"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- chrisRG0
the problem with religious people is that when "you/science/anything" prove that wasn't god that "created the world, created us, designed us, etc us..." they will argue a step behind and so on and on, religion it is the biggest meme of our history and we needed it to be here today, but please, take that only as that it is, there is no such thing as god out there, if u ever studied a bit about it with an open mind you'd realize that.
- please read more books than only that one
- please travel more, know more countries, cultures, religions...
- please try to think at least one day in life: "what if..."than the last famous quote about the good/bad news:
- bad: no, there is no god!
- good: you don't need it anyway!
- designbot0
I think these quotes from scientists are quite cool and interesting...they really break open the myth that science and God are somehow at odds.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
- There's are tons and tons more btw...just pulled a few.designbot
- What if you found out it was the Islamic God instead of your vision of God?DrBombay
- then you'd still have to deal with a creator and the possibility that you are accountable to it/he/she :)teleos
- Couldn't I ask you a rewording of the same question? To quote you Dr.B "Enough with the what ifs"designbot
- Speak when spoken to.DrBombay
- sorry DB, my rude comment was for the other guy.DrBombay
- He likes to try to make other people look stupid, you know like Jesus used to do.DrBombay
- it's all good :)designbot
- Jesus was the master at removing people's foundation for argument quickly...usually leaving them to the crickets.designbot
- I always thought he was prob a pretty nice guy.DrBombay
- that clinches it. there must be a god and purpose to all things!spifflink
- my favorite thing ever is appealing to authority. ever. for serious.spifflink
- hey spiff, again you are verging on troll. I don't get why you or anyone feel the need to make such comments? They contribute nothing to the conversation.designbot
- nothing to the conversation.designbot
- yeah Dr.B I think the 2 things almost anyone can agree on...Jesus really did exists (human or God) and that he was must've been a nice dude :)designbot
- neither do you then. keep trying to establish your own criteria for what constitutes 'conversation'.spifflink
- ..must've been a nice dude ;)designbot
- spiff, all you did was throw some sarcastic remark out...how is that a conversation?designbot
- its pointing out the absurdity of some things people put forth. seriously, quit whining.spifflink
- some of these scientists have done amazing work, so i am not disparaging them.spifflink
- whatever, "absurd" by your own biased definition. Why not contribute something real to the conversation instead of making dogmatic assertions?designbot
- dogmatic assertions?designbot
- my own "biased" definition? disparaging 'dogma' and embracing religion in the same breath? haha!spifflink
- well then i can't argue with THAT circular logic.spifflink
- All this because you can't man-up and admit what you said was more snarky comment than valuable conversation. LOLdesignbot
- I would say something but apparently I am tainted by "bias". I would argue with you but you'll pull more mental gymnastics to rationalize your supremacy.spifflink
- assert your brand of logic's supremacy.spifflink
- and i guess being "snarky" is a bannable offense or something. which is why NO ONE on QBN is snarky at all.spifflink
- sorry you feel that way. I'm all about in engaging in conversation with mutual respect.designbot
- Yeah, I know people are snarky all the time on here, not saying that.designbot
- teleos0
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
- Dr. Robert Jastrow, Astronomer
- wrong0
i always thought the "missing link" was the species between apes and prehistoric man . . . were we looking for what links all of those species to previous mammals? if so, hooray!
- teleos0
I am FOR evolution, if you mean change over a long period of time.
I am AGAINST evolution, if you mean blind stochastic mechanisms making the change, like Darwinism.
I am FOR belief in climate change.
I am AGAINST belief in anthropogenic climate change.
- ETM0
Eagerly awaiting resolution to this debate:
- DrBombay0
Teleos, you are against evolution and against man contributed to global warming, correct?
- teleos0
Miko - "Natural selection is the process that SORTS the naturally occuring genetic mutations.."
1. Never been observed.
2. Observed: mutations which KILL the organism
3. Warranted inference from the evidence: NS kills organisms/ensures extinction via deleterious mutations.- I've never observed my sisters kids growing either, but they are bigger every time I visit.ribit
- teleos0
ukit... here's the point you're missing... NS+RM has never, i repeat NEVER been experimentally shown to be the mechanism responsible for such change/adaptation. Conversely, we can hypothesize that pre-existing information was triggered in such speciation events. Why? Look inside the cell (which Darwin couldn't see into). Scientists are finding ancient see urchins with all of the information for digits (fingers) present, just un-expressed. The information was there, just not expressed. Hence the front-loading hypothesis.
- is there a google version you use that filters out reputable scientific journals and only brings up answersingenesis or other nonsense sites?spifflink
- nonsense site?spifflink
- http://www.answersin… :DDrBombay
- that makes sense!spifflink
- Mal0
- ukit0
haha
"natural selection does not produce anything novel in the way of cell, tissue or body plans"
you are making it so much more complicated than it really is. If I breed a horse and a zebra, what do I get? A zebra like horse.
The zebra horse (or zorse, if you will) inherits some of the genes from the horse and some from the zebra.
Why is it so hard for you to consider the idea that this can happen, over time, on a much larger scale? That's all evolution is proposing.
- Natural selection is the process that SORTS the naturally occuring genetic mutations..mikotondria3
- I believe such an animal is called a "Hebra". *puffs pipe*Khurram
- listen carefully... there is NO experimental evidence that natural selection/random mutation...teleos
- produced the change. It could just as well have been pre-programmed information taking environmental cues.teleos
- i love ignoring facts and evidence. the only problem is its still there even though i am plugging my ears and going 'nananananana'spifflink
- 'nananananana!!!!'spifflink
- mikotondria30
Bullshit.
You just want to point at bits of biology you don't understand and say that god did it.
Don't pretend anything else, you total fucking fraud.- *with respect.mikotondria3
- haha, when one cannot argue the evidence, one can always resort to character attacks.teleos
- he has argues the evidence, which you tactfully ignore. you just fell back to the same tactics you say you dont use.spifflink
- hurray for circular fucking logic.spifflink
- teleos0
" There are many many things in this world, which at one time had only a religious explaination, but that now - thanks to the hardwork, talent and dedication of people creating and implementing the scientific method, have a better scientific explaination.
There are no things that once had a scientific explaination, but that now have a religious explaination.
Not one. " -MikoIt works both ways, incidentally. We now have a universe which began with a singularity bursting forth with all matter and energy from "nothing". This looks a lot like the Bible's Genesis account "In the beginning there was nothing... ...let there be light".
We also have a fossil record which is a series of bursts of saltation events, not the slow gradualism with intermediates that Darwinism predicted. Nothing like it at all. This smells a bit like pre-programmed creation events.
- Newton, Mendell, Kepler, etc... all visionaries in modern science and staunch theists.teleos
- yeh, it must 'smell' like all those other universes that you know about and are comparing it to.....mikotondria3
- Newton also spent 40 years studying astrology.mikotondria3
- teleos0
Everyone else has brought up religion. I have not.
My decree now and henceforth will remain: follow the evidence where it leads. And it's as simple as this: the reigning paradigm in biology [Darwinism] has failed spectacularly. The Darwinian mechanism has been shown, primarily through repeated experimentation with drosophila and malaria, that natural selection does not produce anything novel in the way of cell, tissue or body plans. Period. It ensures extinction ultimately by killing organisms. It throws out that which it does not need. It has failed as a mechanism for producing anything of significance. Nothing religious about that. Something else that has nothing to do with religion: the evidence points to purposive engineering in biology; functionally integrated machinery, programming code, transport shuttling, redundancy, and even password encryption, in the cell. And that's not even scratching the surface.
blueOne can toss around all the ad hominems and genetic fallacies he wants about Creationism masquerading as science blah blah dee blah, but it's just not going to change the empirical evidence which is what I'm interested in talking about in these threads (which I never start).
- So you are being purposefully disingenuous then. I thought so. total prick. Won't be coming back to any of these threads. Have a nice life ass.TheBlueOne
- nice life ass.TheBlueOne
- haha wow. nice fantasy world you are living in.spifflink
- how am i being disingenuous??? Do tell.teleos
- gahick! Spifflink.teleos
- gahick? i just want to see your portfolio. hopefully your design work makes up for the lack of critical thinking skills.spifflink
- designbot0
Okay I was really not wanting to get into this rabbit trail, since to me it's seems quite off topic to the general conversation...but I will give ONE example, and that's all. Because some of you seem to want to deal in absolutes like "There are no things that once had a scientific explaination, but that now have a religious explaination.
Not one." all it takes is one example to prove your statement false.
The oldest manuscripts in existence (yes from the Bible) record the earth being a sphere or "circle". What did science think at the time? Flat earth."Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the “four corners” of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the “language of appearance,” just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. [DD]
In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. [DD]
A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."
Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]
The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate." [Encyclopedia Brittanica]
The Greeks also drew meridians and parallels. They identified such areas as the poles, equator, and tropics. This spherical earth concept did not prevail; the Romans drew the earth as a flat disk with oceans around it. [JSM]"
- Thank you, designbot. I grew weary of demolishing the "them ignorant christians" caricatures a long time ago.teleos
- There was no "science" at that time. Science was invented as a specific mode of thought around 1500ADTheBlueOne
- So to say "Science thought the world was flat" is just incorrect.TheBlueOne
- well what existed of science...there was still science, it just had a very different face for sure.designbot
- versus religion. which has the same basic face.spifflink
- lol blueONe. Of course there was science. Maybe not the scientific method, but the hard sciences like mathematics have been around since before we arrived. :)teleos
- around since before we arrived.teleos
- ukit0
Less than 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled that evolution could not be taught to schools.