Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Philosophy & Religion > Evolution...just an idea of mine...
Search this Thread:
Pages (16):  [1] 23 » Last »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

Evolution...just an idea of mine... post #1  quote:



Wondering...I've had this idea..

You know when you're ill, you have anti-biotics right? Well apparently bacteria is starting to resist this treatment, so scientists are trying to discover new ways to combat this.

Does this prove evolution? Because they are starting to resist the anti-biotics because of natural selection, right? That's why it says "Finish the course" on the packet..because when people don't, there's still what 20% perhaps of the bacteria there? And it naturally has good resisting genes, passes it on when it reproduces etc...

So does this prove evolution? And does evolution conflict with the Bible??

Just wondering what all your thoughts were on the matter.


Old Post 07-06-2004 07:33 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #2  quote:

things adapt, this has been proven time and time and time and time again.

it does not come anywhere close to proving that life arose from a magic cesspool and that single-cellular organisms somehow evolved into multicellular organisms. It does not account for the fact that the fossil record shows only jumps in species, there is not one proven example of a transition. There are a few maybes, but they are a stretch, and should be far more abundant if evolution is to be considered a fact.

Natural selection: yes. We've seen it with our own eyes. A species reproducing not according to its kind... something's missing.


Old Post 07-07-2004 02:43 AM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #3  quote:

quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #2 :
things adapt, this has been proven time and time and time and time again.

it does not come anywhere close to proving that life arose from a magic cesspool and that single-cellular organisms somehow evolved into multicellular organisms. It does not account for the fact that the fossil record shows only jumps in species, there is not one proven example of a transition. There are a few maybes, but they are a stretch, and should be far more abundant if evolution is to be considered a fact.

Natural selection: yes. We've seen it with our own eyes. A species reproducing not according to its kind... something's missing.


A really thorough treatment of the subject of evolution is obviously beyond the scope (and length limitations) of this post or this thread. I do, however, think you are overly dismissive of it.

In answer to AZ's question, no, the adaptation of bacteria does not PROVE evolution in and of itself. It is a particle in a mountain of evidence that proves the theory of evolution.

A little primer. Natural selection is stage 2 of the process. Stage 1 is mutation, a random process that creates what we call genetic variation from individual to individual within a species. Natural selection tends to make those individuals with the more adaptable characteristics survive to reproductive age. Evolution is thus a mutation/selection driven process.

What you see with bacteria is an organism with a very short life cycle compared to, for example, mammals. Over what is a relatively short period of time for humans, many generations of bacteria live and die. Each life cycle introduces new mutuations. The organisms with the mutatations that create the resistance to anti-biotics are the ones that survive to reproduce. Bacterial evolution is no different than human evolution. It's just on a far more rapid time-frame.

I will recommend here a book I just recommended in another thread, "The Blind Watchmaker: how evolution reveals a world without design" by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins. My only caution is that it is for the truly committed, because it contains a fair amount of hard science.

You'll find that theists tend to emphasize the gaps in the fossil record and other incomplete aspects of the theory. Of course, when you are trying to compile data on 100's of millions of years of natural history, there are going to be gaps. Indeed, it would be incredible if we could map out all natural history from A to Z.

Evolution, because it appears to conflict with religious belief, is held to an impossibility high standard by many theists. Nevertheless, the theory is well established and is generally accepted in the scientific community. There wouldn't be any controversy about it if it wasn't for religion. There would be controvery about some of the details of it, but not the validity of the overall theory.

- woolfe


Old Post 07-09-2004 05:18 AM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #4  quote:

the fact that it is scientifically accpeted is damn near meaningless (though I will admit not completely meaningless).

The idea of evolution is logical, I agree. Unfortunately, it still requires a leap of faith. Darwinists believe in chance and coincidence, so blindy that they throw logic and common sense out the window. Once the miracles of chance and coincidence are accepted with faith, the rest follows logically. I'm sorry but if I am going to put irrational faith in something it's not going to be in something that doesn't exist. Chance is a human concept derived to try to explain an order that our limited minds do not understand.

Any person with common sense and a basic grasp of physics, chemistry, and statistics can understand that things this complicated, that many coincidences, simply do not occur by chance.

Life can only arise from life. It's the very first thing you learn in a biology class.


Old Post 07-09-2004 05:59 AM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #5  quote:

oh and for the record, I am sort of "agnostic" about evolution. I just have to strike some balance when athiests start getting "more logical than thou" because their ideas really aren't that much more logical. Or rather, they still are founded on a belief that some sort of miracle (they call it "coincidence" though) from some all-powerful force (they call it "chance"). And also I derive an immense amount of satisfaction from turning the tables.

or maybe i'm just a jackass.





so to answer az's original questions

So does this prove evolution?
no. it proves natural selection.

And does evolution conflict with the Bible??
it certainly conflicts with a literal 7-day creation account. I tend to think taht the "days" were metaphorical. If you look at the Big Bang theory, and the 7-day creation, you will notice that the order things are created in for both accounts have interesting parallels. The time frames differ quite a bit though.


Old Post 07-09-2004 06:09 AM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

Staff
Sierradaddy
Days of Future Past...

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 03:49 AM
Location: Somewhere in Time...
Posts: 3901

post #6  quote:

Agreed Dekka. Boy, I didn't realize how much we seem to see things similarly...

I think that evolution has certain merits, but I can't see how random happenstance led to the complexity we see today. Statistically, humans, and life itself, is an impossibility from any practical standpoint, when we put our origins in the hands of chance, and incremental adaptive changes over millions of years. No intelligent, powerful, coherent driving force behind it all? Again, statistically and practically IMPOSSIBLE. Creation makes sense, but when compared with the evidence supporting evolution (which is still not PROVEN, only argued better and better with new supporting evidence being added all the time. We tend to THINK it's been proven, but it hasn't completely, and it certainly wasn't properly proven when I learned about it in school during the 80's, in the context that it WAS proven and therefore must be FACT...), there are things that might need to be looked at in a different light.


Old Post 07-10-2004 02:17 AM
Click here to Send Sierradaddy a Private Message Find more posts by Sierradaddy Add Sierradaddy to your buddy list Sierradaddy's MSN ID is smoothline98@hotmail.com Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #7  quote:

quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #4 :
the fact that it is scientifically accpeted is damn near meaningless (though I will admit not completely meaningless).

The idea of evolution is logical, I agree. Unfortunately, it still requires a leap of faith. Darwinists believe in chance and coincidence, so blindy that they throw logic and common sense out the window. Once the miracles of chance and coincidence are accepted with faith, the rest follows logically. I'm sorry but if I am going to put irrational faith in something it's not going to be in something that doesn't exist. Chance is a human concept derived to try to explain an order that our limited minds do not understand.

Any person with common sense and a basic grasp of physics, chemistry, and statistics can understand that things this complicated, that many coincidences, simply do not occur by chance.

Life can only arise from life. It's the very first thing you learn in a biology class.


The question isn't who is making a leap of faith, because at some level everyone is. Every day I wake up and believe that I exist, I make some small leap of faith. The question in examining evolution vs. creationism is, which theory does empirical evidence and logic support the best? In other words, who is making the bigger leap.

You say that evolutionists rely on chance. That is only partly correct. Mutation is the chance element, which provides genetic variation. Natural selection is not driven by chance; it is driven by the requirements of survival, making it inevitable that adaptive traits will survive and be procreated. Even the "chance" element of mutation is misleading. Mutations are random, but there gzillions of them. The frequency of mutation guarentees that some traits will emerge that will be adaptive and therefore will be selected for procreation and repetition in the gene pool. It's like buying 2 billion lottery tickets - each ticket has a small random chance of being a winner, but with that many, you'll likely get a winner.

Do we know why life emerged with such prolific mutations that create the necessary genetic variation for survival? Well we have theories, but that is going very far back in natural history, so our theories are incomplete. We know why there are mutations in the sense that we understand the biochemistry, but we don't necessarily know why lifeforms have this particular biochemistry to begin with. Could it have been a Creater? It's possible. But naturalism has taken us as far back as the inception of life on this planet. Until we have evidence of a super-natural being, we have no reason to believe, if we had less limited means to observe that far back, we would not discover that naturalism explains the entire process.

Either way, even if a Creator had something to do with the original formation of life, setting an evolutionary process in motion, what we know about evolution directly contradicts bibical creation, unless you view these creation stories as *highly* metephorical. But that's rather arbitrary - the theist will decide that something is a metaphor when there is conflicting evidence in history or nature, while all else remains concrete.

Adam and Eve is an interesting story, but human beings are 98% genetically identical to chimpanzees. And that doesn't appear to be by design. Chimps have 24 chromosomes. Humans have 23. That is the largest genetic difference between the two. The problem for those arguing that a creator just happened to design two lifeforms that similar is that one of the human chromosomes seems to be the product of mitosis (fusing together) of two of the chimp chromosomes. This human chromosome contains structures that are useless to the genetic functionality of the chromosome. They are just leftover byproducts, like "seems" that serve as evidence of the fusing together or two chromosomes. If God designed humans and chimps to be similar, why the otherwise useless markers in the human chromosome that suggest mitosis? Is God trying to deceive us? Is this a test?

You can always make that assumption. Any theory premised upon the existence of an omnipotent supernatural being is inherently beyond falsification. It is the "anything" goes premise. But which theory enjoys the support of logic and empiricism the most? The one that adds an unseen entity into the equation, or the one based on readily observable phenomena and understood mechanisms of action?

- woolfe


Old Post 07-13-2004 10:44 PM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #8  quote:

Nice post Woolfe, nice to see you're now debating on the religion forum as well, by the way don't humans and chimps have double the amount of chromosones that you meantioned in that post?

Old Post 07-13-2004 11:44 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #9  quote:

but there is no fossil evidence for evolution. That's my issue.

The only evidence for evolution is armchair philosophy.


Old Post 07-14-2004 12:05 AM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #10  quote:

quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #9 :
but there is no fossil evidence for evolution. That's my issue.

The only evidence for evolution is armchair philosophy.


Uh, there is a ton of fossil evidence corroborating evolution. I think you should do more reading on the issue. Evolution is based on empiricism, not philosophy.


Old Post 07-14-2004 12:20 AM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #11  quote:

quote:
antizionist2004 said this in post #8 :
Nice post Woolfe, nice to see you're now debating on the religion forum as well, by the way don't humans and chimps have double the amount of chromosones that you meantioned in that post?


23 identical diploid pairs of chromosomes. So yes, you're technically correct, though it has no real impact on the issue of our genetic similarity with Chimpanzees.

- woolfe


Old Post 07-14-2004 12:25 AM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #12  quote:

I'm wondering how much research you've done on it. It's philophical. Now, there has been nothing to disprove it, but at the same time there has been very little evidence to actually prove it, not empirically. I know it's a widely held belief that the fossil record supports evolution, but that isn't true.

I dare you to refute that.


Old Post 07-14-2004 12:27 AM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #13  quote:

There's loads of evidence for evolution.

Read:

http://www2.evansville.edu/evolutionweb/evidence3.html

Read and then click NEXT there's loads of information and proof for it there.


Old Post 07-14-2004 07:12 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #14  quote:

quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #12 :
I'm wondering how much research you've done on it. It's philophical. Now, there has been nothing to disprove it, but at the same time there has been very little evidence to actually prove it, not empirically. I know it's a widely held belief that the fossil record supports evolution, but that isn't true.

I dare you to refute that.


How much evidence do you want, and in what form? Back to that in a moment.

I provided evidence from genetics of man's evolution from the great apes. You have ignored that and want to proceed to paleontogical evidence, I presume because you feel you have more ammunition in that arena. But did you have a comment on the human/chimp chromosomal comparison? Here's a source on that:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

As to the fossil record, which of your remarks am I trying to disprove? You said: "But there is no fossil evidence for evolution." You have also further suggested that evolution is a philosophy not based on science and empiricism. Either of those statements are easy to refute. Evolutionists spend the vast majority of their time sifting through genetic and paleontological evidence, not discussing theory. The core tenants of the theory were established by Darwin and have undergone a few changes, the primary addition being from the new field of genetics. However, evolution is all about empiricism. Mountains of data are discussed, analyzed and debated among scientists on a daily basis.

Now if you are trying to say that you do not find the fossil evidence to be sufficient to support evolution, that's where the real debate begins.

The usual creationist argument is that there is supposedly an absence of "transitional" species, "links" between one fully formed species and another. The argument focusing on the transitional fossils that haven't been found, largely ignoring the ones that have. The creationists also seem to be suggesting that if evolution were correct, we would have found by now fossil evidence of every transitional species. That argument is logically absurd for so many different reasons it isn't worth the space to refute it.

As to the actual evidence of transitional species, there is so much of it out there I hardly know where to begin. I'll stick with web based sources, and for the moment I'll provide a couple of very basic sources:

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolutio...fevolution.html
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm

Here is a refutation of scientific creationist arguments regarding the fossil record from the same website:

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_07.htm
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_08.htm

Ball ----> your court.

- woolfe


Old Post 07-14-2004 07:24 PM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #15  quote:

Heh woolfe you've obviously been here before. You called out exactly what I was gonna say with the missing links.

You guys provided good links. My biggest problem with calling evolution an empirical science is that the textbooks show this neat and orderly layer after layer with fish on the bottom then amphibians on the top then reptiles then dinosaurs then birds then mammals. A place like that exists only it Darwinists minds, never has been found in reality. What I was really looking for was specific excavation sites, photographs would be great, but the links provided some of the general areas where things were found instead of just stating things with no supporting evidence, so that was good enough for me.

That's one of the things that makes me reluctant to accept it as hard fact: it is people interpretting data according to their preconcieved theory.

That being said, there is good evidence. So far nothing has been found that outright disproves it, it's just more a lack of proof. I will admit I didn't know there were as many transitional evidence as there was.

One of my biggest questions though, my doubt still remains, is chromosone issues. A human has 26 pairs, a lobster has 2000 (or is it 4000) and on and on. There is no rhyme or reason. How the heck could life have ever gone from single-cellular to multi-cellular. Asexual reproduction to sexual.


As stated above, I sort of lean toward the theory that evolution was the "how" of how God created. Using 'day' as a metaphor for age and other metaphors involving spans of time was common practice in the ancient Hebrew folklore, so it's not really picking and choosing (a bit of a sketchy road to walk down, I know, but not that bad.)

Sometimes I wonder, the Hebrews had a general understanding of how things came to be that was placed upon them somehow or another, then had to put it into language. Language shapes the way we think. I wonder, if Moses had written down the Torah in today's world, would he have written differently.

Just questions.

Evolution is a very sound theory, but still "just a theory." There is room for reasonable doubt. That doubt may be motivated by nothing more than clinging to my preconceived ideas, but it is still reasonable.


Old Post 07-14-2004 10:14 PM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #16  quote:

Evolution is fact, Dekka. There is too much evidence for it to say otherwise.

The theory bit comes into it, when you are discussing how. Darwin gives one theory - natural selection and mutation. Other scientists have offered other ways...etc.


Old Post 07-14-2004 10:32 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #17  quote:

quote:
antizionist2004 said this in post #16 :
Evolution is fact, Dekka. There is too much evidence for it to say otherwise.

The theory bit comes into it, when you are discussing how. Darwin gives one theory - natural selection and mutation. Other scientists have offered other ways...etc.


Actually Darwin knew nothing about mutation. That was the missing piece in Darwin's theory that was explained by the field of genetics which emerged in the late 19th century. Darwin made observations about various species that were very similar but had slight differences corresponding to the need to adapt to different microclimates. He posited from that natural selection. But he didn't understand what mechanism produces the variety of traits that are selected from. That came from genetics.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

- woolfe


Old Post 07-15-2004 05:06 AM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #18  quote:

quote:
Dekka00 said this in post #15 :
Heh woolfe you've obviously been here before. You called out exactly what I was gonna say with the missing links.

You guys provided good links. My biggest problem with calling evolution an empirical science is that the textbooks show this neat and orderly layer after layer with fish on the bottom then amphibians on the top then reptiles then dinosaurs then birds then mammals. A place like that exists only it Darwinists minds, never has been found in reality. What I was really looking for was specific excavation sites, photographs would be great, but the links provided some of the general areas where things were found instead of just stating things with no supporting evidence, so that was good enough for me.



No problem. Always good to keep an open mind. There are photos and even video material on the web if you search. I thought about linking to some of that actually because the stuff I provided was kind of, well, boring.

One thing is for certain, the universe is a strange and wondrous place. If evolution is true, and I think there's good evidence there, it's a real mind blower. The same goes for God.

Ever pondered the Ultimate Why question? Not the question of why WE are here, because evolution seems to provide a decent answer, but the question of why ANYTHING is here? Why is there something rather than nothing? Now that's where stuff gets really mind-blowing. Is it God, or is it something even stranger than God; something totally beyond comprehension. Is it a question with no answer, or just a question that we don't know the answer to? Could there be an effect without a cause? Can science answer this question? Can philosophy?

Here is a answer from Brian Holtz. If you can understand it beyond the 4th sentence you've got a leg up on me:

"A possibly meaningful (but unparsimonious) answer to the Ultimate Why is that the universe exists (more precisely, is perceived to exist) roughly because it is possible. The reasoning would be as follows. Absolute impossibility -- the state of affairs in which nothing is possible -- is itself not possible, because if nothing truly were possible, then absolute impossibility would not be possible, implying that at least something must be possible. But if at least one thing is possible, then it seems the universe we perceive should be no less possible than anything else. Now, assuming that physicalism is right and that qualia and consciousness are epiphenomena, then the phenomenology of a mind and its perfect simulation are identical. So whether the universe we perceive existed or not, it as a merely possible universe would be perceived by its merely possible inhabitants no differently than our actual universe is perceived by its actual inhabitants. By analogy, the thoughts and perceptions of a particular artificial intelligence in a simulated universe would be the same across identical "runs" of the simulation, regardless of whether we bothered to initiate such a "run" once, twice -- or never.

Thus, the universe might merely be the undreamed possible dream of no particular dreamer."

- woolfe


Old Post 07-15-2004 05:15 AM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #19  quote:

I think I get it woolfe.


Is this right? Basically what it's saying is that it is impossible for there to be absolutely nothing with no possibilities, because this very scenario is a possibility itself. Therefore, we have to accept that at least one possibility is correct, thus a world of no possibility is impossible.

Well..that's the first six lines (better than your predicted four lol) .... haven't got a clue what the rest is talking about, have any idea?


Old Post 07-15-2004 10:56 AM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

woolfe99
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Apr 2004
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 913

post #20  quote:

quote:
antizionist2004 said this in post #19 :
I think I get it woolfe.


Is this right? Basically what it's saying is that it is impossible for there to be absolutely nothing with no possibilities, because this very scenario is a possibility itself. Therefore, we have to accept that at least one possibility is correct, thus a world of no possibility is impossible.

Well..that's the first six lines (better than your predicted four lol) .... haven't got a clue what the rest is talking about, have any idea?


Yes, you're tracking my understanding of the first few sentences. It loses me after that as well. My take is that the question and answer are both meaningless. More on the question in a moment. The author's essential answer to the question is that something (reality) exists rather than nothing because it is possible. However, proving that something is possible, even if he has accomplished that here, proves only just that: that something is possible. It doesn't explain why "something" exists.

I think a meaningless question inevitably results in a meaningless answer. Why did the chicken cross the road? That is a meaningless question because it is posed as a hypothetical. The question lacks context. By contrast, if I were to ask why a particular chicken crossed a particular road, in theory you might be able to answer that because you have supplied a context - a particular chicken and a particular road.

By the same token, the question, why does something exist rather than nothing, lacks a context. The reason is because the something (reality itself) IS the meta-context of everything. You can ask why any thing in particular exists, because there is a context of reality in which each particular thing exists. In reality, there appears to be a set of rules by which we can determine why a particular thing, e.g. mankind, exists. But you cannot ask why the context (or meta-context) itself exists because by definition it has no context, since it IS The Context. Even if what we perceive as reality has in fact a broader context in which it exists (call it a meta-meta-context or perhaps a hypercontext), then we could answer the question of why reality exists by consulting the rules of the hyper-context in which it exists, but we would have the same condundrum, the same unanswerable question about the hyper-context itself. The question of why something exists is always theoretically valid if applied to the particular things that exists, but never to the universal, the sum total of all things.

So I think the question is jibberish. It's an undefined, like dividing by zero in mathematics. If you posit the question, what is 1 divided by 0, the question is meaningless because division is a mathematical operation and the question poses no operation at all. You're asking for the answer to a mathematical operation when in fact no operation has been proposed.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but it's the best I can make of it.

- woolfe


Old Post 07-15-2004 08:12 PM
Click here to Send woolfe99 a Private Message Find more posts by woolfe99 Add woolfe99 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore woolfe99 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Sierradaddy
Days of Future Past...

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 03:49 AM
Location: Somewhere in Time...
Posts: 3901

post #21  quote:

Good stuff people.

When it comes to understanding the how, why and WHAT of reality, I decided I won't even bother. My brain is too small and fragile to try to wrap it around the answer to such a question, or even BEGIN to delve into pondering it. I leave it alone, cuz if I don't, it'll either consume me or drive me CRAZY (or crazier, depending on who you talk to...).

Nope. I won't even venture down that road to insanity...


Old Post 07-20-2004 01:12 AM
Click here to Send Sierradaddy a Private Message Find more posts by Sierradaddy Add Sierradaddy to your buddy list Sierradaddy's MSN ID is smoothline98@hotmail.com Reply w/Quote

gaoxiaen
Veteran

offline
Registered: Aug 2004
Local time: 05:49 PM
Location: taiwan
Posts: 304

post #22  quote:

quote:
woolfe99 said this in post #3 :


A really thorough treatment of the subject of evolution is obviously beyond the scope (and length limitations) of this post or this thread. I do, however, think you are overly dismissive of it.

In answer to AZ's question, no, the adaptation of bacteria does not PROVE evolution in and of itself. It is a particle in a mountain of evidence that proves the theory of evolution.

A little primer. Natural selection is stage 2 of the process. Stage 1 is mutation, a random process that creates what we call genetic variation from individual to individual within a species. Natural selection tends to make those individuals with the more adaptable characteristics survive to reproductive age. Evolution is thus a mutation/selection driven process.

What you see with bacteria is an organism with a very short life cycle compared to, for example, mammals. Over what is a relatively short period of time for humans, many generations of bacteria live and die. Each life cycle introduces new mutuations. The organisms with the mutatations that create the resistance to anti-biotics are the ones that survive to reproduce. Bacterial evolution is no different than human evolution. It's just on a far more rapid time-frame.

I will recommend here a book I just recommended in another thread, "The Blind Watchmaker: how evolution reveals a world without design" by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins. My only caution is that it is for the truly committed, because it contains a fair amount of hard science.

You'll find that theists tend to emphasize the gaps in the fossil record and other incomplete aspects of the theory. Of course, when you are trying to compile data on 100's of millions of years of natural history, there are going to be gaps. Indeed, it would be incredible if we could map out all natural history from A to Z.

Evolution, because it appears to conflict with religious belief, is held to an impossibility high standard by many theists. Nevertheless, the theory is well established and is generally accepted in the scientific community. There wouldn't be any controversy about it if it wasn't for religion. There would be controvery about some of the details of it, but not the validity of the overall theory.

- woolfe

There is a very good fossil record for both whales and horses.


Old Post 09-06-2004 08:53 AM
Click here to Send gaoxiaen a Private Message Find more posts by gaoxiaen Add gaoxiaen to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore gaoxiaen REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

sugarxspice79
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Jun 2004
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: New York
Posts: 58

post #23  quote:

i still believe in my own little theory that God put everything where it needed to be for the Big Bang to occur, and then for life to inhabit the earth by evolution. i think that God created the DNA that was necessary for organisms to exist. after all, scientists still haven't filled that gap. think about it; if evolution and mutations and all that has occured, then why don't we have more species? why dont we have less? some might say its because of natural selection, but are we 100% sure? anything is possible.

also as for the evolution theory contradicting with the Bible's story on how the Earth was created; the "days" may be pure metaphor, but think; the sun rising and setting opposite the moon is the basis for "days". according to the Bible, God didn't create the sun until one of the later days, i think, but i'm not sure. So the days before that could've been hundreds of thousands of years long for all we know.

sorry if this isn't making any sense, i can't really explain these things too well.


Old Post 09-07-2004 04:20 PM
Click here to Send sugarxspice79 a Private Message Find more posts by sugarxspice79 Add sugarxspice79 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore sugarxspice79 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #24  quote:

quote:
i still believe in my own little theory that God put everything where it needed to be for the Big Bang to occur, and then for life to inhabit the earth by evolution. i think that God created the DNA that was necessary for organisms to exist. after all, scientists still haven't filled that gap. think about it; if evolution and mutations and all that has occured, then why don't we have more species? why dont we have less? some might say its because of natural selection, but are we 100% sure? anything is possible.

also as for the evolution theory contradicting with the Bible's story on how the Earth was created; the "days" may be pure metaphor, but think; the sun rising and setting opposite the moon is the basis for "days". according to the Bible, God didn't create the sun until one of the later days, i think, but i'm not sure. So the days before that could've been hundreds of thousands of years long for all we know.


Firstly, the theist says he believes in God and the Bible. He dismisses any alternative. However, there comes a time when the evidence presented to him is too much for him to stay in denial. He realises the big bang is logical and scientifically proven, and realises there is a mounting pile of evidence in evolution's favour.

So then, he retracts his original claims and changes tactics. He says, well he still believes in God and he "supposes" the Bible was really 'inspired' so Moses never really wrote it down. Any problems found within the book should be taken "metaphorically" but any good things that he approves of should be taken "literally."

Then, he will argue, perhaps God made evolution and the big bang, perhaps a "day" isn't really a "day" and perhaps 5764 years was miscalculated, and perhaps the bit saying how man was created out of dust was "miswritten" and it all works out perfectly, if only you look hard enough.


I've heard it all before.


Old Post 09-07-2004 10:07 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #25  quote:

I understand where you are coming from, yet you still succumb to stupidity

I'll rewrite what you said but leave the stupid stuff out....

(i'm not just hurling insults because you disagree with me, I genuinely think you are being stupid)
quote:

Firstly, the theist says he believes in God and the Bible. He dismisses any alternative. However, there comes a time when the evidence presented to him is too much for him to stay in denial. He realises the big bang is logical and scientifically proven, and realises there is a mounting pile of evidence in evolution's favour.

So then, he retracts his original claims and changes tactics. Any problems found within the book should be taken "metaphorically" but any good things that he approves of should be taken "literally."

Then, he will argue, perhaps God made evolution and the big bang, perhaps a "day" is metaphorical, and perhaps the bit saying how man was created out of dust was "miswritten" and it all works out perfectly, if only you look hard enough.


now the part I highlighted in red was way too stupid for me to even attempt to reconcile?

I know you are athiest, this has nothing to do with the Bible or God or religion or anything.

Tell me, what is man made out of then? Because according to mainstream evolution, (and every other creation myth/theory) man, and everything else, is made out of dust.

Are you looking for logic? Are you searching for answers? Or are you just poking fun at people so you can feel holy and enlightened?


Old Post 09-07-2004 10:41 PM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

gaoxiaen
Veteran

offline
Registered: Aug 2004
Local time: 05:49 PM
Location: taiwan
Posts: 304

post #26  quote:

The Pope has endorsed the Big Bang Theory, since if God created the universe he must have done it at some specific time. When the earth first solidified out of matter orbiting the sun it spun much faster than now, making the days shorter, but it has been slowing ever since due to the drag of gravity (tides). I've read that days were about 19 hours long in the days of the dinosaurs. Have any of you read "The Origin of the Species"? A very elegant argument, remarkable for its time. It makes much more sense than a 6,000 year old earth.

Old Post 09-07-2004 11:05 PM
Click here to Send gaoxiaen a Private Message Find more posts by gaoxiaen Add gaoxiaen to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore gaoxiaen REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #27  quote:

quote:
Tell me, what is man made out of then? Because according to mainstream evolution, (and every other creation myth/theory) man, and everything else, is made out of dust.


It said God CREATED man by collecting the dust and forming him. Now evolution actually says this isn't true, we were created through another organism evolving, and so the first man was not just from dust but from another organism.


Old Post 09-08-2004 08:28 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #28  quote:

I thought organisms and dust were made out of the same thing

but I could have been mistaken all these years.

What I'm asking is what is the chemical difference between live biomass and dust?


Old Post 09-08-2004 08:56 PM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote

antizionist2004
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Nov 2003
Local time: 09:49 AM
Location:
Posts: 1194

post #29  quote:

Huh am I getting this right, you think "dust" actually referred to another life organism through the process of evolution??

The lengths to which some people go to justify this violent, absurd and immoral book.


Old Post 09-08-2004 09:48 PM
Click here to Send antizionist2004 a Private Message Find more posts by antizionist2004 Add antizionist2004 to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore antizionist2004 REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
Dekka00
Administrator

offline
Registered: Sep 2003
Local time: 04:49 AM
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11592

post #30  quote:

is not correct and reasonable to say "man gathered up metal and created cars?"

Old Post 09-08-2004 10:07 PM
Click here to Send Dekka00 a Private Message View Dekka00's Journal Visit Dekka00's homepage! Find more posts by Dekka00 Add Dekka00 to your buddy list Reply w/Quote
Time: 09:49 AM Post New Thread   
Pages (16):  [1] 23 » Last »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Philosophy & Religion > Evolution...just an idea of mine...
Search this Thread:
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 OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.11063004 seconds (92.73% PHP - 7.27% MySQL) with 35 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home