*when he tried to prove... I'm not even disagreeing with you that their may be a god. I just have a problem with the intersection of religion and science or how some people try to justify religion but using pseudo logic. Science is within our possible understand and might be measurable within our natural realm. Where as faith is, and should be, beyond our logical sense of explanation (it is because it is and beyond our knowledge of why). Maybe one day, when Jesus does come down from the heavens and does supernatural stuff, the line will be crossed. However, now, things like requesting intelligent design in science class rooms irks me.
... This isn't the freaking comic books, or the bible or any other creationist theories. You can't just make flying people appear out of you a**. Evolution, through the process of natural selection, takes a LONG TIME to happen. Plug for PBS
I say this so much I should just put it in my sig. Acceptance of the theory of Evolution doesn't conflict with a belief in God except in the most shallow way. Anyway as other posters have noted the theory of Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of the Universe. This is like saying that the theory of aerodynamic lift is wrong because it doesn't explain how air came about. As far as logic I presume you understand the Scientific Method? The only reason why something like Evolution, or the Big Bang Theory which should be the target of this post, is accepted is because it is based off of the Scientific Method which relies upon a particular type of logic based in empiracism. The reason why we have things like airplanes, computers and the Internet which make it possible to have this discussion is because the Scientific Method works. In science things are never truly proven but there is always a measure of doubt, without it science would grind to a halt, so given the measure of doubt yes you can say that it may be just as reasonable to believe in Biblical Creation as much as the Big Bang but given the context of the Scientific Method, which has brought us computers and etc..., and based on the evidence we have the Big Bang seems like a likely explanation. Not the absolute answer just the one that fits the material evidence we have. This is an informed position that relies upon the information at hand. On the other hand a position that says that a creation of the universe in six days is just as valid because we can't absolutely prove the Big Bang is an uninformed position that relies upon the lack of information, the God of the Gaps idea.
With all due respect you got a very poor education and I question the value of your degree. The questions you are asking are ones that are answered in even high school biology.
This is one of the worst replies I have ever been witness to. I feel dumber for having read it. All the inferences you draw out of thin air are astoundingly bad and inaccurate, and in some cases deliberately inflammatory. It doesn't seem you are very interested in having an honest, open discussion about this stuff and I don't think you're worth responding to anymore. Very few posters have I ever given that distinction to. Sad, but oh well.
Dude go read your bible. You're not very bright. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fmHN3JtyUXg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fmHN3JtyUXg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
It does? What is the explanation that creationism or ID provides for that? Again this is a field I'm largely ignorant about, but I suspect an evolutionary biologist can provide more insight into why humans can not reproduce with chimpanzees (e.g. different number of chromosomes because there has been 6 million years for them to evolve away from eachother) than a creationist can (because God wanted it so?). Edit: Also, some species can mate with other species (tiger and a lion, or a horse and donkey) for reasons I think an evolutionary biologist could explain. What is the creationist explanation for that?
What you need is Ms Garrison explaining everything to you. Ms. Garrison: In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a r****d baby, and the r****d baby was different, so it got to live. So r****d Fish goes on to make more r****d babies, and then one day, a r****d baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its... [she waves her left hand limply] Ms. Garrison: ...mutant fish hands... and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. [she points to a prehistoric mammal rodent] Ms. Garrison: r****d frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a r****d baby which was a... monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant r****d baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! [she faces the class, with the new girl among them looking around] Ms. Garrison: So there you go! You're the r****ded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
As a Biologist this thread make me sad. I'm not going into the the questions asked in the first post since many other posters have adressed him and he doesn't seem to want understand. Furtermore his knowledge on the subject (and animals in general) seems to be terrible. I just want to add a couple of things. Is the evolution theory perfect and explains it everything: ofcourse not. However it is the theory that best explains nature. The questions the OP asked are not holes in the evolution theory. They are easily answered. One thing people should understand is that evolution does not explain the beginning of life. Nor does it try to explain the beginning of life. Atheists (and people that believe in evolution) are usually accused of being arrogant. However in the whole evolution/I.D. discussion the people who are believe in I.D. are arrogant. I read books about I.D. since I believe I have to have knowledge about a subject before I create an opinion (good advice for the OP). Basically the only argument I ever hear from the I.D. people is: "Things are so complicated we have no idea how it came to be, so therefore there must be some higher power who designed it all." That is arrogant. If we (the brilliant human beings)" cannot understand something there must be some type of god who did it all. People must understand that we cannot understand everything, but that is not a reason to believe I.D. Ofcourse people should question all the theories we have, In the history of the world most knowledge did not seem to be accurate (world wasn't flat etc.) But dismissing Evolution, which at this moment seems to be the most logical explanation for many biological phenomena, just because it might contradict the exsintance of a god is also not the way to go. That being said evolution and the exsintance of a god do not contradict each other. Both can exist together. I do not believe in a god, but many people I know believe in a god and in Evolution.
Wow, now that is logic. It works just as well for Santa Claus. Three out of four possibilities favor believing in Santa Claus!
My impression is that the majority of Christians outside the United States that have had basic schooling in science believe in evolution. Edit:
The thing is though, "family" groups are getting good at watering down evolution curriculum that other countries teach. It's mind****ingly insane. "It's only uhhh 'theory' cuz I made the proof less accessible."
Kinda that! Its the more you know about the known world, the more cognitive ability and awareness you have of the process, the more you see everything on the micro level works, 'against' you. And you can do little to nothing to contain it. And trying to do something or stop it makes it worse. Therefore you are largely irrelevant. Class dismissed. Maybe life as a r****d frog-squirrel is simpler, shorter and sweeter. But then we'd probably eventually evolve into a higher sentient being anyways, so enjoy the big pointless.
I've always wondered about the relationship between what little I know of entropy and evolution. It seems to me that entropy moves things to chaos...yet, with evolution, things are typically moved to order. Simple to complex. Help me understand your post.
I'm a biology major so I'll try and explain. Evolution is nothing more than the change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Alleles are slightly different versions of the same gene. Evolution is a very slow process that can be influenced by natural selection, sexual selection, random mutations, and genetic drift. Given enough time, evolution can lead to the divergence of species but this does not always occur. 1. Humans didn't evolve from a common fish ancestor. (At least that I've ever heard of.) I think you are referring to LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). LUCA is the last universal common ancestor of the three domains of life (Bacteria, Archaea, Eurkaryotes). This ancestor was not a fish, it was probably a single celled organism. Fish are around because they have been able to successfully survive in their environment and reproduce. 2. Human did not evolve from Chimps, rather it is suspected that humans and chimps shared a recent common ancestor. Meaning that chimps are our evolutionary cousins. This assertion is based on genetic sequencing. 3. Evolution may explain why humans have a very well developed brain. Here is a scenario. Perhaps there were 2 different populations of humans, with different brain capacities. One group could communicate and plan attacks on prey well while the other was limited. These groups were in the same area. Over time, the group who could plan well would have more food and thus more energy available to reproduce and leave more offspring compared to the other group.* *Evolution by natural selection. Any other question, ask me and I'll try my best to answer.
The path from a single cell animal to a human with a neural network brain is one from simplicity to complexity. The same as the physical universe beginning as a point of singularity and evolving into the system of stars and nebulae and a million assorted celestial bodies. Chaos is a word that is somewhat misconstrued. Think of 'order' as simplicity and 'chaos' as complexity. Simple, ordered systems have the capacity for big changes but as systems become more complex they can only make smaller changes so, chaos is actually the more stable condition.
As we have discussed here before the concept of Entropy is usually associated with energy and physics but I seem to see it in everything including social systems and even in one's own life structure. If I am by myself, I can move to Phuket and live on the beach ... big change. If I have a wife but no family I can move anywhere in the United States for a job... medium change. If I have parents, children, brothers and sisters in a closer knit family system, I will need to stay in close proximity ... little change. The family is chaos, but because of the multiple relationships and interactions my option to make big changes is limited, there for the scope of my life's possible courses are reduced and I am forced into a type of stability. You can do the same exercise with corporate structure: a small company may change their entire business plan but a large corporation has obligations to employees, suppliers, vendors. The complexity of relationships limits the capacity for change. And my favorite: Governments. If the government is run by one dictator, change the dictator and you can change everything about the system. If the government is huge and complex, changing the Chief Executive changes very little about the way it works. (for better or worse) Cause I'm trippin' balls.
