Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by danimal
I want you to imagine that you are walking through the woods and you stumble across a Wrist Watch lying on a tree stump. Would you choose to believe that the watch was a product of evolution..that everything in the universe just lined up correctly and fell into place...and voila...the Wrist watch evolved. Or would you chose to believe somewhere was a watchmaker that made the watch? I think you would believe the latter.

And a crowd gathered around the watch and they were amazed. Who created this beautiful thing? It must be God. And they all raised their hands to the skies and prayed. Then they took the watch and built a temple around it.

A few years later, a man appeared. "Who are you?", the people asked.

"I am a watchmaker," he said.

And lo, they were happy and they danced with glee and they raised their hands to the heavens in thanks and they bestowed great wealth upon the watchmaker (and the watchmaker was rather confused, but who wants to turn down a good thing).

Then one day, a woman asked: "you created the watch and you are god, but who created you?"

The watchmaker was stumped. "Ah, um, I exist outside of space and time."

The woman replied: "That makes no sense whatsoever."

And the people started to wonder and to doubt and there was great sorrow and confusion.

So they killed the woman and everyone lived happily ever after.

[ranskaldan]

I want you to imagine that you are walking through the woods and you stumble across a Wrist Watch lying on a tree stump. Would you choose to believe that the watch was a product of evolution..that everything in the universe just lined up correctly and fell into place...and voila...the Wrist watch evolved. Or would you chose to believe somewhere was a watchmaker that made the watch? I think you would believe the latter.

Watches don't reproduce. They don't mutate and aren't subject to environmental pressure from climate change and predators.

What a horrible analogy.

[KrazyHorse]

No, it does not matter how much pressure there is. Read the entire statement. We are talking about assembling into a complicated machine with interactive parts. Also the analogy is concerning origins so evolution is not yet in operation. A random process cannot produce an information based machine

Evolution is certainly in operation, as the author had already stipulated to the existence of a self-catalyzing molecule. As soon as you have a structure that reproduces itself evolution comes into action. I'm also not claiming that human beings sprang full-formed from the primordial ooze; that part took billions of years, with millions of intermediary steps. Your analogy is fraudulent.

1. statistics
2. syntax
3. semantics
4. pragmatics
5. apobetics

Please provide the formula which computes the "information" inside an organism's DNA and the proof from mathematical or physical principles which demonstrates that chance combined with environmental pressures selecting for the most efficiently reproductive strands of DNA cannot account for increase in "information" from generation to generation.

[Lung]

Originally posted by Tingkai


And a crowd gathered around the watch and they were amazed. Who created this beautiful thing? It must be God. And they all raised their hands to the skies and prayed. Then they took the watch and built a temple around it.

A few years later, a man appeared. "Who are you?", the people asked.

"I am a watchmaker," he said.

And lo, they were happy and they danced with glee and they raised their hands to the heavens in thanks and they bestowed great wealth upon the watchmaker (and the watchmaker was rather confused, but who wants to turn down a good thing).

Then one day, a woman asked: "you created the watch and you are god, but who created you?"

The watchmaker was stumped. "Ah, um, I exist outside of space and time."

The woman replied: "That makes no sense whatsoever."

And the people started to wonder and to doubt and there was great sorrow and confusion.

So they killed the woman and everyone lived happily ever after.

And to think - stupid creationists thought that would stump the evolutionists All they did was highlight their own ignorance

[Jack_www]

Even though I support the idea that life was created by God, I think that including theory of evolution as a wonder of the world is not bad. Reason? Because it has had a major impact on the course of human history, weather that influence be good or bad I guess would depend on who you ask.

[Sarxis]

What really gets me is that Firaxis has ascribed Theory of Evolution as The Wonder of Grand Enlightenment! (two free techs)

"Look- I am decended from monkeys! I feel smarter already." Move thimble past 'Go!' and collect two free techs.

It is hilarious, isn't it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I guess the argument is that it opened up a whole new area of possibilities for technological development that clinging to creationism wouldn't.

[Tingkai]

What I don't understand is why Christians can't see that evolution can co-exist with their beliefs. I would have thought the logical reaction would be to say that evolution is simply part of a god's greater design of the world. Didn't someone once say that god is the sum of all the natural laws of the universe.

[Urban Ranger]

A lot of them do. Creationism is not even an issue in Europe. I presume it is not an issue in Canada either.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, I guess the argument is that it opened up a whole new area of possibilities for technological development that clinging to creationism wouldn't.

But I fail to see how so? Technological development was well on its way already by the time Evolution was proposed. And technological development continues with what I suspect is little regard for evolution or creationism.

[ColdFever]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION...its seriously disturbing how evolution is passed off as fact in our culture. We teach it as fact to our children.

Evolution is the root of our social problems today.

The "Theory of Evolution" is acknowledged as a fact, as you can use it in every aspect to change life forms. It even has been use for centuries without even knowing it to develop new species via breeding, today via genetics.

Example: "God" just created wolfs, no dogs. Bobtails cannot be found in nature. However, in some US states Darwins theory is not allowed to be taught in schools anymore because it hurts the feelings of religious fanatics.

You see, religious fanatics are the root of many problems today.
The most bloodiest slaughters in history and today are lead by fanatic people who think they are allowed to speak and to act in the name of God…

In my opinion these people should get a mental treatment.
btw: I think God did a great job by creating a world that allows Evolution

[GeneralTacticus]

btw: I think God did a great job by creating a world that allows Evolution

Well, I don't believe in God, but a world in which nothing ever changed would be pretty boring, IMO.

But I fail to see how so? Technological development was well on its way already by the time Evolution was proposed. And technological development continues with what I suspect is little regard for evolution or creationism.

1) It was another blow to religious power against science (after heliocentrism). I may be biased, but I don't think that relgion meddling in science does any good at all. The two are virtual opposites.

2) It may have stimulated the discovery of genetics (evolutionists needed a mechanism to make eveloution work, and genetics fit perfectly).

3) There are other developments that have sprung from evoution, e.g. the genetic algorithms that everyone is bringing up, and also the idea that the universe was not created soly for the benefit of humans.

Also, if you want to watch creationists making a REAL mockery of themselves, check out this link:

http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sinapus
So, what, the Earth is carried on this giant turtle, right? Or was that a whole bunch of elephants?

Duh, it´s both. The Great Turtle carries the four elephants (why four you might ask? Because three is too few and five is too many...) and they in turn carry the disc known as Earth.

[Spiffor]

As a European, I was indeed surprised on how the debate about this was hot : 9 pages in less than a day ! For something I never ever discussed, and neither I nor my friends thought about discussing !
If there weren'y religious States in the US which forbid evolutionism, I suppose it wouldn't be a debate in the US either.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Tingkai


And a crowd gathered around the watch and they were amazed. Who created this beautiful thing? It must be God. And they all raised their hands to the skies and prayed. Then they took the watch and built a temple around it.

A few years later, a man appeared. "Who are you?", the people asked.

"I am a watchmaker," he said.

And lo, they were happy and they danced with glee and they raised their hands to the heavens in thanks and they bestowed great wealth upon the watchmaker (and the watchmaker was rather confused, but who wants to turn down a good thing).

Then one day, a woman asked: "you created the watch and you are god, but who created you?"

The watchmaker was stumped. "Ah, um, I exist outside of space and time."

The woman replied: "That makes no sense whatsoever."

And the people started to wonder and to doubt and there was great sorrow and confusion.

So they killed the woman and everyone lived happily ever after.

[Spiffor]

As a side note, I don't know if evolution is a valid theory or not, and I don't think I'll ever know this (I'm not a scientist). But what's sure is that forbidding it in some States is stupid : plenty of Universities teach pure assumptions, and to some extent, science itself is an assumption : it uses a given method and accepts it cannot attain THE truth... Well, I've only a few notions of epistemology (science of science), but any serious scientist will tell you science is onehumanly transformed way to apprehend reality.
Many pure assumptions of science (esp. in social sciences which I studied) are shocking, seem absurd to the common sense, are disconnected from reality and so on... But these shocking assumptions are taught in Universities, and the students have to see how correct / absurd they are, if they're given a choice (for example, Liberal, Marxist and Keynesian economic theories are taught in French highschools, the pupils can make their choice). I'm pretty sure that evolutionism and creationism are both taught in some US universities. I think it's good. Then you can see which one is scientifically serious (if any)

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
The big bang theory is also no longer suported by a majority of the scientific comunity. The theory itself defies the laws of physics today.

That is just nonsense. The big bang is well supported by the majority of the scientific community. I admit, it has its problems (mainly with respect to inflation) but it is the best theory we have.

And from this explosion came matter, came the complexity and order of the universe, the laws of nature and physics, and life.

No - the complexity comes from the physical laws, not the bang itself.

But there is something wrong here. An explosion caused complexity and order and eventualy life? ummm who here has ever created something by exploding something?

I have (indirectly anyway).

The basic law of nature and physics is that from explosions comes chaos. However somehow the universe was created by an explosion. Absurd and silly.

rubbish! Explosions are complex things themselves, still governed by complex physical laws. It is no surprise that complex things come out of them.

I am afraid that you are the only silly and absurd thing around here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But I fail to see how so? Technological development was well on its way already by the time Evolution was proposed. And technological development continues with what I suspect is little regard for evolution or creationism.

Well, scientific development (which is a bit different from tech development) expanded by leaps and bounds once the ideas of natural selection were revealed. Almost like 2 tech advances in Civ (more like 3 or 4 though, but for everyone) .

If there weren'y religious States in the US which forbid evolutionism

Except for the fact that their aren't any . Another myth about the US debunked!

However, in some US states Darwins theory is not allowed to be taught in schools anymore because it hurts the feelings of religious fanatics.

Myth! There is not a single state in the US where Darwin's Theory is not allowed to be taught.

Duh, it´s both. The Great Turtle carries the four elephants (why four you might ask? Because three is too few and five is too many...) and they in turn carry the disc known as Earth.

Ah, A'Turin. He is grand... but where he goes, no one knows .

And it isn't known as Earth, you daft sod, it's Discworld... very un-Earth .

[Jack the Bodiless]

Draco aka Se7eN:

You claim to be a veteran of this type of dicussion, but it's obvious that you are not. Have you never even visited www.talkorigins.org ? So far, every single "fact" you have posted on this thread is false!

Before you go any further, I suggest you read How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?. Read ALL of it, slowly and carefully. And then read every article in the FAQ section.

The problem you face is threefold:

Firstly, in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution has ever been discovered. Yes, I'll say that again, just to make sure it sinks in: In the century and a half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution has ever been discovered. All creationist claims to the contrary have been investigated and shown to be false.

Secondly, Biblical creationism cannot be true. There is no creationist explanation for the sequence of the fossil record (all creationist attempts, such as "Flood sorting", have failed). Similarly, the worldwide "Great Flood" wasn't even noticed by many ancient civilizations supposedly destroyed by it. And so on...

Thirdly, there is no such thing as "creation science". Many creationists use invented qualifications (e.g. "Doctor" Kent Hovind, and various "Professors of Christian Apologetics"). A handful have genuine degrees in unrelated fields such as electrical engineering. A very few have successfully gained degrees in biology or geology, but all these people were already religious fundamentalists and creationists, none were subsequently "convinced by the evidence". I have found only one with a PhD in paleontology, and none so far with any sort of qualification in Evolutionary Biology, the science of evolution itself.

Creationism consists of ignorance, deceit and propaganda. And nothing more.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN

Two words come to my mind when i think of evolutionists. Biased and denile

Two words? 1) biased 2) and 3) denile

Im here to argue that Evolution is false. IF you were willing to be patient i could however put a rather long post together based on several books i have read.

Please do. Oh, wait a moment! They are the same things I've seen a dosen times in these creation vs evolution wars. The problem is that no creationist ever even looks or tries to understand the facts which point out that the "evidence" against evolution is not valid.
"the Watchmaker analogy" Ooooh I love it. I just didn't believe anyone would still take it seriously!

You think that the creator snaped his fingers and bam here we are? Try reading Genesis. Creation gives us purpose. It gives us morals. It Distinguishes right and wrong. Granted different religions have mixed and somewhat strange views of what is right and wrong its still better than what Evolution offers us. What morals does Evolution give us? How does evolution tell us whats right and wrong? It tells us the same right and wrong, morals that Adolf Hitler used when he Murdered millions of people. Tell me, how much respect for life did Hitler have. Hitler believed in Evolution very much. So much that he thought he would use it to his benifit.

I've know evolution is a fact. I'm an atheist. I can love,care and grief as much as any sane person, and believe I can see right from wrong, just as any religious people would. I don't need Genesis and the Bible to tell me morals. I don't wan't to kill, rape, rob, mug and vote for rebuplicans. It's as simple as that. You don't need a book to tell you what good morals are, you need to start thinking what would be a good thing, what would be a bad thing.
There is a post that mentions several transitional fossils, but I guess you refuse to read it?
Damn., looks like you ran away!

[Saint Marcus]

This thread is so funny

A big cheer for the stoneage biblebelters.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

The definition of information is that which is used by Werner Gitt...

...There can be no information without a code.

Any code is the result of a free and deliberate convention.

There can be no information without a sender.

Any given chain of information points to a mental source.

There can be no information without volition (will).

There can be no information unless all five hierarchical levels are involved:

statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [result, purpose or goal].

Information cannot originate in statistical processes.

These seven theorems can also be formulated as impossibility therorems:

It is impossible to set up, store, or transmit information without using a code.

It is impossible to have a code apart from a free and deliberate convention.

It is impossible that information can exist without having had a mental source.

It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will.

It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchical levels statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics.

It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes.

It's Shannon, not Gitt, who is regarded as the "father of Information Theory". Gitt's version is widely recognized as flawed.

For instance, consider the spectrographic analysis of starlight, routinely used by astronomers to determine the composition of stars. This is the extraction of information conveyed in a code, but it requires no intelligent encoder. The natural world is rich in information that exists "without having a mental source". Analysis of that information is what science is all about.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Big bang, ive already said why its false, iits insulting to intelligence to say something was created from an explosion. However there does remain the fact that everything in the univers is moving away from a specific location.

LOL do you understand anything about the theory? An 'explosion' is the easiest way to describe it in common English but the actual physics of it are far from it. Also, everything in the universe is not moving away from a specific location... space itself is expanding, thus distant objects appear to be moving apart from each other. Unless you can prove otherwise????

[-=Vagrant=-]

Civilization Evolution technical advance could be replaced with Creationism: Lose two advances. No science for 200 turns. Religion soars.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Civilization Evolution technical advance could be replaced with Creationism: Lose two advances. No science for 200 turns. Religion soars.

And makes all citizens content until the development of scientific method.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by spicytimothy
Darwin is a Christian himself.

No. He was a christian at one time. He became agnostic over time. He stayed that way.

[Provost Harrison]

I have an issue with this use by creationists on this 'creation of information' thing. This is so clearly not true, mere conjecture. It only fulfils a usefulness to the creationist, despite having no foundation whatsoever. I mean, analyse the principle of mutation. We have evolved from single cellular organisms and their precursors right up to our present form, and we have had an increase in genetic 'data' if you will. Where did this data come from? Simple, mutation, not point mutation but insertion, duplication of DNA sections by errors in replication, acquisition of strands of DNA from the external environment (look at bacteria which can conjugate and exchange plasmids of DNA which confer new properties on the bacterium). DNA mutates, it changes the structure of the proteins it codes, alters their properties. Perhaps it alters other regions of the DNA which are transcription factors, altering when the gene is active and inactive. All these have effects, albeit subtle step by step, and a net change in information, and eventually an increase, introducing new metabolic pathways, functions for the organisms, changes in structure, etc.

There is no foundation for this 'information' thing, you can't even create a hypothesis because it just doesn't fit real world observation. It's 'fantasy' and nothing more.

And this underlying issue of 'the watchmaker' creationist defence thus falls apart if this underlying 'lie' does not apply.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by spicytimothy


This is exactly why so many ppl reject Evolution. APES DID NOT TURN INTO MEN!!!!! In the theory, Humans have the same ANCESTRY with ape, not that men came from apes.

spicytimothy

Yeah we did. An ape that was neither chimp nor australpicene was our anscestor. No sense pretending it wasn't an ape just because it wasn't a modern ape.

The generic term is Driopithocene ape.

[Provost Harrison]

The irony of it is, Draco probably believes his stuff so much and believes that he is right so strongly that he probably actually thinks he is winning this argument and that our arguments are wrong because we are 'unenlightened'. It's that level of arrogance which irritates me.

[Dienstag]

Having spent hours reading this thread as well as many external references for the topics here mentioned, I have 2 things to say about the question of the validity of evolution:

1. I cannot abide the creationist claims that evolutionists are brainwashed and not willing to listen to reason and evidence. If that were the case, then why would evolutionists actually refute the creationists' claims with scientifically sound evidence?

2. I have the distinct impression that much of the creationist evidence is the result of experiments that began with a specific result intended from the beginning. Scientists start with some questions and try to find an answer. Creationists seem to start with an answer and then try to find some questions.

The vast majority of creationist arguments against evolution appear to me to be somewhere between grossly ignorant and maliciously fallacious. If all these creationists truly believe that their evidence proves their hypothesis, let alone disproves the theory of evolution, then I am truly concerned for their intellectual well-being. This is the kind of thinking that I would not prefer to see in positions of responsibility, like teachers or government officials. This is also the kind of thinking that makes productive debates exceedingly difficult. I hope that the anti-evolution posters spend some serious effort examining the evidence and (as scientists often do) re-evaluate their beliefs. I'm sure we'd all be better for it.