Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[Sniperz14]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

i believe i wuz a monkey
end of story

[beaner692]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I stronlgly beilieve in Evolution,

I think this planet started out as nothing, only microscopic organisms that evolved and everything just kinda did its own thing until today.

BUT

It leads me to believe theres a god because Ive seen a couple ghosts. My friend explained to me about how I wouldnt of seen em if there wasnt a god, I forgot what he said.

I really wanted to watch this movie but it was putin me to sleep. I'll watch it tomorow, its 3:01 in the morning lol

[RandomPscho]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Could somebody point me to HOW they are finding the probability of live forming? Please?

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

First the mathematician took a template for a simple protein, and since proteins are responsible for everything in our bodies, they are important. The protein sequence he used was a 400 long amino acid chain from a very simple, but modern bacterium. He then calculated the probability of 20 amino acids (since there is only 20 that make up all life) being put together into that 400 long chain through chain. Using this i believe he ended up with a probability of 1 in 2.04 x 10^390... dont remember tho. He continued his assumptions doing god-knows-what till he reached 1 in 1 x 10^40,000...
But the creationist mathematician made way too many assumptions in his calculations, and kept calculating as if the chemicals could ever assemble into a bacteria through chance, which everyone knows its impossible. He wasn't aware that chemicals can go through transitional phases of life until reaching a bacteria (self-replicating polymers, protobionts, etc). Also, these probabilities forget to take into thought the processes of natural selection, which yes, would have been acting against the first self-replicating polymers and protocells, making sure the failed replications dont survive.

And yes, evolution kicks ass and is MUCH more interesting than creationism, is certainly the ultimate rags to riches story (bwahaha terrible joke). Lastly don't you think its more likely everything started from a huge, powerful explosion (more accurately described as a 'powerful expansion') then to believe that a Sky-God intelligently designed everything in existence with a predetermined meaning... i certainly find the Big Bang much much more plausible than its alternatives (WHICH ISN'T ONLY CREATIONISM BTW, ignorant creationists...)

[jellygod]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

there could be more than one universe if you go by the big bang theory if you thing of it realisicly.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

All the truly smart people are agnostic.

Also lol this issue

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Religion is a delusion, therefore its rare for religious people to be truly logical. And since logic is the basis of all cognitive reasoning and all intelligence we hold, i would also come to a conclusion that quite often agnostics and atheists are intelligent, but thats not always so.

Sometimes agnostics are just fence-sitters because they are afraid to join in the whole religion vs. non-religion "war", so thats just fear and other things, not intelligence.

[Kilgamayan]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Religion is a delusion

Wow you're not biased at all!

The rest of your post is either rofl or headshake or both.

[Oceanus]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Religion is a delusion, therefore its rare for religious people to be truly logical. And since logic is the basis of all cognitive reasoning and all intelligence we hold, i would also come to a conclusion that quite often agnostics and atheists are intelligent, but thats not always so.

I'm a deep devoted Catholic and I have no problem seeing reasoning in why my beliefs could be wrong or different. I don't shun down logic if it goes against my beliefs, and if it can be proven a fact, then it's true and if my beliefs or what I learned in my religion said otherwise, then that religion's beliefs are wrong if science can prove it as a fact. Most religious people are intelligent and a part of them DOES listen to what science has to say. Don't assume that religious people aren't logical when it interferes with their beliefs.

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I said truly logical, to be religious you must have faith, faith is best described as casting out logic in favour for emotion and willing to believe, which isnt bad, its just not logical. That is what im referring to, i never said religious people are pure illogic, i have many friends whom i adore who are very VERY christian. I have alot of respect for them for other things.

Furthermore, your statement of requiring disproval is odd, because what kind of proof do u require? Stats showing religion if often more of a detriment to society? Or do u mean the proof of "no god", which is next to impossible... Or do u require proof of the bible being false?

I do respect ur choices, but u must understand why i say the things i do.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html proof religion occasionally causes societal detriment
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm proof of jesus most likely not have even existing
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html check this list for any scientific proof u need that u think creationists have over evolution. Its a good site for referencing when doubting evolution, or even science for that matter. talkorigins rulez.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

No.

Faith is belief in the absence of scientific evidence; it is not the absence of logic. Some of the greatest thinkers in history were devoutly religious and highly logical.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Theology is one of the most intensely logical fields in existence.

Religion is a delusion

Prove this assumption please.

therefore its rare for religious people to be truly logical.

This does not follow from your premise. Delusions can follow logical patterns. I also believe you are using the word "logic" in a non-standard meaning.

And since logic is the basis of all cognitive reasoning and all intelligence we hold

This is absolutely false.

i would also come to a conclusion that quite often agnostics and atheists are intelligent, but thats not always so.

This doesn't follow from your argument. Even if we accept everything else you have argued up to this point, which would be silly given the lack of sense in your argument, you've only suggested religion is a delusion and excludes beings logical, not that being unreligious neccessarily implies the opposite, that it implies a presence of logical thought.

I said truly logical, to be religious you must have faith, faith is best described as casting out logic in favour for emotion and willing to believe, which isnt bad, its just not logical.

Logic without emotion is useless. I challenge you to give me an entirely logical basis for good, bad, evil, right, wrong, positive, negative, or the meaning of reality. You won't be able to do it.

[Reach]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

All the truly smart people are agnostic.

Also lol this issue

You're not biased at all ;o

Also, I think most people that are atheist are atheist in respect to the judeo-christian (or whatever other manmade God) God, not necessarily a God in general.

good, bad, evil, right, wrong, positive, negative, or the meaning of reality

Logic without emotion is not useless at all. You've just set up something conveniently impossible, because these are relative meanings and subjective perceptions.

Faith is belief in the absence of scientific evidence; it is not the absence of logic. Some of the greatest thinkers in history were devoutly religious and highly logical.

Well, most of the greatest thinkers were not devoutly religious, and this tread is increasing ^^

But you're right, it isn't the absense of logic. You just have to seperate the part of your life that is faith and the part that is science and you'll do just fine.

[W_I_N_N_E_R]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

OK, let me clear something up. My assumptions are based off of using logic in the logic-gate definition of logic. If A and B are true, and C is the conclusion of the 2, then C will be true because both arguments are true. But (in reference to AND gates) if A is false but B is true, then C is false.

In reference to Guido, i call it illogical to reject scientific evidence, since the evidence suggests a conclusion. If a prayer study resulted in evidence for prayer not working, logically, prayer doesnt work. Therefore logic is involved with faith. I find it illogical to ignore evidence, is an illogical conclusion. Ignorance is rarely a good thing. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, most people through time who are brilliant have been religious, BACK WHEN IT WAS FORCIBLY MAINSTREAM. Before Darwin, what was it, 95% of scientists were creationists?? therefore, logically, i would be surprised if the greatest minds of the past werent religious, due to probability and statistics. But really, the closer to our time you get, the less christian the scientists get (christian in the sense of personal god and related specialties).

NOW referencing my ORIGINAL insulting statement, which no one EVER seems to pay attention to, i said ITS RARE, not impossible. OF COURSE people will be intelligent even tho they are religious, i just meant the ratio suggests that it is rare. Think about the amount of scientists up till the last 150 years, and the progress we have attained so recently. Times so close to now have been more atheist than ever and we have progressed insanely quickly. (please understand the terminology when i say: ) the locus of breakthrough scientists increase as time progresses, for the most part, the greeks were pretty amazing in their philosophy and intelligence tho. So to summarize i said its RARE, not impossible. When given long enough time, rarities do exist in quantity.

>Reason is a synonym of logic, cognition is knowledge through perception, so when i say COGNITIVE REASONING, i mean knowledge and conclusions that are reached through logic.<

Delusions can follow logical patterns, yes, but rarely does someone jump into a delusion using logic, or with a stable mind. When i said agnostics tend to be intelligent i reached it through a quasi-logical fallacy, i recognize that. I used more gate-logic: logic = intelligence = atheists (on the grounds that they deny religion through logic, and not because they hate rules). My statements were meant in general terms, of course there are examples that work against my statements, i know many people who are definitively intelligent yet are strongly religious. I meant intelligence in a cognitive sense, not in a knowledge sense... I should have defined that better, but i wanted to try to say alot in less words, rather than being FORCED like this to defend my presuppositions.

I'm sorry for typing so much, but everyone is forcing me to type alot to fully explain myself, when i said religion is a delusion, i meant it humourously. I said it in a sense of referencing a common atheist site GodIsImaginary.com because he calls religion a delusion in one of his videos. I was alluding to it, trying to be funny to those who know. go look at the site... look at the site to understand why i say religion is a delusion! Im also sorry for offending when i say that, to me you are false in your belief, and delusion is "a false belief or opinion" so i state it as such.

Thanks for the support Reach, although small and probably not intentional, i respect the support. I dont hate religious people, my girlfriend is highly religious and i love her, i just recognize that often its built from LOGICAL FALLACIES www.theskepticsguide.org look them up. Now before you quote me, i said OFTEN, not ALWAYS. Just like i said RARE and not IMPOSSIBLE.

**edit**
Yes reach, you're right, people shut that part from their lives and do not apply logic to it. Hence why i said something along the lines of TRULY logical about everything. to ignore logic for one aspect is a logical fallacy and would prevent someone from approaching life, as a whole, through logic.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Well, most of the greatest thinkers were not devoutly religious, and this tread is increasing ^^

All those involved in the scientific revolution were.