God, if He exists, would have to be a very very very complicated thing indeed.
Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", starts off by mocking a young, stupid, ignorant creationist and makes the audience laugh at his expense. Earlier, Dawkins had trashed Liberty University, where this kid is a student. But once this kid asks the second and third questions, Dawkins realizes kid is not as ignorant and stupid as Dawkins thought. Dawkins is then forced to stop mocking and get serious about answering the kid's question.I loved how the cynics in the room got DEATHLY SILENT, when the student started to challenge Dawkins. Dawkins' posture changed when he realized this young man was as every bit as deep as he is, if not deeper.&mode=related&search=
So, in other words, for Dawkins it is "a whole lot easier to accept" that Nothing created everything out of nothing than it is to accept that God created everything out of nothing. ::)
Oh, and also
Wow, what an observation! ::)
He's English. He's right by default.
It leads to the question of: Who created this very complex thing know as "God"?
Beyond your comprehension, loco? How did he just come into existence? Balls in your court.
It's hard for me to accept that nothing was created out of nothing. That in it's self should prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch
And EVEN IF this did "prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch," why does it have to be Yahweh, and not Zeus, Poseidon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
;D
So was Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, a devout Christian whom Richard Dawkins described as "the greatest of Darwin's successors."
Dawkins, Richard (1995). River out of Eden.
He was "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"
Hald, Anders (1998). A History of Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley.
"a deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines." H. Allen Orr. the Boston Review Gould on God Can religion and science be happily reconciled?
Just because you or I have a hard time understanding something doesn't prove or disprove anything.
I have a hard time understanding Shakespeare, Milton, fluid mechanics, macroeconomics, and computer science. That doesn't say anything about these fields but it does say something about me.
The wrong reasoning you display above probably explains how so many gods came about.
People didn't understand the sea, its tides and waves and storms and whims, so they invented Poseidon.
People didn't understand thunder and feared its destructive power, so they invented Thor.
People didn't understand rain, and thought they could get rain by worshiping rain gods, so they invented rain gods.
People didn't understand the germ theory of disease, so they invented "sin" and claimed that disease was a punishment for sin (whether the sick person's or someone else's).
etc
And EVEN IF this did "prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch," why does it have to be Yahweh, and not Zeus, Poseidon, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
all point to intelligent design from a higher power.
so if the planet doesn't seem like it was created for mankinds survival (according to your own criterion) then it follows logically that the universe must not have been created by God? Huh
No. All the scientific evidence points to a universe without design. In particular, the universe was not designed with mankind in mind.
If there were a god that created a universe for mankind, the universe would look very different. For one thing, such a universe would have only one planet, not BILLIONS OF BILLIONS.
There wouldn't be comets and asteroids hurtling towards that planet that may crash into it and cause mass extinction of mankind, such as what happened to the dinosaurs.
The sun wouldn't emit radiation that is harmful to man.
Life on that planet wouldn't have taken a few billion years of evolution and natural selection to produce mankind.
Life on that planet wouldn't include predators and parasites that kill or harm mankind (i.e. no lions, no viruses, etc).
That planet wouldn't contain vast oceans, vast deserts, and vast arctic regions that are uninhabitable by man (think of most of Canada, most of Russia, the African Sahara, etc) because they are useless to man.
That planet wouldn't have a turbulent weather system (tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, etc) that harm mankind, nor volcanoes and earthquakes.
The above are a few characteristics of what a world designed by a god for mankind would look like. Our world clearly is NOT like this.
Ergo, the evidence points against any intelligent design.
Who says god created the universe for mankind? I don't think so, there's almost no evidence other than earth.
Why couldn't god have decided to create a universe with laws of physics? why couldn't he have started with a single cell animal and developed it eventually into dinosaurs and then mammals and then humans? ....Try looking in terms of creating something that works, a world, universe etc that works and being able to put creature in this universe that can live strive and better itself, that can deal with adversity, triumph and failure, can love and hate etc...
Look at the human body, and it's ability to reproduce, grow, develop, problem solve, repair it's self, all the fight or flight mechanisms, adrenalin, sleep, etc....
Looks very intelligent to me.
First you say
Then you say
So which is it?
You say you think that the "design" of the human body is intelligent. There are many, many reasons proposed by biologists for why they believe that the human body was not "intelligently designed." Here are a few off the top of my head:
1. The human is actually backwards, with optical nerves going outwards then heading towards the brain.
2. A very big chunk of our DNA is useless, "junk DNA," a relic of our evolutionary past.
3. An intelligent designer would have removed our tail bones and appendices, also relics of our evolutionary past.
4. Our bodies were "designed" to walk on all fours for many millions of years. It is only in the past few million years that we have begun to stand upright. That explains why hernias, back injuries, knee and hip injuries are so common among humans. These organs were not "designed" for walking upright.
The only designer of the human body is evolution, a blind designer. That does not make me "spiritually dead," as you allege. It only makes me a person who makes up his mind after carefully looking at the evidence. In fact, I am very much spiritually alive.
Finally, I should remind you that evolution is a PROBABILISTIC process, in the sense that if you think of the evolution of life on earth as a cassette tape, and you hit the rewind button into the distant past, then hit play again, things might play out very differently.
For example, if the first vertebrates, that lived in the ocean about 450 million years ago, had gone extinct, then all vertebrates today, including all of us mammals ,all reptiles, etc, would not be around today.
...But that doesn't take away form the things i pointed out.
Yes it does. I demonstrated that humans cannot be considered "intelligently designed," and that our universe was not "designed" with mankind in mind.
The god you have in mind would be a senile, incompetent, tinkering inventor who can't get anything right in the first ten million tries, has a giant pile of evolutionary junk accumulated because of all his mistakes, with 98-99% of all species he created now extinct, can't keep comets and asteroids and volcanoes and earthquakes and weather patterns from destroying his work in progress, and he still can't get it right with humans after 4 billion years of life on earth.
Yes, how would we ever experience love, triumph, learning, etc without tailbones, appendices, junk DNA, the HIV epidemic, asteroids, comets, plate tectonics, and tsunamis, and Hurricane Katrina...
You think if "god" created the universe it should be close to perfect.
No I do not. You are interpreting things your own way. I AM saying that IF the universe is intelligently designed, then it should DISPLAY EVIDENCE of being intelligently designed.
The universe does not display evidence of being intelligently designed.
Therefore, the evidence strongly suggests that the universe was NOT intelligently designed. QED.
That is what I am saying. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Why do we have so many built in bodily defenses from infection, over heating, fatigue etc. ?WELLL DUUUUHHHHH... How can you not see the natural selection in this one? Evolution selected for those genes that would provide for bodily defenses from infection, etc, since those people without these genes died out, and their genes died out with them.
Your "evidence" of intelligent design is not evidence at all. Since I am tired of saying the same things over and over to you and you insist on being immune to reason, I will pick only one:WELLL DUUUUHHHHH... How can you not see the natural selection in this one? Evolution selected for those genes that would provide for bodily defenses from infection, etc, since those people without these genes died out, and their genes died out with them.
Everything has a perfectly reasonable explanation. We do not need to resort to magic and superstition. If you insist on saying that some god exists, then suit yourself.
remember, evolution is still a THEORY and until it's billed as fact it's only a opinion.
evolution is both a fact and theory. There is no doubt that changes in species occur over time. The mechanism responsible for this natural phenomena is explained by the theory of evolution.
C-62 i really don't give a shit. Like most athiests you lack the ability to see past black and white.Epic generalization.
A really good example is when you keep saying the same thing over and over and can't see that I agree with you.
Maybe i should simplify:
God or no-God cannot be proven.Only in the strictest mathematical sense of "proof." Just because some hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved, doesn't mean that it is equally likely to be true or false. EVIDENCE, as I have described to you above, strongly REJECTS the "god as intelligent creator" hypothesis in favor of the "no intelligent creator" hypothesis.
I assert that evolution might be in part how Humans were created by God.And I demonstrated that such a god would be the most incompetent, inept tinkering inventor with a massive pile of useless junk who still can't get things right after 4 billion years of trial and error.
I assert that our imperfections and those of the universe are part of system created by God to make living what it is, including perhaps, to challenge people who need total proof. There will never be proof. It's matter of faith.So you have faith that God made all this and never gave any proof so that they will have faith. You need to have faith to assume that God exists in order to have faith. This is entirely stuff you have made up.
I do not believe in magic or superstition even though you imply i do.You believe in God. Does he have supernatural powers? Can he perform miracles? resurrections? virgin births? If you answer yes to any of these, and have no evidence for it, then you are superstitious by definition.
remember, evolution is still a THEORY and until it's billed as fact it's only a opinion. (is this the part where you assume i believe in fairy tails?)It is established fact. Gravity is also a theory, and it is also established fact. Same with Euclidean geometry and thermodynamics and Newtonian physics. Evolution is as real as gravity, and it won't go away if folks like you or loco deny it, just as you won't be able to fly even if you say "Gravity is just a theory."
ok....... but why is it still called theory? Why is not a 100% fact?
wow, just wow. You made yourself look very ignorant. :o
If it's proven, i would think they wouldn't call it a theory, but you are the scientists so maybe you can tell me.
Thanks for posting those vids, loco. I have seen them before.
If you are genuinely interested in the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, Victor Stenger elaborates on it in his book "God: the Failed Hypothesis." (I know the title is not appealing to you, but he makes some good arguments, with lots of nice references, and on this point in particular he writes from a physicist's perspective.)
As for Liberty U., may I ask if that's where you got your degree from?
damn, columbusdude82 is laying a whoop ass on the believers in here. ;D
You might as well argue that he was a good scientist, and that he always had bad breath, therefore bad breath and being a good scientist are somehow related.
About R.A. Fisher, yes he was brilliant. Yes he was religious. Why is his good science an argument for his religious beliefs being true?
He's English. He's right by default.
It's hard for me to accept that nothing was created out of nothing. That in it's self should prove the existence of a higher power beyond what we can see hear and touch
When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.
Dawkins believes that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." Richard Dawkins, 2006. The God Delusion. p. 50.
::)
Curious to see whether those who claim to come from piltdown man/ monkeys/primordial sludge etc can actually provide evidence of fossils of these so called "hominids" that we all descended from .
Artistic drawings of these monkey men doesnt count.
When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.
Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?
HardlyI didn't think so either. lol
Curious to see whether those who claim to come from piltdown man/ monkeys/primordial sludge etc can actually provide evidence of fossils of these so called "hominids" that we all descended from .
Artistic drawings of these monkey men doesnt count.
Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?
I didn't think so either. lol
don't bother entertaining his nonsense. It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale. Here is the rest of the interview which Loco conveniently left out.
MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you - the detective - hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue.
of course you're not going to admit when your side is losing. Who does? After all, this is the internet. ::)
And what did you add to this that makes it any better?
to distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. It's apparent that you either don't know the difference or are purposely being deceitful by quote miming.
ok....... but why is it still called theory? Why is not a 100% fact?
wow, just wow. You made yourself look very ignorant. :o
Far be it for loco to ever go quote mining...
Or maybe there is another alternative, that I do know the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and that I am not purposely being deceitful by quote mining, but that I am simply responding to your insult of OzmO's intelligence when he asked the same question that Bill Moyers asked Dawkins, as if your insults validate your argument.
evolution is both a fact and theory. There is no doubt that changes in species occur over time. The mechanism responsible for this natural phenomena is explained by the theory of evolution.ok....... but why is it still called theory? Why is not a 100% fact?
loco, you can provide sources for your quotes and still be guilty of quote mining. The problem with your Dawkins comment is that it was taken out of context. By reading the rest of the interview, it's obvious that he was referring to evolution on a much grander scale than, say, a bacteria mutating into a new species.
Moyers did not ask Dawkins "Is macro-evolution a fact?"
Okay. So you are saying that evolution on a much grander scale, such as bacteria mutating into a new species is not a fact.
of course you're not going to admit when your side is losing. Who does? After all, this is the internet. ::)que? ???
no, but macroevolution is what most people think of when they hear the term "evolution." I believe Dawkins was purposely 'dumbing down' his responses in order to reach a broader audience.
I gave the example of a bacteria mutating into another species to show what Dawkins was not referring to. Evolution on a large scale is a fact. The mechanism responsible for this change over time is described by the theory of evolution. In science, a theory can never become fact. Gravity is also both a fact and theory. It's a fact that if throw an object into the air, it will fall back down to earth. The theory of gravity explains why larger bodies of mass attract smaller bodies.
OzmO, we ARE apes. We are a species of African apes. Our closest living relatives in the ape genus are chimpanzees. We and the chimpanzees have a last common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. This has been proven definitively, regardless of what the likes of loco might tell you :)
It was proven well over 10 years ago. It is old news, as newsworthy as "Hey did you hear they tore down the Berlin wall?"
OzmO, we ARE apes. We are a species of African apes. Our closest living relatives in the ape genus are chimpanzees. We and the chimpanzees have a last common ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. This has been proven definitively, regardless of what the likes of loco might tell you :)Oh ya its been proven (macro-evolution), when dr.Brown built a time machine and actually met some of our ancesters.
Has evolution on a much grander scale, such as bacteria mutating into a new species, been observed while it is happening? Has macro-evolution been observed while it is happening?
Is it a proven fact that we evolved from apes?
If yes, what of the "missing link"? Or is that a BS thing made up by opponents of evolution?
Columbusdude lying again.When was this proven that we are relatives of the ape?Also still waiting on YOUR fossil evidence to prove that we evolved from apes.Its not up to us as non believers in your theory to provide the evidence,the burden of proof is upon you my short friend.
Come up with evidence beyond reasonable doubt (not artists drawings) solid fossil proof whether it be full skeletons, families, mass graves etc whatever.
Heres the thing,you come up anything beyond reasonable doubt ill firstly delete my account here never again to call you out on your crap.
why are you asking me questions that you can easily find the answer to online?
loco, if you are referring to that particular interview, Dawkins discusses it in his book "The Devil's Chaplain." He tells of how he was 'ambushed' by a bunch of Australian creationists who disguised themselves in order to get the interview with him, and then messed around with the tape.
A leading world authority on biology and Oxford University professor doesn't get stumped on trivial questions :)
In other words, you don't know.
I do know the answers. I just find it lame that you are asking a barrage of questions in a weak attempt to stump columbusdude or me.
Even if we didn't know the answer, that does absolutely nothing to prove evolution wrong.
I also find it pathetic that you have the time to research information when it favors your views yet you act mentally challenged when it comes to learning about science.
Perhaps you can use Google or any search engine of your choice, or perhaps even go to a library! :)
evolution predicts that humans and apes share a common ancestor. You could say this is a proven fact thanks to the insurmountable evidence that supports this hypothesis.
it's virtually impossible to identify a missing link. We may find a fossil that looks promising but that doesn't mean we won't find a fossil that more closely 'fits the bill," so to speak, in the future.
I'm just trying to understand this.
Is it directly proven we descended from apes or is it the evidence that suggests strongly we did?
you keep asking if we evolved from apes. The simple answer to your question is "no." Humans and apes share a common ancestor. You could say we evolved from an ape-like creature. It hasn't been directly proven no more than you can prove the sun will rise tomorrow without actually using a time machine and going into the future. However, the evidence strongly points in favor of this occurance.
See: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/images/bigtree2.GIF
We didn't evolve FROM apes. The apes you see in the world today are our cousins and share an ancester closer to use than say a fish.
The apes of the world are as evolved as we are.
Where is fossil evidence that we descended from apes or carry a similar ancestor?No drawings from scientific journals either please.
Your article was nice but however i just discovered that my dog actually has eyes sorta like mine.Has limbs sorta like mine give or take a paw or two and hey it even craps outta the same hole sorta like me!
Evidence please.
Where is fossil evidence that we descended from apes or carry a similar ancestor?No drawings from scientific journals either please.
It doesn't exist. If there was a common ancestor the fossil record would be full of transitional fossils. What you have instead are theories and artists renditions of what those supposed transitional creatures looked like.
Amen brother.Yet these evolutionists say that we are deluded.
(http://rationalrevolution.net/images/hominids2_sm.jpg)
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, 2.6 MYA
(C) Australopithecus africanus, 2.5 MYA
(D) Homo habilis,1.9 MYA
(E) Homo habilis, 1.8 MYA
(F) Homo rudolfensis, 1.8 MYA
(G) Homo erectus, 1.75 MYA
(H) Homo ergaster 1.75 MYA
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, 300,000 - 125,000 YA
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 70,000 YA
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 60,000 YA
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, 45,000 YA
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon 30,000 YA
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
(http://rationalrevolution.net/images/Fig_04.gif)
(http://rationalrevolution.net/images/humanskullevosm.jpg)
click to view larger
http://rationalrevolution.net/images/skullevopanhomo.jpg
evolution theory predicts that there have been millions of transitional organisms. It does not predict that all these organisms were preserved as fossils. Just b/c there are gaps in the fossil record does not mean we can jump to the conclusion that no more fossils are left to be discovered.
Where is fossil evidence that we descended from apes or carry a similar ancestor?No drawings from scientific journals either please.
Your article was nice but however i just discovered that my dog actually has eyes sorta like mine.Has limbs sorta like mine give or take a paw or two and hey it even craps outta the same hole sorta like me!
Evidence please.
An excerpt that immediately precedes these "transitional fossils":
"Below is a series of skulls believed to be from the recent human family tree. Not all of the skulls are believed to be direct ancestors of modern humans. The first skull is actually that of a modern chimpanzee. The exact classifications of the skulls are listed below. Those in bold are thought to be direct ancestors of modern humans."
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm#Evidence_of_Evolution
Sounds pretty equivocal to me. These skulls are either human or monkey (ape, etc.). They aren't transitional fossils, showing a half man/half ape skull. Those types of fossils don't exist.
How do you predict something that already happened?
We haven't found any. If there was this mass transition from one species to another, that resulted in all of the human and animal life we have today, there would absolutely be evidence in the fossil record. We have tons of very old fossils, but absolutely none proving macroevolution. This is a significant problem for those who believe in that monkey business.
hence the parts I bolded in my post. I also included a family tree diagram to show where the fossils fit into human evolution. I'm not really sure what the hang up is.
Learn what you are talking about before opening your mouth. Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Evolution predicts we share a common ancestor. Therefore, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. The aforementioned fossils demonstrate characteristics unique to both organisms. By definition, they are transitional fossils.
ha ha ha, where do you get your information from? It sounds like you're just making this shit up to stir controversy. Plenty of transitional fossils have been discovered.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg)
(http://starklab.slu.edu/Bio104/HorseEvol.jpg)
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/164pic1.jpg)
(http://universe-review.ca/I10-72-Tiktaalik.jpg)
Good work, NeoSeminole, holding down the fort of science and reason 8)
Good work, Beach Bum, holding down the fort of "reading between the lines" ;) ;D
You will find that those who believe in evolutionary thought absolutely believe in microevolution. Interestingly, those who subscribe to intelligent design also believe in microevolution.Scott Langley
How is microevolution different?
Microevolution is a built in adaptability that all creatures have to adjust to certain changes. An example would be a species of insects that become resistant to pesticides or birds that adapt to a new climate.
According to a Berkley website, "Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population." [1]
If this were the universal definition of evolution perhaps there would be a consensus on the subject. However, those who subscribe to intelligent design see microevolution as consistent with a 'good' design of species, but separate from common evolutionary thought. If, within a species, creatures can be observed adapting to their environment this may be evidence that the design of the species was more than adequate for the needs of the species.
Intelligent design proponents can agree with microevolution because it is observable within species.
So why don't intelligent design proponents accept evolution?
Intelligent design advocates believe that evolutionists make a significant jump when they assume that microevolution (which is observable) is the smoking gun for macroevolution (which is not observable).
Microevolution is observable and is consistent with both intelligent design as well as evolutionary thought.
The difference is intelligent design supporters contend that the species that may be adapting to its environment still remains the same species. They contend it is a leap of faith to assume that 'species adjustment' is in the same category as the development of a new species.
Evolutionists contend that what is observable in microevolution helps explain the origin of species through natural selection. In essence, the thought process is, "If it can happen on a small scale certainly the same principle applies to species evolution."
The difficulty
The problem with making this assumption is that no one has yet observed one species developing into something new. Certainly we can see a variety of different dog breeds, but they are still dogs. We see genetically altered rats with mice DNA, but they are still rodents. We see a variety of horse breeds, yet they are still equines.
Final thoughts
Microevolution is a wonderful means of seeing how adaptable all species are in the face of an environment that may threaten their existence. This process is observable and may be classified as a true miracle of science.
Or…
Perhaps species adaptation looks designed because it is designed.
[1] Evolution.berkeley.edu/
When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.
Yes, evolution has been observed happening around us, during our lifetimes. For example, have you heard that some HIV strains that are resistant to meds have evolved?
Funny, OzmO is not a religious fundamentalist. He is not a creationist. He is genuinely seeking the truth and demanding proof of macroevolution, proof that humans evolved from apes, or an ape like thing. Yet NeoSeminole and columbusdude82 have been unable to persuade him. Where is the proof?
What is it called when lots and lots and lots of little microevolutions accrue over millions of years?
"Religious dogma"? Hardly.
I would much rather say, "logical conclusions drawn from overwhelming evidence." :)
What is it called when lots and lots and lots of little microevolutions accrue over millions of years?
Good work, Beach Bum, holding down the fort of "reading between the lines" ;) ;D ::) :P ;D
:D
fyi - I'm going to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Billions-Missing-Links-Mysteries-Evolution/dp/0736917462/ref=sr_1_1/102-2747542-9259361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190225443&sr=8-1
You don't have to accept it as fact. You are welcome to inform yourself on contemporary biology. Professor Dawkins has several brilliant popular science books on the subject, including "The Selfish Gene," "Climbing Mount Improbable," and "The Blind Watchmaker."
Before dismissing one of the most brilliant living scientists, you might want to take a minute to inform yourself on his work, especially when he has written such brilliant books for the layman.
You can question any theory all you like. That doesn't make anyone an idiot. After all, that is how science makes progress: by questioning all theories. However, when you propose theories of your own that are refuted by mounds of scientific evidence, you should expect someone in the room to giggle :)
This is not dogma. It is backed up by evidence, unlike, say, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. So quit trying to equate reason and science with religion and superstition :)
Dude you posted pictures of animals. Even the person who posted the pictures on the websites doesn't categorically call them transitional fossils.
More animal pictures. But thanks for sharing.
If there was this mass transition from one species to another, that resulted in all of the human and animal life we have today, there would absolutely be evidence in the fossil record. We have tons of very old fossils, but absolutely none proving macroevolution.
loco intelligent design relies on no evidence at all, it relies on the fact that we dont know everything and that evolution is not complete like all science.
if evolution is not correct why assum god did it? why not thor, why not any other god.
then you also have to posit positive evidence, or at least rational evidence for god, why there is a god, and how.
i have faith, but its not rational, and you cant really argue for it, ive always conceded that.
im too sick right now to form a cogent argument, but nothing in this world works on irrationality. its safe to assume that everything has a logical explanation since nothing in this world defies logic or rational, why argue that god did it? this defies logic and assumes that supernatural power was used one time, and everything else relies on natural laws.
sorry to dissapoint you but humans are animals. I'm not sure what you were expecting. As for the pics, did you even bother to read the link?
"All of the hominid fossil skulls above clearly show transitional forms between an old extinct common ape ancestor and modern humans, and these skulls represent only a small fraction of the fossil evidence. There is not only more fossil skull evidence, but there is also a lot of other skeletal evidence showing transitional forms for the spine, pelvis, hand, foot, etc."
no shit they are pics of animal bones. I was responding to your comment about the lack of transitional fossils. Here is your original post in case you forgot.
Macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening. There is no proof to support it as fact.
you are so f*cking stupid that it's comical. If we follow your logic, then a large percentage of criminals - murderers, rapists, etc - should be let free since there were no witnesses. In fact, let's do away with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Hell, why stop there? We should go back to worshipping a sun god since there's no direct proof the sun will rise again tomorrow. At best, we can only predict its reoccurance based on past evidence. ::)
Check your vernacular Neo.
Those are not transitional fossils.
Wow, in following this discussion I'm getting the idea that evolution as a fact is in some ways a belief just as creationism.
...
So, you admit that the theory of macroevolution is not fact.
When it comes to Biology, Dawkins is a brilliant scientist. That I know. Yet, he has presented no proof for macroevolution.
It is only when it comes to his war on religion that Dawkins is a nutjob, and other secular scientists agree. But that is a topic for another thread.
Still, you have presented no proof to support macroevolution, or any proof that humans evolved from an ape like species.
you have gone on record saying that the claim "The water molecule is made up of two Hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom" is just as much an article of faith as religion, so it's obvious you hadn't heard about the electrolysis of water.
Now if you really want to learn about evolution, there are many excellent books, including Dawkins' books. Alternatively, any freshman or sophomore biology textbook is a good starting point.
As for you calling Dawkins a nutjob, that is EXACTLY what this thread is about. Look at the topic and your first post.
Hmmm, I wonder how this conversation goes:
Loco: I believe that an invisible spirit knocked up a Palestinian Jewish chick about 2000 years ago.
I believe that pregnancy resulted in a little boy who was both the Hebrew God and his Son.
I believe that this fatherless man could perform magic tricks, like turning water into wine and bringing the dead back to life.
I believe this fatherless man was killed brutally then came back to life himself as well.
I believe this fatherless man flew up into the sky.
I believe I can converse regularly with this fatherless man.
I believe this fatherless man will be back.
Dawkins: Cool. You got any evidence for that?
loco: YOU NUTJOB!!! HOW DARE YOU??? NUTJOB!!! >:( >:(
8)
A bodybuilding message board is hardly the place to learn science. Go to your library, watch the Discovery Channel, read a good science book!
As Squadfather would say, relax, tiger, it aint that serious.
Not to indulge your laziness, but I made two threads with "evidence" and stuff from legitimate sources. Check em out if you're really interested.
As Squadfather would say, relax, tiger, it aint that serious.
Not to indulge your laziness, but I made two threads with "evidence" and stuff from legitimate sources. Check em out if you're really interested.
Looks like loco already did and found things you didn't read in "your" laziness. ;)
All that loco has done is find an example of a dishonest scientist. That's all he can do, because:
1. He is infected by a mind virus that says "Attack science whenever it contradicts religion."
and
2. He knows that science overwhelms his arguments (if he thought otherwise, he'd be trying to get respectable scientific journals to publish his ideas so he can get a Nobel prize), and his only remaining way out is to try and find examples of dishonest scientists so he can say "GOTCHA. AHHA"....
You, more than most, know loco's ways of argument.
Which biology textbooks?
Please substantiate your claim. Mention some of these textbooks that are still in use in reputable schools or universities.
1. Haeckel's forgeries as old news (Agassiz's contribution): Tales of scientific fraud excite the imagination for good reason. Getting away with this academic equivalent of murder and then being outed a century after your misdeeds makes even better copy...
Haeckel's forgeries as irrelevant to the validity of evolution or Darwinian mechanisms (von Baer's contribution): From the very beginning of this frenzied discussion two years ago, I have been thoroughly mystified as to what, beyond simple ignorance or self-serving design, could ever have inspired the creators of the sensationalized version to claim that Haeckel's exposure challenges Darwinian theory or even evolution itself. After all, Haeckel used these drawings to support his theory of recapitulation--the claim that embryos repeat successive adult stages of their ancestry. For reasons elaborated at excruciating length in my Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Darwinian science conclusively disproved and abandoned this idea by 1910 or so, despite its persistence in popular culture. Obviously, neither evolution nor Darwinian theory needs the support of a doctrine so conclusively disconfirmed from within...
In short, the work of Richardson and colleagues goes by a simple and treasured name in my trade: good science. The flap over Haeckel's doctored drawings should leave us feeling ashamed about the partial basis of a widely shared bias now properly exposed and already subjected to exciting new research. But Haeckel's High Victorian (or should I say Bismarckian) misdeeds provide no fodder to foes of Darwin or of evolution.
If there were a god that created a universe for mankind, the universe would look very different. For one thing, such a universe would have only one planet, not BILLIONS OF BILLIONS.
Why not? I don't think we can propose to know what may or may not be happening on billions of other planets.
The sun wouldn't emit radiation that is harmful to man.
You couldn't live w/o the sun. Have you thought about the good aspects about it?
That planet wouldn't contain vast oceans, vast deserts, and vast arctic regions that are uninhabitable by man (think of most of Canada, most of Russia, the African Sahara, etc) because they are useless to man.
The fact that most of mankind don't inhabit deserts, arctic regions and oceans does not mean they are useless to man. Let's take oceans for instance. You are correct, man does not inhabit the water in the middle of the ocean but we reap quite a bounty of food, minerals, etc. from there. In addition, oceans provide other valuable things to man in the way of enjoying it's beauty and the tourist trades.
There wouldn't be comets and asteroids hurtling towards that planet that may crash into it and cause mass extinction of mankind, such as what happened to the dinosaurs.
I have heard that was a theory. Has it been proven as a fact? I'm open to learn here.
Life on that planet wouldn't include predators and parasites that kill or harm mankind (i.e. no lions, no viruses, etc).
That planet wouldn't have a turbulent weather system (tornadoes, hurricanes, storms, etc) that harm mankind, nor volcanoes and earthquakes.
The above are a few characteristics of what a world designed by a god for mankind would look like. Our world clearly is NOT like this.
I thought I'd group these together because my comment kind of responds to these all.
According to the bible, God created the world and everything in it, and it "was good." In my understanding of the scriptures, before sin entered the world through Satan's deceptions, predators didn't exist in nature as they do today as all dwelled together in peace and none were carniverous. There had not yet been "a shedding of blood."
The earth created by God was not created with purpose to have tornadoes, etc. Some believe there was nothing but "perfect weather" before sin entered the earth
Oh, and in addition as to your comment about the sun some would say that there was a layer of protection that some call a firmament or something like that that protected the earth from any harmful effects of the sun.....before sin entered the earth --- I haven't really looked that much into that one though
1. The human eye is actually backwards, with optical nerves going outwards then heading towards the brain.
If we came from some unintelligent piece of slime why did we ever grow eyes? And what difference would it make if the eye truly was "backwards?" We can still see correct? Or are you saying it was evolved for something other than sight?
2. A very big chunk of our DNA is useless, "junk DNA," a relic of our evolutionary past.
Why do you say this? Because a scientist said it? Have you considered the possibility that mankind has just as of yet not discovered the purpose of this presently considered "junk DNA?"
3. An intelligent designer would have removed our tail bones and appendices, also relics of our evolutionary past.
Why?
4. Our bodies were "designed" to walk on all fours for many millions of years. It is only in the past few million years that we have begun to stand upright. That explains why hernias, back injuries, knee and hip injuries are so common among humans. These organs were not "designed" for walking upright.
Not mentioning that none of the above are organs, why do you think hip dysplasia so common in dogs?
5. Whoever designed us cannot be called intelligent. The idiot intersects our respiratory tract with our digestive tract, so that we choke on things we swallow. Children, especially, are highly likely to die because of this. Also, this unintelligent designer put toxic sewage lines in our recreational areas!
If children are so highly likely to die because of our repiratory tract intersecting w/our digestive tract, how did the population of mankind grow to over 6 billion? Maybe it's not as big a problem as you think.
As far as recreational areas being a toxic sewage line, the vagina and the penis expel sterile urine.
Finally, I should remind you that evolution is a PROBABILISTIC process, in the sense that if you think of the evolution of life on earth as a cassette tape, and you hit the rewind button into the distant past, then hit play again, things might play out very differently.
That is actually very interesting. I've never heard anyone who subscribed to evolution saying that. Now I can see more where some of you are coming from. Thanks for that. ----I'm not being sarcastic at all in saying that...it really does help me to understand more of your beliefs. Thank coldude.
don't bother entertaining his nonsense. It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale. Here is the rest of the interview which Loco conveniently left out.
MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.
MOYERS: What do you mean it's been observed.
DAWKINS: The consequences of. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you - the detective - hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue.
Do you agree that it could also be seen as a massive clue by believers that God created us/the world?
Do you agree that it could also be seen as a massive clue by believers that God created us/the world?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.He made each species according to its kind.He gave man domination over the animals.
Ive read here that the origin of our species came from small mammals,evolved to dogs and cousins of the ape.The fossil evidence that has been presented has too many holes to be even considered as hard fact.Our brains are just way above anything here on this planet.All i see are skulls of mutants and biology gone wrong.Thats not where we came from.Fossil record shows that man came from "nowhere ",bam we were here about 6 or 7 thousand years ago.
Let me clarify my stance.I believe the Universe is incredibly beyond the comprehension of our minds old.Measuring light shows us that.The earth is very old.We were created in Gods image.He is a Master craftsman who took his time and saw that it was good.
Science proves the existance of God through the wonder and design of creation.Think about that next time the sun comes up.
One more thing.How do you know where you are going if you dont know where you came from?
Open your eyes.You are blinded.
no, b/c you are postulating an infinitely complex solution that only begs the question "What created God?"
If all life on earth evolved from a very very very simple thing, it only begs the question "What created that very very very simple thing in the beginning?"
Matter cannot create itself.
You find it a whole lot easier to accept that nothing created everything out of nothing than it is for you to accept that something created everything out of nothing.
How about, we don't know but we are struggling to understand and find out. Some things however we DO know. We know that the Bible is a collection of disparate stories, many of which are fairy tales and almost all of which are untrue and we know that Yaweh was a local Caananite deity, monotheised/henotheised by ancient goatherders. We also know that Jesus is a myth and the Gospels are the purest fabrication. The things we don't know we can try to learn and the thing we do know, we can embrace or if they are false as is the case with Christianity, reject.
Hi, Trapezkerl! ;D
It doesn't matter. My point is that the "Who created God" argument is pointless because you can always argue "Who created the very simple thing that all living things evolved from"?
God is eternal. If an atheist wants to argue that nothing can be eternal, then they'll have to also argue with atheist scientists who reject the Big Bang theory and accept that the universe is eternal.
As for Jesus being a myth, you and the people you got this from are mistaken. I will get to this on your other thread, as soon as I get a chance.
Thanks for posting! I always thank God for skeptics. They make us Christians think more, study more and learn even more about God. ;D
We don't know if the universe is eternal or not and until a time as we do know, we cannot make assumptions like you do that it IS and that your particular saviour deity concocted nigh two millenia ago is the author of it.
As for evidence that the alleged Jesus Nazareth existed I doubt you will find anything. The best apologists of Christianity fail and most arguments are arguments from authority. But bring it on, always nice to enlighten the benighted about the imaginary godman...
I did not say that I believe that the universe is eternal. I said that some people believe that nothing can be eternal, while scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi believe that the universe has no beginning, while rejecting the Big Bang theory. Likewise, I believe that God has no beginning. ;D
If all life on earth evolved from a very very very simple thing, it only begs the question "What created that very very very simple thing in the beginning?"
Matter cannot create itself.
wow, really? Someone give this man a Nobel Prize for his brilliant observation. ::)
actually, it can. Look up quantum fluctuations.
Yeah, so what's your point? And what's with copying columbusdude with the Nobel Prize comments?
Oh boy, Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing. Nothing more. That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. Did you get that? The temporary appearance?
So now, according to NeoSeminole, not only has macroevolution been observed while it is happening, but also conservation of energy can be violated? Talk about Nobel Prize material.
I was responding to you for pointing out the obvious. No one knows what 'caused' the universe.
ha ha ha ha, the idiot thinks he's in the position to educate others. I know what quantum fluctuations are, hence why I mentioned them in the first place.
not just according to me; according to science, macroevolution has been observed and conservation of energy can be temporarily violated.
I was responding to you for pointing out the obvious. No one knows what 'caused' the universe.
ha ha ha ha, the idiot thinks he's in the position to educate others. I know what quantum fluctuations are, hence why I mentioned them in the first place.
not just according to me; according to science, macroevolution has been observed and conservation of energy can be temporarily violated.
When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Bill Moyers et al, 2004. "Now with Bill Moyers." PBS. Accessed 2006-01-29.
It's obvious from the quote that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a large scale.
By reading the rest of the interview, it's obvious that he was referring to evolution on a much grander scale than, say, a bacteria mutating into a new species.
to distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. It's apparent that you either don't know the difference or are purposely being deceitful by quote mining.
Macroevolution has been observed.
Matter cannot create itself.
actually, it can. Look up quantum fluctuations.
http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389Energy creation from quantum fluctuations?
Q: When matter and antimatter annihilate their energy becomes a gamma ray photon (or other things). When quantum fluxuations produce matter and antimatter pairs which annihilate each other does energy escape as gamma rays? Doesn’t this create energy from nothing?
-Wayne
El Cerrito, CA, US
A: No, the law of conservation of energy is upheld. A quantum fluctuation is a "potentiality" for something to happen under the influence of some external particle or force. If nothing comes along to disturb it the particle/anti-particle pair simply come back together. Nevertheless, the fluctuation phenomenon has real, measurable effects. For example in Delbruck scattering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delbruck_scattering an incoming photon is scattered from a nucleus by means of virtual electron-positron pairs.
LeeHQuoteThe Ask the Van question-answer site is run by a dedicated group of volunteers based in the Department of Physics at the University of Illinois. All of our volunteers work extremely hard to make sure that every question we receive is answered as completely and correctly as possible. Each question we answer is reviewed by at least two volunteers before it is posted to the internet. However, just like anyone else, we will sometimes make mistakes, we will even sometimes be completely wrong.http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/InternetResearch.php
When Dawkins said that evolution has never been observed while it is happening, you said that Dawkins was referring to macroevolutin, that macroevolution has never been observed while it is happening. You then changed your story and now you are contradicting yourself end everybody else.
http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/InternetResearch.php
http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=7389
The funny thing is, ask an IDer or a Creationist why chimps share 99% of our DNA and Gorillas 97%, all they can say is god made it that way.
Here is where we apply Occam's Razor: what makes more sense, that we share a virtually identical DNA structure because we descend from a common ancestor or....god just made it that way...Occam's Razor wins and ID (and creationism) is a load of crap...
I do support however UID (Unintelligent Design), just look at our plumbing, dumb ass engineer wouldn't even do that.
We have a common ancestor with the animals,you are right about that.I also see humanoid characteristics in many animals,whats your point?
You support the idea we came from nothing ,fine you came from nothing.Dust you are and dust you will return.
Read the bible.seems like you got the time to.Come back when u are better educated on the subject.:)
I have read the Bible; a pile of ancient myths and fairy tales, much of which is plagiarised from other ancient cultures. Studying even more reveals just how defective it is, riddled with errors and contradictions...don't even get me started.
Sorry, but bibical literalists are fucking retards, no doubt about that...come back when you realise that the stories in the Bible are just that, stories.
We are a short lived, primitive simian, mammalian species that will likely go extinct as all animals do
I have read the Bible; a pile of ancient myths and fairy tales, much of which is plagiarised from other ancient cultures. Studying even more reveals just how defective it is, riddled with errors and contradictions...don't even get me started.
Sorry, but bibical literalists are fucking retards, no doubt about that...come back when you realise that the stories in the Bible are just that, stories.
What about the people who teach at and graduate from places like Columbia, Harvard, and Yale? You consider them "retards"?
http://www.ctsnet.edu/glance/special_partnerships/index.asp
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/
http://www.yale.edu/divinity/
What about the people who teach at and graduate from places like Columbia, Harvard, and Yale? You consider them "retards"?
http://www.ctsnet.edu/glance/special_partnerships/index.asp
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/
http://www.yale.edu/divinity/
Though Harvard is mostly secular today, many people forget that it started off as a Christian College.
Do they teach that the Bible is a divinely revealed book that contains scientific truths?
Are those people literalists? Or do they see the Bible stories as mostly metaphors and practice their faith much like typical Christians?
I'm fairly certain "they teach that the Bible is a divinely revealed book." I doubt they teach that the Bible is a science book. It isn't.
But that wasn't the point. He said "biblical literalists" are "retards." I was asking whether he considered Ivy League professors and graduates "retards."
And I'm asking whether they really teach that the Bible is "divinely revealed."
There are historians who specialize in Ancient Greece and its mythologies, but that doesn't mean they believe in Zeus or teach that the Illiad and Odyssey are divinely revealed.
This thread is boring. What "caused' the beggining of the Universe is not even a question, because causality can only explain things after there is matter and energy - because causality is rule-based and only works to explain results of physical interactions. Without matter and energy there is nothing to have a cause. For all practical purposes, the first cause was the appearance of matter and energy, and what originated it cannot be explained by causality. Without matter and energy there are no rules of physcal interaction, and without this there is no cause and effect.
Now, why is it that people assume that, because the Universe exists in an ordained fashion and is complex, that an intelligence must have created it? Epistemologically speaking, the principle of entropy states that the Universe must exist somehow. Maybe there are infinite universes that are simpler than a game of checkers, and maybe there are universes that don't require logic at all to operate. How would creationists and intelligent designers explain the existence of a universe that has no coherence at all - meaning that it's organization requires 0 intelligence?
Personally, I believe that the explanation of what gave origin to the Universe is a Human problem. It is based on the fact that our minds were created to operate with inductive and deductive logic, which resulted from natural selection for us to understand our rule-based Universe. So asking what "caused" the Universe doesen't make sense, and it is not lack of intelligence but rather the specific design of our minds that makes us being trapped into assuming that, because cause and effect is so good at explaining the workings of our Universe, that it can explain something that probably does not even require logic. :)
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I read the whole post. I must say, it was boring. :)
Ok, "bum". ;)
SUCKMYMUSCLE