I actually agree with Popo (go figure ). It's foolish to claim that there is no way that humans and plants have created themselves because the chances of it happening is highly unlikely. There have just been so many millions of years where life has had chances to evolve. That's a lot of chances (yes, I know I'm stating the obvious here, but it appeared as if people needed the obvious stated). When a species has had that long to change, with that many chances, having that species develop something amazingly complex, such as the human eye doesn't seem nearly as far-fetched. It's science. Also, those of you who say that humans creating themselves is a crazy concept, and God must have created them, I have a question for you. Who created God? I mean, did someone create him? Or did he just come to be, creating himself? I was just wondering...

Just because something is improbable, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen - especially given the 5-6 billion years that evolution had to take shape.

I could rattle off a list of twenty incredibly improbable things that happened during the last NFL season, for cryin' out loud.

I'm sure evolution is significantly more improbable than anything that happened in 'NFL' (whatever that is ). It isn't just 'highly unlikely'. As the first person admits the chance of RNA and DNA (two vital things) forming together at the exact same time couldn't help leading him to think that life could 'never have originated by chemical means'.
Someone a while back mentioned that we all came from a 'mad space gnome'(admittely this is bit a more silly than saying we evolved). Obviously they were joking but nobody can exactly prove it's not true(although with evolution there are plenty of other things to prove it's not true.). Still no self-respecting scientist would put forward this theory because it's just plain silly. The same applies with evolution, it's so improbable that most scientists who closely study it (like the second man that article quoted) would say it was impossible. As he is looking for another reason how RNA and DNA originated. So when I said both those guys still believed in evolution, I was wrong because the second guy doesn't.

I'm not here to make any enemies so thanks for reading my points (and some points which aren't mine ). Now I'm off to type NFL into google and see what on earth comes up. And don't think that just because I'm done with my posts now you can say what you like about me, I'll be back to see how you respond to this. And I might even post.

He didn't say that, what he said was:

This has an entirely different implication. I suggests he has findings that disproves or explains this "first glance analysis."

If this hasn't already been said, improbability is never to be confused with impossibility. A googleplex-to-one chance still has a chance. Of course, once you admit this, the only thing that can be nailed down is that no one can ultimately decry someone else's theory as impossible, and vice versa.

I think the the only reason he said "first glance" is because he believes in evoltuion and doesn't want to admit otherwise. I know we can't prove which one of use is right about what he meant but I'm pretty sure that he wanted to look into it more, rather than already having evidence.



That is true but I can't imagine any scientist who comes up with a new theory basing it on something which has such a small chance (especially if it's a googleplex-to-one ), because nobody would believe it.
I'd also like to add that I'm not basing my entire argument on the fact that it has a near impossible chance of happening. There are lots of other arguments too ( as I'm sure have already been discussed here) but I don't really want to spend forever posting in this thread ( as I'm sure that this argument will keep going on).

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
Here is the article the quote came from.



You keep saying there is evidence that proves evolution is wrong yet you never provide it.

You can't prove a universal negative, anyway.

I'd like to quickly hop in and (hopefully) put an end to FullFlame's logical fallacy. First, he argues that the two scientists say that evolution is impossible. This is either a misreading or deliberate misstatement- in fact, they said nothing of the kind. They did, however, say that life evolving in such a way to produce US is highly, highly improbable. Therefore, he assumes that they are saying that evolution is improbable. This is blatantly incorrect. As a matter of fact, the majority of the scientific community finds evolution highly probable, citing the fact that as soon as (on the geologic time scale) the planet was theoretically habitable, basic life began to form, and as soon as (again, geologically) the ground was habitable, basic life began to move out of the oceans. So, it is simply that the specific way which evolution happened to take its course is improbable.

For example, if people tended to have fingers which were a quarter inch longer than they are today, that would have been a slightly different evolutionary trend. One can go as far back as to say that it would have been quite possible for molecules other than adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine to form a macromolecule which performs a similar function to DNA.

So, having gently corrected FF's errant logic, I will continue to discuss why he actually has no real argument whatsoever. Even assuming that these scientists are denying evolution, it means nothing. Anyone could theoretically achieve a degree in science and then deny evolution- this does not change the fact that the theory is accepted by the majority of people. Additionally, even if one accepts the (untrue) idea that evolution has little evidence, it still has more evidence than creationism, which does not have any.

Finally, I will argue, as I have earlier, that this argument is, in some degrees, pointless other than a way to screen out religious nuts and idiots. Creation is untestable, and therefore not a theory, but a philosophy. Evolution could theoretically be disproven, and therefore is more valid.

Cogito ergo sum. Non cogitas ergo tuus procurator sum

Note: in the previous Latin statement, we are assuming that proxy is a 3rd declension, feminine word. I ask Latin teachers and enthusiasts to please not hate me for this blatant creation of a fake latin noun... (I translated the sentence for ME)
[/spam]

...

Attempt to resist correcting your Latin: FAILED. (Nothing personal--I just have an inner classicist that fools itself into thinking it's competent. )

Cogito ergo sum. Non cogitas ergo tuus procurator sum.

More relevant to the topic at hand, I am an agnostic. I believe that evolution is far, far more likely than any sort of intelligent design. However, I also recognize that science tries to explain things in a series of causes and effects, and that when we are talking about the beginnings of the universe, it can be impossible to try to explain it scientifically (Not that it actually does not conform to a set of physical laws but that evidence may be lacking or uncollectable. Empiricism is a b*tch, yo.) Therefore, I am open to the Deist mode of thought--an omnipotent deity somehow created the basic physical laws and initial state of this world, snapped his fingers, and caused the Big Bang. And then left us the hell alone. God may exist, but he sure as hell ain't relevant.

But instead of being a slightly more open-minded atheist, I have come to the conclusion that I don't particularly care if there is a "great beyond". If there is a creator out there who has something in store for me after I die, I'll deal with it when I get there. In the meantime, I'll aspire to the humanistic tradition and aid my fellow man with my own strength than by entreating the omnipotence of some (most likely) mythical figure. It just makes the most sense.

On a sidenote, I think that religion definitely has a place in society and that it can serve a positive social function...but some of the gods that are popular in our world now grate on me somewhat. Seriously. Not cool.

Thanks for the latin help

It's not the gods that are causing the problems, it's people taking religious texts in the wrong context, becoming fanatics, and losing sight of what their religion is supposed to be in the first place. (At least, most of the time. Then you have weird cults that are just, well, weird.)

I voted for Creation.

If evolution was real and we really did evolve from apes then why are there still apes?

As for the so called Big Bang theory, how can anyone say that everything just came together at the right moment creating the universe and everything we see around us? Look at how complex the human body is. Look at how complex the universe is.

Things just dont happen.

Evolution
i mean whats the prehencial tail for then scientsits have proof and i belive in science
seriously who can create something out of nothing anyway( ok so mabye edward....)
religion/creationism is a poor mans science

Evolution takes many paths. Just because we started at the same point doesn't mean we end at the same spot. Different areas allow for different course of evolution, hence the amount of variety in species.

If evolution is wrong then please explain why some viruses have become immune to medicines that would once have gotten rid of them? If the medicine hasn't changed then the viruses must have adapted/evolved to be able to handle them.


It's not science, poor man's or otherwise.

It's not as if all the apes, as one, decided that "Hey guys! Let's evolve now!"

My genes are different from yours. I am better adapted at some things genetically, while you are at others. Some of that variation has been passed down to me via my ancestors' genes. Far fewer are my body's own spontaneous mutations. After all, just as people make mistakes, so do little bits of protein-machinery. A new species evolves via accumulating enough mutations (over many, many, MANY generations) such that it may no longer procreate successfully with the original species (among other criteria). The great majority of the original species stays intact. The population of a new species is very, very, VERY tiny at the outset. (go Wiki "founder effect").

There are plenty of scientists out there explaining it. Just because you do not understand something does not make it untrue. If you want to educate yourself, have at it:

PubMed
National Academy of Sciences
Nature
Science
Scientific American

(Sorry, I'm a biologist, so I don't really know any physical science journals.)


They totally do. Probability. Error. Chaos. Entropy.

Stuff happens all the time. Simply because it could. (Although typically with low probabilities)

I'd like to put forth the 'Anthropic argument.' It's not exactly scientific, but it addresses one of the creationist's major points. Many creationists (and especially Intelligent Design supporters) argue that there is no way that the universe could possibly be so well adapted to human life without an outside force shaping it in that way. They cite that, if the properties of molecules were but slightly different, matter would not be able to conglomerate and shape the universe as we know it. Additionally, the likelihood of evolution happening as it is today (don't cite me on this) is supposedly equal to the likelihood of an explosion in a junkyard creating a perfectly formed 747 jet.

The anthropic argument states the following: If the universe did not exist in the exact form that it does, it would not, for our intents and purposes, exist at all. Therefore, we should not be amazed or surprised at its existence.

The logic behind this is that, if the universe was not in a form that would support human life, it would not exist because there would be nothing to observe it. Truthfully, it would not be as much that it did not exist as that it would not matter to anything that it does exist. If nothing cares, what benefit is existence? It's the classic 'If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?' applied to the universe. The answer to the first is 'no-' a sound require hearing.

The analogy can be rephrased easily enough- 'If the universe begins, and no one is around to observe it, does it really exist?' Existence requires that something is affected by it. If we have a tasteless, odorless, invisible, massless, spaceless substance, does that exist? We could certainly say that it is all around us constantly, but there is no evidence that it exists, and therefore it does not. A universe with no life would also not exist- not because it is unsensable, but because there are no senses with which to sense it.

So, by the anthropic argument, because the universe is so perfectly formed is no reason to argue that a god must have created it. In fact, if it was not so perfectly formed it would not exist. The same argument, in a slightly more arguable context, can be applied to evolution. Without higher-order life, the universe, arguably, would still not exist. Lower life forms, such as bacteria, and even as high as insects, reptiles, and some mammals, do not truly 'observe' the universe. They live, eat, die, and reproduce. Only with higher order life can the universe exist in a meaningful context- therefore, the fact that people have evolved is also not a cause to argue for intelligent design or creation.

Finally, to depart from the anthropic argument- I mentioned that the likelihood of people evolving is about equal to the 747 in the junkyard. However, the probability of something evolving is very high, as evidence by the amazing speed at which organisms began to evolve after the earth was suitable for life.

Please, don't use that argument again. I'm sorry if I've depleted the Creationist's arsenal.

i reckon god created the big bang and let it do its thing and probably guided it to create things like us and .... but i dont think everything was created in 7 days and that adam and eve where the first humans. I believe in evolution but that god guided the universe in this path.

Heh....this reminds me so much of 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'....

ditto on the the anthropic argument, I'm an atheist and frankly see creationism as being neither here nor there, frankly they're not worth your time (which is why most scientists don't debate). But I enjoy getting people riled, and if someone changes their mind well that's a nice bonus,

I find the biggest problem in such debates is that most people (even the people who are proponents of evolution) don't know the facts, to be fair they're not biologists so it can't be expected, and I'm gonna say right now that though I know it pretty well I can't say I know everything there is to know.

The first thing I have to say about creationism is why should we believe YOU, there's a million other groups of religions and cultists out there who have equally ridiculous things to say, and there's no difference between whether what you say and what the aztecs said is true. As it is the only the theory with any remote kind of evidence is evolution.

The other thing which makes me cringe is when guys ask why are monkeys still around, the fact of the matter is is that monkeys are a hell of a lot better at surviving where they live then we are, I challenge you to live for a year with the chimps! You'd probably have quite a bit of trouble, and anyway evolution isn't just about beneficial genes getting passed on, the core of evolution in SEXUAL selection.

While those with negative traits will simply die due to survival pressures, there's a second even more important pressure which tells us why the hell peacocks have those ridiculously impractical tails, and that's sexual selection, the fact is that one of the most important elements of the system is who breeds, the fact is webbed fingers might be a positive trait (it's a mutation that comes around quite often and usually removed at birth), in fact it would be as it allows better swimming, so why don't we all have webbed fingers? simple reason, we're grossed out by it, would you go out with a guy with webbed fingers? I know I wouldn't, Blonde hair cam about for the same reason, because it's sexually attractive (makes em look younger) other than that it has no evolutionary significance. I'm not great at explaining all this but check out any book and it will say it all

Also we are designed rather impractically, now if I was designing my ultimate creation, I'd give it wheels, have it be able to eat it's own excrement for sustanance, and I wouldn't give it EAR LOBES, I mean what's with that, I'd also give it wings and a way larger brain, Are we like that? no, Physically we cannot achive anything that other animals can achieve, we're slower, can't fly or swim and don't have anywher near as much endurance, and even in the mental department we're not that great, look at all the ridiculous psychological conditions we can suffer from! I mean honestly, if we were designed I'm gonna sock that guy one

Finally I think all that stuff about god caring whether we pray to him or not is just simply bull, I'll live my life in a good manner (benefitting my fellow man) if there is a god (and there probably isn't) and he says I can't go to heaven because I didn't believe in him then I'll go to hell, because I don't want to be in the kind of heaven where a man of faith is held above a man of good

I believe god made our existence and everything in the bible is true. However this doesn't make me committed to it cause i haven't seen personal signs that it's true. I don't believe in evolution simply for these two things:

1. I refuse to believe that in my past generation my family were monkeys
2. If evolution was true why won't apes nowadays evolve. even if the thing of different genes is true , how can all apes stop 'evolving' now?

1. they weren't monkeys per se, it's just that us and monkeys share a common ancestor, in evolution no animal is of a "higher order" than another (and yes we're animals people ) they evolved in a different direction from us, and it was REALLY FAR BACK, I MEAN REALLY FAR, REALLY

2. Monkeys haven't "stopped evolving" we aren't the center of the universe and the ultimate product of evolution with monkeys being a failed version, monkeys are adapted to do stuff we couldn't hope to achieve (YOU TRY LIVING IN A TREE) Us and monkeys evolved different adaptations and adapted to different environments

Truth is, I think that maybe God created us, then made us evolve from the apes, and so forth, that most (not all) historical events of the bible (Moses, Jesus, etc.) are true, but also some are not.

...

Why is there not a 'Neutral', 'Neither' or 'God made us evolve' vote? *Off-topic quest, I know, but I must know...*

There is, intelligent design.

I respect other peoples religions and beliefs, but I can't belive
that some magical man appeared out of nowhere and
just **POOF**, we came to exist.(not to offend)

I would agree that I can't believe that a "magical man appeared out of nowhere and
just **POOF**, we came to exist." It does not, however, have anything to do with creation belief.

God is not a man
God is not magical
God does not appear from anywhere let alone nowhere
God does not use sound effects - ex nihilo doesn't "**POOF**"

Creation. However, the theory of evolution is something I don't completely reject.

While studying hermeticism, I discovered that many of them (especially the Rosicrucians) believed that Evolution is just man's process to becoming a God or god-like (i.e. From protozoa to reigning over their own planets), and they do believe in God (or, at least, -a- god).

Mormons believe that they will become Gods themselves, so, I found this fact concerning the Hermetics quite interesting; it makes sense, after all (humans become god-like through evolution).

I believe that God created the Earth in seven days. Why is that not on the list?

It's the second option.

The Jeebus part is just a bit of humour, just like the monkeys and soup line.

Also, this here be a debate, you should really explain why you think what you do and if possibly provide evidence/support for your theory.

I'm totally for Evolution. While I try my best to respect people's beliefs on certain things, I find it hard to respect the belief of people who genuinely believe in creationism. The part that gets me most about them is what they call 'creation science'. Anyone with a reasonable level of scientific knowledge will see straight through their claims, as their science is not proper science. They make up numbers to fit in with their beliefs, make straw man arguments against evolution etc.

I am a Christian, so I believe in creation.

Do you have a better reason than that? Something verging on facts and evidence?

Hope this hasn't been posted before, but if not, very relevant


I believe in evolution, but I don't fret much about how or why I'm here.

I hate it when I'm asked that. Are you an atheist? Cause they always love to ask me that when I say this.

To be honest, no. It's blind faith. Going to church and things of that sort have kind of convinced me that my god is out there. I can't really explain it, but it's an emotional, overpowering faith I have. That's all I have for you.

As for the evolution mumbo-jumbo, I don't really buy it, but that's not going to say it isn't true. I just don't know.

Well, opinions are supposed to be based and supported by facts. When you give someone your opinion, you will typically be asked to back it up. In this section of the forum in particular; there's a reason it's called the debate district, and I'll give you a hint; it's not because it's a nice alliteration.

Why would him being an atheist have anything to do with it, anyway? Because their beliefs conflict with your own? Believe me, you live in the United States, so don't even worry. The internet is probably the only place you'll ever get asked to defend your faith. The "mumbo jumbo" you're disowning is backed up with a lot more evidence than God. One just happens to have more followers.

I have nothing against you all, and I surely hope you all have nothing against me for being a Christian. And you are correct. It seems as though if I say I'm a Christian on the internet, people love to attack me for it. Which is fine, cause nothing is really going to change my opinion.

I could care less about what facts or crap support evolution. It seems far out there for ME, as does Christianity for you. Both are very 'out there' in fact. But I choose God, and that's the end of it for me, really.

Is evolution really that "far out" to you? To me, evolution makes a lot more sense than any religous explanation and seems way more plausible, and I`m Catholic.

i belive in both, for this part of religion i agree with Islam, which basically sais the same as christianity but sais that the universe was created in 6 'periods' of time rather than 6 days, it doesn't say how long these periods are, it also never sais evoloution didn't happen, and the order of creation happens in basically the same order as presented by science, so if anything science backs up what the religion sais.

Also the stuff in the qu'ran is the word of God, whereas the Bible is written by men, at the time it was written, i doubt human kind could contemplate the great periods of time involved, 'days' are much easier to understand. Also i belive that god is in eternety not time, so what seemed a day to him could be millions of years for us.

OT:

Hate to bring back a nearly dead topic, but...Man. Oh man oh man. What a touchy subject. Before I get into anything more, I just want to give a quick background.

I was introduced to these forums when I was in 8th grade and I was actively participating in the debates when I hadn't even undertaken a simple biology class. Silly me. I was out giving silly answers to things all around the age of 13 without having much clarity to my own answers. I was more or less observed as the religious fooly kid that grew up in church and couldn't speak for anything else but that. That might've been true. Looking back at some silly posts by my younger self from five years ago it makes me want to laugh, honestly...but what I still believe to this day remains. In short, I was banned by a mod who goes by Carnal Malefactor today. It seems like a different name than what it was 5 years ago, but heck...it's been too long I can barely remember.

Albeit while having some annoying posts, I still felt humiliated at what had happened to me and I left these forums for a long time. Carnal illustrated that I would have to take a biology class in high school before I could ever participate in here again. It was a random urge, but I decided to kick back on here for the first time in a while (5 years like I said). Sadly, I forget all the juicy log-in details to my old account so I placed a "2" at the end of this account to redeem myself from the young lad I was that couldn't debate efficiently. I stand for the same beliefs that I did then, just standing here as a more intelligent person than I was back then. I would seriously love it if Carnal would come back into the debates with me again. I'd love a shot at taking my name back and reaffirming what hasn't changed in 5 years except a few science classes or so under my belt.

I'm Christian and I realize it's hard to stand up for something like that in what's based solely on evidence, but I'm ready to take it slow and easy and have some fun with you guys and gals.

tl;dr I'm Christian and want to debate.

Welcome back, FullMetalShrimp! If you'd like to retrieve the information for your old account, (like if the recover password function doesn't work etc) you can contact the admin Tombow via PM in order to try and sort it out. Then your FullMetalShrimp2 account can be just a temporary one.

I wasn't here during the time Carnal Malefactor was, but I think it's safe to say this member is now inactive. ><


Also, on topic, I'm not claiming to know a lot about science, but I do believe in evolution rather than creation. I've never been religious and I'm not really quite sure I'll ever believe in a higher power that created all of us...But I usually don't think about these things in depth. So sorry about the lack of it; I've never found myself compiling information for and against, really. We're here and I just don't find myself worrying over why it is we're here. (Well, the scientific v religious aspects of it, anyway).

Both. (Which is annoyingly not a poll option) I don't understand why God can't have created science. If I create a program does it work miraculously? Nope, it runs on the mathamatical laws that I designed for it, however if i want I can change the code if i want to try something new or push things along a bit, in the same respect I think that life did evolve but this in no way means we wern't created or that humans wern't given a little extra stiumulus to turn out the way we did. If I somehow managed to create intelligent life within a program, would that life deny my existance simply because I wrote the program so that it's self sustaining? The whole idea that some kind of creator doesn't work within science just seems bizarre to me, it's not like our universe is prooven to be able to exist without a god anyway as all our theories of why the big bang occured allways leads to something existing before it, we have no theory of how something could spontaniously exist from nothing.

<Program Note>

QUOTE (Forsaken Love @ Mar 25 2011, 09:37 AM)

Both. (Which is annoyingly not a poll option)

Agreed, and edited & added the poll choices.


===

OT: ^ Thank you, A Pierrot's Aria.

@FullMetalShrimp2 (a.k.a. Fullmetal Shrimp) - Welcome back! Please check your PM inbox on FullMetalShrimp2 account on how to recover password for your original posting account (Fullmetal Shrimp).

i believe in evolution to an extent but i beleive in god and that he made us evolve due to the need to do so.

Thanks for editing the poll options tombow can put in my opinion now =D