| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 3:48:11 PM | Nomad and Happening- In case Vince's post was a little academic for you let me make a simple point- nothing about the theory of Evolution says that speciation is totally random. That is a common misconception, and one that shows that you don't really understand the basics of the theory. You are being influenced by some of the warped propaganda in our culture against the theory, and I recommend you read a legitimate source on it. Remember, it is called Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION.
I just wanted to mention, though I haven't done a lot of research in the theory of Evolution, I do know it is referred to as "Evolution By Natural Selection"; Darwin's Theory. I also know about natural selection and how life mutates with environmental changes; I believe I stated this with my Sabertooth tiger to Siberian Tiger comment in an earlier post. Much of what you and Vincent have been saying is sinking in, but nothing has been said to clearly answer my questions in my earlier post:
What I'm trying to say is, if organic matter formed when all the amino acids lined up under the perfect and delicate conditions they needed, then why would it take on so many beautiful forms of life, and have the growing ability the think and change? If organic life were born out of chance, why wouldn't it be just a non-thinking organic soup - still? How could DNA and RNA form a collective intelligence all on its own to achieve the master pieces we bare witness to Today?
How could amino acids create life, which evolves with such great intelligence and intricacy, all on its own? Also, Beauty of design is relevant in the way, if life did form itself without help from a higher intelligence, then why wouldn't all forms of life just be a non-thinking organic soup of microbes which are not subject to extreme environmental changes. Too me, the many creations on Earth are so pleasant to see and are so part of eachother, that it seems to me everything was designed to work together (I could get more into that one too). How could DNA and RNA work intelligently and collectivly together to achieve this, STARTING WITH the Amino Acids lining up perfectly to begin life? Anyhow, thanks everybody for their excellent and intellectual input on this topic! CHEERS!!  Merry Christmas | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 4:06:55 PM | That one's easy... resources. Think about it: Let's say... a bacteria existed in a specific pool of amino acids. How long would it take the bacteria to use up all the food or water? A while, but it would happen. Eventually I suspect the bacteria would start developing carnivorous tendencies and begin consuming other, smaller cells. This gives rise to the good old "preditor prey" scenario. Next you get plants. Plants are a revolution in evolution (pardon the phrase) in which they get their energy from the sun. It stands to reason that plants emerged when the conditions on earth allowed enough sunlight to permiate to the surface. It just goes on from there....
As for the variaty: meh. Who says all life came from 1 cell? For all we know 5 different cells from around the world formed at different times each with different DNA. However note that all cells and thus all life multiply in roughly the same way (ie cell division) The only exception is a virus which multiplies by mutation. (ie mutate a host cell and make IT reporduce the virus) | |
|
nergal
|
Joined: 5/12/2005
Msg: 53 | |
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 4:11:20 PM | | Luckily Dover Council has been permitted to retain their normal form of worship. I find it gratifying that in this day and age common sense take the place of Chrisitianity .. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 4:12:04 PM |
Eventually I suspect the bacteria would start developing carnivorous tendencies and begin consuming other, smaller cells
Where would these "tenendacies" orginate from Dave?? Why don't animals have solar skins to power themselves?? How many watts does a brain consume?? | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 5:04:46 PM | @nevercanezzer
Trees have solar power capability, and as far as I know, all living creatures use electrical currents for physical and mental functions. I do know, however, what you were trying to say, which is kind of along the lines of the point I was trying to make: if there was no controlling intelligence to our design, then most living things should be creepier and more unusual than what our heaven on Earth is Today. At least that is my opinion!  | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 5:44:54 PM | To Never: Don't know. Desparation maybe? After all, strand two tigers on a desert island and eventually they'll end up killing eachother for food. Hunger makes living things do different things.
Also do you know how photosynthesis actually works? The sun is only 1 part of the equation. You still need water, minerals, and CO2. Once the level of CO2 in the world started to drop due to massive plant activity (well in the ocean anyway) I'm sure some organisms started taking oxygen. Also the amount of sugar photosynthesis would give a mammel such as us is so small that if our bodies got 100% solar radiation all the time with enough water, minerals, and CO2 then we MAY be able to survive if we don't move much. Sorry but the system isn't efficient enough for high energy creatures. And here's something: If we WERE intelligently designed, why don't we have an efficient solar power system?
As for you happening: There ARE creepy things in the world. We just don't see them as creepy becuase we're used to it. Take a penguin. A bird that swims in the arctic? How much creepier do you need? | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 6:08:32 PM | People used to think the Platypus was pretty creepy. Happening- you are ascribing subjective human perceptions of beauty. Frankly I think spiders are beautiful, but many would disagree. That's purely subjective. Really, all the questions you asked have already been addressed. Read Vincent's, Dave's, Surfer's and my posts again.
"then why wouldn't all forms of life just be a non-thinking organic soup of microbes which are not subject to extreme environmental changes."
How do you suggest that even microbes are not subject to environmental changes? Of course they are. You are asking why did single celled organisms begin to group into more complex organisms, and that's a good question. Clearly environmental conditions favoured a symbiotic behaviour, and we can see primitive examples of single celled organisms grouping together for increased survival advantage in nature today, so it's not a stretch to consider that that is a factor in the evolutionary step towards complex organisms.
"Too me, the many creations on Earth are so pleasant to see and are so part of eachother, that it seems to me everything was designed to work together"
What you are seeing is that all life shares the same basic material- D.N.A. This is evidence of common ancestry. As far as working together, there is much ad hoc design in nature, things that a modern engineer could improve on, which is further evidence that structures evolved by natural selection. If all life were created spotaneously and intelligently, it would be designed far better. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 7:01:09 PM | @wonkavision
People used to think the Platypus was pretty creepy. Happening- you are ascribing subjective human perceptions of beauty. Frankly I think spiders are beautiful, but many would disagree. That's purely subjective. Really, all the questions you asked have already been addressed. Read Vincent's, Dave's, Surfer's and my posts again.
Dam your good!!  Honestly, you explain things well, and your right, our perception of life is what we have grow accustomed to seeing everyday, so nothing we are familiar with will seem odd. It just seems so unusual for life to have formed on its own to what it is on Earth Today. I realize science can explain many things about the origins of life, and how it could form on its own, yet science still can not say 100% for sure it wasn't because of intelligent design. You do, however, make a lot of sense, and I do consider much of what you say to be true or very plausable, so thanks for your input! 
@Lord Dave
Take a penguin. A bird that swims in the arctic? How much creepier do you need?
Hey!! How could you say that? They're sooo cute!!! I suppose you think a bunny is a mutant? | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 7:17:24 PM | "yet science still can not say 100% for sure it wasn't because of intelligent design."
You are absolutely correct, sir. Science does not say anything with 100% accuracy, and the notion that intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe is not contradicted by science. The only thing that science contradicts, and very conclusively, is a literal interpretation of creation myths. | |
|
| |
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/23/2005 8:08:29 PM | Calories are energy units that produce energy and do not consume, but are consumed.
Happening, I've already addressed every one of your questions in my previous posts. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/23/2005 9:59:24 PM |
One thing I will point out though, is that 'talk.origins' and 'wikipedia' are now under careful scrutiny and investigation for misinformation, slanderous postings by the common public, unsubstantiated, non-scientific claims, and outright lies...
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is interesting to note that a search for any information about investigations against Talk Origins turns up nothing.
I also note other things that make this claim dubious:
1. Talk Origins is recommended as "A great site for the interested student". It notes its usefulness in both paleotology and other areas, including human origins. Who reccomends them? Why The Smithsonian Institute Human Origins program!
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/link.htm
2. Talk Origins is commended in the popular periodical Scientific American as:
"Talk.Origins archive (www.talkorigins.org). This wonderfully thorough online resource compiles useful essays and commentaries that have appeared in Usenet discussions about creationism and evolution. It offers detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000276B7-6792-1D0A-8E49809EC588EEDF
3. The Renowned Jounal Science gives a postive review for Talk Origins and gives links to the site.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/304/5671/657a
Given the wide variety of evidence showing Talk Origins to be a very credible source of information, I doubt that it would be under investigation for "misinformation".
As for Creation by Evolution, I have no qualms with the directions people want to take Evolution philosophically, I just stress the need the Authoritative Scinetific concept of Evolution period.
It's interesting to think about the varieties of Theistic Evolution and where someone would draw the line between someone still accepting Evolution and someone not accepting Evolution. That said, I consider the Creation Evolution idea to still hold the tenet of Evolution and thus still accept its premise (with minor revisions, of course).
I have a question for people here, though...
Does someone have to accept random mutation to be considered accepting the Theory of Evolution?
I would say no, because the conept of whether or not mutations are random can only be tested through natural means. So the Theory of Evolution decides something to be random if there is no natural guidance. That leaves out the possibility of supernatural guidance from say, a creator. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/24/2005 12:19:57 PM | Random mutations do exist in nature, so it's not like you can ignore that. Infact all mutations are random. The problem is that if a mutation isn't beneficial it usually doesn't last long enough to be seen or it's so minor that it's undetectable and doesn't become dominate in the gene pool.
I think to accept the current Evolutionary Theory you should accept that the process of evolution is based on random mutations that produce a beneficial effect. But I'm not an expert so I'm not sure.
As for the talkorigins site: I ignore it. While it may be a very well developed site with alot of factual information it's the most popular and thus under the most scrutiny when you debate the subject with creationists. | |
|
| Index of all of Kreationism MYTHS DEBUNKED!
Posted: 12/24/2005 12:48:32 PM | "Infact all mutations are random."
The problem is Dave that people who don't really understand the theory confuse the random nature of gene mutation with the process of natural selection, and they proffer spurious arguments like, "if it's all random, then how do you explain complex organisms?" It's simply important to stress that the process of Evolution is not utter randomness. The whole issue is that traits can be non-intelligently selected, by the environment. | |
|
| |
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/26/2005 6:53:11 PM | To your first question: We don't for the same reason we don't find billions of dead animals everywhere: Not all bones fossalize. Odds are any "transition" species is lost or buried very deeply. Plus the world is a VERY big place. I'm fairly certain those who seek these fossils do so by trying to guess where they might be rather then just randomly digging. Also the changes would be so small (if any) from generation to generation that several million years worth of fossils would look mostly identical.
Next we DO have a fair amount of "transition" fossles but those fossles are several hundred million years apart. (correct me if I'm wrong) So seeing a good and easy "transition" isn't possible.
Your next point:
Your making the assumption that we're special. That earth has some cosmic significance. We don't. From the universes perspective the odds of everything falling into place exactly as it did isn't impossible and obviously we exist. The odds become irrelivant because we know, by existing, that it happened. Does that mean our "conditions" are the only conditions able to have life? Doubtful. We're just one pattern. Also here's something to think about:
If things had happened differently and say... the planet was 5 million miles closer to the sun and our planet was mostly desert and desert life evolved and thrived and became sentient so the world, instead of being populated by evolved Apes, was populated by evolved Lizards. Would they be asking the same questions? Would they think that the world must have been made for them because it fit them so perfectly? Or would they realize that it's not the world that fits them perfectly but rather they fit the world perfectly? | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 11:06:19 AM | | A recent example of the incompleteness of the fossil record (or rather how the fossil record is expanding all the time) is Homo floresiensis. Now, please keep in mind that Homo floresiensis is not an ancestor of humans but rather an apparent contemporary. I am merely using this example to show that more fossil specimens are discovered all the time. The fossil record is very obviously not complete. We haven't dug up the entire planet for one, and for two (as lord dave said) wouldn't have a fossil of every animal ever to grace the surface of the world. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 12:32:27 PM | I find it funny (strange) how people say "Life is too complex to have happened with out an even more complex designer, that strangely enough sprang into exsitance all by itself."
Well if Life (us) is too complex to have created itself, then how did your designer spring into being? | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 69 | |
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 12:37:15 PM |
Well if Life (us) is too complex to have created itself, then how did your designer spring into being? That's not a fair question. By asking that then one would have to question their faith. By questioning their faith they might begin to think. By thinking they might loose faith. By loosing faith they might become depressed. Faith keeps the weak at bay. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 1:05:46 PM | ^^^lol.^^^
I'm not going to say that's totally false, but I will say it's true only for some, not all. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 1:30:35 PM | In a way, I wish you were right about keeping the weak at bay, j-roc. Then we might not have terrorists who have nothing to lose. In that sense, faith empowers the disenchanted to do great damage with no concern for their own safety.
As for the question causing me to question my faith, not at all. Evolution follows physical laws because we, or at least our physical bodies, live in a physical realm. God, however, does not. If you believe in the existence of a spiritual realm, then you can believe that a complex being has always existed and always will.
Cheers! | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 72 | |
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 1:41:28 PM | Flyguy,
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it is the transformations that have taken place once the origins were already in place.
If you want to believe in another realm that follows a different set of laws then that is fine....it can be rewarding to many. I myself do not consider myself to be an atheist (I once did) but I also can distinguish the difference of what I believe to be a belief and not an undisputable fact as so many Christians regard their beliefs. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 2:02:48 PM | "Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it is the transformations that have taken place once the origins were already in place."
So many people, myself included, keep making this same point, but it doesn't seem to sink in. That being said, I didn't get the impression at all from Flyguy's post that he was saying otherwise. I don't recall him declaring that misconception in the past either, but I suppose I may be wrong.
"If you want to believe in another realm that follows a different set of laws then that is fine"
Another good point that bears repeating. In fact, there's nothing contradictory to science in holding that belief, either. Further, even within the confines of physics, it's plausible that the physical laws from which our universe emerges could be emergent themselves from a deeper level of causality, and it's not even implausible that that could continue ad infinitum. I see nothing contradictory to science, either, in bundling the notion of consciousness up with all that and calling it God. It's not a scientific conjecture, because it's not amenable to the method (at least at this point in history) but it's not contradictory to science. | |
|
j-roc
|
Joined: 5/24/2005
Msg: 74 | |
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 2:11:12 PM | That being said, I didn't get the impression at all from Flyguy's post that he was saying otherwise. I don't recall him declaring that misconception in the past either, but I suppose I may be wrong. The 15 minute edit button does alot for some....too bad they can't leave their post alone once someone has responded. | |
|
| Creation BY Evolution
Posted: 12/28/2005 2:20:44 PM | | I agree with everything that Wonka said. J-roc, you sounded like you were rebutting things I never said. As for the post about the edit option, you'll have to clarify that. "Edit button? I don't need no stinkin' edit button!" | |
|
Home
login 
