Evolution and a supreme being.

01-05-2012 5:24pm

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Evolution is a species' journey towards becoming (a) God.

As we evolve, we become smarter, adapt better to our environment or gain the ability/knowledge/tools to alter our environment. Somewhere down the line, assuming we survive long enough, we will evolve into a species that has god-like knowledge and abilities. Well, in theory anyway. Personally I'd be happy if we just evolved enough to stop being pricks towards one another.

Em not really, no.

mickrock · 01-05-2012 6:00pm

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

Robdude · 01-05-2012 6:02pm

God creates man
Man creates theory

Thus - the fact that the theory of evolution exists at all is PROOF of God's existence.

No God == No people == No theory of Evolution

Some people might question why a perfect God would create people who reject his existence or are too stupid to believe in the Bible; but remember that God has given man freewill and imperfect beings that we are, choose to do silly things like believe in Evolution.

The truth is, people don't use logic and scientific reasoning to convey ideas; it's just another method of declaring they are right. No better than an appeal to authority or an ad hominem attack. Take a well spoken Professor who has been involved in academic debates for 20 years and put him up against teenagers. The Professor will be able to argue circles around the kid, convincing onlookers that he is 100% correct - regardless of what the topic is.

Historically, there are endless examples of the best scientific minds being wrong about stuff. More often than not, they pursue evidence to PROVE what they believe; rather than to formulate beliefs around what they can prove.

I'm sure you could have gotten a lot of great engineers to explain to you why it was structurally and mathematically impossible for the Titanic to sink....and a layman like myself would have no hope in convincing anyone otherwise. I remember attending a lecture where a University Professor explained why data transmissions over the air was fundamentally impossible at rates higher than some trivially small amount. That we'd never ever, not in a million years, have wireless network cards or routers.

And they all could have shown pages and pages of research and figures and everything else to support it.

Science and logic are not nearly so noble as it's followers would have you believe.

Logical Fallacy · 01-05-2012 6:05pm

mylastparadigm wrote: »

says the guy with 5000 posts. i think you lose overall mate.

"no honey i cant come to bed. theres someone argueing with me on the internet and they are wrong!"

Way off.

I know how to spell arguing.

Ghost Buster · 01-05-2012 6:07pm

mickrock wrote: »

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?
Not quite.

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?
Probably. Who knows. But "GOD DIDDIT" isnt the answer

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

see above.

...

dlofnep · 01-05-2012 6:11pm

mickrock wrote: »

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

No, that is not a correct interpretation of the theory.

Evolution has nothing to do with chance. It is a non-random process. The theory of evolution by natural selection will guarantee diversity. In fact, it is the only thing that can explain the diversity we see in the animal kingdom today.

Logical Fallacy · 01-05-2012 6:13pm

mickrock wrote: »

Is the evolutionary process supposed to be completely random and directionless?

Has the complexity and diversity of life happened purely by chance?

Is this a correct interpretation of the theory?

Not really. Physical adaptation is based off stimulus and environmental catalysts.

Ghost Buster · 01-05-2012 6:14pm

Robdude wrote: »

God creates man
Man creates theory

Thus - the fact that the theory of evolution exists at all is PROOF of God's existence.

Hey I can do this as well:

Man creates God
Man uses 'God" to explain away stuff he hasn't figured out yet
Thus ' Your argument above is cobblers and the fact that it exists is depressing.

or

Man creates God
Man imagines God told him that the universe is intelligently designed specifically for man. man eventually realises that 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe , including his own world is utterly hostile to life and human life in particular.
Some men simply use circular thinking and mental gymnastics to explain this away so as to cling to their blankie of religion

01-05-2012 6:14pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Evolution has nothing to do with chance. It is a non-random process. The theory of evolution by natural selection will guarantee diversity. In fact, it is the only thing that can explain the diversity we see in the animal kingdom today.

Not in all cases. Sometimes a random selection of the gene pool gets displaced and ends up as a new species, so it can be random, and sometimes diversity is decreased rather than increased, for example in cases of inbreeding.

partyatmygaff · 01-05-2012 6:15pm

RichieC wrote: »

Which is why he said "how life came to be as it is".

Creationism usually refers to an explanation of how life "came to be". Not how it "came to be as it is". That said, maybe my brain is just tired.

seamus wrote: »

Considering that life is a product of existence, we will explain the origin of life before we explain the origin of existence.

That's assuming we're capable of doing so.

mickrock · 01-05-2012 6:15pm

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

01-05-2012 6:18pm

mickrock wrote: »

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

That depends on how you define intelligence.

If you mean intent (i.e. God up in heaven deciding the end goal of evolution) then no.

If you mean is there a logical progression? Then yes.

Robdude · 01-05-2012 6:18pm

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hey I can do this as well:

Man creates God
Man uses 'God" to explain away stuff he hasn't figured out yet
Thus ' Your argument above is cobblers and the fact that it exists is depressing.

or

Man creates God
Man imagines God told him that the universe is intelligently designed specifically for man. man eventually realises that 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe , including his own world is utterly hostile to life and human life in particular.
Some men simply use circular thinking and mental gymnastics to explain this away so as to cling to their blankie of religion

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

partyatmygaff · 01-05-2012 6:20pm

mickrock wrote: »

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

mickrock · 01-05-2012 6:28pm

true-or-false wrote: »

That depends on how you define intelligence.

If you mean intent (i.e. God up in heaven deciding the end goal of evolution) then no.

If you mean is there a logical progression? Then yes.

No, I don't mean a God up in heaven.

But there does seem to be a certain creative intelligence at work behind it all.

G_R · 01-05-2012 6:31pm

Robdude wrote: »

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hey I can do this as well:

Man creates God
Man uses 'God" to explain away stuff he hasn't figured out yet
Thus ' Your argument above is cobblers and the fact that it exists is depressing.

or

Man creates God
Man imagines God told him that the universe is intelligently designed specifically for man. man eventually realises that 99.999999999999999999999999999 percent of the universe , including his own world is utterly hostile to life and human life in particular.
Some men simply use circular thinking and mental gymnastics to explain this away so as to cling to their blankie of religion

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

Science has however, shown how man was created, ie evolution.

You can argue that it was all overseen by some mythical being till your blue in the face, but the evidence supports evolution, and how it all originated from the big bang.

I'm not gonna pretend that I know all there is to know about darwanism, or that I can fully explain the origin of life on this planet, but this much I'm sure of; it wasn't down to a god.

Pedant · 01-05-2012 6:32pm

Robdude wrote: »

God creates man
Man creates theory

Thus - the fact that the theory of evolution exists at all is PROOF of God's existence.

No God == No people == No theory of Evolution

That's the most convoluted logic for the existence of God that I've ever read.

The notion of a supreme being is illogic. Also, the notion that something came from nothing is also illogical (or at least we think it's illogical). Both premises are illogical, it's a paradox. Man has yet to figure it out. There is a flaw somewhere in our reasoning, specifically in relation to our understanding of time and our concept of infinity.

However, the notion of a personal God can be easily proven false. I'm an atheist in relation to a personal God but agnostic in relation to the existence of the universe and reality, i.e., an agnostic atheist.

krudler · 01-05-2012 6:33pm

Robdude wrote: »

Except science has shown that man hasn't always existed. Man can't create man. And without the existence of man, man can't create God.

....not sure if serious

01-05-2012 6:33pm

mickrock wrote: »

No, I don't mean a God up in heaven.

But there does seem to be a certain creative intelligence at work behind it all.

I agree that it's difficult to look at the world around us and believe it happened without divine intervention, or at least a crazy alien scientist. It's so intricate and seems so unlikely.

But while I'm left in wonder by things like biochemistry or flight or genetics, to me, the theory of evolution by natural selection seems perfectly plausible as not requiring intervention.

Guill · 01-05-2012 6:34pm

I love this aul' arguement, keeps me up many a night with a few friends and some beer, wine, whiskey and port. Bottom line of everything is that nobody knows anything. Everything is a theory and its up to you what to believe. Personally I believe that religion is a scam. I believe in evolution. I believe in the big bang. I believe in gravity.

Basically I believe in things that can be measured or rationally theorised.

G_R · 01-05-2012 6:35pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

mickrock wrote: »

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

And on this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Pedant · 01-05-2012 6:40pm

Guill wrote: »

I love this aul' arguement, keeps me up many a night with a few friends and some beer, wine, whiskey and port. Bottom line of everything is that nobody knows anything. Everything is a theory and its up to you what to believe. Personally I believe that religion is a scam. I believe in evolution. I believe in the big bang. I believe in gravity.

Basically I believe in things that can be measured or rationally theorised.

"Everything is a theory and its up to you what to believe"

Well, the notion of a spherical earth is a theory that we know to be fact. You're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Evolution is a theory that has been proven fact time and time again by evidence. You can't be democratic about these sort of theories.

Pedant · 01-05-2012 6:41pm

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

And on this forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

The laws of thermodynamics didn't exist the first few milliseconds after the Big Bang.

Monty Burnz · 01-05-2012 6:42pm

mickrock wrote: »

If it's not completely random and directionless does that imply that there is a certain intelligence inherent in the process?

Thus speaks someone who doesn't actually understand what the theory of evolution states.

sock puppet · 01-05-2012 6:43pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The second law of thermodynamics would imply that there is an outside force that organised things at some point.

Yes it does imply that if you're a retard

Monty Burnz · 01-05-2012 6:44pm

Robdude wrote: »

God creates man
Man creates theory

Which god do you mean? My money is on Odin. :rolleyes:

mickrock · 01-05-2012 6:46pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Thus speaks someone who doesn't actually understand what the theory of evolution states.

Would you care to expand?

Littlehorny · 01-05-2012 6:48pm

Saw a documentary on Darwin once and he sat on his theory of evolution and natural selection for ten years because he knew the church would attack him because he effectively said that god was not mans creater. Was Darwin religous himself ?

Pedant · 01-05-2012 6:50pm

"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (title for his 1986 book and 1987 documentary) is probably the most interesting documentary I've ever seen on evolution. It suggests that natural selection may be artificially reproduced to enhance design solutions and production mechanisms in industry. Controlled or simulated evolution could advance technology by leaps and bound in quite a short space of time. If used in this matter, the whole notion of "intelligent design" is thrown on its head because you're literally be using non-intelligent design to produce intelligent design.

Robdude · 01-05-2012 6:51pm

Grand_Rajnah wrote: »

Science has however, shown how man was created, ie evolution.

You can argue that it was all overseen by some mythical being till your blue in the face, but the evidence supports evolution, and how it all originated from the big bang.

I'm not gonna pretend that I know all there is to know about darwanism, or that I can fully explain the origin of life on this planet, but this much I'm sure of; it wasn't down to a god.

Absolutely - scientific evidence supports your claims. I'm not refuting that for a second.

I'm saying the best scientific minds have a long history of being wrong....

http://top5s.net/index.php/2012/04/top-5-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18822_5-famous-scientists-dismissed-as-morons-in-their-time.html

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
-- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what ... is it good for?"
-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,commenting on the microchip.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
-- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible."
-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face not Gary Cooper."
-- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make."
-- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields'Cookies.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
-- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

Many of our most well known scientists were also crazy by most standards and often, just plain wrong.

And these are big, huge things. How many lessor known drugs and chemicals have been passed off as safe, only to be declared horribly dangerous a few short years or decades later? How many lessor known scientific theories have been accepted and then rejected later by the community. And the opposite happens just as often - scientists who are RIGHT - but not popular and don't have the right friends - get laughed at and ridiculed - BY THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS OF THE TIME - only to be declared brilliant years after their death.

So yeah - you are right. There is plenty of scientific evidence of a lot of things. There was a lot of scientific evidence that explained how the shape of my head would make me a criminal too - and if we were having this conversation 100 years ago - lots of scientists could throw around a lot of big words and theories and look down their nose at me for not being 'properly educated'.

But they'd still be wrong.

Evolution and a supreme being.

Comments