Mali Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I believe in the theory of evolution, and the science of biology and geology. I also believe that God created the processes manifested in the natural world which govern all things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I believe in the theory of evolution, and the science of biology and geology. I also believe that God created the processes manifested in the natural world which govern all things. And THAT is the only type of religious thinking that people can hold (In my mind) and not be just lying to themselves and denying reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I believe in the theory of evolution, and the science of biology and geology. I also believe that God created the processes manifested in the natural world which govern all things. And because of this, but not just this, you will burn in eternal damnation. Heathen. ::poe face:: a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 "Natural selection"... what is that? Like, defined as survival of those who are best adapted to their environment? If I were to survive a hurricane, or a mutant virus, and the man next to me was killed by it instead, would that mean I survived because I was more fit than him? Well, why am I more fit? Because I survived? Always remember the weak man next to me that helped the rest of us evolve by dying. Also, I'm superior to all men like him now. Yeah. I don't know if someone has to be god-fearing to take offense to Natural Selection. If natural selection is something else, I'd like to be corrected. As far as Flood theory ... I'm not sure its been proven wrong so much as simply abandoned. To argue the Grand Canyon point, I'll just say that if there was a great flood, there wouldn't be water flowing over surfaces so much as just filling in low places. If the Grand Canyon were a very deep lake, perhaps, and the water went over muddy spillways near the Gulf of Mexico, it would all rush out very quickly in a very messy looking mudslide. This could easily produce the sediment layers we already see there. Just a theory though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 From what I understand about Natural Selection as per a college class I took last term on the basic ideology of evolution and biology... this is how it works: The genes that make up what you are combine to make your fitness. You and the man next to you have different traits. In a given environment, one of you will be more fit, or you will have the same fitness. If you have the same fitness, you will both progress the same. If you are more fit, you will survive longer and pass your genes. He will not. Fitness can never be boiled down to individuals though, as a standard for a species. A man doesn't contribute to your races fitness by dying so much as because he died, he's no longer passing on his genes. Just because you've lost a weakling to your race does not mean your race is more fit, but the weakling genes are less, so now your race is more fit. As to your example, say there is a virus that is around for a long time. Humans that receive it in some form, die. A human undergoes a mutation, not growing a pair of arms or something retarded like that, but maybe he develops on accident, as it were, a counter to the virus. This man no longer dies to the virus. He passes on this gene to his children. He is more fit than other humans that do die, because he has undergone a transformation, however minute. He is "naturally selected" to survive longer, and more effectively, than other humans who have not inherited this gene or undergone a transformation that saves them from the virus. Natural Selection has nothing to do with God, past origin. I believe he created what began, and it evolved via natural selection... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Twin's example is pretty decent. Evolution by natural selection does not always mean that you are better or superior. You just, hopefully, are more fit for that environment. Though it does not always work perfectly in the short run it is the long run where things become apparent. A good example? In Africa malaria is common. Malaria can kill. However people who have sickle cell anemia are immune to malaria. With sickle cell anemia you will have a fairly short life, I think capped at around age 35 or so. BUT, you will never develop malaria. Because of this sickle cell anemia is still around in these parts. There is an actual advantage to it, aswell a disadvantage. There are people that live in higher altitudes(some sort of American Indian or something? Not sure anymore) but they have overall bigger lungs. They are able to breathe much easier at high altitudes where most people would have a lot of trouble. It just so happened, that there was a mutation along the way that gave someone a bigger capacity for air in their lungs and being an obvious advantage they survived to pass on their genes to others. It then over time became the norm. White people are less prone to develop vitamin D deficiencies(A vitamin your body produces with sunlight). Black people are much more likely to have vitamin D deficiency because they have more melanin which blocks sunlight. A trade off is that in areas with a lot of sun, black people are much less likely to be affected by sunburns or skin cancer. Get it? Evolution is not a debate. It is a fact. We know it occurs. The only debate(which is not even a debate, it is pretty damn solid) is the way in which it occurs. EDIT: If you wanted to say god is the driving force behind how Evolution works, that he wills the genetic mutations to occur in which the way he wishes, then that is your thing. An even more realistic religious view is that god created the universe and set everything in motion according to our current laws of reality. Then sat back and relaxed, while things evolve on their own(This is the view taken by the majority of religious scholars, you know... The people that study religion. They're definitely not atheists/agnostic). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinblades713 Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 I like how alot of people think that evolution is species 'deciding' to evolve, or evolving out of necessity to overcome an obstacle. It's a matter of chance that the small mutations species undergo that happen to be better fit than other mutations or lacks thereof in other species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 As far as Flood theory ... I'm not sure its been proven wrong so much as simply abandoned. To argue the Grand Canyon point' date=' I'll just say that if there [i']was a great flood, there wouldn't be water flowing over surfaces so much as just filling in low places. If the Grand Canyon were a very deep lake, perhaps, and the water went over muddy spillways near the Gulf of Mexico, it would all rush out very quickly in a very messy looking mudslide. This could easily produce the sediment layers we already see there. Just a theory though. You are wrong. EDIT: And by the way, speaking in a scientific context, no, this is not a theory. This is a hypothesis that was not based on observation and testing, but on speculation. When this hypothesis was actually tested, it failed miserably. Want to somewhat quickly learn a lot about science (particularly biology [evolutionary theory in particular], cosmology and geology) and common creationist arguments and why they are wrong? Talkorigins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 People who have sickle cell anemia are immune to malaria? That's like saying if I cut my legs off, I can't get athletes foot anymore. There's nothing unusual about adapting to an environment; what's unusual is saying that because we adapt to our environment that we are evolving toward some sort of super-being state. Unless you're just talking about micro-evolution. I actually agree with micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, not so much. Talkorigins is fine, but they have just as good of arguments as a lot of Creation Scientists. People will always find different explanations for how evidence gets to where it ends up. I appreciate everyone's explanations. If it is offensive that I've chosen to believe what you think is wrong, then I'm sorry. If I see a tree, I have to assume that it started as a seed. You could debate for years and years and years about how the seed got there, but unless someone saw it, they're not going to know. Evidence only proves that it happened. Determining how it happened is subject to bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Here is my view on atheism/agnosticism: No matter WHAT you believe in. If I worshipped oil because it was the life blood of our society, there would be SOMEONE who disagrees with me. For whatever reason. HHO, e85, methane, propane, Perpetual motion, whatever. There is ALWAYS going to be someone to disagree with you on any point. if you believe a goldfish is the almighty creator, rock on. If you believe that this planet was a lucky flash of light, and pile of dust, rock on. if you want to believe in not believing, rock on. my only complaint about atheism, is the militant, and abrasive style in which they try to put out their propoganda. I have Jehovah's witnesses as much as the next guy, but not over their beliefs, I hate them because of their TACTICS. Brainwashing people into becoming more of a hive mind extension than a person is something I am severely agains't. Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, anything that tries to aggressively recruit people is something that is greatly despised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 People who have sickle cell anemia are immune to malaria? That's like saying if I cut my legs off' date=' I can't get athletes foot anymore. There's nothing unusual about adapting to an environment; what's unusual is saying that because we adapt to our environment that we are evolving toward some sort of super-being state.[/quote'] Evolution does not go towards some sort of goal, it simply acts upon what exists at any given moment and favors that which has an advantage given the current environment - a mutation that is incredibly useful in one environment and provide a huge selective advantage can cause the population to go extinct if the environment changes too radically. Malaria often kills you when you're young... sickle cell anemia lets you still get into your 30s, which means you can still reproduce and pass on your genes. If malaria is prevalent enough that it causes the average lifespan to be below the age SCA would be killing at, then it would introduce a selective pressure in favor of the SCA gene, which it in fact did do. Unless you're just talking about micro-evolution. I actually agree with micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, not so much. They are the exact same thing, just over longer periods of time. There is NO difference from a biological standpoint. Talkorigins is fine, but they have just as good of arguments as a lot of Creation Scientists. People will always find different explanations for how evidence gets to where it ends up. I appreciate everyone's explanations. If it is offensive that I've chosen to believe what you think is wrong, then I'm sorry. Except that every single argument on Talkorigins references peer-reviewed science that tested the argument and provided strong evidence in support of it. You will not find a SINGLE argument from creationists that can make that claim. If I see a tree, I have to assume that it started as a seed. You could debate for years and years and years about how the seed got there, but unless someone saw it, they're not going to know. Evidence only proves that it happened. Determining how it happened is subject to bias. Wrong. Evidence provides clues we can use to figure out HOW it happened. To say that evidence is useless in determining what has happened in the past is to say that not a single person we have convicted in court of a crime has been done so justly. Quite frankly, this entire discussion has convinced me that your homeschooling did indeed fall prey to many of the problems that I see with it. Your understanding of science is deeply flawed, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 As for Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution... I believe that there are a variety of kinds of things. There are lots of different kinds of dog, from the retriever to the dingo. I don't think they came from a non-dog, and I don't think they'll ever become anything non-dog. Talkorigins references peer-reviewed science that... right, right. Please don't misunderstand me. Evidence isn't useless, but unless it has directions on it when you find it or a voice to speak with, how someone looks at it is subject to everything that makes them who they are. Their world view, their history, etc. That being said, you can take a grain of salt with anything, including the report of peer-reviewers, and the interpretation of evidence. Now, if you're going to insult my intellect and my education because I don't agree with you, that's fine. But I beg you to consider something: if evolutionary theory is so irrefutably true to the point of absolution, why is there an ongoing argument at all? Do you really think it is because creationists are bull-headed, science-hating zealots, who flat-out ignore evidence? Or could they just possibly, maybe see something else convincing in the evidence? I mean, it isn't one guy making all these claims... a whole ton of these people agree on the same thing, and they're not all meeting on Sunday mornings to speak in tongues. They are mathematical, curious people who read, write, play baseball, and have kids. Additionally, they have arrived at a different conclusion about the origins of this planet and its ongoing nature than you. Why you find them so offensive boggles my mind. That non-tolerating, borderline robotic hatred is what appalls me more than anything else. Why? Because the word "science" suffers for it, and curious people like me who can't stand thinking in absolutes do too. Without further ado, I am officially done with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 "Natural selection"... what is that? Like' date=' defined as survival of those who are best adapted to their environment? If I were to survive a hurricane, or a mutant virus, and the man next to me was killed by it instead, would that mean I survived because I was more fit than him? Well, why am I more fit? Because I [i']survived? Always remember the weak man next to me that helped the rest of us evolve by dying. Also, I'm superior to all men like him now. Yeah. I don't know if someone has to be god-fearing to take offense to Natural Selection. If natural selection is something else, I'd like to be corrected. I've glanced through this thread, and it seems you do have a fundamental misconception regarding evolution and natural selection. Natural selection does not have an 'end goal', nor does the 'survivability' increase in absolute terms; it increases with regards to one's environment. Some creatures have undergone very little evolution over the past few millions of years because they are already nearly perfectly adapted for their environment, which has not changed (various types of sharks, for example). Others have had either evolved to become more 'fit' for their environment...or simply died out. With regards to the example you gave, if you survived a hurricane, you did not survive because of you being more 'fit', you survived because of chance. If you survived a global mutant virus pandemic, then yes, you and people like you (who are resistant to the virus) are more 'fit' in that environment than the people who died, and your uniquely virus-resistant genes will be passed down. Also remember, 'fitness' is not just a reference to you, but also to your progeny. So if that genetic mutation which makes you virus-resistant also makes you sterile or impotent, then no, you wouldn't be 'fit'. As has been mentioned previously, in some environments, dark skin may make one more 'fit'; in other environments, just the opposite. In some environments, larger size may make one more 'fit', in other environments, smaller sizes may be better. 'Fitness' is not an absolute quality; it is a relative quality, dependent on environments that themselves can be changing. And, as a note, 'fitness' is only one part of natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reccum Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I just re-read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Fricken amazing book if you ask me. She gives some very solid reasons why money is virtuous, not evil. She also presents a very good case for why it is essential to agree on absolute truths in order to progress scientifically. I think a huge part of the educational crisis in America is the abandon of absolute truths. It seems we constaly hear "everything is relative". And while it is good to have differing opions in order to teach critical thinking, we simply cannot accept any opinion simply because it is had. As a civilization we build upon our past, and we learn from our errors, and even though we constantly go back in time and disprove certain theories, there are still certain objective truths that will not change and they are the foundation of everything. If you choose something unprovable, like Gods certain existance, as your foundation for science then you encounter the problem of anything is possible, when it isn't. Oddly enough, it is not because of religion that people are dumber these days, it is more because of political correctness I think. A lot of great ideas came from white men for instance, but let's face it, white men also are responsible for a lot of murder and evil, so some people will then discount anything that came from white man. You see the flaws with this logic? If I had kids, I would homeschool them until the age of reason. When they were ready to look at the world with understanding eyes, then I'd send them to public school. But I would not want my children growing up in an environment where all they get is crappy pop culture, premature sex ed, and a bunch of politically correct crap blown up their arses. I agree with Icor that the government should not be responsible for our education. The world is shrinking and it is more important than ever that we get a global mindset. Let's put together a global educational board, agree on the correct objective version of history, and start teaching eveyone the truth. All the youth needs is an understanding of where they are and why, some basic math and language skills and from there I say let their passions and abilities guide them in their studies. I just wish their was a way we could unite the world without losing cultural differences, and without it being done by big business. This make any sense to anyone?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 As for Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution... I believe that there are a variety of kinds of things. There are lots of different kinds of dog' date=' from the retriever to the dingo. I don't think they came from a non-dog, and I don't think they'll ever become anything non-dog.[/quote'] Define "kind", because we already have lots of terms for different kinds of things in biology, such as order, family, genus, and species. Talkorigins references peer-reviewed science that... right, right. Please don't misunderstand me. Evidence isn't useless, but unless it has directions on it when you find it or a voice to speak with, how someone looks at it is subject to everything that makes them who they are. Their world view, their history, etc. That being said, you can take a grain of salt with anything, including the report of peer-reviewers, and the interpretation of evidence. The peer-review process is the best process we have to get rid of bias in interpreting observations, because it is numerous other people who are knowledgeable in the field going over your work with a fine-tooth comb looking for every mistake, error, unnecessary assumption, etc. in your work. These days creationists don't even bother submitting articles because they know they will fail. Now, if you're going to insult my intellect and my education because I don't agree with you, that's fine. Education, yes. Intellect, no. But I beg you to consider something: if evolutionary theory is so irrefutably true to the point of absolution, why is there an ongoing argument at all? This argument exists only in the public realm. Within science, it does not. Do you really think it is because creationists are bull-headed, science-hating zealots, who flat-out ignore evidence? When it comes to the subject of evolution, yes. Or could they just possibly, maybe see something else convincing in the evidence? I mean, it isn't one guy making all these claims... a whole ton of these people agree on the same thing, and they're not all meeting on Sunday mornings to speak in tongues. They are mathematical, curious people who read, write, play baseball, and have kids. Additionally, they have arrived at a different conclusion about the origins of this planet and its ongoing nature than you. They have a pre-supposed conclusion that they are trying to mold evidence to fit. They ignore evidence that contradicts their ideas, and while they may write books filled with their arguments, they do so because they lost the scientific battle a LONG time ago. Many of their ideas have been proven wrong (such as the Earth being 6000 years old, or a single flood creating the Grand Canyon), and the few that are left are arguments from ignorance ("we don't know how the first cell formed (or insert other question about biology scientists haven't answered yet here)", "we don't know what caused the Big Bang", etc.). And it isn't my conclusion, it is the conclusion arrived at by the overwhelming majority (about 99%) of people who have spent their lives studying the field. I am content to take what the experts in a field agree upon as likely to be correct. After all, these people know a hell of a lot more than you or I do about the subject. To be honest, I don't think you understand what I mean when I say that the evidence supports evolution. I don't just mean that people found a bunch of bones and figured "Well, they probably came from a common ancestor." When I'm talking about evidence supporting a scientific theory, I'm talking about predictions that the theory made about future discoveries that have been confirmed (a notable example was the discovery of cosmic background radiation predicted by Big Bang theory). But to keep things a little more pertinent, here's a great example of a discovery evolution predicted: Evolutionary theory states that humans and the other great apes have a common ancestor. A question that hadn't been answered was why we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs of chromosomes - Wikipedia the word if you don't know what a chromosome is) in our DNA and other apes have 48 (24 pairs). Since there are 3 great ape species (gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan) in addition to us, the prediction evolution makes is that somewhere along our particular line of descent a mutation occurred causing two of our pairs of chromosomes to fuse (losing an entire chromosome would be fatal to the offspring). This was found to be the case. If it hadn't, it would have raised serious doubts within the scientific community regarding human evolution... but it was. And this is just one of the hundreds of thousands of predictions evolutionary theory has made that have been confirmed. When I say evidence, I don't mean people just coming up with explanations for various things - I mean them actually testing those explanations to find out if they apply. Creationists don't do this. Scientists do. Creationism has never made a SINGLE testable prediction... how you can think it compares I find mind-boggling. Why you find them so offensive boggles my mind. That non-tolerating, borderline robotic hatred is what appalls me more than anything else. Why? Because the word "science" suffers for it, and curious people like me who can't stand thinking in absolutes do too. Why do I oppose creationists as much as I can? They lie. They misinform. They claim expertise where they have none. They disparage science, the process which has proven itself to be the most reliable way to gain knowledge that humans have ever created, in favor of Bronze Age superstitions and myths invented by people incredibly ignorant of the world around them. They act to destroy learning and knowledge because they are more attached to their specific ideas than they are to actually learning things. P.S. Raar, excellent explanation of fitness relating to natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Do you really think it is because creationists are bull-headed, science-hating zealots, who flat-out ignore evidence? I personally know several people that fit into this category You can be a creationist without ignoring science. Most science is religious in nature in that it adds to our understanding of the universe and our understanding of God. The only exceptions to this are: Science that lacks integrity and science that involves unnecessary cruelty to animals or life. Concerning the discussion about microevolution and macroevolution, the only difference is timescale. If you acknowledge that a bacteria or a virus can evolve, then you acknowledge that a man or animal can also evolve. It takes longer, but it happens, and the fossil record is clear as it pertains to humans and early human ancestors. The smithsonian has a decent website dedicated to this topic, which I find very interesting. Check it out http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reccum Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Most science is religious in nature in that it adds to our understanding of the universe and our understanding of God. I would say that science is scientific in nature, as it adds to our understanding of the universe. I would say religion is religious in nature, as it adds to your undestanding of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I say it is healthy to admire both, but not trust 100% of what each says. They say so much **** about each other behind their backs, it's like a bunch of 14 year old girls in a cafeteria. a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iusedtobesomebody Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 This thread amuses me... and makes me sad too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-guitarist Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It peaked with Mali's first post. I still laugh when I read it. a-g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Oh, boy, oh, boy, oh boy.... I don't know how I missed this! *grabs some holy water, black candles, Aabahranian Bible* Anyone wanna discuss FL religions? I'm also willing to discuss D&D Religions (Forgotten Realms) also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I still think FL atheists/agnostics should have different warcries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I still think FL atheists/agnostics should have different warcries. I thought we could apply for custom warcries now? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I thought we could apply for custom warcries now? :confused:We can at 50. This is something we've all fought for, for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I thought we could apply for custom warcries now? :confused: I just meant by default. "Creator" isn't something the two should be calling to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.