nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

floggg

Vivisectus wrote: »

I was referring to Dembski's objection to evolution based on functionality.

But his objection to abiogenesis is also problematic, sure. It pretends that the non-creationist standpoint depends on there being some sort of amino acid soup, with the only way for life to start being a full functional sequence to magically come into existence.

It is not a position anyone actually holds, however: it is a classic ID strawman.

And it repeats that tired old mistake that conflates objections against abiogenesis with objections against evolution.

It seemed so obvious to me that I was was starting to wonder out which one of was being stupid.

Knasher

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also another thing I don't get from this theory is why isn't there any life on planets close to us since if the big bang happened then surely planets in close proximity should have similar conditions and life forms.

In any case, this isn't a settled question. It is still possible that we might find evidence that life once existed on Mars, back when it had surface water. And if we do, it may be possible that we find life that survived the gradual loss of the Martian atmosphere and still exist in some form.

Venus is about the same size as us, but its atmosphere is very very different. If we found life there, it would completely change our understanding of what life could be. And even looking for it on Venus is difficult, the stuff we have landed on Venus have only ever lasted about an hour before they are destroyed by the atmosphere. So simply put, we aren't looking there because it is just too hard.

Then you have Titan, which is believed to have underground oceans warmed by the gravitational pull of Saturn. In order to decide that there isn't life there we will have to drill down beneath the surface, as well as maintaining some link back in order to transmit any results. That is something that will be part of some future mission, but it is a long way off yet.

So of the close planets Venus is too different and hard to look at, Mars we are examining, but we really are only scratching the surface. And Titan we haven't even looked at yet, though so far I'd consider it the most likely candidate. Really though we are currently operating with a sample size of one, so we really have no idea how exact the conditions needed for life to start are, or for them to continue are, and we have only barely started even looking.

Oranage2

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can understand why you would feel like that, but actually it could not be more wrong. It takes very little to change the conditions on a planet.

A tiny percentage change in position, tilt, size, composition, original parameters, and it has cascade massive effect that permeates through the entire conditions set of the planet.

Mere addition or removal of a moon for example would over night change the entire face of our planet and the experience of life on it.

However you say "This Theory" in your post and it is worth pointing out that your point has absolutely nothing to do with Evolutionary Theory. You are talking about life getting started. Evolutionary Theory is about AFTER life has gotten started.

It is an error similar to, for example, going into a discussion on ballistics and trying to make a point about the chemical processes of gun powder explosion. Chemical composition of gun powder is a presupposition of a ballistics conversation. The existence of life is a presupposition of Evolution.

I want argue with you but doesn't earth being the perfect size, tilt, composition etc just sound to perfect to be possible?

It's arguments like yours but not specific to you, that makes God seem like a more believable possibility.

Vivisectus

I want argue with you but doesn't earth being the perfect size, tilt, composition etc just sound to perfect to be possible?

It's arguments like yours but not specific to you, that makes God seem like a more believable possibility.

Forget about the earth! You are totally forgetting how well-suited water is for being propelled by fins: clearly the oceans are designed by a god for the specific use of fish!

And have you ever noticed how ideally suited air is for generating lift? Obviously air was designed for birds!

Knasher

Oranage2 wrote: »

I want argue with you but doesn't earth being the perfect size, tilt, composition etc just sound to perfect to be possible?

It's arguments like yours but not specific to you, that makes God seem like a more believable possibility.

There is an old anecdote about a (somehow sentient) puddle of water which, on finding that it fits the pothole it exits in so perfectly, it concludes that the pothole must have been created for it. The reality is that the pothole exists and the water conforms to the pothole, not the other way around.

So no, it isn't too perfect to be possible, we evolved to exist here and so we fit the conditions here rather nicely. If the conditions where slightly different, then we would have evolved slightly differently, and if the conditions were completely different, perhaps no life would have evolved at all.

Oranage2

Knasher wrote: »

There is an old anecdote about a (somehow sentiept) puddle of watertwhich, on finding that it fits the pothole it exits in so perfectly, it concludes that the pothole must have been created for it. The reality is that the pothole exists and the water conforms to the pothole, not the other way around.

So no, it isn't too perfect to be possible, we evolved to exist here and so we fit the conditions here rather nicely. If the conditions where slightly different, then we would have evolved slightly differently, and if the conditions were completely different, perhaps no life would have evolved at all.

It's interesting stuff alright but probably a little to complex for me, so for all we know there could be life on say Uranus or Saturn.

What about the idea that God made the big bang, has science ruled that out yet?

PopePalpatine

Technically speaking, the idea that God started the Big Bang hasn't been ruled out because we don't have the capabilities to test it yet.

Knasher

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's interesting stuff alright but probably a little to complex for me, so for all we know there could be life on say Uranus or Saturn.

Well it is possible, but it wouldn't be life as we know it. The only life we know of so far pretty much revolves around water, so the only places we look at for life at the moment, are places that have, or have had water.

Oranage2 wrote: »

What about the idea that God made the big bang, has science ruled that out yet?

No, and that isn't even a question that science touches upon. Really the most that science will ever say is that god isn't necessary to explain the existence of the universe. Science will certainly continue to strip the explanatory power of religion that some people use to justify their faith, but I don't think it will ever tell people that they can't have faith.

Dan_Solo

Oranage2 wrote: »

I want argue with you but doesn't earth being the perfect size, tilt, composition etc just sound to perfect to be possible?

It's arguments like yours but not specific to you, that makes God seem like a more believable possibility.

There's countless billions of planets in the universe. The likelihood of one of them somewhere being suitable for what we perceive as life is fairly certain I'd imagine.

floggg

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's interesting stuff alright but probably a little to complex for me, so for all we know there could be life on say Uranus or Saturn.

What about the idea that God made the big bang, has science ruled that out yet?

Your focus might be a bit too local I think.

There may well not be any other life in our immediate solar system, but our solar system is just a small part of a much larger galaxy, which is itself just a small part of a much larger universe.

So there are probably hundreds of planets in other galaxies and solar systems just as capable of supporting life in some form. Its just we haven't been able to find or discover them yet.

Vivisectus

depressingly, if you consider the limitations of light-speed and the large amounts of time available, we may well never see another species / civilization

Even if you consider the invention of radio as the starting point of us broadcasting anything aliens could receive, then it has only been around for a measly 100 - 150 years or so. This means that it has only reached a depressingly small globe around us... IF they can still make it out from other background radiation at all.

The Corinthian

Vivisectus wrote: »

depressingly, if you consider the limitations of light-speed and the large amounts of time available, we may well never see another species / civilization

Why is speed an issue if the distance between two points is zero, after all?

nozzferrahhtoo

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's interesting stuff alright but probably a little to complex for me

Don't sell yourself short on this. It is daunting to the lay man, yes, but it actually does not take the application of THAT much thought to break the seal on it.

Oranage2 wrote: »

so for all we know there could be life on say Uranus or Saturn.

Actually I think the Moon Titan is a possible place to look, there is reason to think there is water there and the possibility of life. But by life we are not expecting a fish to swim up and lick the first camera we send up there. We are more talking bacterial and the like.

While the possibility is there of finding life in our solar system however, it is not one people are likely to stake their earnings on. But we are compelled to look!

Oranage2 wrote: »

What about the idea that God made the big bang, has science ruled that out yet?

Science does not rule out that kind of idea because the idea is neither "testable" or "falsifiable". And if an idea is neither of these things, then science simply can not touch it.

What science HAS done at this point is two things:

1) It has entirely failed to present a single SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest a non human intelligence is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe and

2) It has shown in many many cases that the universe operates perfectly well without the assumption there is a god. It operates exactly as you would expect it to without one.

nozzferrahhtoo

Oranage2 wrote: »

I want argue with you but doesn't earth being the perfect size, tilt, composition etc just sound to perfect to be possible?

Not really. I will present two different paragraphs of analogies, one mathematical (my own) and one more intuitive (plazarized) to illustrate........ before I get into the meats of why not......... and then I will end with another analogy to the Lotto (my own) so apologies for how long this will get. And it will:

First you are falling for what I like to call the "52 card deck illusion". If you deal out the 52 card deck in a random order, the result will seem unremarkable to you. However I challenge you to randomly mix and deal card decks for the rest of your life and get that same sequence again. Not only will you likely not achieve it, if several generations of your progeny for millennia take up the mantel of doing it too, they likely will not either.

Douglas Adams put it better in a more accessible way. Imagine a puddle of water that becomes conscious. The puddle would look at the hole it is in and think "My god, is it not amazing that the hole in which I find myself just HAPPENS to be PERFECT for my exact shape? I fit it to perfectly for this to be just coincidence and chance!!!!".

The core of your error should be clear I think. The hole was not formed for the puddle. The puddle formed to fit the whole. The sequence of the 52 cards is not remarkable UNTIL you attempt to imagine attaining that sequence a second time.

So in short, life on this planet arose to fit the conditions it found itself in. There may be any number of other conditions (sequence of 52 cards) that seem equally unlikely in retrospect, but could just as easily have formed "life".

The problem when we imagine the likelihood of life on THIS planet is we look at life on THIS planet as being the only sequence of 52 cards that matters. When in fact there could be any number of them. And given an ENTIRELY different hole, with an ENTIRELY different shape..... a puddle would still have formed, become conscious, and wondered at the remarkable perfection of the hole to fit it's form.

But remember we are not just dealing the 52 card decks one after another in our universe. We have billions of galaxies, with billions of start systems, each with billions of stars, each with their own planetary systems. So we are running that experiment countless times with countless initial starting parameters. In other words we are not just dealing the deck, we are dealing MANY times more decks than there are possible sequences of the deck!

And when you get into numbers THAT big, then even the most improbable event is going to happen. You quickly get to the point where "It is very improbable X will happen" to "It is very improbably X will NOT happen" when you go up to numbers of that magnitude.

Just like it is improbable you will win the lotto.... but if you get 100 billion people to play it.... it is improbable that SOMEONE wont win it.

Oranage2 wrote: »

It's arguments like yours but not specific to you, that makes God seem like a more believable possibility.

I hope I have illustrated above with my 2 analogies and appended explanation, why this is simply not so.

But to ADD to it.... if one is going to assign probabilities and possibilities to it..... one has to acknowledge that whatever the probability of life arising on Earth is..... by a slow incremental process of evolution..... it is remarkably more likely than an all powerful, all intelligent, all knowing being simply existing out of nothing for no reason whatsoever.

Vivisectus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why is speed an issue if the distance between two points is zero, after all?

Hahah not yet it isn't, for all practical purposes

The Corinthian

Vivisectus wrote: »

Hahah not yet it isn't, for all practical purposes

Every bit as practical as traveling at the speed of light currently.

Brian Shanahan

Oranage2 wrote: »

Also another thing I don't get from this theory is why isn't there any life on planets close to us since if the big bang happened then surely planets in close proximity should have similar conditions and life forms.

How the hell did you come up with this particular assertion? What you've just said is so meaningless and absurd that there is no real response any sensible person could give you.

Anyways here's an attempt:
1) The big bang has nothing to do with life, except in the indirect way of happening in such a way that ensures there's some place for life to live on.
2) The planets are only in close proximity in relative terms. There are still millions of miles between us and Venus. It only looks close because space is so vast.
3) The other planets are not, as far as we know, in an orbit around Sol to engender life, though there are scientific speculations about the viability of some forms of life (mostly at bacterial level) around some of the moons of Jupiter (Europa mainly, like in some of Arthur C. Clarke's novels).
4) Evolution doesn't always pan out the same way, especially when you are talking about planets with such massively different compositions (for example take a look at Venus some time), so even if life existed on all the other planets, you would expect them to be radically different than here on earth, to suit the radically different environments they would exist in.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I hope you didn't post that to bolster your case. She is clearly a fcuking idiot that simply refuses to accept or acknowledge anything that goes against her religious world view.

Actually JC, I know this has been brought up before, are you a woman? Is that actually you in the video?

MrP

Its not me ... I'm a man and a scientist and Wendy is neither.

She is a very articulate, knowledgeable and competent lady ... and while Richard Dawkins started out interviewing Wendy ... he ended up being interviewed by her!!!

Here is the whole amazing interview ...

.

It was a respectful and civil exchange of views and opinions ... exactly what I would have expected from Prof Dawkins as the undoubted gentleman that he is and from Wendy Wright as the lady that she also undoubtedly is.

Prof Dawkins is somebody I greatly admire ... I have read all his books ... and I find him to be a very good and entertaining writer ... sometimes controversial ... but always interesting.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, it's kind of funny that one of the arguments for her wanting to promote the idea that we are created is that she wants humans to be treated with respect and dignity. Unless you are gay if in need if abortion, that is.

MrP

... and if you're gay or pregnant ... you should also be treated with respect and dignity.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

Isn't she in prison or had a restraining order put against her for doing stuff outside abortion clinics?

Why would anyone trying to build up the position of creationism show this video? This woman isn't a scientist or a very nice person for that matter.

She isn't in prison and she wasn't named in any injunction ... but was still arrested for simply praying on the far side of the street from an abortion clinic. She was sentenced to six months in jail ... which was overturned on appeal to a higher court ... and this all happened in 1991 ... while the interview with Richard Dawkins took place 18 years later in 2009.

She actually covers this in the interview with Richard Dawkins here:-

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... and if you're gay ... you should also be treated with respect and dignity as well.

That's not what the Bible says...

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

That's not what the Bible says...

Jesus said honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind ... and love your neighbour as yourself.:)

J C

Here is a fascinating exchange between Prof Dawkins and Ben Stein

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Jesus said honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind ... and love your neighbour as yourself.:)

That doesn't address the point.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death ; their blood shall be upon them.

Stone rape victims:

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

It's in your Bible. It's the word of your god.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

That doesn't address the point.

Stone rape victims:

It's in your Bible. It's the word of your god.

This is Israelite Law as recorded in the Bible.
Christians are under grace ... and are not under Israelite Law.:)

Love one another as I have loved you, is Jesus command to His Church

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Love one another as I have loved you, is Jesus command to His Church

You keep coming up with this waffle. Jesus cursed a fig tree. Because it was out of season.

Saganist

Pherekydes wrote: »

You keep coming up with this waffle. Jesus cursed a fig tree. Because it was out of season.

Don't bite.

He's a troll.

floggg

J C wrote: »

This is Israelite Law as recorded in the Bible.
Christians are under grace ... and are not under Israelite Law.:)

Love one another as I have loved you, is Jesus command to His Church

But is it the word of God? It's in the bible isn't it?

If if it is, why does he think it's ok to stone Israeli rape victims?

And how does he feel about non-Christian gentiles?

Do Palestinians get a pass on the stoning/Slavery thing? They aren't necessarily Israeli but they do live in "Israel" and they certainly aren't Jews.

Care to answer any of the serious gaping holes pointed out in your dodgy math?

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

This is Israelite Law as recorded in the Bible.
Christians are under grace ... and are not under Israelite Law.:)

Love one another as I have loved you, is Jesus command to His Church

So as a non Christian, I have nothing to worry about as your rules don't apply to me.

Thanks for clearing that up

Pherekydes

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

So as a non Christian, I have nothing to worry about as your rules don't apply to me.

Thanks for clearing that up

Jesus loves everyone and we are all saved, donchano? Except when he doesn't.

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So there you have it. 33 years, 2000 years' ago. A pretty small window to be saved. God is such a fcuker.