Joined: 1-March 05
Member No.: 8,849
I've heard rants and raves about this subject on other forums, so I figured I'd bring the disease here. Please, though:
If you want to argue a point, don't turn this into a flame war. Seriously, just look at philosophy, facts, etc. NOT who has the better insults.
Just to make things clear: I'm for the Creation side of this, and yes I know, there's also an Intelligent Design part arising among scientists. However, I see this as a half-assed attempt to say 'We were created... but not by God.'
I put it in the polls, though, just in case.
So vote, then speak your piece!
Edited and added poll choices. March 25, 2011. ~Tombow
Joined: 13-March 05
Member No.: 9,625
We didn't evolve from monkeys, they share a common ancestor from us, which explains why 98% of their DNA are similar to ours.
That's micro-evolution - evolution within species. It's about the same as breeding evolutionary changes. The real kicker is actually getting a species change somehow. Even mutating fruit flies doesn't produce much more than strange fruit flies Well, if you extrapolate microevolution, don't you think that minor changes over millions of years can add up to something big? Take 1/1000 and add it to 1/1000 and you probably won't get far. But over millions of years, small things add up.
You come across a mansion in the middle of nowheres. You enter and inside you see it full furnished, but then no-one's home. The mansion does show signs of having a designer. Organisms however, do show signs of evolution, such as the suboptimal design of our eye. Mutations that are benefical aren't always optimal. For example, our own eyes where the blood vessels actually block our light sensive cells because the vessels are placed across the retina instead of across it. An intelligent designer wouldn't have made such a flagrant error.
To quote skepicrepot:
...defeat them doubly. First, creationists trot out that old saw about how "nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all." Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development," from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes.
Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?
To make a slam-dunk you need: a player, a b-ball, and a court. If you keep a b-ball on the court and expect it to bounce on it own--AKA, without any interference--your outta your head if you think that "time will work the process" without any intelligence. It's parallel to the Big Bang - you've got the ingredients and the location... but what above the player? Answer that, Sherlock... Order can arrive from disorder without a concious designer. Ever seen a snowflake? No intelligent designer required, the orderly snowflake arrives from natural processes.
Hell, no -- it's down right COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC. You can't rely on common sense in science - because nature is just absurd (esp. at the quantum level). Common sense tells us that the Earth is flat, that the truely does rise and fall, that the Earth isn't moving at over 1000mph an hour, that continents don't move, that a bowling ball will fall at a faster rate than a marble. However, science has been used to prove all these common sense ideas wrong.
It's bullshit to believe a mansion sprung out of the ground on its own... it's stupidity to think that a senseless basketball can do the slam dunnk ON ITS OWN! So you invent the idea of God to fill gaps in knowlege. That's typical. Where knowledge ends, religion begins. For me, if I don't know something, I don't make up superfluous bullshit. I go where the evidence leads me.
I just don't want evolution to be thought of as a theory. It's an untested hypothesis that makes sense. It has been tested, which is why it's a theory (a theory isn't just mere speculation). In a recent example, elephants born without tusk are being natually selected since poachers hunt them down for tusk.
The problem with creationism by the way, is that it CAN'T be tested. It predicts things "as they already are." They theory that we're in the Matrix or the world is just a by-product of your imagination is every bit as consistent with the data explained by creationism. Maybe the entire world just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with even our memories of "ealier" events intact, or we truely are in that other side of [spoiler omiited]. Neither capable of confirmation or falsification, so why bother? Evolution does make testable predictions, and there are potential falsifications of the theory, just like any scientific theory.
This is in part caused by that original sin Eve commited back in the Garden of Eden, that being eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (it's not an apple, that's only used for illustrational purposes. I'm sure you knew that already, though) This is a flaw in boolean logic known as the ad hoc fallacy. The principal of Occam's Razor (alluded above) would delete this assumption because it's an unnecessary, unevidenced assumption.
I can even defend the view that the Earth is actually flat using ad hocs. If you tell me that we have pictures of a round Earth from NASA I'd say that Satan must be decieving us by bending light so it makes the Earth appear round in space. If you tell me that we've circumnavigated the Earth, I'd say we've really entered a wormhole that takes us to the opposite edge like a pac man game.
However, if you use the principal of Occam's Razor (also known as the pricipal of parsimony), you cut the unevidenced fat and you're left with an Earth that's round.
Thanks - although I don't think many people will give up evolution so easily, the theory's come close to dying before and other people just picked it up again. Not even remotely true.
I'm getting the impression that the people arguing against evolution don't know much about the theory, at all. It's always like that.
The Big Bang first states that all the gas in the universe coagulated into a tiny dot. (It never mentions WHERE the universe came from, it assumes it was just... there.) Damn! Better not trust atomic then. They don't explain how the atoms came into existence and yet it's used to explain chemistry! Can't trust cell theory either, since it doesn't explain how cells came into existence, and yet it's explaining phenomena such as cancer!
This violates physics already because gas does not coagulate in a vacuum. It expands. Imagine opening the airlock of a spacecraft in deep space. Would the air stay in? No. Neither would air be able to turn into a tiny little dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. You think scientist aren't aware of this? Show us pictures of your Nobel prize ceremoney when you disprove the Big Bang.
And don't try to tell me that the planet was hit by an asteroid or something like that, because if the Big Band was just an explosion, the entire universe would be a ring of ever-thinning material, not planets in every direction. But an increasing universe allows order to form, and I think the attraction of the matter could form into solid objects given millions or even billions of years.
Science changes as time goes on. In another 100 to 500 years, new laws or more comprehensive laws will be understood that will make these laws you use now meaningless. So using science only hurts your cause as you will have to concede that there is a possibility of the arguments you use as becoming obsolete. That's the great part about science. We don't obstinatly and perversely adhere to our own pet theories when contradictory data arrives. We don't change the facts to fit the theory, we change the theory to fit the facts. Hell, we could be wrong that the Earth is round, but it we find data that tells us it isn't round, then we accept it. And that is much more reliable than religious apologicets.
The same is with the cherished example of 'evolution' people always point to: The Pepper Moth. When the trees were dark from pollution, the birds would eat the white moths, leaving the black ones alone. HOWEVER, there was still the same amount of black and white moths born, no evolution took place. The example wasn't ever purported to be evidence for evolution (changes in allele frequiences), but for natural selection. Organisms that are more fit will survive better and reproduce. If you want evidence for evolution, look into insect resistence to farm pesticides.
One question for the creationist: Why aren't there any peer reviewed journals written by creationist? And if evolution is flagrantly wrong, and already been disproven, why is it still a scientific theory? I have yet to see a creaionist earn a Nobel prize for diproving evolution. Must be the evil atheistic science community.
These fossils were planted by Satan to decieve us!!!!!111one The shortening jaw lengths from adapting to our changing diets throughout time are the cause for our wisdom teeth, by the way.
Can any creationist explain why we have a vestigal third molar called the wisdom tooth? It's useless, sometimes grows at the wrong angle, and can ruin the alignment of our teeth if not removed. Why would an intelligent designer give us 32 teeth when we only have room for 28? Counting problems? Wisdom teeth are quite a nuisance like our useless appendix. The appendix was useful for our ancestors to digest grassy plants but we no longer need them, and they can explode on us any minte causing bile to integrate with our blood stream and death from infection! Must be from that Fall of Adam and Eve.