Forums → WEPR → Evolution

Science and religion can go together.

they either evolve more or devolve

Most probably post and then never come back again. For those that do, I assume they either get tired of being constantly refuted on so many levels when every time they post it is shown that they don't really know what they're on about. Maybe a few accept them, but definitely not the majority. Beliefs aren't logical, so logic doesn't mean they should change them.

I never understood how religious people/theists think that atheists/non religious people are somehow arrogant.

Because of knowingly distorting facts, leaving out parts of quotes, and ignoring relevant parts? I'm not 100% sure what you're saying with this, but that's my best guess.

Do I think man can from chimps. Heck No! All creatures evolve to a certain extent, they either evolve more or devolve. Even man, as we know it is evolving as we add technology, explore the cosmos, expand our knowledge of things on this planet and all around us. We evolve as humans when we learn to accept each other regardless of skin color, etc.

I am entitled to that opinion, even if others do not.

I like to believe that He is much more creative than that, and used science, such as the Big Bang Theory to create the cosmos. My wife disagrees, lol. Science and religion can go together.

UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN! - Gods Mistakes!

I usually enjoy the videos you link to, Mage, but this one just didn't do it for me. ID is a pretty sophisticated argument when you get down to it, and the UK Atheist, as he calls himself, fails to argue against the main force of the argument. Intelligent Design doesn't mean 'smartly designed' or 'designed without error'. But this seems to be the premise he is trying to refute.

When if there was an intelligence behind the scenes could use a much cleaner methodology.

In other words, I don't even want the argument to get to the point of debating god's perfection.

I really think this still misses the point. I mean, I understand what you're saying and there are so many good reasons why ID doesn't work - I just really don't think examples like this are good reasons.
The problem, I think, is an equivocation on the word 'intelligence'. We tend to think of someone that is intelligent as being smart. But this is not the use of intelligence in play with ID arguments.
Now, I would grant that the silliness of our circumstances is, however, a sleight against the perfection of god. But that argument only works if we've already granted ID - and I'd rather the argument just never get off the ground. In other words, I don't even want the argument to get to the point of debating god's perfection.

If we are to argue this supposed intelligence is really stupid we can still ask, how would what we observe be different if it happen naturally on it's own with out such intelligence?

Well, according to the proponent of ID, what we observe wouldn't have happened without a designer.

What's funny is that ID arguments only try to motivate the existence of a designer. It doesn't explicitly ascribe any particular qualities to this designer (although it turns out the argument does, in fact, implicitly require certain features/qualities for the designer).

Evolution and Religion (at least Christian doctrine) only really conflict when the Genesis story is taken literally. Not everyone takes the 6 days as literal. Some claim that each day is a time interval of some unknown amount, or the relatively small numbers are just there to show the atemporality of the one doing the creating. That, or it's one of the other inconsistencies or problems that get perpetually brought up

I'm pretty sure that the story says that the earth was called on to bring forth certain things.... like plants and different types of animals. To grossly over simplify it a bit, it then goes on to say that this supposed "God" took an active interest in the shaping of man and some other animals.

One view of evolution is: the hard science -(that's a minus sign) what you see as the frivolities of religion. Another might possibly be the very same science whose lattice work was set up and then set into motion + a guiding hand that took part in some of the work (not even all of it). In a book filled with metaphors, symbolism, and parables it is often times difficult to discern which stories the author meant to be read as such and which were meant to be taken literally. There may or may not have been a divine influence over any or all of the Bible. If you go under the assumption that it was not meant to be read literally(meaning the 6-7 days are only symbolic of some other message)God then becomes a potter at his wheel. A potter with a mud ball of primordial ooze on his wheel that then shapes that mud ball via insertions, deletions, translocations, inversions, etc of the mud ball's genome over time. This would entail adding and removing features... gills, tails, teeth, fur, size, height, etc... from one version to the next up until the current version of the ball. In accordance with the very dynamic of the process and how it would occur, it then becomes easier to see how the older versions that are left behind could then be left to their own devices and randomness of "natural selection."

If, according to the Christian doctrine, we are going to die and then continue onto something else afterwards, then using flawed structuring of organisms of the here and now against it becomes somewhat of a moot point.

For me to believe that certain things like creating life and altering the genome to effect specific genotypical/phenotypical outcomes debunk the theory of an "intelligent" force doing such things because they're impossible... They'd have to be impossible, and not getting increasingly easier and easier for us to do. We've created fully synthetic cells. We use gene therapy. We've turned off the genes that express beaks in chickens. I'm sure we'll eventually do something crazy like revive the mammoth population in the world and/or give lizards wings (I WANT DRAGONS!!!)

There are some other arguments for the impossibility of such a being as God to exist. I wonder what will be said when we develop fully self aware and intelligent machines (...if that's possible) and really really high powered super computers. What would happen if we created a vast digital realm... planets and all (you'd only really have to fully load a planet if and when the inhabitants of the realm inhabited said planets/astral bodies. What would happen if we play God and re-enact our development by subjecting our digital creation to all of the laws we ourselves go through(assuming we figure them all out by this point). Lets say that we play around with "creation" for 6 of our days and have it on fast forward, so that long expanses of time "in-game" have gone by. We then play around with our "SIMs" with divination and all sorts of such things, and then we back off and don't do anything observable for eons of time. Do we, the developers, stop existing when our little creations look up into their digital sky and say that there is no such thing as Gods?(I would think that at this point we would fit the bill of "all powerful and all knowing w/ respect to them) ...when we could very well go all Halo Forge on the little buggers and synthesize a tank/building to fall on them if we so chose. The digital atheists start debating against our existence because we're not in their sky like their early mythologies have said and us being in another dimension is just a preposterous idea... which it kind of is considering we'd technically be in the same universe as them looking upon them from a computer window... be it positioned in the sky or right up in an individual's face(or wherever).

Another argument would be the all knowing thing... let's face it... Gantic is all knowing, so that debunks that.

jk... No really tho, our vast internet is logged and saved by Google and other such businesses. ...just imagine if the Google computers/servers had orders/powers to censor certain key words and phrases. I mean there's so much stuff out there that it would be virtually impossible... right? Lets be honest... Google knows when you are sleeping. It knows when you're awake... It knows when you've been bad or good... yadda yadda yadda it's mostly b/c everyone puts it on fb(or twitter... blech), but you get the picture. In some simulation games there are a host of NPC characters you can point and click on to see what they're thinking. This model does afford the possibility of mind reading... but I'm getting beyond stretching things a bit too much me thinks. I'm not saying my model is to be taken literally. It's just some of the things that are ardently opposed on the grounds of flamboyantly impossibru could be re-created by us if we had such technologies. ...but even IF we were to develop these God powers over a digital creation, it wouldn't mean that we are ourselves a product of such a video game.

Even in the most sciency of my classes, I'm taught different concepts through the use of personification of inanimate objects(and other devices like symbolism). Organic Chem teaches about back side attacks and other such things in order to describe types of bonding and re-orientation. I was taught entropy in PChem via ice cubes in a glass full of liquor. Maybe some of what's written is just really dumbed down science, or maybe according to your opinion it's all just really dumb.

I hope I made sense with at least most of that. My apologies for it getting a little odder than normal there at the second half w/ the video games / computers over simplified symbolism. We all know how much trouble that can potentially cause. I know there are certain things that would have to be overcome for it to work like a recreation of the human experience... but just go with the "what if" for now.

Insomnia ftw @________________@

Yeah Evolution is real but if you want to know theres a donkey with a camel legs?
and a spider with a human face?
and some people with some animal faces or bodys?
but Evolution is real.
By the way if that would to happen all the time we would be freaks :P
joking

not really freaks... just cancerous and/or dead/ non-viable to begin with

I think non-viable would suffice; I really hope you meant that you were joking when coming up with such ''examples'' for evolution.

Evolution is mutation of the DNA. If mutations/evolution is constantly occurring within a human being (I'm assuming he meant at a high rate from how he expressed his statement), then you're bound to turn on the wrong switch on some oncogenes and/or turn off some suppressor genes. Granted there are a few other things that can go awry, but that's basically what would happen if the human genome just mutating rapidly.... you'd either end up with cancer, die from significant lack of significant proteins, or just be born dead from the get go. An already alive individual might get a few cells that are hardier from some mutations. Odds are that if your proofreading machinery isn't working right, then you're going to inevitably feel a detrimental effect regardless of any slight + effect... and it'll probably be significant if not kill you. There's a much greater chance of a mutation either going into non-coding dna or screwing up a protein, than there is of modifying it.

I was going with his post. Evolution can be said to be mutation of genome... or change in the DNA of the progeny (the progeny will have different DNA at one or more points in its code than was in either of the parents' original codes (insertions, deletions, etc))... therefore, cancer can be viewed as evolution on the cellular level. It's just in how you interpret definitions

I do know what evolution entails, just that I'm....appalled by his poor understanding of it.
Spider with a human face? Seriously?

And oh, confusion I guess. My previous post was directed to him, not you.