Jump to content

Question For Religious People


Recommended Posts

Because it was part of Darwins believe that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness.Which is an essential part of his theory and one i can't agree with. The chances that a one cell organism evolves into human beingsas we know them today is so utterly small , that i simply can't believe that the entire process was by chance. I agree with Theistic Evolution on that matter , that there was ( maybe still is ) a divine creature like the christian god , whom "guided"the process , which makes alot more sense than everything happening by chance. But to be totally honest with you i didn't read the entire "Origin of Species" , so i guess i should do that to get a more educated view.
You need to familiarize yourself with the "Anthropic Principle." Seriously, I'm not joking at all, google it. It and related ideas can hopefully help you realize some of the fallacies in your statements there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why don't you tell me more then , instead of letting me google it.If you're convinced there are fallacies in my statement , tell me what they are so i can respond.I'm not going on some journey to disprove myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you tell me more then , instead of letting me google it.
Hey, Tim.. why don't you change his diaper and bottle feed him while you're at it
I'm not going on some journey to disprove myself.
Pretty much the definition of a fool right there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you tell me more then , instead of letting me google it.If you're convinced there are fallacies in my statement , tell me what they are so i can respond.I'm not going on some journey to disprove myself.
Heh, okay then. Here is the first line of the wikipedia entry on it: "In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that physical and chemical theories, especially astrophysics and cosmology, need to take into account that there is life on Earth, and that one form of that life, Homo sapiens, has attained intelligence. The only kind of universe humans can occupy is one that is similar to the current one."Do you see how that relates to your argument that, "The chances that a one cell organism evolves into human beings as we know them today is so utterly small , that i simply can't believe that the entire process was by chance."Also I think you're confusing evolution as being a process of "chance." In some respects it is "random," and in other respects it's the exact opposite - species evolve precisely because organisms don't just live and die and reproduce by chance.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you tell me more then , instead of letting me google it.I'm not going on some journey to disprove myself.
Pretty much the definition of a fool right there.
QFT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea cause bottle feeding and changing someone's diaper is related to the fact that he's trying to convince me by saying "hey go look it up on wikipedia , i'm right u know but wikipedia or google can tell u all about it" .. that's just simply lazy , and therefore i asked him to explain it in his own words.Instead i still got a quoted response from wikipedia , which shows me how much you guys really know yourselves , and how much wikipedia appearantly feeds you. "Also I think you're confusing evolution as being a process of "chance." In some respects it is "random," and in other respects it's the exact opposite - species evolve precisely because organisms don't just live and die and reproduce by chance." "Everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness."This is a quote from Darwin, and as far as i know accidental , unguided purposelessness leaves everything to random chance. The word "unguided" doesn't fit my believes cause i do believe there is a God who has guided the process , because ( as i explained before ) the chances that an accidental , unguided and purpolessness process can lead to the earth as we know it , with it's entire complex and balanced nature , and most of all with us humans , is extremely unlikely. "I'm not going on some journey to disprove myself."I agree that statement is crap and it didn't come out as i planned , it was more a reply to his rather empty remarkabout the "Anthropic Principle" , i meanth to say i'm not going to try disproving myself because you are makingsome vague remark.. like , it's up to you guys to disprove me in order to get a response. Though attempting to disprove yourself / believes are ofcourse essential for development. If you would explain yourself clearer about the "respects" in which randomized chance and the exact opposite function in the theory of evolution i would be most delighted.. oh and this time in your own words :club:

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness."This is a quote from Darwin, and as far as i know accidental , unguided purposelessness leaves everything to random chance. The word "unguided" doesn't fit my believes cause i do believe there is a God who has guided the process , because ( as i explained before ) the chances that an accidental , unguided and purpolessness process can lead to the earth as we know it , with it's entire complex and balanced nature , and most of all with us humans , is extremely unlikely.
You're confusing mutation (which is random) with evolution (which is a process that only sometimes includes mutation as a driver).
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much all mutation is part of evolution am i wrong ? There is something called Somatic Mutation, this occurs in non-reproductive cells and won’t be passed onto offspring , so i guess that's an exception.The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.As i mentioned before i'm not an expert when it comes to bio-science and evolution , and someone will without any doubt try to slap me in the face again with their wikipedia wisdom. I guess Mutation is a big part of evolution and one i can't entirely agree with , therefore i can't agree with the entire theory of evolution :club: But that's my opinion based on very little research , i'll do more tomorrow * Yawn * In the meanwhile i'm interested what you guys really think about evolution / god , and whether or not they fit together. ~Sweet dreams everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it was part of Darwins believe that everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness.
This is a very popular misunderstanding of evolution, but it's completely incorrect. The whole point is that traits which confer an advantage are more likely to proliferate, and so you get a process in which organisms become more and more suited to their environments over time. While variation in the genome is an essential ingredient for the process, and some of that variation comes by means of genetic mutation, it is entirely missing the point to refer to the process itself as "accidental".
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very popular misunderstanding of evolution, but it's completely incorrect. The whole point is that traits which confer an advantage are more likely to proliferate, and so you get a process in which organisms become more and more suited to their environments over time. While variation in the genome is an essential ingredient for the process, and some of that variation comes by means of genetic mutation, it is entirely missing the point to refer to the process itself as "accidental".
Does this also explain why Mc Donalds started out as a few quality restaurants,then evolved into an overbearing gargantuan chain of low quality tasteless burgertariums.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a very popular misunderstanding of evolution, but it's completely incorrect. The whole point is that traits which confer an advantage are more likely to proliferate, and so you get a process in which organisms become more and more suited to their environments over time. While variation in the genome is an essential ingredient for the process, and some of that variation comes by means of genetic mutation, it is entirely missing the point to refer to the process itself as "accidental".
yeah, it's pretty much the opposite of accident. Adaptative is the word I think people should use.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, okay then. Here is the first line of the wikipedia entry on it: "In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that physical and chemical theories, especially astrophysics and cosmology, need to take into account that there is life on Earth, and that one form of that life, Homo sapiens, has attained intelligence. The only kind of universe humans can occupy is one that is similar to the current one."Do you see how that relates to your argument that, "The chances that a one cell organism evolves into human beings as we know them today is so utterly small , that i simply can't believe that the entire process was by chance."Also I think you're confusing evolution as being a process of "chance." In some respects it is "random," and in other respects it's the exact opposite - species evolve precisely because organisms don't just live and die and reproduce by chance.
not a fan of occams razor?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead i still got a quoted response from wikipedia , which shows me how much you guys really know yourselves , and how much wikipedia appearantly feeds you.
Oh....kay. I was just using wikipedia because it came up as the first google entry. There have been seemingly endless debates on this board about this subject, but the bottom line is that you're clearly ill-informed. Google "evolution" and go from there. Seriously.Also my point about the anthropic principle maybe was vague, and it's also probably not the right example, but it's still related. If we were all fish instead of humans then would you be saying "OMG we're intelligent fish, what are the chances!"
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The whole point is that traits which confer an advantage are more likely to proliferate, and so you get a process in which organisms become more and more suited to their environments over time. While variation in the genome is an essential ingredient for the process, and some of that variation comes by means of genetic mutation, it is entirely missing the point to refer to the process itself as "accidental"."So evolution is created trough adaption to the enviroment according to you ? But where does this adaption to enviroment come from ? Mainly by genetic mutation am i wrong , the genes adapt themselves in order for the species to survive. But that doesn't mean the mutations itself aren't random. There are alot of mutations that are "unusefull" , and might even harm the creature thatinherited this mutation , and that might ultimately even cause the death of the specie. My point is that us humans , as we exist , weren't the "lucky" ones that have gotten the necessary genetic mutations over a long period of time , in order to survive as a specie. And not only survive , but also create a mind with which we can easily outbeat all the other living species on this planet.I think it wasn't "lucky" that we turned out the way we did , though genetic mutation does partially imply that. "Everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness." - Charles Darwin.These weren't my own words , how can u say it is a popular misunderstanding of evolution , if it are the words of the godfather of evolution.You can interpret evolution in so many ways , but the core essence will still be "random" genetic mutation , without that there is no evolution.And i do believe in genetic mutation , just not the randomness of the process :club:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So evolution is created trough adaption to the enviroment according to you ? But where does this adaption to enviroment come from ? Mainly by genetic mutation am i wrong , the genes adapt themselves in order for the species to survive.
No, not quite. What you need for evolution to take place is variation in the phenotype. In other words, as long as there are differences among individuals, some of those individuals will be better at reproducing than others. Sexual reproduction is one way in which the variation occurs, by mixing and matching the genetic codes of different individuals. Mutation is another way. It's not correct to say that the genes adapt themselves in order for the species to survive. The genes don't particularly care about the species, and most evolutionary biologists agree that evolution does not happen at the species level (although there may be some group-level selection pressures).
But that doesn't mean the mutations itself aren't random. There are alot of mutations that are "unusefull" , and might even harm the creature thatinherited this mutation , and that might ultimately even cause the death of the specie. My point is that us humans , as we exist , weren't the "lucky" ones that have gotten the necessary genetic mutations over a long period of time , in order to survive as a specie. And not only survive , but also create a mind with which we can easily outbeat all the other living species on this planet.
You're just focusing on the 'luck' aspect of the process, which is not really the interesting part, and is rather misleading. The interesting part of the process is that small increases in intelligence made certain individuals more likely to reproduce, and so those increases in in intelligence proliferated.
I think it wasn't "lucky" that we turned out the way we did , though genetic mutation does partially imply that.
Given the earth's environment it was almost inevitable that life would be shaped towards what we are.
"Everything in nature has come about through accidental, unguided purposelessness." - Charles Darwin.These weren't my own words , how can u say it is a popular misunderstanding of evolution , if it are the words of the godfather of evolution.
You'll have to provide a source for that quote, because I think you are erroneously attributing it to Darwin. Regardless, the theory of evolution has come a long way since Darwin, and his words do not constitute a complete description of the modern theory.
You can interpret evolution in so many ways , but the core essence will still be "random" genetic mutation , without that there is no evolution.And i do believe in genetic mutation , just not the randomness of the process :club:.
No, that is not the core of evolutionary theory. Someone apparently told you that it was, but it's not likely that person was a biologist. Random chance alone would not produce any evolution whatsoever. Do you understand why? Just contrast evolution to a really random system to see why. If things were truly random you'd be as likely to have a tusk as you would to have an arm. No biologist believes that evolution was random chance. The tree of nature didn't grow randomly, it was trimmed by the fit between traits and environment and if you ignore that part of the process in order to have your "purposelessness" characterization you are choosing to ignore the real biology.It's more accurate to say that nature is trying out all the various possibilities to find the ones that work. It's like a search through the genetic space to find good combinations. Whether it goes through them in some kind of order or shuffles through them randomly to find the good ones is really irrelevant.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that us humans , as we exist , weren't the "lucky" ones that have gotten the necessary genetic mutations over a long period of time , in order to survive as a specie.
Luck isn't really involved, or rather, luck doesn't actually exist. If this planet happened to be a little bit different or have a little bit different history and so there was no 'intelligent' life on the planet, well then we wouldn't be around to question it. It's not like the universe would miss us, or we would miss the universe. It's impossible to determine the "likelihood" that homo sapiens would evolve as we did on this planet, because the factors and possibilities are pretty much endless. If you want to believe that "God did it," that's all well and good, but it doesn't add anything to the conversation about life and the universe, it just says 'Wow it's all so intricate and incredible, somebody must have done it up like this for it to be so sweet.' But you don't actually offer any understanding, at least not to me.
And not only survive , but also create a mind with which we can easily outbeat all the other living species on this planet.
This is clearly false. There are a heck of a lot more insects and bacteria and things than there are humans. We've been around a very short amount of time compared to most other animals, so I don't think it's fair to say yet that we won this planet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, i simply don't have the time at the moment to give a decent response. Did get a book from the library about Darwin, so i'll probably start reading that tomorrow andI think i'll have the time tomorrow for a reply. Anyway you were right i did get it from that website (via google) and i honestly thought it was a quote from Darwin, you were right that it in fact is an interpretation of his theory. Not a wrong one i think, but i did showboat it off as Darwin's own quote so i was wrongin that. I didn't mean to "troll" (didn't even know what that was till short), and i just wanted to have an interesting discussion, never intendedto provoke people into "retardation", and i don't think it's fair to blame me for that.More on this subject tomorrow. ~Love

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
The theory of evolution is a very specific scientific theory, and it describes nothing more (and nothing less) than the speciation of animal life on this planet, through a process of random mutation, 'survival of the fittest,' and genetic consistency (meaning that a baby animal is likely to carry the specific traits of its individual parents). Anything about technology, solar systems, or anything else would by definition fall outside of the theory of evolution. That's why it is nonsensical for you to continue to say that your 'understanding of evolution' could be correct and/or much broader than the general understanding of it.
curious how you currently feel about this statement from 11 months ago.btw, looking back over this thread is somewhat painful.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh, i simply don't have the time at the moment to give a decent response. More on this subject tomorrow. ~Love
Tomorrow came late for this christian evolutionist.. perhaps his reality evolved into the... twilight zone....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...