Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/380#post_3492242
Its even easier in the Jewish religion. Just throw some bread in running water on Rosh Hashannah
http://judaism.about.com/od/holidays/a/whatistashlich.htm

As man of Jewish cultural background you know full well that tossing your bread on the water is by no means an act of attaining forgiveness. Rather it is an act that symbolizes actively acknowledging your personal sins, since you name the sin as you take the bread, and throw them away for the water to take it far from you. Making it more an act of repentance and forsaking the evil of your ways, and making a dicision to not do it anymore.
I want to also say that you are supposed to ask forgivness from people you have wronged and to forgive those who have wronged you...Selicot. To obtain forgivness you must be willing to forgive, for if you forgive others...we hope God will forgive us our shortcomings. A strong teaching by Jesus as well....He was so Jewishy, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/380#post_3492228
Just a couple comments:
I keep hearing 'monkey". There are no theories I know of that further the idea of humans being direct decendents of monkeys.
Also, when speaking of evolution why are we focussing on humans when there are more complete examples in the animal kingdom.
When I was in school we had a big poster...it showed a blob with an eye, then a fish, then a fish with legs, than a lizard creature, then a monkey, then a monkey-man, then a hairy Neanderthal man, and then a modern man. Darwins theory is that we all came from the same fishy goo and evolved into different branches of creatures, all by natural selection as time passed...an accident.
I don't think there is a problem with evolution and people evolving from an earlier version, nor do I worry if they don't even resemble the modern version. My problem is Darwin's theory that we all came from the same line. The Bible and evolution co-exist without a problem in assumptions, because even though evolution can trace some creatures back to the earlier versions thru fossils, it does not refute the concept that God did it.
Darwins theory has never been proven, and is full of holes, he claims that it was all an accident of events because some amemba decided to turn into a fish. I also think some of what has been uncovered by scientists refutes Darwin's theory creating even more holes. People think Darwin's theory and evolution are one and the same, because in lower school grades, evolution and Darwin's theory are lumped together in science class. They are indeed simular but not in origin of life. Science can show what came first by carbon dating ...it matches by the way on what scriptures says God created first.....(A fact I find delightful as it is explained by scientists, while I hug my books close to my heart.), but science can't show the origin of anything, at least not at this time. While Darwin and religion claim to know, so the concept of where it all began is up for grabs. Religion claims God did it, and atheists claim it just sort of happened....scientists find stuff and report their findings, then depending on what a person believes they see it their way.
Then there are folks who have not studied either one and make silly comments....LOL...you know who you are.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492248

As man of Jewish cultural background you know full well that tossing your bread on the water is by no means an act of attaining forgiveness. Rather it is an act that symbolizes actively acknowledging your personal sins, since you name the sin as you take the bread, and throw them away for the water to take it far from you. Making it more an act of repentance and forsaking the evil of your ways, and making a dicision to not do it anymore.
I want to also say that you are supposed to ask forgivness from people you have wronged and to forgive those who have wronged you...Selicot. To obtain forgivness you must be willing to forgive, for if you forgive others...we hope God will forgive us our shortcomings. A strong teaching by Jesus as well....He was so Jewishy, don't you think?
When I was in school we had a big poster...it showed a blob with an eye, then a fish, then a fish with legs, than a lizard creature, then a monkey, then a monkey-man, then a hairy Neanderthal man, and then a modern man. Darwins theory is that we all came from the same fishy goo and evolved into different branches of creatures, all by natural selection as time passed...an accident.
I don't think there is a problem with evolution and people evolving from an earlier version, nor do I worry if they don't even resemble the modern version. My problem is Darwin's theory that we all came from the same line. The Bible and evolution co-exist without a problem in assumptions, because even though evolution can trace some creatures back to the earlier versions thru fossils, it does not refute the concept that God did it.
Darwins theory has never been proven, and is full of holes, he claims that it was all an accident of events because some amemba decided to turn into a fish. I also think some of what has been uncovered by scientists refutes Darwin's theory creating even more holes. People think Darwin's theory and evolution are one and the same, because in lower school grades, evolution and Darwin's theory are lumped together in science class. They are indeed simular but not in origin of life. Science can show what came first by carbon dating ...it matches by the way on what scriptures says God created first.....(A fact I find delightful as it is explained by scientists, while I hug my books close to my heart.), but science can't show the origin of anything, at least not at this time. While Darwin and religion claim to know, so the concept of where it all began is up for grabs. Religion claims God did it, and atheists claim it just sort of happened....scientists find stuff and report their findings, then depending on what a person believes they see it their way.
Then there are folks who have not studied either one and make silly comments....LOL...you know who you are.
Based on your logic, neither thheory can be proven. So just callit even and move on...
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492252
Based on your logic, neither thheory can be proven. So just callit even and move on...
That would be great, but there are flaws in her logic.
These can be clearly defined and explained. The most prominent logical fallacy I see you using is false analogy.
You used this twice, if I'm not mistaken. Evolution does not occur by chance. The opposite is true. Evolution is the non-random accumulation of favorable changes. Mutations occur with great frequency. Most are unnoticeable. Some are unfavorable (eg colorblindness), and every once in a while these mutations are favorable. If the mutations are favorable, the organism will be more fit and pass these on. That's actually pretty intuitive.
The second time you used it is the whole missing link thing.
Your analogy for this is poor and as a result, your understanding of the situation is poor as well. The analogy you are using is that humans are part of a metaphorical chain that stretches back to the beginning of time (6000 years ago, right?). We take all of the links we know (the monkeys that already exist are a chain, right?) and we add links that we find in the fossil record. If we can't find a link then we employ logical fallacy number 2 (ad ignorantium). You have not found the "missing link" therefore none exists, therefore creationism wins. But that one is unimportant because if we fix the analogy, then it becomes unusable anyhow.
The problem with this analogy, essentially, is that links are clearly definable. They are black and white. They are quantitative and exact. If evolution were like this, there would be a huge problem. So we start by saying, what is a species? A species is generally defined as a group of species in which all are capable of interbreeding. Of course there are problems with this (for example lions and tigers are different species-as are donkeys and horses...also all dogs belong to the same species, but have been artificially selected to the point that not every breed can interbreed, but these problems just make the whole situation less quantitative, which works toward my point anyhow). So, biologists usually love analogies. The one that biologists use for evolution is not the chain analogy, but a continuum analogy. Basically, shades of one lifeform fade into another. Also note that humans did not evolve from a species that currently exists. So let's assign Homo Erectus the color white and Homo Sapians (humans) the color black. So one fades into the other. Here are the questions we face: at what point on the continuum does white start being gray? At what point does gray start being black? If we take a random point on the continuum we can determine if it is more black or more white, but for some points this is not so easy. Can you find the shade of gray that is exactly half white and half black? Clearly to prove evolution (or rather disprove this argument) we need to find all of the shades of gray in the fossil record. We can transform this superior analogy to the chain analogy, but that would make the chain analogy have millions of links and our fossil record (understandably) just can't provide us with millions of specimens.
Sometimes we find species and it is very difficult (even impossible) to classify them as either human or homo erectus. Guess why?
Another logical fallacy I saw was the moving goalpost. Every time we find a "chain" two new holes emerge. When we find the proof creationists want, they will always need more proof. It goes like this:
"Show me the missing link and I will believe your theory."
"Homo Sapiens"
"Show me the link before that and I will believe your theory."
"Homo Habilis"
"Show me the link before that and I will..."
You get the point.
One final logical fallacy and I'll stop for a while. The last one that you have used (whether you realized it or not) is argument from personal incredulity. You find it hard to believe, therefore it cannot be true.
Abre los ojos
 
D

dragonzim

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492270
Of course there are problems with this (for example lions and tigers are different species-as are donkeys and horses...also all dogs belong to the same species, but have been artificially selected to the point that not every breed can interbreed, but these problems just make the whole situation less quantitative, which works toward my point anyhow).
Genetically speaking, all dogs can absolutely interbreed. May not be likely physically, but they can. You wouldnt see a make great dane breeding with a female chihuahua for example, but in a lab setting you can absolutely make a viable offspring of the 2. Any species in the genus Canid (Wolves, Coyotes, Dogs, Jackals) can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492280
Genetically speaking, all dogs can absolutely interbreed. May not be likely physically, but they can. You wouldnt see a make great dane breeding with a female chihuahua for example, but in a lab setting you can absolutely make a viable offspring of the 2. Any species in the genus Canid (Wolves, Coyotes, Dogs, Jackals) can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
Donkey and Horse too. Offspring isn't fertile but...
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492280
Genetically speaking, all dogs can absolutely interbreed. May not be likely physically, but they can. You wouldnt see a make great dane breeding with a female chihuahua for example, but in a lab setting you can absolutely make a viable offspring of the 2. Any species in the genus Canid (Wolves, Coyotes, Dogs, Jackals) can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
I was referring to the ehem...plumbing problem. In biology when you try to make an exact definition or group, many times an exception can or will be found.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
There are several species in the "homo" group--all human beings, yet, not homo-sapiens. Some of these co-existed with homo-sapiens whiles others died out long before. While this is not the so-called missing link between humans and lesser primates, it is hard evidence of the existence of more than one species of humans, and the nature of survival of the fittest.
As I said before, there will never be a find for a missing link because you're just not going to find an ape with a human being fetus. Evolution doesn't work that way.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
The whole missing link argument is a strawman argument that goes nowhere. In fact, every time I shave I see an intermediate form in the mirror. Darwin't theory says that every species is either going towards some other species (i.e. evolving, so is an intermediate), or going towards extinction. In the long run, those are the only two choices available to living species. Most do, in fact, become extinct. What will happen to homo sapiens? Who knows?
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492289
The whole missing link argument is a strawman argument that goes nowhere. In fact, every time I shave I see an intermediate form in the mirror. Darwin't theory says that every species is either going towards some other species (i.e. evolving, so is an intermediate), or going towards extinction. In the long run, those are the only two choices available to living species. Most do, in fact, become extinct. What will happen to homo sapiens? Who knows?
Strawman-good catch. What are we up to now?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492284
There are several species in the "homo" group--all human beings, yet, not homo-sapiens. Some of these co-existed with homo-sapiens whiles others died out long before. While this is not the so-called missing link between humans and lesser primates, it is hard evidence of the existence of more than one species of humans, and the nature of survival of the fittest.
As I said before, there will never be a find for a missing link because you're just not going to find an ape with a human being fetus. Evolution doesn't work that way.
So if there is no tie in between humans and a more primitive species how do we know in fact that we evolved from such?
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492300
So if there is no tie in between humans and a more primitive species how do we know in fact that we evolved from such?
What would you consider to be the "tie" that you would need to see in order to believe in the theory? Or, if you were to argue for it then what is the best candidate that currently lives on the planet that you would look towards?
It almost seems to me that in order to believe in evolution then one would almost have to have at least a little bit faith in it. Scientists are supposed to be of an objective and non bias opinion? But what it is that drives such people to search for answers? Is it because they believe there are answers out there to be found even if they can't yet prove it. Could science, in a sense, be a religion, too and people are simply fooling themselves to think otherwise? Who knows.
Where's Tom Cruise? I bet he'd have some answers for us.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492304
What would you consider to be the "tie" that you would need to see in order to believe in the theory? Or, if you were to argue for it then what is the best candidate that currently lives on the planet that you would look towards?
It almost seems to me that in order to believe in evolution then one would almost have to have at least a little bit faith in it. Scientists are supposed to be of an objective and non bias opinion? But what it is that drives such people to search for answers? Is it because they believe there are answers out there to be found even if they can't yet prove it. Could science, in a sense, be a religion, too and people are simply fooling themselves to think otherwise? Who knows.
Where's Tom Cruise? I bet he'd have some answers for us.
I'm jumping on my couch :)
There should be a fossil record that follows the steps from whatever we supposedly evolved from to where we are now. I am not saying there's no evolution. I've just never seen anything to prove we slithered out of the same pool of ooze the rest of the animals on this planet did. I don't believe we would evolve so radically different than the rest of the life forms on the planet.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member

I'm jumping on my couch :)
There should be a fossil record that follows the steps from whatever we supposedly evolved from to where we are now. I am not saying there's no evolution. I've just never seen anything to prove we slithered out of the same pool of ooze the rest of the animals on this planet did. I don't believe we would evolve so radically different than the rest of the life forms on the planet.
What makes you think we are so radically different? Now, giraffes - there's a radically different animal. Or, how about a red velvet fairy wrasse for radically different? Or a mosquito, or redwood tree, or... To a biologist all living things are radically different.
 
2quills

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492307
I'm jumping on my couch :)
There should be a fossil record that follows the steps from whatever we supposedly evolved from to where we are now. I am not saying there's no evolution. I've just never seen anything to prove we slithered out of the same pool of ooze the rest of the animals on this planet did. I don't believe we would evolve so radically different than the rest of the life forms on the planet.
Well that there is the kicker, right? We can look all around the animal kingdom and see variety of different behavioral traits that remind us (or me) of similarities that we can find in ourselves. Why are we so different than the animals? We may have the ability to out think most animals on the planet but really there are many creatures that are much more advanced then us in a lot of things. Perhaps it's just that a larger brain gives us bigger ego's so that we just think we are better than a pile of ooze. What if ooze was actually a good thing? What if everybody, everywhere were all talking about the same darn thing, but it's in small pieces and we've yet advanced far enough in order to be able to put it all together and see the real picture? What if we're not supposed to? What if Darwin and Einstein were up in heaven having themselves some fajitas and sharing a bucket of corona together, right now?
We can create WMD's and blow up the world, but nobody in this thread can ever see eye to eye 100% on everything. What if we were so smart that we took ourselves out? Why the hell am I in this thread when I can be having a fajita and watching The Voice, right now?
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
What would that missing link look like? Not a lower primate entirely, but certainly not homo-sapien. Don't we already have a multitude of these links? I'm not sure what you would expect the missing link to be that we don't already have.
 
snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
2Quills... are you and Kiefer cookin em? Can I join?
Science sometimes does requires a little bit of FAITH. Those philosophers long ago - Socrates, Aristotle, Plato... they were also scientists... they attempted to explain the world through their observations using a method to determine if their observations were accurate. They also theorized about the origin of the Earth and what put us here. Philosophy and Science can almost go hand in hand - where one attempts to explain the why and one requires faith to believe it.
I don't know if you all have ever really done any reading on prison subjects in psychological experiments. Prisoners will throw feces and urinate upon their captors and convert to animalistic behaviors. How different are we than animals?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/400#post_3492311
Well that there is the kicker, right? We can look all around the animal kingdom and see variety of different behavioral traits that remind us (or me) of similarities that we can find in ourselves. Why are we so different than the animals? We may have the ability to out think most animals on the planet but really there are many creatures that are much more advanced then us in a lot of things. Perhaps it's just that a larger brain gives us bigger ego's so that we just think we are better than a pile of ooze. What if ooze was actually a good thing? What if everybody, everywhere were all talking about the same darn thing, but it's in small pieces and we've yet advanced far enough in order to be able to put it all together and see the real picture? What if we're not supposed to? What if Darwin and Einstein were up in heaven having themselves some fajitas and sharing a bucket of corona together, right now?
We can create WMD's and blow up the world, but nobody in this thread can ever see eye to eye 100% on everything. What if we were so smart that we took ourselves out? Why the hell am I in this thread when I can be having a fajita and watching The Voice, right now?
Assuming that a single creator was responsible for all life wouldn't we expect to see some things in common among his works?
 
kiefers

kiefers

Active Member
Oh yum........fajitas *huge sigh*
Okay, I love science, I love ever thing about it it fascinates me and as a guy of biology I see how these microbes live, and give shape to life. With this said, as with these microbes, to which by the way we all, human and animal share something. We are made up of the 40 elements, which is maybe half of all elements but 96% are the big four. Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen. These elements were all bought here hitching a ride from asteroids, meteorites, comets.
Everyone is looking for the "missing link". I have a couple of ideas of my own that are somewhat the same as most physicists, and microbiologists. That is one huge asteroid hit this planet nearly wiping everything out. EVERYTHING. It is hard for us to wrap out brains around this idea and to be able to say that only some reptiles survived, some mammals survived, and only some microbes made it through.
This is where natural selection comes to play. The strongest survives and thrives while the others merely die off, for whatever reason.
The Earth has her secretes, as does our religion, and for the most part we can piece together this puzzle but there will be a few missing pieces.
(Sorry, just got home from Corey's, all those fajitas and coronas, .......WOW, I'm one thankful dude right now. So righteous right now.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top