Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[ReD_Fist]

If a tire from a car sat in one spot for years and years,it will evolve as anytthing would,it would become dust,or goo ,then dust.

Just like we have to evolve to meet the times,back then it was good to know how to start a fire.Now we don't have trouble with that ,but we may have some world plight causing some genetic disorder,after years go by,we will have eveolved to servive.

But you said above the breeding and such,dogs stayed dogs,a hoarse didn't turn into a cat,the cat was created,the pre evolved hoarse was created,but to think the dna just happened to mesh just right for all the different species on earth there would be serious proof by now ,of ware we came from.

 

[Evil_Cope]

If a tire from a car sat in one spot for years and years,it will evolve as anytthing would,it would become dust,or goo ,then dust.

Just like we have to evolve to meet the times,back then it was good to know how to start a fire.Now we don't have trouble with that ,but we may have some world plight causing some genetic disorder,after years go by,we will have eveolved to servive.

But you said above the breeding and such,dogs stayed dogs,a hoarse didn't turn into a cat,the cat was created,the pre evolved hoarse was created,but to think the dna just happened to mesh just right for all the different species on earth there would be serious proof by now ,of ware we came from.

So, you don't disbelieve in evolution as such, you are just dubious of more expansive evolution. A horse never did evolve into a cat.

And that isn't anything evolution says, either.

Lets take an example, Dogs.

The chihuahua. A small dog. A rediculous breed infact.

The bull mastiff. Bigger, powerfull, bread for fighting or something probably. A working dog perhaps? i am no dog expert.

The great dane. Big bastard of a dog, succeptable to heart problems because they are actually too big for their own cardiovascular system. (the irish wolfhound is taller, and might not be so unhealthy.)

I don't think they are genetically so seperate that they are biologically incompatible, but i would be suprised to see any great dane chihuahua crosses.

All of the above used to once be something like this chap.

That's a big change, don't you think? Dogs used to be wolves, but they aren't now. Dogs vary immensely, and some breeds are mere hundreds of years old. The whole thing is a very well documented process.

now, imagine if in mere centuries one can turn a relatively normal dog into a chihuahua, what could happen given, say, several million years? Will the descendants of todays dogs be even remotely similar in a billion years? Will they still be "dogs"?

Evolution doesn't really seek to explain the creation of life. There are theories that explain where life may have come from, but they have nothing to do with evolution itself. Evolution described the processes that life undergoes. **** like that.

what is stopping microevolution like that seen on farms across the planet every day being exactly the same as this "macro evolution", given enough time?

 

[ReD_Fist]

""""""what is stopping microevolution like that seen on farms across the planet every day being exactly the same as this "macro evolution", given enough time?"""""

OK accept,wolves are still wolves,and have been that way a long time.but for us to be as we are I don't think we grew out of matter, even after 400trillion years.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

CatFuzz dismisses this as Micro-evolution. That isn't important, my question to you, Red, (and Cat and/or anyone else who is reading and would say that they supported Creationism) is whether you believe that the above, call it micro or macro or mid-term or whatever, is indeed something that can be termed "Evolution"?

Sure. The word "evolution" needs to be defined for the disussion. There are different kinds of evolution.

When people can mess with a flowers DNA and and end up with squirrals, then I might reconsider my thoughts on the origins of life.

You Evolutionists keep pointing out species evolving into a similar species. They are simply adapting or changing to suit their envrionment. There is no evidence to suggest that a couple amino acids turned into single celled life that turned into simple multi-celled life that turned into fish that crawled up on land and turned into horses, humans, monkeys, trees, flowers and corn. The concept is utterly rediculous and based on assumptions that cannot be proven. You can show me all the horse fossils in world and line them up and show me how they evolved and that will be that but don't try to tell me that that same horse came from a fish. Thats just dumb.

 

[Evil_Cope]

excuse the wealth of dodgy examples.

Sure. The word "evolution" needs to be defined for the disussion. There are different kinds of evolution.

When people can mess with a flowers DNA and and end up with squirrals, then I might reconsider my thoughts on the origins of life.

Evolution is not one thing that exists changing into another that exists, it is simply change over time. If you admit a dog can change till it can be classed another type of dog, over say a few hundred years, what's stopping it from changing further?

Wolves are still wolves, yes. Dog's used to be, but now aren't. Dogs evolved from Wolves. That doesn't mean that wolves cease to exist Red.
Ok, lets assume we did not evolve from the primordial soup, life that spontainiously created itself. God created those first sparks of life instead, let us assume. Purely theoretically, here.
Is it so hard to imagine that those first life-forms could change? It is not a wild leap to assume that they would not all change in the same way. They diverge, over time we have several different kinds of this early life form. They continue changing. Assume a theoretically infinite amount of time, change adding onto change.

Is it impossible in this theoretical scenario that from those first god-created sparks of life, simple organisms of few cells or whatever, that life would end up massively more diverse and infinately more complex after a long enough length of time?

I don't believe there really are different "types" of evolution. There may be different processes by which it occurs, and there may be different timescales over which it is measured, but it is the same thing at the end of the day.

As far as i can tell, your main problem with Evolution, Cat, is that you do not believe the earth old enough for evolution to have actually taken place. You admit that there are at least some "types" of evolution. Lets say we micro-evolve some random creature, say, a fox. This new fox is larger, maybe slightly tougher, but slower. This isn't an unreasonable adaption, we see people do it to dog breeds.

Ok, what's stopping the new fox from evolving again? Say, Fox2 evolves again through the same process, (microevolution?) and becomes Fox3, which is slightly bigger again and sports a slightly different colour.
What stops this fox from evolving again? It is further from Fox1 than Fox2, but it is neither, it is fox type 3. It can micro-evolve if fox 1 could.

Fox5billion. What makes this breed even remotely linked to fox1? it used to be the same, but this strain of foxes has several extra limbs, no fur and spends most of it's life in the water.
Is this so impossible? How is this, micro evolution repeated several billion times, different from Macro-evolution?

I don't mean to be patronising or anything, i'm genuinely interested in what you think, but i honestly can't see the difference, Cat.

 

[bobtheking]

Speaking of being insane. This is one of the bat **** craziest things you have ever said.

how so? pretend religion had never existed before today. then someone started saying things most religions say. that person would most likely be committed.

 

[Stilgar]

how so? pretend religion had never existed before today. then someone started saying things most religions say. that person would most likely be committed.

Ok, let's pretend.

First off, I'm going to try and comprehend the ENTIRE HISTORY OF OUR RACE as a completely new progression of ideas, philiosophy and technology. Afterwards I'm going to feel compelled to consider wether asylums even exist in a form one could compare to todays institutions. All this I think fair to consider BEFORE I even think of locking up a member of society because they say a god exists and that they believe in it.

Furthermore, the issue of wether or not this person actually poses a real danger to themselves or to others would be an issue of debate. (lets assume that this religion free race has at least some vague notion of freedom of thought and/or belief) If this peson poses a real threat to themselves and others, I believe some form of new age thought correction would be in order, as it would be illogical to waste the utility of a person by chucking them in a hole.

So, in other words... wtf?

 

[Frostblood]

Oh, now you're just being harsh.

What bob was getting at is that many religous beliefs would be percieved as insane if they weren't so common. Which is true. Imagine a guy came up to you and told you that you shouldn't eat onions, because an onion has two souls inside, but potatoes only contain one. Crazy guy?

Millions of Jains ( it's a religion ) believe exactly that. They don't eat onions ( and a bunch of other things ) because that would be mass murder.

To diagnose someone as officially schitzophrenic, they have to show bizarre beliefs which are not part of their culture. If it were just "bizarre beliefs", a) how do you define that and b) that's just about everyone, because everyone believes so differently.

 

[bobtheking]

i agree its a totally wacky thing to even think the world would be the same. if it was though, i don't see how it would be considered such a big wtf. maybe not institutionalized, but most likely seeing a psychiatrist.

edit: yes, ^^^ is better at words than me.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Even in the theoretical world where religion didn't previously exist in any form...that wouldn't make them automatically wrong.
Whatever it actually is, the truth pays little attention to how many people subscribe to it, after all.

 

[Stilgar]

"What bob was getting at is that many religous beliefs would be percieved as insane if they weren't so common."

The thing is, how do you get to the point where you say 'these beliefs are insane, and these ones aren't, even though they all stem from the same fundamental belief in mysticism, gods, souls or whatever'

I think the onion example is insane. I think a lot of christians are insane, but not necessarily because they are christian, but because of the self destructive way they interpret the bible.

 

[Stilgar]

Ok, maybe 'extreme anti-social behaviour' is a better way to describe my feelings towards a lot of religous fundamentalism.

The onion people aren't hurting anyone, right? So who cares either way. Onions are good for you, so they lose out anyway.

 

[Stilgar]

i agree its a totally wacky thing to even think the world would be the same. if it was though, i don't see how it would be considered such a big wtf. maybe not institutionalized, but most likely seeing a psychiatrist.

edit: yes, ^^^ is better at words than me.

The 'wtf' was really meant to say... 'I have no idea how to imagine such a scenario to any degree of accuracy, so "what the ****" will do in its place'

 

[Cat Fuzz]

Evolution is not one thing that exists changing into another that exists, it is simply change over time. If you admit a dog can change till it can be classed another type of dog, over say a few hundred years, what's stopping it from changing further?

Wolves are still wolves, yes. Dog's used to be, but now aren't. Dogs evolved from Wolves. That doesn't mean that wolves cease to exist Red.
Ok, lets assume we did not evolve from the primordial soup, life that spontainiously created itself. God created those first sparks of life instead, let us assume. Purely theoretically, here.
Is it so hard to imagine that those first life-forms could change? It is not a wild leap to assume that they would not all change in the same way. They diverge, over time we have several different kinds of this early life form. They continue changing. Assume a theoretically infinite amount of time, change adding onto change.

Is it impossible in this theoretical scenario that from those first god-created sparks of life, simple organisms of few cells or whatever, that life would end up massively more diverse and infinately more complex after a long enough length of time?

I don't believe there really are different "types" of evolution. There may be different processes by which it occurs, and there may be different timescales over which it is measured, but it is the same thing at the end of the day.

As far as i can tell, your main problem with Evolution, Cat, is that you do not believe the earth old enough for evolution to have actually taken place. You admit that there are at least some "types" of evolution. Lets say we micro-evolve some random creature, say, a fox. This new fox is larger, maybe slightly tougher, but slower. This isn't an unreasonable adaption, we see people do it to dog breeds.

Ok, what's stopping the new fox from evolving again? Say, Fox2 evolves again through the same process, (microevolution?) and becomes Fox3, which is slightly bigger again and sports a slightly different colour.
What stops this fox from evolving again? It is further from Fox1 than Fox2, but it is neither, it is fox type 3. It can micro-evolve if fox 1 could.

Fox5billion. What makes this breed even remotely linked to fox1? it used to be the same, but this strain of foxes has several extra limbs, no fur and spends most of it's life in the water.
Is this so impossible? How is this, micro evolution repeated several billion times, different from Macro-evolution?

I don't mean to be patronising or anything, i'm genuinely interested in what you think, but i honestly can't see the difference, Cat.

Thinking deep thoughts..............thinking deep thoughts.........ouch.

K, the main problem I have is the theory that all life has a common ancestry spontaneously popping into existance some 4 billion years ago. I believe God created a finite number of animals, insects, birds, fish, etc. and the large variety of living things we have today are decendants of those God created. Sure, a fox can change over time but the fox will always resemble some dog-like creature. It will never turn into a sea turtle.

 

[ReD_Fist]

Ok, maybe 'extreme anti-social behaviour' is a better way to describe my feelings towards a lot of religous fundamentalism.

The onion people aren't hurting anyone, right? So who cares either way. Onions are good for you, so they lose out anyway.

Yes,my dad didn't allow christmass trees,trick or treat(halloween) and all other worldly things of wich we were supposed to only have fun with,I probably would goto church and practice what I preach by now if I wasn't forced to be a certain way.

However,you guys are all taliking (man made,earthly) religion and beliefs,but I will go with the bible and believe in only one god.

The other side of it is ,"pray pray pray god would of stopped that sneez or itch or will bless me with a wadd of money" thats one way,and the other is hell and damnation mode of religion.

Anyway the point is,is no man could take away my belief in a higher being,and being we did not evolve(until proven) the bible and it's teachings are a safe bet for to run societies moral and common sense daily lives,throughout time.(and please don't bring up how much death and problems it has caused) ,I am talking about now days and I am talking about commen sense people ,not radical ultra this or ultra that or strange cults etc etc.
Not believing leaves us completly un accounted for,for instance if we had no law enforcment,well the same chaos will happen afterall what is "civilized" ?
the ten commandments wraps that up in a hurry and thats only ONE thing from the bible.
So,what could the athiests offer to keep the world moral? nothing !!! because as I said before no "man' is going to be as believable as knowing there is a higher being,,God.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

When you start breaking down life, you finally reach the fact that life is a carbon-based lifeform. It’s not difficult to think of life diversifying from a common carbon-based ancestry. What else is it going to do? Life changes due to environment and other things, so what’s so hard to understand about our common carbon-based existence changing and diversifying. Now if things went the other way where everything was extremely complex and made good use of their surroundings, but changed to be extremely simplistic to the point they border on the definition of life, then that would seem wrong.

As far as all this fossil jazz goes, I’ve mentioned this several times, but it just goes in one ear and out the other: A huge portion of the earth is constantly renewing itself. The earth’s crust is made up of about 12 major plates that are constantly in motion. These huge slabs collide at places and one will dip below the other and go into the mantle and melt. At the same time, plates are rising up out of the mantle. Fossils aren’t going to survive this molten trip. Add to that volcanic eruptions, meteor dust, etc. that blankets the earth, covering up stuff. Erosion, freezing and thawing, glacier activity, floods, plants and animals….. they all do their part in erasing the fossil record.

Even with all that going on, we still have fossils to work with and study. But how many fossils have we found of man with t-rex bite marks through his skull? How many dinosaurs left hooked claws broken off and embedded in human fossil remains? None. None because dinosaurs and man did not live at the same time.

 

[ReD_Fist]

"""Fossils aren’t going to survive this molten trip. Add to that volcanic eruptions, meteor dust, etc. that blankets the earth, covering up stuff. Erosion, freezing and thawing, glacier activity, floods, plants and animals….. they all do their part in erasing the fossil record."""

So,then, it can never be proved,only in thought,hmm sounds like a religion to me.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

There is no evidence to suggest that a couple amino acids turned into single celled life that turned into simple multi-celled life that turned into fish that crawled up on land and turned into horses, humans, monkeys, trees, flowers and corn. The concept is utterly rediculous and based on assumptions that cannot be proven.

Wow...

Hypocracy much? Your telling me that creationism can be proven? That any evidence can be accumulated to support it? Of course you aren't, because your belief in creationism doesn't really suscribe to the same rules now does it?




And nobody is saying fish evolved into corn Your argueing against a theory that the other side isn't presenting. Why? Because its just fu<king stupid.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

Sure, a fox can change over time but the fox will always resemble some dog-like creature. It will never turn into a sea turtle.

You ever hear about the bird/dino theory? How birds are decendants of a common dinosuar ancestor? There are similarities in birds and dinosaur fossils that don't match any other organisms on the planet, reptile or otherwise. Can I say it is a fact, no. But I can say that it certainly isn't so farfetched.

You talked about sea-turtles. I agree that no dog is ever going to turn into a sea turtle simply because dogs and turtles are so different in so many ways, obvious ways which I don't need to mention.

But there are turtles that exist on this planet that don't have fins. That don't swim. They walk on land. Do you think that the tortise and sea turtle could have come from a single ancestor? Fins really are just hands that are developed differently anyway. Disect the skin and you still have bones for digits. BONES FOR DIGITS.

Sometimes the obvious clues really are right under our nose. You have to appreciate the significance of the fin/hand similarities. Especially when there are variations of genetic matching organisms that have fins when they swim in the water and toes when they crawl around on land.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Snakes like pythons and boas have vestigial claws and vestigial hips. These are useless to the snakes. Do a search for vestigial claws and pythons and you can read more about it.

But it’s remnants of walking features that snakes used to have when they were more like lizards. Evolution hasn’t completely erased these traces because there hasn’t been enough time to do so.

Creationists don’t like these vestigial remnants.