Could the 'eye' and other complex organs have evolved from random mutation?

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're labeling all religious people one way or another. You're grouping all religions together. Religion is too vast. There are simply too many forms out there. Meaning of religion varies from person to person. You are assuming religious people simply follow that faith because they are ignorant of the past or present. That is not the case. No matter how educated society becomes, it cannot exist like we know it without religion holding it together.

Science cannot explain certain things. That is why I keep saying that to better humanity, science and religion should work together.

I don't think religious people follow their religion because of ignorance. I think they follow it because 1) they were brought up in it and it's their tradition, and 2) It explains things they don't understand or don't know.

That might be true to some extent, but if you ask religious people, they will tell you that they don't follow a certain faith because they are ignorant of a certain issue. If you read the books of the major religions, it teaches forgiveness and love and peace. If people followed the good things in those wonderful books and used common sense, there would be very little conflict on this earth. Religion teaches people to value life. It teaches them that life should be played around with - something that science sometimes has a problem with. You cannot allow science to run wild. If you do, you're no different than Dr. Mengele and the Nazis.

People who go to a temple on a daily basis have something to look up to. To make themselves better and therefore, make others better. Religion serves a purpose of bettering oneself. If you asked a priest, or a guru, or a pandit or anyone, they will tell you that religion says to enjoy your life and help yourself and others. Religion is not supposed to be strict opressive. It is supposed to be loving and caring.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're labeling all religious people one way or another. You're grouping all religions together. Religion is too vast. There are simply too many forms out there. Meaning of religion varies from person to person. You are assuming religious people simply follow that faith because they are ignorant of the past or present. That is not the case. No matter how educated society becomes, it cannot exist like we know it without religion holding it together.

Science cannot explain certain things. That is why I keep saying that to better humanity, science and religion should work together.

I don't think religious people follow their religion because of ignorance. I think they follow it because 1) they were brought up in it and it's their tradition, and 2) It explains things they don't understand or don't know.

That might be true to some extent, but if you ask religious people, they will tell you that they don't follow a certain faith because they are ignorant of a certain issue. If you read the books of the major religions, it teaches forgiveness and love and peace. If people followed the good things in those wonderful books and used common sense, there would be very little conflict on this earth. Religion teaches people to value life. It teaches them that life should be played around with - something that science sometimes has a problem with. You cannot allow science to run wild. If you do, you're no different than Dr. Mengele and the Nazis.

People who go to a temple on a daily basis have something to look up to. To make themselves better and therefore, make others better. Religion serves a purpose of bettering oneself. If you asked a priest, or a guru, or a pandit or anyone, they will tell you that religion says to enjoy your life and help yourself and others. Religion is not supposed to be strict opressive. It is supposed to be loving and caring.

I believe on a personal level that religion is a huge positive influence for a lot of people (not counting the terrorists or people who abuse their religion). However, on the macro level, religion causes a lot of problems and conflict throughout the world.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand religion in general. Its primary purpose is generally not to describe anything about the physical world that we exist in, but to explain everything else. Thus, science and religion are parallel, not opposing.

That's what it might be now, explaining everything else. But the reason religion was started, in my opinion, was for two reasons:

1) Keep the population under control (be good or you go to hell)
2) Explain the unexplanable (Where did we come from? God created us -- How did the universe come to exist? God created it -- Why are we here? God put us here to test us -- What happens if we act "good?" You go to eternal heaven and spend eternity with guess who? God.)

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

You're thinking of some version of Christianity or you're lost. One or the other or both.

It seems like I'm repeating myself. There are millions of religions out there and it is too vast to label religion and religious people one way or another.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand religion in general. Its primary purpose is generally not to describe anything about the physical world that we exist in, but to explain everything else. Thus, science and religion are parallel, not opposing.

That's what it might be now, explaining everything else. But the reason religion was started, in my opinion, was for two reasons:

1) Keep the population under control (be good or you go to hell)
2) Explain the unexplanable (Where did we come from? God created us -- How did the universe come to exist? God created it -- Why are we here? God put us here to test us -- What happens if we act "good?" You go to eternal heaven and spend eternity with guess who? God.)

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

You're thinking of some version of Christianity or you're lost. One or the other or both.

It seems like I'm repeating myself. There are millions of religions out there and it is too vast to label religion and religious people one way or another.

Yes, I'm referring to Christianity and the religons like it. I know there are other religons out there not even remotely resembling Christianity, but all religions have one thing in common: Faith in something that isn't supported by facts.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's what it might be now, explaining everything else. But the reason religion was started, in my opinion, was for two reasons:

1) Keep the population under control (Be good or you go to hell)
2) Explain the unexplanable (Where did we come from? God created us -- How did the universe come to exist? God created it -- Why are we here? God put us here to test us -- What happens if we act "good?" You go to eternal heaven and spend eternity with guess who? God.)

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

Oh, if only we were all as wise as you! :roll: Why is it that every atheist thinks he has everything figured out? Does freedom from religion instill you with your own divine wisdom and knowledge such that you can completely neglect humility and disparage everyone else? Give me a break.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand religion in general. Its primary purpose is generally not to describe anything about the physical world that we exist in, but to explain everything else. Thus, science and religion are parallel, not opposing.

That's what it might be now, explaining everything else. But the reason religion was started, in my opinion, was for two reasons:

1) Keep the population under control (be good or you go to hell)
2) Explain the unexplanable (Where did we come from? God created us -- How did the universe come to exist? God created it -- Why are we here? God put us here to test us -- What happens if we act "good?" You go to eternal heaven and spend eternity with guess who? God.)

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

You're thinking of some version of Christianity or you're lost. One or the other or both.

It seems like I'm repeating myself. There are millions of religions out there and it is too vast to label religion and religious people one way or another.

Yes, I'm referring to Christianity and the religons like it. I know there are other religons out there not even remotely resembling Christianity, but all religions have one thing in common: Faith in something that isn't supported by facts.

Faith doesn't have to be supported by facts. It is something non-religious people have trouble understaind. If mankind knew everything, then what would be the purpose of living?

Not knowing is the key here. We believe that in praying and believing we will find something. We will accomplish something. It's about keeping an open mind and taking in all the information. The more you are accepting of other ideas and viewpoints, the more chance you have of learning the truth.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're labeling all religious people one way or another. You're grouping all religions together. Religion is too vast. There are simply too many forms out there. Meaning of religion varies from person to person. You are assuming religious people simply follow that faith because they are ignorant of the past or present. That is not the case. No matter how educated society becomes, it cannot exist like we know it without religion holding it together.

Science cannot explain certain things. That is why I keep saying that to better humanity, science and religion should work together.

I don't think religious people follow their religion because of ignorance. I think they follow it because 1) they were brought up in it and it's their tradition, and 2) It explains things they don't understand or don't know.

That might be true to some extent, but if you ask religious people, they will tell you that they don't follow a certain faith because they are ignorant of a certain issue. If you read the books of the major religions, it teaches forgiveness and love and peace. If people followed the good things in those wonderful books and used common sense, there would be very little conflict on this earth. Religion teaches people to value life. It teaches them that life should be played around with - something that science sometimes has a problem with. You cannot allow science to run wild. If you do, you're no different than Dr. Mengele and the Nazis.

People who go to a temple on a daily basis have something to look up to. To make themselves better and therefore, make others better. Religion serves a purpose of bettering oneself. If you asked a priest, or a guru, or a pandit or anyone, they will tell you that religion says to enjoy your life and help yourself and others. Religion is not supposed to be strict opressive. It is supposed to be loving and caring.

Well, actually you consider religion to preach "good" things just because your culture evolved from the basic pillars of religion. Had you a different culture, sedimentated from a different religion, and you would consider most of what you today think is good in a different way.

Everything a human being think is relative to his cultural background, and even atheist and agnostic people in the US have a judaic-christian background, because that's where our laws, morality and social system originated.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why do my personal beliefs influence the outcome of this discussion in any way? They don't, and would only serve as a diversion. And again, I never mentioned the teaching of any theory in school. I'm only stating why people like ntdz should be a little more wary when waving around their generalizations like a kid who found his daddy's gun.

The problem is you advocated Intelligent Design as a valid theory, and have so far utterly failed to explain what specific sort of Intelligent Design theory you advocate. Since the name has been used in a bunch of different ways, clarification is absolutely needed in a thread in which debate will occur so others can effectively address what you are advocating. You need at a minimum to provide a link which describes the specific sort of Intelligent Design theory you support if not outright clarify what sort of Intelligent Design Theory you advocate, to do otherwise is intellectually lazy.

Its extremely annoying for others to discover that they can't even determine what some else's who is defending a position in a debate is actually defending.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
That's what it might be now, explaining everything else. But the reason religion was started, in my opinion, was for two reasons:

1) Keep the population under control (Be good or you go to hell)
2) Explain the unexplanable (Where did we come from? God created us -- How did the universe come to exist? God created it -- Why are we here? God put us here to test us -- What happens if we act "good?" You go to eternal heaven and spend eternity with guess who? God.)

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

Oh, if only we were all as wise as you! :roll: Why is it that every atheist thinks he has everything figured out? Does freedom from religion instill you with your own divine wisdom and knowledge such that you can completely neglect humility and disparage everyone else? Give me a break.

How am I disparaging anybody? Have you read some of the other posts I've made in this thread?

I believe on a personal level that religion is a huge positive influence for a lot of people

Obviously I've touched a nerve with you because you are getting angry. If you don't want to have this discussion, just leave the thread. I'm not trying to make you angry or convert you, I'm just stating my own beliefs. You can defend religion all day long, but you're never gonna provide me with the proof. Religion is a leap of faith, and I accept that. All I want is for religious people to accept that as well.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The problem is you advocated Intelligent Design as a valid theory

Actually, I just said that people here were misrepresenting intelligent design, not that ID was a valid theory.

...and have so far utterly failed to explain what specific sort of Intelligent Design theory you advocate. Since the name has been used in a bunch of different ways, clarification is absolutely needed in a thread in which debate will occur so others can effectively address what you are advocating. You need at a minimum to provide a link which describes the specific sort of Intelligent Design theory you support if not outright clarify what sort of Intelligent Design Theory you advocate, to do otherwise is intellectually lazy.

Its extremely annoying for others to discover that they can't even determine what some else's who is defending a position in a debate is actually defending.

I'm not advocating any theory. Maybe that's where you're getting hung up. I think people should come to their own conclusions on this topic. However, to do that, they must do so with correct knowledge at hand, not misrepresentations as have occurred in this thread.

However, to placate you, I'll state what I think are the two most generic forms of the theory of intelligent design.
1. Some intelligent power has guided the process of change from the first life-form to what we know as life today.
2. Some intelligent power created life and let evolution run its course.

If you believe the intelligent power is God, then one might postulate that God wrote the laws governing the universe. Accordingly, #2 is a viable option, since he could have created life, knowing full well that the universal laws that be would result in the eventuality of humanity. One might alternatively speculate that God took whatever random thing was first alive (or even that he made it) and guided it onward and upward to what we know as life today (#1). The theories are essentially similar for all intents and purposes, in no way stating anything to contradict evolution. It is also noteworthy that this is very, very different from strict creationism.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
How am I disparaging anybody? Have you read some of the other posts I've made in this thread?

I believe on a personal level that religion is a huge positive influence for a lot of people

Obviously I've touched a nerve with you because you are getting angry. If you don't want to have this discussion, just leave the thread. I'm not trying to make you angry or convert you, I'm just stating my own beliefs. You can defend religion all day long, but you're never gonna provide me with the proof. Religion is a leap of faith, and I accept that. All I want is for religious people to accept that as well.

You're disparaging religion in general with every post you make. Just one example:

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

I don't think I've ever heard a single religious person state that their religion is not based on faith. This is simply another of your hate-driven talking points that you wish was true so you could further disparage those who you hold in such low esteem, since they are obviously not your mental equals.

edit: If I was getting angry, I might be making disparaging remarks about you. Instead, I'm simply summarizing your contributions to this thread.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
How am I disparaging anybody? Have you read some of the other posts I've made in this thread?

I believe on a personal level that religion is a huge positive influence for a lot of people

Obviously I've touched a nerve with you because you are getting angry. If you don't want to have this discussion, just leave the thread. I'm not trying to make you angry or convert you, I'm just stating my own beliefs. You can defend religion all day long, but you're never gonna provide me with the proof. Religion is a leap of faith, and I accept that. All I want is for religious people to accept that as well.

You're disparaging religion in general with every post you make. Just one example:

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...

I don't think I've ever heard a single religious person state that their religion is not based on faith. This is simply another of your hate-driven talking points that you wish was true so you could further disparage those who you hold in such low esteem, since they are obviously not your mental equals.

edit: If I was getting angry, I might be making disparaging remarks about you. Instead, I'm simply summarizing your contributions to this thread.

Why is it that every atheist thinks he has everything figured out? Does freedom from religion instill you with your own divine wisdom and knowledge such that you can completely neglect humility and disparage everyone else? Give me a break.

You are getting mad at me for "disparaging religion" while you are making snide comments about athiests. Seems a little hypocritical to me. BTW, I'm not athiest, I'm agnostic.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
You are getting mad at me for "disparaging religion" while you are making snide comments about athiests. Seems a little hypocritical to me. BTW, I'm not athiest, I'm agnostic.

No, I'm not making snide comments about atheists. I'm making fact-based observations about religion-haters in this forum. Isn't that what you're championing in this thread - the supremacy of fact-based observations? I make a few and all of a sudden I'm the bad guy.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
You are getting mad at me for "disparaging religion" while you are making snide comments about athiests. Seems a little hypocritical to me. BTW, I'm not athiest, I'm agnostic.

No, I'm not making snide comments about atheists. I'm making fact-based observations about religion-haters in this forum. Isn't that what you're championing in this thread - the supremacy of fact-based observations? I make a few and all of a sudden I'm the bad guy.

You're not the bad guy at all, we just have a difference of opinion. To say that I "disparage everyone else" and "neglect humility" is slander. I'm not disparaging ANYBODY; stating my personal opinion is not disparaging at all. It's not my fault that you or anybody else can't just accept my views without feeling I'm attacking them. There is no nice way to tell a religious person that you believe what they believe isn't true, is there?

Edit: Real disparaging would be me calling religious people stupid, brainwashed and ignorant for believing in god, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that (because I don't believe that -- AT ALL).

 

[BrownTown]

So basically what I am seeing here is that whether or not you are religious pretty much determines your answer to this issue. If you are an atheist then there is no other explanation except that things happen by chance. However, if you are religious you believe in something other then random chance, and therefore beleive that complex structures such as the eye must be created by God since reandom chance seems unlikely to be able to explain such an event (I believe the theory used here is that of Occam's Razor, namely that it is alot simpler to believe that a god snapped its fingers and things became as they are then to believe that it all happened by random chances over billions of years which somehow mandated that chemicals could come together to create increadibly complex systems designed to further a continous chemicals reaction in order to bring entropy to the world at a faster rate then if the molocules had not come together.).

 

[Strk]

Does anyone else ever feel like those who consistently push ID/Creationism are mostly trying to dumb down God? Doesn't creating something that can evolve into something infinitely complex from the simplest of organism constitute a greater miracle than just saying "here you go; it's a frog!"? If it is so complex that we can never full grasp the concept, or at least reproduce it (that is, make something that can exist and evolve for millions of years), isn't that *gasp* Godly?

 

[Engineer]

Give a chimp paper, pen and infinite amounts of time and it will write every single great work known to mankind. My analogy.....

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

Or maybe religion will start to be cut down to what it's really good for: inspiring people to be virtuous. Religions like Christianity and Judaism are patently ridiculous because they explain things like the formation of life and the universe as whimsical endeavors of some mythological higher being, while giving no evidence whatsoever of this as reality or the reality of this higher being. Perhaps as scientific discoveries begin to make those aspects of the Bible and the Torah indefensible these religions will start to resemble Eastern religions such as Taoism and Buddhism. Less concerned with explaining the reason for the world's existance and more concerned with teaching people to live a good life in this world.

 

[Todd33]

Stick to politics guys, even the so called educated here have little knowledge in this field. There is no real debate, despite the noise in the news. Science shows evolution is the only valid theory supported by masses of observations and evidence in multiple fields. Religious zealots are pushing a repackaged creationism to confuse the general public. What surprises me is people like Cyclo who push this modern day flat-Earth crap.

ID has zero observables and zero credibility in science. If you want to believe God created the Universe, fine, but that has nothing to do with evolution being the mechanism that got us here. Even the Catholic church has accepted this. It seems only the American Taliban has not caught up with the 19th century yet.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The problem is you advocated Intelligent Design as a valid theory

Actually, I just said that people here were misrepresenting intelligent design, not that ID was a valid theory.

If you admit that it's not a valid theory (which it clearly isn't), the your belief in it is nothing but blind faith. If you would, please don't force your blind faith on us.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm not advocating any theory. Maybe that's where you're getting hung up. I think people should come to their own conclusions on this topic. However, to do that, they must do so with correct knowledge at hand, not misrepresentations as have occurred in this thread.

Actually, most of the misrepresentations were happily constructed by you. First and foremost, it was your absolutely ridiculous statement about some incredible differences between monkey eyes and human eyes. Since I know for a fact that this is not the case (there are differences, to be sure, but the design is essentially the same), then I must assume that you either don't understand the basis of what you're doing, or you're deliberately misinforming us.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
1. Some intelligent power has guided the process of change from the first life-form to what we know as life today.
2. Some intelligent power created life and let evolution run its course.

That's not even close to what Intelligent Design is meant to represent. ID's shtick is that some features of biological life are "too complex" to have evolved... a premise that is as ridiculous as it sounds.

#2 is something I've heard a lot of people say, but it's not intelligent design, it's just an attempt to reconcile their religion with scientific fact.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If you believe the intelligent power is God, then one might postulate that God wrote the laws governing the universe. Accordingly, #2 is a viable option, since he could have created life, knowing full well that the universal laws that be would result in the eventuality of humanity. One might alternatively speculate that God took whatever random thing was first alive (or even that he made it) and guided it onward and upward to what we know as life today (#1). The theories are essentially similar for all intents and purposes, in no way stating anything to contradict evolution. It is also noteworthy that this is very, very different from strict creationism.

They don't contradict evolution, but they contradict abiogenesis. Since RNA can be reproduced under laboratory conditions, it is ample evidence that abiogenesis could and likely did take place. Give me one tidbit of evidence for Intelligent Design please. .. real reproducible evidence, with predictive power. If you cannot, then please cease your advocacy of the issue, since it is nothing but empty rhetoric.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
You're not the bad guy at all, we just have a difference of opinion. To say that I "disparage everyone else" and "neglect humility" is slander. I'm not disparaging ANYBODY; stating my personal opinion is not disparaging at all. It's not my fault that you or anybody else can't just accept my views without feeling I'm attacking them. There is no nice way to tell a religious person that you believe what they believe isn't true, is there?

Edit: Real disparaging would be me calling religious people stupid, brainwashed and ignorant for believing in god, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that (because I don't believe that -- AT ALL).

You stated how obvious it was to you that the basis of most religions is false. How is that not disparaging? You essentially are stating that everyone who might believe these obvious lies is ignorant, stupid, or brainwashed. You just prettied it up a little.

Originally posted by: Todd33
What surprises me is people like Cyclo who push this modern day flat-Earth crap.

Maybe you can point out where I pushed anything in this thread for me, chief. I believe I'd like to see that. Just one place where I advocated any one theory. Of course you can't, because it hasn't happened, but you just thought you'd throw in one dig on me here because you can't do it in any honest debate.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The problem is you advocated Intelligent Design as a valid theory

Actually, I just said that people here were misrepresenting intelligent design, not that ID was a valid theory.

If you admit that it's not a valid theory (which it clearly isn't), the your belief in it is nothing but blind faith. If you would, please don't force your blind faith on us.

This is the most blatant strawman that I can recall reading. I clearly stated that I did not claim ID was a valid theory. You rebut by stating that I said it's an invalid theory. Clearly, the two statements are very much different.

Actually, most of the misrepresentations were happily constructed by you. First and foremost, it was your absolutely ridiculous statement about some incredible differences between monkey eyes and human eyes. Since I know for a fact that this is not the case (there are differences, to be sure, but the design is essentially the same), then I must assume that you either don't understand the basis of what you're doing, or you're deliberately misinforming us.

Of course, if you were current on your literature on the mechanisms of accommodation and pathogenesis of presbyopia (like me), then you would know that this is very much true. I recommend reading some papers by Strenk (both of them), Semmlow, and Koretz, particularly their recent MRI work. They demonstrate that how the eye of a rhesus monkey focuses is quite different from that of a human eye, and that the onset of presbyopia is caused by different phenomena.

That's not even close to what Intelligent Design is meant to represent. ID's shtick is that some features of biological life are "too complex" to have evolved... a premise that is as ridiculous as it sounds.

#2 is something I've heard a lot of people say, but it's not intelligent design, it's just an attempt to reconcile their religion with scientific fact.

How do you get to decide what ID represents? Who died and made you king? Both of the premises I put forth are very generic forms of ID theory, whether you agree with them or not. They're simply not as easy for you to shoot down, so you don't like them and will instead attempt to disparage me. That's known as an ad hominem fallacy - carve another notch in your bedpost.

They don't contradict evolution, but they contradict abiogenesis. Since RNA can be reproduced under laboratory conditions, it is ample evidence that abiogenesis could and likely did take place. Give me one tidbit of evidence for Intelligent Design please. .. real reproducible evidence, with predictive power. If you cannot, then please cease your advocacy of the issue, since it is nothing but empty rhetoric.

You have no evidence to support a theory of abiogenesis. I can make many things in a laboratory, but that doesn't extrapolate to the creation of a life form. Further, you'll note well that I never once advocated ID in any form at any point in this thread. Therefore, I recommend that you A) work on your reading comprehension, B) read this site regarding logical fallacies, and C) learn to differentiate between my actual arguments and the arguments that you wish I was using so that you could easily refute them.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The problem is you advocated Intelligent Design as a valid theory

Actually, I just said that people here were misrepresenting intelligent design, not that ID was a valid theory.

If you admit that it's not a valid theory (which it clearly isn't), the your belief in it is nothing but blind faith. If you would, please don't force your blind faith on us.

This is the most blatant strawman that I can recall reading. I clearly stated that I did not claim ID was a valid theory. You rebut by stating that I said it's an invalid theory. Clearly, the two statements are very much different.

It is or it isn't. Pick one.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

Actually, most of the misrepresentations were happily constructed by you. First and foremost, it was your absolutely ridiculous statement about some incredible differences between monkey eyes and human eyes. Since I know for a fact that this is not the case (there are differences, to be sure, but the design is essentially the same), then I must assume that you either don't understand the basis of what you're doing, or you're deliberately misinforming us.

Of course, if you were current on your literature on the mechanisms of accommodation and pathogenesis of presbyopia (like me), then you would know that this is very much true. I recommend reading some papers by Strenk (both of them), Semmlow, and Koretz, particularly their recent MRI work. They demonstrate that how the eye of a rhesus monkey focuses is quite different from that of a human eye, and that the onset of presbyopia is caused by different phenomena.

It's a pitiful half-truth. Do you really think that siting a paper that has nothing to do with the argument proves your point? It's still "an eye", with the lens between two liquid-filled cavities, with a retina, and with very similar cognitive processing pathways.

What you're saying is that an F-16 cannot possibly have arisen from the F-4, because it has somewhat different engines. They are both jet airplanes!

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

That's not even close to what Intelligent Design is meant to represent. ID's shtick is that some features of biological life are "too complex" to have evolved... a premise that is as ridiculous as it sounds.

#2 is something I've heard a lot of people say, but it's not intelligent design, it's just an attempt to reconcile their religion with scientific fact.

How do you get to decide what ID represents? Who died and made you king? Both of the premises I put forth are very generic forms of ID theory, whether you agree with them or not. They're simply not as easy for you to shoot down, so you don't like them and will instead attempt to disparage me. That's known as an ad hominem fallacy - carve another notch in your bedpost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Read, then argue.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

They don't contradict evolution, but they contradict abiogenesis. Since RNA can be reproduced under laboratory conditions, it is ample evidence that abiogenesis could and likely did take place. Give me one tidbit of evidence for Intelligent Design please. .. real reproducible evidence, with predictive power. If you cannot, then please cease your advocacy of the issue, since it is nothing but empty rhetoric.

You have no evidence to support a theory of abiogenesis. I can make many things in a laboratory, but that doesn't extrapolate to the creation of a life form.

1) There is tons of clear evidence in peer reviewed literature... from as far as decades ago.
2) Laboratory evidence provides a clear explanation, and has predictive power. It meets all criteria for being a valid explanation according to the scientific method, and supports a theory that has never been refuted in a scientific manner.

Until you provide me with evidence to the contrary, your argument isn't worth my bandwidth.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
It is or it isn't. Pick one.

Why? Why should I tell people that their theory is correct or incorrect, when you are the one who gets to define the theory? Does whether or not I state the theory as valid have anything to do with my arguments? The answer, of course, is no, but it would allow you to pin me down. I'm not going to make it so easy.

It's a pitiful half-truth. Do you really think that siting a paper that has nothing to do with the argument proves your point? It's still "an eye", with the lens between two liquid-filled cavities, with a retina, and with very similar cognitive processing pathways.

Are you going to downplay all facts that don't support your opinion as a 'pitiful half-truth'? That would be on par with your other antics, which abound with logical inequities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Read, then argue.

How does that affect what I said? Some people choose a small portion of the generic theory that I propose and stick a title on it. If you want to play that way, fine. I will call the theory I put forth ATPNID. Now, ATPNID has no bones with evolution. Will you attempt to refute the theory of ATPNID?

1) There is tons of clear evidence in peer reviewed literature... from as far as decades ago.
2) Laboratory evidence provides a clear explanation, and has predictive power. It meets all criteria for being a valid explanation according to the scientific method, and supports a theory that has never been refuted in a scientific manner.

Until you provide me with evidence to the contrary, your argument isn't worth my bandwidth.

Maybe you could provide me with some of said literature. I am actually interested in reading up on the subject. Maybe you could point out where I made an argument for or against abiogenesis or any other theory in this thread. Or, maybe you could just put down the strawman already and give it a rest.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
So basically what I am seeing here is that whether or not you are religious pretty much determines your answer to this issue. If you are an atheist then there is no other explanation except that things happen by chance. However, if you are religious you believe in something other then random chance, and therefore beleive that complex structures such as the eye must be created by God since reandom chance seems unlikely to be able to explain such an event (I believe the theory used here is that of Occam's Razor, namely that it is alot simpler to believe that a god snapped its fingers and things became as they are then to believe that it all happened by random chances over billions of years which somehow mandated that chemicals could come together to create increadibly complex systems designed to further a continous chemicals reaction in order to bring entropy to the world at a faster rate then if the molocules had not come together.).

Occams razor actually states that "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

God would be an entity which is not necessary to explain human existance.