$250,000 if you can provide proof of "evolution"

[Dragnov]

Martgorb, I do believe evolution seems a more plausible situation but all because it is arguably the better of two theories, does not make it right. As I said, it all boils down to faith it seems. I am quite fine believing we don't know and we will never know.

Spac3d, the base case is the formation of proteins? Seems to be so conveniently arbitrarily set. Where did proteins come from? It seems you cannot prove evolution, w/o proving where the universe came from.

Many mathematical induction formulas make an exception for the 0 case. I believe in CS or Math major would not argue otherwise.

Furthermore, why are you trying to belittle my education simply because my opinion does not follow yours. Grow up please? Stay relevant to the argument?

 

[Spac3d]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

These kinds of meaningless posts hurt my feelings

Same reason christians get hurt when you tell them that creationism is stupid. Lack of an open mind.

and show you have a limited understanding of the universe.

HAH! Of course I have a limited understanding of the universe. You believing otherwise about yourself is... well, not sure what to say. Confident for sure!

Stop arguing against people like this.

So you argue against the christian yet ask me to stop when I cast doubt upon your beliefs?

We are clearly not a speck of dust on some alien elephant's butt.

It was a joke, if you couldn't tell. The point is, that if there are things as small as a photon, or as large as the universe, why can't there be things that are bigger or smaller than those? ALOT bigger or smaller. Infinitely bigger or smaller. Not that I would know, but it seems awful likely.

This is not the ending of Men in Black II. We can prove plenty of things, just ask Donald Rumsfield.

Haha

Have you been reading the Urantia Book?

Never heard of it. I don't buy books often and the few I do buy are usually programming books.

Don't you find it funny your answer is that their are no answers?

Funny? I suppose in a way. Inspiring? Yes. Depressing? Yes. Amazing? Yes. There are no answers IMO. You can answer as many things as you want, but you'll still raise just as many questions. You truly think that there are answers for everything?

Maybe instead of being so pessimistic

I suppose it is pessimistic, eh. You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

you should realize there are at least somethings we can figure out within the scope of our reason.

Sure, but what does that count for? Not much. Our scope of reason is infinitely small compared to the whole picture. I'm sick of pondering the usual stuff, I WANT to ponder about things that are "outside" of our "scope of reason", however you want to define that.

Let me summarize some things. First of all I meant you hurt my feelings because you perpetuate a world of ignorant bliss. You appear to revel thoughts and ideas without going so far to read what has been learned about such subjects. A limited understanding of the universe in fact meant of what is known, not your perception of the entire universe. The Urantia Book is not a book of programming code. It was another joke. It is a religious text. It is just as relevant as the Bible and Koran in my opinion (if you knew about the book thats another joke). People arguing their opinions as true without any factual evidence should waste some of their time exposing themselves to other ideas. I do not find the no answers thing inspiring or depressing or amazing. I have conversations about this sort of a topic regularly, and what it amounts to is that it doesn't matter how little we are capable of knowing or how much less we know now. What is important is we think and do things now. Take a Zoloft.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
*sigh*

Commence flamewar.

About the same old thing.

That can't be resolved by either side.

For the 100,000,000th time.

WTF is it with creationists that they feel constantly compelled to disprove evolution? You're 99% chimpanzee. Deal with it.

We are also 99% genetically the same as a banana.

I believe that God created everything a long time ago and is now sitting back watching us like a Uncle Milton ant farm.

 

[gtsukada]

i believe all this was already covered in the simpsons

 

[ryzmah]

Originally posted by: Antny
I just thought of something. The Bible's creation account would acctually prove most of the precepts behind evolution.
God created Adam and Eve. This means that all of the humans on the planet earth are descended from these two individuals. That means that all of the diversity currently on earth are the result of two sets of chromosomes. While it's possible that Adam and Eve were heterozygous for the majority of thier genes and could have given rise to multiple differing phenotypes, the following generations would not be.
This theory would be okay except that Noah and his wife would have been a genetic bottleneck on the population and would have resulted in a severe loss of diversity, aka a founder effect. The only way to explain the current diversity amongst humans on the planet is evolution.

Except that there are many evolutionists who also note a severe lack of diversity in the human race - according to those scientists (they have discovery channel specials all the time) the human race was knocked down to just a few thousand people within the last several thousand years - in other words, there is evidence of a founder effect.

On a side note, if someone has that mathematical inductive proof handy I'd like to see it. I'm very confident in the results of properly applied mathematical induction - I find the logic used in the biology texts I've read very weak when it comes to origin of species and explanation of current speciation.

 

[ryzmah]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Martgorb, I do believe evolution seems a more plausible situation but all because it is arguably the better of two theories, does not make it right. As I said, it all boils down to faith it seems. I am quite fine believing we don't know and we will never know.

Spac3d, the base case is the formation of proteins? Seems to be so conveniently arbitrarily set. Where did proteins come from? It seems you cannot prove evolution, w/o proving where the universe came from.

Many mathematical induction formulas make an exception for the 0 case. I believe in CS or Math major would not argue otherwise.

Furthermore, why are you trying to belittle my education simply because my opinion does not follow yours. Grow up please? Stay relevant to the argument?

I'd argue your comment about mathematical induction - I'm coming from a math background but imo an inductive proof includes both proving the step and the base case, where you can extend the proof of the base case back to the asserted truths of set theory (or category theory if you're approaching from that area). The problem comes from when people try to use these types of proofs in other contexts - the initial assertions are usually much more suspect than those of set theory.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Let me summarize some things. First of all I meant you hurt my feelings because you perpetuate a world of ignorant bliss.

How? Sure, we will never know everything, that doesn't mean I am denouncing learning what there is to learn. I'm all for it.

You appear to revel thoughts and ideas without going so far to read what has been learned about such subjects.

You're right, I haven't read about this stuff a whole lot. Frankly I find myself too entangled in computer stuff to devote that much time to it, but my mind tends to constantly wander on its own and my views are a result of that. This is one of many reasons I look forward to college, I can actually learn about these things (it's very hard for me to devote time to things other than "computing", I have this nagging feeling that I will fall behind, in fact I feel very far behind already, I feel as though I will catch up at a slower pace).

The Urantia Book is not a book of programming code.

Well, I made no assumption it was.

It was another joke.

I was wondering whether some of your statements were jokes or not. I decided they likely weren't, since they were mixed with some very serious statements. Hard to convey such things through plain text I suppose.

People arguing their opinions as true without any factual evidence should waste some of their time exposing themselves to other ideas.

Of course. Then again when it comes to this specific subject, there are few facts ( *** IMO *** ). In my mind there are two kinds of facts. The first is what is commonly known as a fact. The sky is blue. Cement is hard. Humans went to the moon. Boats float in water. Water is H2O, hydrogen and oxygen, which are made up of atoms, which are made of electrons and protons and whatnot. I consider those facts to be "true" but not necessarily true. I'm not sure how I can explain that well, but the second type of fact is something that I believe to be an essential truth of the entire existance of everything. Infinity goes forever. Everything is relative. Hm, those are probably the only two I can think of right now. Anyways, I don't even necessarily believe those 100%, but they are the "truest" truths in my mind, at this point.

I do not find the no answers thing inspiring or depressing or amazing.

What do you find inspiring or amazing?

I have conversations about this sort of a topic regularly, and what it amounts to is that it doesn't matter how little we are capable of knowing or how much less we know now. What is important is we think and do things now.

I agree. But I think there are different types of people. There are people who are "doers": politicians, business people, probably the majority of people in general, just to different extents. Then there are the "thinkers": people that have a hard time coming up with a concrete opinion on things, and instead enjoy thinking/learning/etc about them until their heads explode. Researchers, etc. In fact at this point I think being a researcher would be the best job ever.

Take a Zoloft.

Is that sarcasm again or are you being belligerent? Yeah, my views are a bit strange. Not to get too personal, but my family on all sides has mental and emotional issues, and I'm pretty weird as a result. For the most part though, I think it's a good thing. I love having the mind I have. Then again maybe I'm just nuts. This could also be a phase, I'm not that old after all. Suffice to say that just like everyone else in this thread, I fully believe in my view on this issue. I guess that's the one common thing between everyone, we're all very close minded to a point.

 

[LH]

There isnt proof of either.

There is zero scientific proof of creation, and for those that say we are 99% chimp, well we are also 80% banana.

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: LordJezo
Think you can do it?

I doubt it.

That's what make all you evolutionists so great.. you put just as much faith in your theory as I do my God.

Sigh.....Well.....My hat is off to all the cement head bible thumpers who don't evolve. U get what u deserve.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
that guy is a $hit head, there is no way anyone in the world can have empircal evidence of the big bang. he knows he'll never pay out and he gives opportunity to the small minded myopic religious fundies who post links to his site can get all huffy about it.

The CMB is pretty damn convincing to me...

Also:

4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

Well, it can actually... and:

#1 Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang
#2 Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
#3 Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
#4 Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
#5 Macroevolution Origin of major kinds.
#6 Microevolution Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer?s expense.

Actually, the first one is so damn close to being observed he should count it. The CMB is extremely close to being perfect evidence (not PROOF, he just says empirical evidence) of that.

#2 has definitely been observed.

#3 has been observed to the best of our ability at this time. It takes millions of years for a solar system to fully develop from a gas cloud, so if he wants a movie of it happening or something, he's in for a wait. We have pictures of new stars in them middle of gas clouds, pictures of very dence areas of gas clouds that have yet to form a star in the dense part, and pictures of planetary systems...

#4 and #5 are where we are stuck and don't really have any solid evidence right now. Even though we share over 99% of our genes with chimps, you can count that as circumstantial evidence, but for proof you'll have to wait about a million years to see it.

 

[Looney]

Not trying to flame or make a personal attack, just trying to help the "scientific minded" people be a little more scientific... Although the original post and link were stupid, he did make a good point that evolutionists rely on faith just as much as creationists.

No, evolution does not rely on faith... it relies on logic and reason. Unliked faith and religion, theories such as evolution are put to the test everyday. Experiments are done, and those that agree with the theory, are accepted and added to the theories... and those that conflict with it, are then used to argue against the theory. Things don't get thrown around willy nilly and all categorized into the 'it's all done by God, lets just leave it alone'. I'm sure the religious would have us do that, but human intellect would not evolve.

As for that link, it's set up to failed... scientists have always agreed that certain theories such as cosmic evolution and stellar evolution cannot be observed... because they happen on such scale that we cannot observe them, at least not yet. But some of the others, they have been observed. Microevolution like he said, has been proven... but what he doesn't understand, is that microevolution and macroevolution are the same process. The only difference is that macroevolution is the big picture of microevolution... a macroevolled flower is nothing but thousands upon thousands of microevolutions.

And chemical evolution... how can he deny that? What does he think is happening in the sun? Organic evolution isn't going to happen any time soon, because it falls within the scale of macroevolution, so unless we have somebody that can sit and observe 100,000 years of processing, then that's not going to be happening any time soon.

But you know what? His challenge, is done every day around the world in academia. There isn't $250,000 on the line, but it's happening... and it happens with all branches of science. Everyday, theories are proposed amongst scientists, and some are accepted, and some rejected, and most are argued and talked about. That IS the scientific process.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: element®

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Looks like it's time for the weekly Creation vs. Evolution thread.

Guys, I mean, c'mon. Does it really matter? Is it worth getting angry about?

Some people (like me) support the theory of evolution. Others believe God created the world 10,000 years ago. Others believe in Allah. Others follow Buddah.

"But when it all comes down to a hole in the ground, does it really matter at all?"

Of course, being agnostic, it's probably pretty easy for me to say all this. Heh, come to think of it, agnostic is sort of the lazy, apathetic belief structure isn't it? Fits me to a tee.

Agnosticisim has nothing to do with laziness. It is merely coming to grips with reality, and the truth, that neither you, nor anyone else knows for sure the answer. You may be agnostic, and lazy, but that doesn't make all agnostics lazy now does it?

I was erm...making a joke. You know, get it, "I don't know what I believe, I don't think anyone knows the real answers". Seems to take the least amount of thought...but also happens to make the most sense to me.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Not trying to flame or make a personal attack, just trying to help the "scientific minded" people be a little more scientific... Although the original post and link were stupid, he did make a good point that evolutionists rely on faith just as much as creationists.

No, evolution does not rely on faith... it relies on logic and reason. Unliked faith and religion, theories such as evolution are put to the test everyday. Experiments are done, and those that agree with the theory, are accepted and added to the theories... and those that conflict with it, are then used to argue against the theory. Things don't get thrown around willy nilly and all categorized into the 'it's all done by God, lets just leave it alone'. I'm sure the religious would have us do that, but human intellect would not evolve.

It relies on your faith in those experiments and science in general. The same faith that humans have had in past scientific research which has been horridly wrong.

 

[Looney]

It relies on your faith in those experiments and science in general.

And what would those 'faiths' be? Empirical evidence? Logical reasoning? Those are faiths to you?

The same faith that humans have had in past scientific research which has been horridly wrong.

Horridly wrong? How so?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Chrishuff1
HAHAH! I agree with ya LordJezo I think it takes MORE faith to believe in evolution then it does God.

Thats because there is no thought process in believing in a god. If you believe in a god, thats it, everything that is is act of god. No explanantion needed. That is where you fail. Show me some scientific studies done to show that we came from Adam and Eve i.e. two lone human beings begat everyone here on Earth and then this will actually attempt to be an argument.

The problem is, science and change do to study, religion can't. Well it can, but it is immediately denied until repeatedly preached then it is accepted.

Now, I kow what you creationists will say. You will say that evolution has/is being preached, so now it is just accepted. However, evolution is backed by studies. What scientific studies have lead to theory that the Earth was created in seven days and that the human race began with two people?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

It relies on your faith in those experiments and science in general.

And what would those 'faiths' be? Empirical evidence? Logical reasoning? Those are faiths to you?

As with anything, it's tough to draw the line. Take a step back and look at it. There was evidence (yes, this argument is used too often, I apologize) that the earth was flat. It was a proven fact at one point. Or - so they thought. Things like that are why I take "facts" with a grain of salt. Who knows what we will know in 500 years that will completely contradict alot of what we "know" now. So you can either believe in the constant revision of "facts", or you can become a freak who lives in the woods who still thinks the earth is flat. If "facts" are constantly being changed, how can you at any one point in time say that they are correct, if history has shown that they will just be changed once again?

The same faith that humans have had in past scientific research which has been horridly wrong.

Horridly wrong? How so?

See above

 

[Farbio]

ugh...not ken hovind....damn, my evolution prof made us sit through a lecture by him for our class...we had to write a paper refuting or agreeing to one of his statements...of the 100 of us that suffered through his religious bullsh!t, not a one of us wrote a paper supporting his theories. that should say something i would hope

 

[Looney]

As with anything, it's tough to draw the line. Take a step back and look at it. There was evidence (yes, this argument is used too often, I apologize) that the earth was flat. It was a proven fact at one point. Or - so they thought. Things like that are why I take "facts" with a grain of salt.

First off, you're confusing facts with theories. The Earth as flat was never a theory, it was an accepted belief. There were no rationalization at all, and when there was, it was called blasphemy. Theories, such as evolution, is an organized, logical, scientific based explanation for an observation. It is not a 'fact'. Yes, i believe in it... and most scientists do. But it's a process too. We only accept what we observe or can reason out. When new observations are made, and they don't follow the theory, then it's disregarded, or argued and thought about until it becomes harmonious again.

Who knows what we will know in 500 years that will completely contradict alot of what we "know" now. So you can either believe in the constant revision of "facts", or you can become a freak who lives in the woods who still thinks the earth is flat. If "facts" are constantly being changed, how can you at any one point in time say that they are correct, if history has shown that they will just be changed once again?

'Facts' are not constantly changing. Once something becomes a 'fact', it stays a 'fact'. Two hydrogen atoms that under fusion become helium. No matter how many times hydrogen atoms under fusion, it will always come out as helium. That is a fact. The theory is the process of that. And yes, it may change... infact, there's a good chance it will change within 500 years, because we'll observe something different.

Theories are accepted and rejected all the time. Scientists accept very few universal truths. But the difference between believing in a scientific theory and believing in creation is that we have criterias and limits. Belief doesn't. What differentiates between what your acceptance of creation and ancient Taoists belief of the beginning of time? Absolutely nothing but what you wish to believe in. There are no criteria. If i believe that everytime i take a dump, my turd is a universe, i'll have as much right to believe in it as you do... if not more so. Science on the other hand would have me prove through observation or at least reasoning that my turd is a universe.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient. Omnipotence means you can do anything, including making yourself omniscient.

Why would a such a being call imperfect beings into existance to see what choices they make? To be 'worshipped'? Are we lego toys to a god? If he knew all beforehand, if he created man with full knowledge of everything which will pass, it is no different from a kid playing with toy soldiers, already knowing who will be the bad guys and who will win beforehand.
And without free choice, heaven and hell is nothing. After all, he already decided who'd go to either when creating the first human.
If god created all, he also created the choices, which means that evil originates from god. After all, if a choice is never presented to you you cannot take it either.

And why would a being, omnipotent or not, create imperfect beings and then just sit and wait who can 'join him in heaven' and who can't?

The Bible was written by men, for men. It was based on the different cultural and religious believes and habits in the region, and contains errors which got in by the ignorance about some things present in that time. If you need to believe a god dictated it to have a purpose in life and want to believe in heaven because everything is too scary otherwise, fine with me. Just don't bother me with your ignorance.

 

[reitz]

...evolutionists rely on faith just as much as creationists.

That is entirely wrong. A creationist has faith in the intangible; faith in an unseen and unheard god, in the divinity of a 2000-year-old book, and in the beliefs and experiences of like-minded people. A creationist has complete faith in something that is not just unproven, but unprovable. A creationist's worldview is complete, explaining the how, when, and why of life, and leaving no room for future discoveries.

A scientist has no room for faith of that type when trying to come up with a scientific explanation for a scientific question. The "theory" of evolution is not complete; rather it is constantly being refined. New hypotheses are proposed, tested, and rewritten. A scientist must have "faith" in his textbooks and references, in his fellow scientists and their "theories", in peer-reviewed journals, and in the results of experiments. A scientist would be a fool, though, to have "faith" in any idea without supporting evidence and careful examination.

The "faith" of a scientist and the faith of a creationist are not the same thing; to claim they are is to show a lack of understanding of science and what it aims to acheive.

I believe in evolution, but I do not use it to answer the same questions a creationist does. I'm not trying to find anything mystical or supernatural in the world, and I'm not seeking something larger than myself or a basis for eternal life. I study biology and evolution (among many other things) simply to gain a greater understanding of the world I live in and the processes that shape it. Such study requires absolutely no religious faith on my part, only a logical mind and a thirst for knowledge.

I used to be religious, and it used to drive me mad to try to explain religious faith to a non-believer. I understand faith and what it means to a theist, as I used to be one. Now I am an atheist, and religious faith has been completely absent from my life for some time. I'm not rejecting or criticising faith, it just isn't necessary for my explanations and understanding of the world around me. Just as it used to be nearly impossible for an atheist to comprehend my concept of religious faith, I now find it even more difficult to explain to a believer my absense of faith.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: LordJezo
Think you can do it?

I doubt it.

That's what make all you evolutionists so great.. you put just as much faith in your theory as I do my God.

Some of us evolve more than others.

 

[rockyct]

It's one thing to be open about how the universe was created, other thing to not even consider that a supreme being created it, and yet another thing to believe that science has nothing to do with religion. Religious people and scientists equally disregard the other group because they believe they are opposites and not just another way at looking at something. All I'm asking is for you guys is to be open and not just think of facts to prove religion or the theory of evolution. I believe that God did design and create us just as much as some of you believe that nature took it's course. It's what I believe very deeply but I won't automatically disregard others who disagree with me because I try to be open towarded science.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
isn't that like trying to prove where an electron is at any moment around an atom? u cant.

doesn't mean the electron doesn't exist.


fools errands.

people unwilling to put their own believes up to the lofty standards they put on others. its like me believing in santa yet laughing at you for not proving the existence of jesus and his divinity to my satisfaction

the same exact thing can be said about God/creationalist theory. good job showing absolutely nothing.

u can say that god cannot be proven either way yes. but u cannot use the same arguement to push creationism, which relies on pseudoscience and blatent misinformation. much creationist literature has scientific technobable thats completely dishonest and disproven. why do they do it? laymen wouldn't know any better, sounds good. its ok to be intellectually dishonest in the service of god.

just how do creationists put up their own beliefs to the lofty standards of proof they use against others? they don't. they simply turn a blind eye when it comes to their beliefs. its why they work so hard on trying to attack evolution, they can't really strengthen their own weak beliefs. scientific evidence for evolution mounts daily.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient. Omnipotence means you can do anything, including making yourself omniscient.

Why would a such a being call imperfect beings into existance to see what choices they make? To be 'worshipped'? Are we lego toys to a god? If he knew all beforehand, if he created man with full knowledge of everything which will pass, it is no different from a kid playing with toy soldiers, already knowing who will be the bad guys and who will win beforehand.
And without free choice, heaven and hell is nothing. After all, he already decided who'd go to either when creating the first human.
If god created all, he also created the choices, which means that evil originates from god. After all, if a choice is never presented to you you cannot take it either.

And why would a being, omnipotent or not, create imperfect beings and then just sit and wait who can 'join him in heaven' and who can't?

The Bible was written by men, for men. It was based on the different cultural and religious believes and habits in the region, and contains errors which got in by the ignorance about some things present in that time. If you need to believe a god dictated it to have a purpose in life and want to believe in heaven because everything is too scary otherwise, fine with me. Just don't bother me with your ignorance.

The difference between God and a kid playing with toy soldiers is that the toy soldeirs are not sentient beings with the freedom to make intelligent and informed decisions. God may know whats going to happen, but that doesn't mean he will influence the outcome, so you still have your free will. Once you know that, you have to come to the conclusion that that free will takes a lot of the control away from God, and evil - no God did not create evil. Evil is the natural tendency to do what your free-willed heart is tempted to do in the absence of God, and the misfortune that arises from it.

And as you put it, if "a choice is never presented to you" then you have no fee will, which makes everything completely meaningless. There's always a certain amount of risk involved when there exists free will, because your Creator no longer has full responsibility over all you do and you can steer the wrong way, but it is the only way we will have it if we are to be intelligent and sentient.

 

[Warthog912]

WTF is it with creationists that they feel constantly compelled to disprove evolution? You're 99% chimpanzee. Deal with it.

LOL. That is sig material!