Do you believe in evolution?

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by itom37
I've got a question for the theists out there. It's something I wonder about as an atheist. Do any of you believe in free will in the presence of an all knowing god? If so, how do you reconcile the two? I find that by the very definition of god, free will cannot exist (please don't quote that book where it says people have free will or whatever it says, I'm going on the premise that god knows everything). I find that theists who acknowledge an all knowing god are hesitant to let go of the idea that they have free will. Just curious.
Many people who believe in God do not believe in free will, there are also atheists that do not believe in free will. Even without God there is the problem that every action has a cause that causes the action and if every action was caused by a previous action we are not in control of our actions. The debate over freewill is not restricted to those who believe in God.

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Many people who believe in God do not believe in free will, there are also atheists that do not believe in free will. Even without God there is the problem that every action has a cause that causes the action and if every action was caused by a previous action we are not in control of our actions. The debate over freewill is not restricted to those who believe in God.
Surely not, but for that's not what I'm asking.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by itom37
Surely not, but for that's not what I'm asking.
Well let me try my best to explain how I belief there can be an all powerful God and freewill.
Assume:
1. There is a God
2. He is all powerful
Therefore there is nothing out of his power
Therefore it would be in his power to grant freewill.
I know that this arguement may not be convincing but I am not here to convice anyone of anything, merely to ask questions and explain my beliefs.
It doesn't seem logical to try to fully understand something or someone who we believe is transendant.

 

[eaglephot]

I thought we weren't starting a debate? LOL
I believe one simple thing... God created everything. That's it. I guess you could say that I believe something like evolution. Example: How did we get so many different dogs breeds? Different animals bred with one another to create a new breed. I don't believe that God created a Bichon, for example, the day he created all land animals. He could have, though. I'll ask him when I get to Heaven!

Be nice everyone!

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Well let me try my best to explain how I belief there can be an all powerful God and freewill.
Assume:
1. There is a God
2. He is all powerful
Therefore there is nothing out of his power
Therefore it would be in his power to grant freewill.
I know that this arguement may not be convincing but I am not here to convice anyone of anything, merely to ask questions and explain my beliefs.
It doesn't seem logical to try to fully understand something or someone who we believe is transendant.
It's just that the two seem quite contradictory, no?
Anyway, your last sentence is one of the better ones I've read on this forum: It's important for theists and atheists alike to realize above all that we know approximately nothing about anything.

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by itom37
It's just that the two seem quite contradictory, no?
Anyway, your last sentence is one of the better ones I've read on this forum: It's important for theists and atheists alike to realize above all that we know approximately nothing about anything.
It is quiet a braintwister. . .

 

[1journeyman]

Fore-knowledge does not exclude Free Will.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by itom37
So it seems some of you guys don't know what genetic drift is. Genetic drift is the random fluctuation of frequency of alleles (i guess for simplicity you can correlate this to traits) in a population. It happens to good, bad, and neutral alleles equally, and genetic drift occurs independently of natural selection. This is one means by which you can see a deleterious allele become fixed in a population... it's pure chance.
Which leads to mutations. Mutations are one of the crucial building blocks of the theory of evolution. Mutations are far more likely to be dterimental than beneficial.
Originally Posted by itom37
Evolution is founded on the idea of natural selection, which is quite different, but related. While an allele is being influenced randomly by genetic drift, it is also probably being subjected to natural selection based on the fitness it confers. A beneficial allele is (in a simpler world) going to be selected for because individuals with it are more fit and reproduce more. The opposite is true for deleterious alleles. ....
Only true to some degree. Natural Selection applies more to Micro Evolution. Not Macro. Example... a Giraffe with a longer tongue is able to eat out of the tallest trees. It survives several droughts and breeds more often. That's Natural Selection. Now, it's offspring will be giraffes with longer tongues, not birds, which would be Macro Evolution.
Originally Posted by itom37
Combining both factors complicates things of course, and due to drift we get persistence of deleterious alleles and loss of beneficial ones, but over the course of billions of years, the often subtle influence of selection on drift has lead to incredible species diversification.
Again, I disagree. Mutations lead to death and unviable offspring. Not beneficial traits to a species.
Originally Posted by itom37
Random genetic drift is not the main driving force in evolution, it's natural selection. It's important to recognize the difference. ....
More important to recognize difference in "true" evolution and adaptation.
Originally Posted by itom37
Also, awhile back someone said that i was correct in stating that entropy must only increase in a closed system but that entropy still discredits evolution... they're wrong, and I'm curious to hear how they justify their statement. If that were true, then no biological function would be possible.
I stated the Law of Entropy goes against Evolution.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by itom37
I've got a question for the theists out there. It's something I wonder about as an atheist. Do any of you believe in free will in the presence of an all knowing god? If so, how do you reconcile the two? I find that by the very definition of god, free will cannot exist (please don't quote that book where it says people have free will or whatever it says, I'm going on the premise that god knows everything). I find that theists who acknowledge an all knowing god are hesitant to let go of the idea that they have free will. Just curious.
I never thought anyone questioned free will. It's what makes us human; our choices aren't strictly determined by our needs.
Let me try to explain how I think of it:
We live in a universe dictated by time; There's a past, present, and future. God has always existed, he existed before the universe was made, and he exists outside the laws of our universe. God is not dictated by time; everything exists to him as the present. God knows everything; he doesn't "know the future", rather he "exists within the future".
God made us in his image, and gave us the gift of free will; to make our own decisions. He will never prove himself to us because that would jeopardize our free will.
It's really hard to explain, but we will never be able to comprehend God. Imagine you lived in a 2-dimensional world....all you know is what exists in the x and y plane. Even if I tried to explain to you that a world exists in a third dimension, you wouldn't be able to understand.
(Sorry its off the topic, but I wanted to explain

)

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
I believe in changes in populations over time so I guess I believe in evolution.
Thats a proven form of evolution called "micro" evolution.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Thats a proven form of evolution called "micro" evolution.
Exactly.
Adaptation has been proven, both in the lab and in the natural environment.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by Jerthunter
No intermediate species? What about the fossils of Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopiyhecus garhi, A. bahrelghazali, A. platyops.... etc....
Many of these examples upon closer examination were found to be fossil compilations where in some instances were actually manipulated by the scientist that "discovered" the fossils. By manipulated I'm talking filing ape jaws to fit human skulls etc...

 

[jerthunter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBlack22
Many of these examples upon closer examination were found to be fossil compilations where in some instances were actually manipulated by the scientist that "discovered" the fossils. By manipulated I'm talking filing ape jaws to fit human skulls etc...
Yes yes, people who want fame do sometimes make things up. There have been problems, many have been found, I am sure there are more but I am not willing to toss out every fossil due to a few bad eggs.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by grumpygils
The chances that man came from a rock (basically, that is what evolution believes) has about as much chance as a tornado hitting a junk yard and a 747 coming out the back. Another way to phrase it. Evolution hides behind time. The basic fact is that if you put a monkey in a room with a type writer, no matter how many millions of years he takes, he will not compose Shakespear. In fact, he will not compose one complete sentence. Being in the science field, I wrestled with it for a while, but the evidence points to creation.
Mc

Amen...

 

[itom37]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Which leads to mutations. Mutations are one of the crucial building blocks of the theory of evolution. Mutations are far more likely to be dterimental than beneficial.
Nothing I said there "leads to mutations".
Only true to some degree. Natural Selection applies more to Micro Evolution. Not Macro. Example... a Giraffe with a longer tongue is able to eat out of the tallest trees. It survives several droughts and breeds more often. That's Natural Selection. Now, it's offspring will be giraffes with longer tongues, not birds, which would be Macro Evolution.
Ok, so if you add up enough microevoluationary events, you get macro evolution
Again, I disagree. Mutations lead to death and unviable offspring. Not beneficial traits to a species.
Most mutations are bad... natural selection favors the good ones, leading to new traits.
More important to recognize difference in "true" evolution and adaptation.
I stated the Law of Entropy goes against Evolution.
Yes, you did. You're wrong.

 

[itom37]

Ok i'm not terribly good at this multiple quote thing... Sorry if it looks like I've modified what you said.

 

[itom37]

I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on this micro/macro evolution. It sounds like a distinction drawn by Bill O'Riley to further deny logic and evidence. It seems painfully clear to me that "micro"evolution leads to "macro"evolution.

 

[jerthunter]

I think too many people get caught up on this, "What are the chances" arguement. But if you were to win the lottery lets say, it wouldn't matter what the chances where because it happened. So, sure, it might have been highly unlikely that actions would unfold like this but since they did it shouldn't matter that it was unlikely.

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Exactly.
Adaptation has been proven, both in the lab and in the natural environment.
Sorry guys, I just repeated things that had already been said. I should've realized this was a heated issue and would be longwinded. I just noticed it was two pages after posting...

 

[deltablack22]

Originally Posted by itom37
I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on this micro/macro evolution. It sounds like a distinction drawn by Bill O'Riley to further deny logic and evidence. It seems painfully clear to me that "micro"evolution leads to "macro"evolution.
Call it what you want - its the definition of the types of evolution.