All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

lo_res_man · Tue 18/04/2006 21:01:30

I admit, yes the laws of thermodynamics could be proved wrong. of course they can. But there is much observable proof. .that the likelihood is quite unlikely. if you can prove that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, please take a bow and claim your Nobel prize.
(Edit)
I already read that, The example they claim creationists agree upon are NOT spontaneous. A seed, a chick are directed by the encoded information within genetics. The salt crystals are given order by the chemical laws that govern there molecular structure. Maybe I don't understand thermodynamics, I have about reached the limit of my understanding here, but it doesn't have to do with thermodynamics, but I still think evolution doesn't make sense.

Fuzzpilz · Tue 18/04/2006 21:10:03

Examples are examples. The examples aren't the point. The point is that the law doesn't say "order can't form spontaneously". And I'll just say it a third time, in the hope that maybe this time you'll notice it: YOU AREN'T TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION. Even if all current ideas about abiogenesis are wrong and the first primitive lifeforms on Earth came about because an advanced civilization of space robots decided they'd allow themselves a little practical joke, that would still say nothing about the validity or invalidity of all the piles and piles of evidence in favour of evolution.

lo_res_man · Tue 18/04/2006 21:26:13

ok, "abiogenesis". Geesh, semantics. (your right)
meaning " an orgin of life, without life" right?
fine "abiogenises doesnt make sense to me"
but now if you want, lets discuss evolution.

Grapefruitologist · Tue 18/04/2006 21:38:05

Sorry for responding so late, I forgot about this board.
I found some links to the websites of the shows I mentioned, they should give some evidence like the ones I was talking about...
http://www.thecreationnetwork.org/index.htm
http://www.creationevidence.org/

I will read the links you posted about evidence for Evolution...
EDIT: Um... I can't find the links... what were they again?

Adamski · Tue 18/04/2006 22:36:16

Any sites with a non-religious bias would be more welcome.

lo_res_man · Tue 18/04/2006 22:58:36

well both sides of the issue should be welcome.thanks Grapefruitologist. and Adamski ? post some yourself, it would be most welcome. thanks in advance.

Adamski · Tue 18/04/2006 23:17:15

Fuzzpilz and Becky have already provided enough reading material to back up anything from my camp.

TheYak · Wed 19/04/2006 00:27:38

One of the more interesting things about creationists is that they claim to have beliefs founded upon things not based in human understanding. The god of the bible is so far beyond human understanding that there is no chance of us being able to grasp him in our limited states. Additionally, a Christian is asked to believe that a being could be around for eternity, which invites a person to extrapolate some concept of what eternity might be.

Why, then, is the only creationist argument relying upon refuting probabilities and claiming too vast a complexity to be possible?

Given a starting point to theorizing without bias, the two theories would seem to have the same requirements except that there is some understanding in evolution of the complexity of the process and doesn't require one ignore probability.

There are also foregone conclusions that are a bit disconcerting. It is believed that for life to have come about on this planet, its complexity requires that a super-omni-being willed it into being. If I were a proponent of Intelligent Design theory, I would find it far more conducive to convincing others if I were to ask them to envision an eternity in which life always existed in a never-ending cycle between higher lifeforms and simple ones. I'd have to admit from the onset that I had no logical arguments for an omnipotent being with a proclivity for creating sea monkeys, but that the recipients of my lectures were required to share a modicum of faith.

The plane in the junkyard argument is tiresome, not only does it not come from a perspective of understanding the process (or even attempting to), but the analogy doesn't equate to reality. It's the same quality of argument that it was when I heard it first some time in the 80's, with no adaptation for any more recently acquired understanding. I've regurgitated the same basic phrase on occasion.

Sensing that belief in "spontaneous" generation was an argument that would make secularists question the existence of a deity, an attempt to create a "logical" refutation was made. Unfortunately, it's been proposed by those without any knowledge of what they're equating their 747 to. Those more knowledgeable in the field of biology that have offered the same analogy conveniently revert to their faith-based training when arguing against things on an evolutionary scale.

The tornado argument takes a seemingly random, high-velocity force and claims it has no chance to create a machine of the same complexity as a 747. If we discard the idea that a 747 is created from man-made materials that are inherently only as stable and suited to their purpose as our current knowledge allows, we might reduce the ingredients for our mythical plane to levers and gyros. Now if one were to argue that a force passing through a collection of materials had no chance of producing a simple machine such as a lever, I would question either their sanity or their understanding of probability. If that same person argues that in the pre-described system wherein after many generations of levers and gears, once they've shown an inclination to work together towards higher complexity in order to continue existence, that it wouldn't be possible in the span of eternity, given a near-infinite variety and quanity of raw materials to create a complicated machine that is the natural end result of the inclinations of the simpler machines, then I'd have to assume it was because they had a different agenda.

And that's what the argument all comes down to. One attempt is to understand, explain, erase the chalkboard and start trying to figure out the puzzle again. The other agenda is only to dash apart any attempt at explanation. That's the extent of the creationist argument - not to further understanding or promote knowledge, but to kill the lot of it.

If you'd asked somebody from a previous century (let alone somebody from the time the Bible was written) to accept that people would one day create machines from components manufactured on a microscopic scale that had the potential to create imagery that could conceivably replicate the visual and audio aspects of a human being, they'd know beyond all doubt that either the person was insane, or given proof that the person had used some sort of supernatural force to bring this into being. Today, however, every person reading this thread can conceive that possibility, and a good number would claim it to be exceedingly likely to be achieved in their lifetime.

Asked to explain how a goldfish could be created by shaking a goldfish bowl, we're conveniently asked to disregard the infinite beyond the bowl.

[Inserting a brief note - realizing how long-winded and redundant my posts are; a brief thank-you to those reading my inanity]

lo_res_man · Wed 19/04/2006 00:39:30

Quote from: TheYak on Wed 19/04/2006 00:27:38
Asked to explain how a goldfish could be created by shaking a goldfish bowl, we're conveniently asked to disregard the infinite beyond the bowl.

But when you say the universe is infinite, something that would explain all my qualms except WERE the universe came from, you run it oblers paradox ( it hink that is how it is spelled)

TheYak · Wed 19/04/2006 00:49:39

So it's more logical to accept that a infinitely-capable being that has existed beyond the scale of the universe made it merely by force of will? Really, if we're attempting a logical conversation that argument seems a bit like pissing in the wind. Don't misunderstand me, I've no intention of refuting matters of faith and appreciate the civility with which the proponents of creationism (I'm not even bothering with the ID euphemism anymore) have approached the discussion. However, continually entering a discussion based around words, facts, and proposals armed only with the hypocritical argument of, "You actually expect me to belief that? Well, I expect you to believe this," without admitting that the scales only tip in your favor if you introduce a quantity of faith, becomes tiresome.

It actually seems to come down to the debate between two religions as to which is correct, except that one of them has some (even allowing for discrepancies and theory gaps) basis in the observation of nature. This is not to propose that I can even approach the subject of abiogenesis with anything approaching comprehension, but speaking about one group versus another.

[Damn, I keep editing this post. In all fairness, Adamski, it would be difficult to prove that the sites referenced by Fuzzpilz and Becky weren't biased against religion]

Adamski · Wed 19/04/2006 01:34:16

That's not entirely my point - science isn't around to disprove religion (Stephen Hawking believes in God and he's the guy that came up with the mathematical evidence to support the Big Bang), but these sites are around specifically to push a religious agenda that disproves science (you've so much as stated this yourself in your post). The fabric of the 'creation evidence' site is interwoven with so much christian bias it even comments upon the Da Vinci Code on it's main page which is completely irrelevent to the subject it's trying to tackle - and the concept of Dinosaurs and Humans coexisting is undeinably hokum to anyone who isn't determined to ignore conclusive evidence to the contrary and wants so desperatly to take the Bible story of creation literally.

It's just a step away from trying to convince everyone that the world is really flat.

The Inquisitive Stranger · Wed 19/04/2006 03:12:51

Quote from: lo_res_man on Tue 18/04/2006 21:01:30
...I still think evolution doesn't make sense.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein

Paper Carnival · Wed 19/04/2006 07:07:41

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

HillBilly · Wed 19/04/2006 07:20:52

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment"
- Albert Einstein

Also, check out the Atheism Web:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#einstein

Helm · Wed 19/04/2006 09:48:33

Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Wed 19/04/2006 07:07:41
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

Oh no, why are we playing the quote game? Are we calling expert witness testimony with the people who have seen god or what? Is this 'people smarter than you believe in god'? Because if it is you very well know there's an equal amount that don't etc etc really worthless argument

Andail · Wed 19/04/2006 11:14:13

I think many theists did a relatively good job on arguing creationism before this absolutely inane concept of Intelligent Design came up.

To me the whole deal seems like the outcome of some corporate think-tank meeting, where fundamentalist bigwigs realised they needed something more catchy if they wanted to keep condemning gay marriage and abortions, since people started to grow pretty intelligent about the whole religion-issue whereas they did not.

I wouldn't be surprised if George Bush, after his next concluding "and may God bless America", went on with "....and here's our new logotype!", showing Intelligent Design on some bloody star-spangled banner and an eagle holding a giant brain in his claws.

Helm · Wed 19/04/2006 12:45:24

Quotebloody star-spangled banner and a crying eagle holding a giant brain in his claws.

fixed

Paper Carnival · Wed 19/04/2006 13:09:35

Quote from: Helm on Wed 19/04/2006 09:48:33
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Wed 19/04/2006 07:07:41
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." - Albert Einstein

Oh no, why are we playing the quote game? Are we calling expert witness testimony with the people who have seen god or what? Is this 'people smarter than you believe in god'? Because if it is you very well know there's an equal amount that don't etc etc really worthless argument

True, I only posted that because the person before me posted a quote of Einstein and those quotes came to my mind.

Quote from: HillBilly on Wed 19/04/2006 07:20:52
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment"
- Albert Einstein

I didn't think Einstein was christian (in fact I knew that his origins were Jewish). I thought this debate was theism vs atheism and not christianity vs atheism. However, I didn't know he was agnostic. I've always had the impression (and maybe I'm right) that Einstein did have a belief in at least some sort of a Higher Power that was responsible behind the universe.

I never supported Creationism in this thread but I support the idea that there is some sort of designer behind the universe.

Becky · Wed 19/04/2006 15:23:34

Grapefruitologist, the links again:

Talk Origins - A website devoted to explaining the creation vs evolution debate, with several essays detailing misconceptions about evolution and backed up with relevant studies.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1 - More than 29 examples of macroevolution.

Observed Instances of Speciation - Observed examples of speciation, as in, one species being no longer compatible in a reproductive or morphological sense, therefore becoming a different species.

Wikipedia on why fossils are rare - a brief explanation on why not every single member of every single species ever to exist on Earth is not fossilized.

The Taylor "Man and Dinosaur" Tracks - On how elongated dinosaur prints have been mistaken for hominid prints. It even has pictures!

Evolution Timescale - Evolution happened over a really really big period of time. It takes 2 billion years before you get organisims with more than one cell.

QuoteIn all fairness, Adamski, it would be difficult to prove that the sites referenced by Fuzzpilz and Becky weren't biased against religion.

Science is about observing and measuring the world we live in in an attempt to greater understand it. It isn't about "disproving religion", in fact it can perfectly well exist with or without religion. Abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate matters, and it is not necessary to lose belief in a god to accept the evidence of evolution. If you could be bothered, you could go and find every scientific paper referenced on Talk Origins and other sites to read and check and decide for yourselves, but no one has all the time in the world to do so.

Websites that call evolution a "conspiracy" rather than provide evidence do not help sway any argument. Arguments such as "there was a great flood - look it matches the Bible!" and "cells are complicated" do not counter the idea that life evolved.

Edit: Fixed link.

lo_res_man · Wed 19/04/2006 17:12:07

No those arguments don't. In fact they hurt the argument. Btw Becky your "29+" link isn't working. Hillbilly I don't believe in a God that works on a "basis of reward and punishment"
One interpretation of the New Testament says that the Christian doesn't god doesn't work that way either. But that is beside the point. Becky. Yes of COURSE not every creature fossilised. That is of course perfectly logical. BUT doesn't it seem rather odd that the creatures that we find in the fossil record are almost exclusively the either completely new, or almost exactly like the ones we see now. Just a thought