I personally do not believe that we all came from a "big bang" or an amoeba floating around in some primordial soup.
It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled" that we were not created by some random course of events, but rather by a being with a higher status than that of ourselves. Call this being whatever you like: God, Aliens, etc.
If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?
In the movie stated above people were proposing intelligent design through their professions and they were getting blacklisted. There is something that is being hidden here if their bosses do not want them to be spreading this around.
Why do you think faith, aka believing in something without any sort of proof, is a smart or logical thing to do? The better question may be why do you think your faith is right against empirical evidence, aka something that can actually be observed?
Why do you think faith, aka believing in something without any sort of proof, is a smart or logical thing to do? The better question may be why do you think your faith is right against empirical evidence, aka something that can actually be observed?
My last example wasn't that great. Think about it like this. We don't look at a skyscraper and say, "oh that's cool. I'll bet something exploded and it just came to be." or your laundry doesn't come out of the dryer all folded and neat. With everything we see it has a creator.
It shouldn't bother you that I am "victim" in your perception.
Just remember, even Jesus warned of false prophets. These creationist proponents are about as false as they come.
The human race is far to complex to have been a coincidence.
Complexity doesn't mean a thing. We can observe plenty of complex things form entirely on their own through natural processes.
I don't judge you for what you believe, or anyone else for that matter.
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence.
One further question. Did you watch the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye? Just curious because I noticed that you were quoting Nye in your rant about creationism.
Dude, I practically did a live blow by blow play of it right here on the forum.
My last example wasn't that great. Think about it like this. We don't look at a skyscraper and say, "oh that's cool. I'll bet something exploded and it just came to be." or your laundry doesn't come out of the dryer all folded and neat. With everything we see it has a creator.
Note: (Life nor the universe arose from an explosion. In reference to the Big Bang an expansion would be a better term to use here. I bit like a balloon expanding. Life did not come from the Big Bang, that was much later)
As noted there are non-random natural processes involved that allow for the outcomes we see. Such as selective factors and the properties of the material coming together.
Have you ever played with magnets? If you took a bunch of magnets and stuck them in a box and just shook the box up a bit, do you think you could expect to find them all stuck together? This is a bit like the property of the stuff being used.
Now let's say you want the magnets to align in a specific order. Well with the processes involved you could shake your box up multiple times and each time you get a magnet in the right order, you get to lock that magnet in place for the next shake. How long do you think it would take before you got them all in the right place then?
Side note: Ken Ham is a perfect example of #3. He knows what evolution is and what it states, but treats it as false because by definition of his beliefs it cannot be true. This is known as intellectual dishonesty, which is probably what MGW is calling a "lie."
It's actually worse than that. They know what evolution is and what it states and not only continue to treat it as false, but also continue to use the knowingly wrong information of what evolution is and what it states. They go on to teach that to people who don't know any better. That's what I'm calling a lie.
Doesn't get in the way of evolution. That law applies to a closed systems. Earth is not a closed system, we have the sun feeding us energy. If you wish to extend that to the rest of the universe, it hasn't been determined if the universe is a closed system either. But if it is, it still wouldn't matter as you can still have isolated open systems within a closed system.
I would like to challenge the notion that we have been created with a slightly different example. Would you believe me if I say that hemorrhoids is a perfect example of us being evolved and not created?
We don't look at a skyscraper and say, "oh that's cool. I'll bet something exploded and it just came to be." or your laundry doesn't come out of the dryer all folded and neat. With everything we see it has a creator.
Except that isn't true. Geological formations occur entirely due to natural forces that act by specific rules. Everything is the same way. A skyscraper would never form in nature because of those rules. You can't look at something created and go, "look, this is complex and had a creator, therefore everything else must have one too." It's a hasty generalization (a logical fallacy).
Hemorrhoids is not an evolution. It's an ailment.
An ailment that arises from improper functioning of the body. You'd think a perfect creator would have made creatures whose bodies functioned in reasonable ways, instead of putting strange things in us like poison sacks waiting to kill us if ruptured (the appendix), a tail bone but no tail (except when people are sometimes actually born with one) or random throat spasms that cause hiccups. Don't even get me started on how the brain is wired backwards, we see upside down, and our backs aren't really made for us to walk on two legs.
Hemorrhoids is not an evolution. It's an ailment. I would like to see your reasoning behind this example.
That's the fun part. How can an ailment be an argument in favour of evolution?
First of course it has to be said that we all have hemorrhoids in a normal, nonpathological state and they serve their purpose. The reason why they are prone to getting pathological is simple: the hemorrhoidal venes lack valves. Valves in our venes help the blood get back to the heart against the force of gravity. So without valves blood can more easily 'stagnate' down there.
Why don't we have valves in the hemorrhoidal venes? Any architect would have included them there, if constructing a bipedal animal like the human. The thing is, most animals don't have valves in the hemorrhoidal venes either; they don't need it, since for example in cows or dogs etc., when standing on their four legs, the anus lies slightly higher than the heart, and so the blood flows back by itself. Now take a quadrupedal animal, slowly erect it to a bipedal animal, add a couch-potato/clerk lifestyle, and voila!
Of course I have also asked myself, and I expect anyone to ask the same question, why didn't evolution clear that problem already? Well, "already" is a bit ungrateful since the problem of pathological hemorrhoids is certainly relatively recent; my opinion is that nowadays most cases in younger people is linked with social issues like stress. Pathological cases in humans and maybe even monkeys, mostly due to old age or another ailment (e.g. constipation) don't really matter much, so the selection pressure is so small we're not close to getting rid of the problem.
------ Just a last point to close this: hemorrhoids is not THE argument in favour of evolution, nor is the theory based on this; it's just a consequence of evolution that I like to mention. I'm aware you might find a different explanation for the issue, but we have plenty of independent evidence either way. I just used this example to come from a different angle for once.
(PS. Never thought I'd mention the word "fun" in the context of hemorrhoids......)
An ailment that arises from improper functioning of the body. You'd think a perfect creator would have made creatures whose bodies functioned in reasonable ways
The bible explains this. We have all of these horrible things in our world because of sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world.
So because Adam and Eve ate an apple (that God made specifically for us not to eat, wonder why?) we grew tailbones and poisonous sacks in our bodies, and every other animal also suddenly had physical problems and useless parts. There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start.
"Intelligent Design".... they make it sound so good and interesting like it actually is something. too bad they just mean. "god did it" and call it "Intelligent Design" now only too avoid having to say the word. "god" its just another mind twist from the creationists office...
Ok then, but how does sin even lead to hemorrhoids? I want an alternative explanation since you don't like my version. Right now I can't stop laughing after imagining God saying "screw those venal valves specifically down there!"
The bible explains this. We have all of these horrible things in our world because of sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sin entered the world.
How did an act of sin fundamentally alter our genetic make-up? Let alone the genetic make-up of countless other species and alter the environment itself which had nothing to do with us?
"Intelligent Design".... they make it sound so good and interesting like it actually is something. too bad they just mean. "god did it" and call it "Intelligent Design" now only too avoid having to say the word. "god" its just another mind twist from the creationists office...
And saying, we don't know where matter came from, but it definitely came from nothing without breaking any laws of physics because they were conveniently changed is totally different.
This discussion has been going on for years on this forum, with the same people, and nothing has changed. It's only lead to stress and frustration on my part which is why I left before, and am leaving again.
And saying, we don't know where matter came from, but it definitely came from nothing without breaking any laws of physics because they were conveniently changed is totally different.
The major differences are as follows.
1) The Theory of Evolution does no depend upon the Big Bang.
2) We have quite a lot more evidence for Evolution than the Big Bang due to the more recent and closer nature of it.
3) "God did it" is not an answer to a question. Even if we one day find that a supernatural being or power was the cause, the goal of science is to explore how that being or power acts in the universe.
This discussion has been going on for years on this forum, with the same people, and nothing has changed.
There's hardly anywhere to go when the vast majority of the argument is, "you're wrong, God did it," "Where's your evidence?" "It's called faith," "well, here's what we see and how stuff works," "I don't care, you're wrong."
I'm sorry if its stressful and frustrating for you to talk about this, but it really comes down to evidence. Creationists don't have any and it's kind of hard to argue against those who do when the only arguments you do have are based on misunderstandings and fallacious logic. At any time, if evidence could be shown for the existence of a supernatural being, it still wouldn't change what we already see in regards with evolution, but it would change the underlying nature of how we interpret it, perhaps. That evolution happens isn't really a question to be debated anymore.
