegent being like God would have found this to be the most efficient and economical way to adapt his creations to the changing enviorment. Like when you play civilization 3 (if anyone here has played that), you upgrade your units as time goes by so they are more able to survive in the changing times.

I don't believe in evolution however. I think there might be a better term for it called, radioactive adaption. That means that over time, through reproduction, a life form does change to fit its suroundings as best as possible. Like if the planet steadily got hotter and hotter over the next 10,000 yrs, the organisms on this planet would eventualy radioactivley change to fit the 500 degree or 1,000 degree weather.

[eyespewgreekfire]

Uh navyseal, radioactivity refers to atoms giving off parcticles and becoming different elements. If an animal decays radioactively, its got serious problems.
Chromer, the idea of 4 legged to 2 legged is not absurd for the following reason. Look at apes. The best example is the bonobo chimp. It generally is hunched over with its arms dragging but is also able to walk on its hind legs without a problem. Because there is obvious middle ground between 4 legged and 2 legged, simply calling the transition absured is not based on evidence. Also, dinosaurs are not the best example to show the bible is wrong. Where does the bible talk about domain archaea? The bacteria in that domain are shown to exist, and they are not mentioned in the bible. If there was creation, it is for sure that the bible did not list all created creatures (which is not that crazy of an idea).

Nonetheless, there has been evidence of evolution. How can a creationist explain the existence of something like homo erectus or an australopithicus? The only explanation is that the skeletons are fake, which is just as valid on its own as saying the bible is fake. With all the other evidence on top of the existence of these skeletons: a logical system of how it works, alot of evidence, logical inconsistancys in the bible (according to the ages of saints the world is less than 7000 years old), and the scientific method in which the theory of evolution was discovered.

[heidzo63]

I believe in intelligent design. And I believe in the first thing that eyespewgreekfire said. In the book of Genesis, it may not have said dinosaurs existed, but that does not mean they never did. It never says, 'And God said, let there be platypuses, and there were platypuses' yet we know that they exist. Also, how can all life forms have evolved from prokaryotic single cells? The law of biogenis states that all life comes from other life, and evolutionists also say that the first prokaryotic cells evolved from simple chemicals. Evolution contradicts itself!
Another example that makes evolution hard to believe is just by looking at a cell with a single flagella. The flagella is basically a propeller that moves the cell through liquid. It can turn hunreds of thousands of times each second, then turn in the reverse direction in milliseconds. Some evolutionists say that with random design, simple cells could have evolved into these complex flagellate protists.
Look at a middle school science textbook! There is so much that evolution has no proof for. 'In the Precambian Time, blah blah blah, Eventually these molecules may have joined to form structures such as cells.' Notice the MAY. These textbooks contain many 'may have this, may have that.' I just can't believe in evolution.

[Eridor]

Think about this. According to evolution, undergoing a lot of mutations (e.g. micro-evolution) will eventually change something into a new organism. However, not only are most mutations harmful, but according to natural selection, the "in-between" stages of creatures would be wiped out because they were so vulnerable.

Now, I'm gonna throw in a little bit of math here. in order for the "Big Bang" to have worked, there are about four or five different factors that have to be at just the right numbers. For example, if the gravitational and expansional forces didn't balanced each other out perfectly, the universe would have either imploded or exploded (based on which force was the stronger). The odds of just this little piece of the "Big Bang" working out perfectly are about 1 in 10^17. Add in the other factors and the odds shoot up to about 1 in 10^28. Now, you could say, like a lot of people do, that given enough time, chance can do anything, but that doesn't work in this case because the universe only had one shot. If everything hadn't balanced perfectly on the first try, we wouldn't be here. You can compare that to putting a gun to somebody's head, giving them a die, and telling them that if they don't roll 20 sixes in a row (approximately) on the first try you will pull the trigger.

On the other hand, if I take a die and make sure I set it down so that the six is facing up every single time, the odds shoot up to the much more favorable outcome of 1:1. Chance doesn't care whether or not the human race exists, so it makes much more sense to say that somebody knew what he was doing when he set everything up the way it is.

One last thing. Suppose Julius Caesar is walking along the beach and finds a radio. (I know this sounds kind of strange, but just bear with me here.) Now this is not an ordinary radio. Somehow, the radio is playing Caesar's favorite song. Upon further examination, Caesar notices that there are millions of tiny little knobs all over it. As an experiment he turns one just a tiny bit and suddenly the sound turns to static. He quickly turns it back, and once again, his favorite song is playing. Now, should Caesar say that because there was nobody around when he discovered the radio the knobs were turned by the wind and the waves (random chance) and just happened to be on his favorite song? A much more logical explanation is that somebody else knew what they were doing and turned the knobs to just the right places so that a song was playing. The radio in this story represents all of the factors that keep our planet running, climate, atmosphere, DNA, and the planet's position to the sun just to name a few. If changed by even a fraction of a hair, any of these factors would cause the destruction of life as we know it. Altogether the odds of all of them turning out perfectly (the way they are) is approximately 1 in 10^112!

-Eridor

P.S. Sorry this one's so long :P.

[Chocoborider29]

The fact is that we have too little factuality in this. I believe that the lack of proof on events that were theorized are morally dissapointing and that Christianity has held its own for almost as long (Well, Christians believe so) that neither side has enough, well, balls to argue tangibly.
Its pretty crappy.

[nforcer06164]

Eridor, you have good logic in your theory about the Big Bang working perfectly. Remember, however, that if it didn't work perfectly, we wouldn't exist to know it. So the supposed "perfect chance" worked. There may be no supernatural being to make sure things happened the way they did. Maybe it all happened, by chance, just right. And, as I previously staed, we wouldn't know otherwise, because we wouldn't be here.

I believe in a combination of the two, however. My theory relates to no creation story of the Bible, but a more scientific viewpoint. Be prepared for a long explanation.

God created the first living beings, archaebacteria, which lived in the sea. These beings slowly grew in size and started meiosis (as a mutation) instead of mitosis, and slowly developed into marine animals, such as fish. The fish had gills, but, again, with another mutation, developed structures somewhat like lungs that could breathe air. These structures became more developed over time, and creatures that could breathe both in water and on land, like the lungfish, came in being. These creatures spent more time breathing air on land, and their gills slowly degenerated until they became like amphibians. The amphibians then somehow developed into reptiles, and one of the two developed into mammals. I have no explanation for a mutation such as that. After that, the ape came into being, and from there, man slowly evolved into what we are today. That is the one I believe in.

Another theory, with a the Bible as a backing argument, is that man was created right away, as a unique living being. Then, God created a woman, Eve. So, where were the females of the other species, which were created before the first woman? That doesn't make sense to me. I can argue the dinosaur question in this theory, though. A classmate of mine several years ago came up with an excellent possibility: dinosaurs were banned from the Garden of Eden. It wouldn't be hard to think of why, either.

If you were too lazy to read what I said, basically, I believe a supreme being did create us, but through a slow evolutionary process.