Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

[RandomPscho]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Wait, is that probability of life supposed to be accounting for the chance WE are here or the start of the first cell?

[shadowraikiri]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

rofl not the evolution arguments again.. jesus

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Well the videos account for the arrising of any specific trait through natural selection. The probability for the beginning of life and for us are both very believable if you do the research.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

that explains how probable abiogenesis is, i implore you to investigate. Also, while you're at it, read the whole site. Its healthy to know both sides of a debate. For example, people say "how could the eye EVER come into existence!?", well, do the research, and you will know.

pssst, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4 has eye-evolution explained in it. Or at least one possibility, but im assuming the best one?

**EDIT**
In response to devonins next statement: if thats how you view my arguments, then i apologize. I'll try harder to be more concise in the future. Sorry, i just tend to go off into tangents and then try to jump from the tangent back to my main point... Through addressing non-static points i try to give a general concept. I'll try to be more concise.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

You are kind of right, but point per sentence seems a little rudimentary. Also, even if point per sentence is followed, the point can be taken out of context.

I don't mean it quite so basically and elementary as all that, I just mean if you go on for a whole paragraph making several points, later on going back to an earlier point and so forth, it just makes what you're trying to say very difficult to understand, and so people have to either, dissect what you said to get your point, or just take a stab at addressing everything at once from your one block quote.

Both of those are pretty messy. It is much easier and simpler if people just make an effort to spell out their point in a clear and straightforward way that is easy to understand and respond to.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

Now, quoting is alright, and a great argumentative mechanism. Kilroys last post did it pulchritudinously, but, his prior method was annoying because he would address single sentences often with rhetorical questions or snyde remarks.

The questions weren't rhetorical. If you can't provide an answer for them then that's your failing. The tone I use in this conversation has no bearing on the content of the post. Please address the implications of what I say rather than the manner in which I say it. To be honest though I'm not sure I made more than one remark which could be considered "snyde".

Anyway, its a creationist method ive seen quite often, and only creationists or religious apologists have used that method that ive seen

I'm an Athiest.

I do notice a change in your response method kilroy, and i appreciate is more than you know, thank you .

I did it primarily because the format worked for that particular post, not to please you.

Anywho, Kilroy, perhaps they disagree with a "lower class" (assuming you can call someone as such...)

People do it all the time. The basis of my claim isn't that the people are "lower" in any sense except income. Please don't waste time on equivocation.

because they perceive that the lower class does actions and methods that cause self-destruction (theft, pride, mental instability, lying, etc.). Because these lifestyles are a danger unto themselves, one could look at those methods as undesirable (for example, there are many stories dating back to greek times and earlier where undesirable actions such as usurping and rape are made out to be evil, creating a societal maxim).

Yes, I agree. So much in fact that this was the point I wished to convey with my previous post.

Also, alot of people dont like to think this but humans are often disposition'd to different things in life. Such as some people are born disposition'd to alcohol. But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream. I use this example to show that bad actions beget bad actions, good actions beget good actions, but bad is related to some sort of destruction, and good is related to beneficial outcomes and rewards. Therefore, bad begets bad, but often doesnt survive, and good begets good, and often survives. This explains crudely how natural selection even in humans can cause "goodness" as a common practice.

Correct. Despite the fact that goodness is a subjective evaluation, there are still mechanisms in place which select for a higher proportion of certain evaluations by means of natural selection. However in human society people survive even with the dispositions you're speaking of, so human being's perception must serve to stigmatize and select for certain traits in individuals as a different mechanism for natural selection. One which is rooted in cognition rather than genetics. Perhaps it could be framed in terms of memetics, if you're a fan of the concept.

here's an example of kilroys earlier "creationist" responses:

Actually, it isn't. As I've said before I'm an Atheist.

>>"Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes."

You are assuming that quantity = quality. What most people believe doesn't make the majority correct (crusades?).

I've never said this. By the way, the lower classes represent the larger part of the human race, not the smaller part. The point is that society has a tendency to reject behaviors when the manifest in portions of society correlated with perceived negative attributes or wellbeing, not that the behaviors are actually bad or that the individuals associated with them even engage in them.

^i dont like this method because its too short and ruins other peoples arguments, such as kilroy had much more meaning in his argument, and i butchered it. Go read his post if u require his view, or make sure u quote entire arguments, dont destroy someones points.

I actually think the main problem with your post wasn't format, but rather the fact that you missed my main point, then read into my post something which wasn't there, then tried to criticize me by saying something which is more or less identical to my main point.

Slipstrike, avoid AD HOMINEMS, insulting Kilroys character is not a good tactic for debating. I dont think he was trying to be superior, there are probably other reasons. Like i say, religious people/creationists follow the same patterns, i notice this, im not saying they do it for any specific reason, i just notice a trend... sorry if it offends

To reiterate, I am not a religious person or a Creationist. I also don't particularly care if people insult my person or my form of address, as long as they don't do it to the exclusion of addressing my points. Besides, Slipstrike mostly insulted what he perceived to be my behavior, not my character.

Anyways, I hope we can get over this format nonsense and continue the actual debate. This is a very interesting subject.

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

A critical thinking thread on acceptable argument styles would be a little off. Unless it were some kind of Sticky to help people learn to write better.

Also, I did kinda laugh a bit to myself when it was suggested that Kilroy was a creationist.

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution & Darwin Vs. Creation

I did try to get back into the debate... look 2 posts above ur newest one. Discuss probability or something.

Scroll up.
"In turn, this type of rejection could be understood as a natural evolutionary inclination. If a behavior has advantages, the genetic factors responsible for it stay on in a populace. If not, they die out. Human beings, however, have different mechanisms of adaptation which lessen the neccessary generation gap between adaption. Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes."

you said that. dont deny it. im sorry for looking like i lied, i dont know how to quote.

Now im sorry for the creationist mentions, you are the first non-religious to do it in that form. Take note of this apology because ive been trying to be polite... Now when i say "creationist method" its a label i give that method based off of the trend i have observed, its for my purposes only.

When i say it annoys me, i mean u redundantly quoted me to say ur an atheist 3 times. Redundant. I used the ad hominem thing to show my neutrality in defending you when i considered you being wrongfully considered. I was hoping you would notice that attempt. Politeness is key in showing respect...

In relation to my quality = quantity statement, i meant in reference to societal power, forgot to mention that. You obviously missed my point in that the "upper" class dont reject the "lower" class JUST BECAUSE they are lower, but because of observable evidence that their lifestyle is logically undesirable due to negative repercussions.

Two things, one: of course dispositions and detrimental genes survive, if they didnt why would we have inheritable dystrophies? I said "But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream." I use the word 'often' to show that the majority of the cases, not the absolute. Dont ignore my uses of "often" and "rarely" as i use them to show that i recognize the lack of absolution. Second: Im aware that goodness is subjective, hence the quotations around it, i defined "goodness" in that exact quote for you, and used that specific definition just like you like me to. I meant my definition when i referred to "goodness". I find ur second references difficult, elaborate if you can. Most cognition is based on genetics from what ive researched. One can only perceive as far as their memory and limitations allow.

Anyway, Originally Posted by slipstrike0159 View Post
Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you.
>>Actually you're just a bad speller.

Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions.

PLEASE return to debate NOW. Evolution is plausible and has been proven time and time again in all fields of science cooperatively. The mounds of evidence make is compelling. And creationism employs confusing circular logic and logical fallacies, for the most part.

<can someone tell me how to quote? i know i suck for being unable to, and it detriments the professionality of my responses>

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

To be honest though I'm not sure I made more than one remark which could be considered "snyde".

Anyway, Originally Posted by slipstrike0159 View Post
Oh goodness... i cant believe that you claim to be adept in the areas of logical thought but you still need almost literally EVERY WORD or PHRASE spelled out for you.
>>Actually you're just a bad speller.

Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions.

Find another one. I'm too lazy to look.

PLEASE return to debate NOW.

I'd love to. Just need something to effectively respond to.

<use quote tags or click the quote button in bottom of post.>

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Ya, i guess even considering remarks snide (actual spelling it turns out, my bad) can be subjective, because upon looking further back, i can see how his other points can be viewed as not a derogatory or superior tone of response.

I posted some videos earlier, watch them and respond if necessary. Otherwise, someone bring in some creation proof, or even thoughts on the matter so we can discuss that, because i've supplied enough evolution proof for now.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Scroll up.
"In turn, this type of rejection could be understood as a natural evolutionary inclination. If a behavior has advantages, the genetic factors responsible for it stay on in a populace. If not, they die out. Human beings, however, have different mechanisms of adaptation which lessen the neccessary generation gap between adaption. Society likely rejects behaviors of any sort when they manifest predominately in lower classes for the precise reason that they manifest predominately in lower classes."

you said that. dont deny it. im sorry for looking like i lied, i dont know how to quote.

How is this creationist or wrong in any way? It simply suggests human beings adapt individually and socially instead of merely genetically. There's nothing remotely creationist about this, nor is there anything wrong with it to my understanding.

When i say it annoys me, i mean u redundantly quoted me to say ur an atheist 3 times.

I did so because you accused me of being a creationist at least as many times. It may have been redundant but it was relevent, and hopefully it got the point across.

Politeness is key in showing respect...

I don't intend to be disrespectful in my responses, but also, respect isn't exactly key in the truth or falsity of an argument.

In relation to my quality = quantity statement, i meant in reference to societal power, forgot to mention that. You obviously missed my point in that the "upper" class dont reject the "lower" class JUST BECAUSE they are lower, but because of observable evidence that their lifestyle is logically undesirable due to negative repercussions.

Now I'm not sure you're paying attention at all...

Two things, one: of course dispositions and detrimental genes survive, if they didnt why would we have inheritable dystrophies? I said "But since those people often die early or have difficulty getting offspring, their alcoholism has difficulty becoming mainstream." I use the word 'often' to show that the majority of the cases, not the absolute. Dont ignore my uses of "often" and "rarely" as i use them to show that i recognize the lack of absolution.

I didn't intend to ignore your use of these words, but it seemed you were taking issue with the notion that human beings adapt societally to change based on perception of social ills. By pointing out the fact that genes which lead to subjectively bad behaviors continue to exist in the human populace I only meant to suggest a reason for why human beings have developed this level of adaptation, not to argue about how populations of individuals with given dispositions might find themselves in the majority or minority.

Second: Im aware that goodness is subjective, hence the quotations around it, i defined "goodness" in that exact quote for you, and used that specific definition just like you like me to. I meant my definition when i referred to "goodness".

For crying out loud, there was never a disagreement here...

I find ur second references difficult, elaborate if you can.

On Memetics? Memetics are a concept toyed with by sociologists as well as evolutionary scientists/philosophers like Richard Dawkins. They attempt to explain the transfer and survival of ideas in terms of evolutionary perspective by reducing them to hypothetical units known as memes. It's primarily a heuristic device, but it leads to interesting perspectives nonetheless.

Most cognition is based on genetics from what ive researched. One can only perceive as far as their memory and limitations allow.

Memory and limitations are based on Biological factors, not solely Genetic, Hereditary factors. Genetic and Hereditary factors play a large part, but you don't get your entire sense of reality from your parents. Instead you get a basic set of abilities in perception, rooted in (in at least some cases highly changeable and dynamic) biological factors, and then you expand your own consciousness based on environmental conditioning.

Scroll up, you said that, to me thats snyde, not meaning to be rude but: dont be ignorant of yourself and your actions.

I didn't intend to. I stated that I could think of only one instance in which I was truly snyde, and that was it.

PLEASE return to debate NOW.

I will when the debate returns to me.

Evolution is plausible and has been proven time and time again in all fields of science cooperatively.

I agree.

The mounds of evidence make is compelling.

I agree.

And creationism employs confusing circular logic and logical fallacies, for the most part.

I agree. Except for the confusing part. There's nothing especially confusing about circular logic, there's just a fair bit untestable, because circular logic is an instance in which an assumption is used to support a conclusion which also happens to be the assumption.

It's like asking why the sky is blue and being told it's because of physical causes X, Y, and Z, and then asking why X, Y, and Z are the physical causes and being told it's because they correspond perfectly with the blueness of the sky.

It's technically circular, but if the correspondence is perfect and the model works then it isn't neccessarily wrong.

Creationist models, however, aren't perfect, don't really work, and are therefore likely wrong.

i know i suck for being unable to, and it detriments the professionality of my responses>

I suggest discarding your worries about format and focusing on content, but if you really want to know how to quote you just type bracket QUOTE end bracket , then whatever you want to quote, then bracket /Quote end bracket.

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Memory and limitations are based on Biological factors, not solely Genetic, Hereditary factors. Genetic and Hereditary factors play a large part, but you don't get your entire sense of reality from your parents. Instead you get a basic set of abilities in perception, rooted in (in at least some cases highly changeable and dynamic) biological factors, and then you expand your own consciousness based on environmental conditioning.

I lumped environmental conditioning and societal influences in with memory, thats why i purposely stopped myself when i was typing "limitations", i realized that memory (and things associated with recalling information) are important as well. But dispositions to many things is surprisingly consistant (as an anecdote my father loves the sciences and philosophy. He left when i was 5, barely knew him. Left to my own devices i grew an intense reverance for science and the world of the theoretical. After getting this reverance, i found out my father evolved the same reverance much like i did around my age.). Since (to my knowledge) all brain continuity is based off of some form of memory or accessed memory. Even interpreting is from memory of something. <disclaimer: dont take my argument as a strong stand. Neuroscience is where things get hazy for me, i have yet to do much research into the field, i only know of the surprising force of genetics on a persons mental capacity and other mental mechanisms.>

I really wish i could spark debate, but i cant think of any truly credible creationist claims. Assuming they make any claims other than the all-powerful "God did it." The creation model is interesting though, it's a pseudo-evolution model, minus the 'mutation causes info increase' part. Just speciation, god, and the magical, all resolving power of the flood.

[devonin]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

As far as I've ever come across, the only creationist claim I found particularly worth considering and debating is the more moderate claim of:

"The process of evolution happened over time, as guided by God"

Though you can (and I do) disagree over the use of the word "God" as being very biased and laden with preconception, the idea that 'natural' evolution could have been guided by a force with an eye towards ending up where we are now is appealing, if just because it provides support for a humano-centric world view.

For my own beliefs, -if- I were to support the idea of a guided evolution, it would be more to say that when the universe came into being, the thing that created it established the universal laws which we are slowly beginning to understand, and the following of which, has allowed everything that has happened since that creation to happen.

[OmegaSyrus]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Yes i find that to be an interesting claim. Its arguable for and against. Claiming evolution is guided by God is refuting the book of genesis, go read it and you'll see what i mean. But, no one listens to the books of the old testament any way so who cares? (a christian can invent a thousands rationalizations for the genocide and attrocities that God brings down on his beloved children)

Another logical error i see, is if God can guide evolution, why not just create it in one fell swoop? I mean whats the point of guiding something when you are all powerful and can defy your own physical laws you set in place. But then we're back to where we started. In order for guiding evolution to be possible, one would have to assume God is not all powerful, all loving, all caring, or even all knowing! Perhaps all knowing and all loving... but thats up for conjecture.

Although i personally consider "theistic evolution" just a desperate cling to their beliefs, i do have alot of respect for those christians, muslims, jewish, to take in the scientific evidence and try to adapt science into their lives. It's a step in the right direction. It's an interesting prospect, and it works on getting evolution some favour in the religious communities, so it has some merit.

[Reach]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Where did Reach go?

Somewhere else. Like I want to stick around here. XD

I'll write something anyway. (note for thick heads, some of this is more serious than other parts ).




I don't buy the 'evolution guided by God' thing. To me it just doesn't seem like evolution is guided by anything other than nature, let alone an omniscient creator.

As I see it, if Mr. God had any sort of buisness here it was creating the whole thing, from the very beginning. But then again I don't buy that either. I have at least two completely plausable, and at least a few other ok ways of explaining the natural occurance of our universe. Why on earth would I want to complicate things 1000 fold to include a God in there somewhere? It's like you've got this mathematical theory and then you can't get anywhere else, so you stick a giant, magical 'G' variable on the end to encompass all of the things you don't know. And then you have the NERVE to say you're finished!!

"guys, OMG he solved teh theory of everything!!"
"OMG LOL HOW? string theore!?"
"No lol he used teh god variable!"
"Omg lol...genius...that neva been done b4!"

This may be nothing but my own opinion, but here, let's look closer.

The whole argument sort of counters the creationist 'God' argument right from the start. "We're too unlikely! We must be divine creations". And you're telling me, an omniscient creator, as described exactly by your ruffled sheets of paper, existed sometime before our universe in an attempt to create it, and did not need a creator? You mean to say that this is probable?

What the ****

Occams razor people. How many assumptions are you making there (if I were to continue to list off things you needed to assume)? A lot...hell, borderline infinite number of assumptions.

And our magic occams razor here tells us the more of these assumptions you continue to make, the less likely it is that you're right (for udderly obvious reasons). So, if I were to treat this as a classic newtonian/leibniz limit, I could go ahead and say the probability of God existing is 0. Good going christian argument about probability.



SO, creationists (or anyone that wants to play creationist), rather than me telling you why I don't think your God exists (its your burden of proof anyway...), give me a good reason why I should believe in God. I'm sure I've heard it before but I'll read it anyway. If not, given the burden of proof, it is safe for me to completely ignore what you are saying (also, given the probability of your God existing to be zero!).

I know a lot of people here are basically not religious but hold onto the fact that there definitely is a God (even though he doesn't seem to do much). I'll call this spiritual with a God tag along. This isn't necessarily directed at you guys, but it still applies to a sense.

I think (tell me if I'm wrong), that you guys use it at a comfort blanket. You were brought up this way, and even though you're completely logical people, you just don't want to give up your blanket because it's comfortable to you. That's fine. I don't really care, and as I see it life is worth living happily, so whatever floats your boat (that doesn't affect me). I'm just sort of curious why you hold that one tiny shred of God with faith but nothing else. Is it simply that, or is it something more? The universe is a magnificent place. Life can be very beautiful, and through all its amazement and mystery life is something we should all take in and enjoy with passion.

I just don't see the design in it :S

[devonin]

Re: Evolution &amp; Darwin Vs. Creation

Why is it that you assume any person who mentions a creator is automatically referring to the christian image of an omnipotent, omniscient, yet kind loving and benevolent god, probably male and with a big beard, who specifically wanted humans to exist because we're special and he loves us?

I find, given the infinite complexity of the universe, that all things being equal, it is MUCH more likely that nothing exist at all. And yet, here we have an infinite large universe that, at least in our neck of the woods, is supporting intelligent, sentient life. The odds are staggering that anything should exist at all.

Occam's Razor seems -more- likely to want to posit a creator than to posit pure random chance. I mean, just consider the four fundamental forces, heck, just consider Gravitation, and the Strong Nuclear Force. If the strength of the strong nuclear force to bind nuclei to one another was even minutely stronger (And we're talking on the order of 1*10^-50 kind of minute) all elements would condense and condense until we were left with a big ball of iron and other dense metal. If it were weaker by the same minute degree, the only element that could form would be hydrogen. in any case, only the one exact specific value of all the infinite possible ones could have possibly led to the universe as we know it...

Now...which is more likely, a total random coincidence that it "just happened" that way so instead of nothing we have everything, or perhaps some outside force acted to make it that way?

This is the major problem with the usual participants of an evolution vs creation debate: The evolutionists are almost always -only- interested in claiming that there as no possible outside intevention of any kind in anything, that everything was -entirely- up to chance, and random occurence. And they assume creationists (almost always an accurate assumption) are -only- interested in the completely non-random, deliberate intervention of a benevolent all-powerful God who specifically and explicitly wanted humans to exist because it has a vested interest in the existance of humans.

I mean, just because it seems most people who want to carry on this debate are either atheistic scientist types with an overdone interest in the 'rational' or monotheistic, usually christian, religious types who want to insist that faith is perfectly reasonable as well, doesn't mean those are the only options, or the only sides.

If we go back to Newtonian-style mechanistic theories of the universe (Of the, everything is one big machine, cogs spinning variety) it's a little easier to communicate the idea that by "creator" we can actually just mean "constructor" without adding in any religious overtones.

I personally am a Deist, meaning I do believe that some greater (note: not ominpotent [which is logically impossible] and not omniscient [which I don't believe in, because I'm not a determinist] just substantially more powerful than us) being/force/whatever is at least responsable for setting the rules, and setting everything in motion.

I see no reason to assume it even knows about humans or cares about us if it did. In fact, in almost every way, I take the evolution side of the debate. The forces of evolution are obvious to me, they've been well documented, with plenty of reasonable evidence. No concrete proof, but I'm not entirely sure concrete proof could exist in that way.

But then I consider, for example, that if gradual evolution through random mutation, and natural selection (which can and does make non-advancing even detrimental choices) takes thousands open thousands of years to create new species (As I recall, homo sapiens sapiens is assumed to be around 13,000 years old?) One would assume that given our specific and deliberate attempt to create a new species that we could substantially cut down that time, and yet to use a case example: we've bred dogs into all manner of shapes, sizes, for all different qualities and traits, and yet barring the logistics of size, a great dane and a chihuahua could reproduce and you'd still get a dog out of it.

That lends a sort of credence to the idea that evolution creating new species is something still a little beyond our ability to create, which itself lends credence to the idea that the universe, which -can- have that happen, was probably brought into being by some greater force.

And while it's a somewhat cheap way out, the response to "Well then, what created your creator" is to say "If it existed (as I believe) outside our universe, then the question has no answer, because the inability of things to exist but have no cause is a rule of our universe, and may not be a rule of their universe."

Oof, this was a lot more long-winded than I'd intended, but hopefully I've communicated a "creation with evolution" view in a way that is understandable to the creationists and evolutionists among you without wandering too far from either side.