Debate: Are we naturally religious?

[Kid Chocolate]

Who cares about my text book, is that serious?

Gee, Denny I wonder why no one has picked up your ideas to teach in every science classroom (save the midwest, but that's another thread) through the graduate level.

"Hey, don't listen to everybody else, let me tell you how it really happened!" -random guy on the internet.

Stop arguing like a child and accept what Denny told you.

 

[Denny Crane]

evolution occurs through random mutations. it doesn't happen at a constant rate.

Explain ZERO random mutations over near 2B years. That's the point.

As for the text books, they taught the world was flat for a long time, too.

I believe in Evolution, just pointing out that it's not exactly explaining everything.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

evolution occurs through random mutations. it doesn't happen at a constant rate.

From what I know, that isn't true. All of the creatures on this world adapt to their environment. Through many generations, changes slowly happen. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I am always right. I am God.

 

[Dumpy]

Explain ZERO random mutations over near 2B years. That's the point.

As for the text books, they taught the world was flat for a long time, too.

I believe in Evolution, just pointing out that it's not exactly explaining everything.

for starters, I'll offer the polar bear, which evolved from a brown bear about 100,000 years ago, I believe.

 

[Denny Crane]

for starters, I'll offer the polar bear, which evolved from a brown bear about 100,000 years ago, I believe.

I agree. Now explain why life established itself as a single cell organism and didn't evolve for another 2B years.

 

[GMJ]

Explain ZERO random mutations over near 2B years. That's the point.

As for the text books, they taught the world was flat for a long time, too.

I believe in Evolution, just pointing out that it's not exactly explaining everything.

Yeah Denny I'm sure the scientific method was as objective back then, and I'm pretty sure you'll still get crucified for speaking blasphemies like that these days too. C'mon.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah Denny I'm sure the scientific method was as objective back then, and I'm pretty sure you'll still get crucified for speaking blasphemies like that these days too. C'mon.

I raised 3 issues with Evolution that your text book apparently didn't. Why didn't it?

And do the issues raised even give you a reason to think for yourself instead of accepting what the textbook says?

 

[Moo2K4]

I never have and never will be a religous person. I respect religion and have nothing against those that believe in God (or whatever they may call him), I just find it pointless. To me, it's too far fetched to really believe in.

 

[Dumpy]

I agree. Now explain why life established itself as a single cell organism and didn't evolve for another 2B years.

how do you know that it didn't it could have evolved down paths that did not survive.

 

[GMJ]

I raised 3 issues with Evolution that your text book apparently didn't. Why didn't it?

And do the issues raised even give you a reason to think for yourself instead of accepting what the textbook says?

The textbook decides it doesn't want to cover what Denny Crane thinks and now natural selection is false. Awesome!

I have thought for myself. I've reviewed the information that's been presented to me and I've accepted it. Also being a person who appreciates an objective decision, I appreciate the fact that it's so widely supported from grade school up through our highest levels of education.

 

[Denny Crane]

how do you know that it didn't it could have evolved down paths that did not survive.

It didn't. There's lots and lots of these fossilized single cell life forms throughout the fossil record during that period, and nothing else.

All I'm suggesting is the THEORY is mostly right, but has some flaws. To be more correct, it would include some sort of element of catalyst and catastrophic events. Something kicked it into gear after those 2B years. And something caused the variety of life to appear all at once in the cambrian explosion. And catastrophic events tend to wipe the slate nearly clean to start from near scratch.

This latter point has nothing to do with mutation or long time periods associated with the theory.

I'm not at all suggesting intelligent design or anything like that.

 

[Denny Crane]

The textbook decides it doesn't want to cover what Denny Crane thinks and now natural selection is false. Awesome!

I have thought for myself. I've reviewed the information that's been presented to me and I've accepted it. Also being a person who appreciates an objective decision, I appreciate the fact that it's so widely supported from grade school up through our highest levels of education.

So confronted with scientific fact that disputes parts of this "objective" decision, you would reject the new information and stand by the textbook?

Interesting. Sounds more like a religion than science anymore.

 

[GMJ]

So confronted with scientific fact that disputes parts of this "objective" decision, you would reject the new information and stand by the textbook?

Interesting. Sounds more like a religion than science anymore.

Try not to get caught up and carried away here. You're talking about you're own opinions. There's no new credible scientific information.

 

[Denny Crane]

Try not to get caught up and carried away here. You're talking about you're own opinions. There's no new credible scientific information.

You're right, the information isn't new. Makes me wonder even more about the textbooks these days.

 

[GMJ]

You're right, the information isn't new. Makes me wonder even more about the textbooks these days.

Stop calling your opinions "the information." Somebody is going to get lost and actually think that there's some credible information out there that people are keeping under wrap.

Please, lets get down to earth and realize what we're talking about.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is not my opinion:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

 

[GMJ]

Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

That sounds a lot like natural selection to me.

 

[Denny Crane]

That sounds a lot like natural selection to me.

When the first sentence starts with "Others PROPOSE" then it sounds like opinion to me. And that "others" propose different opinions.

Oh, and it doesn't describe natural selection in the least.

 

[GMJ]

When the first sentence starts with "Others PROPOSE" then it sounds like opinion to me. And that "others" propose different opinions.

So this really isn't any new credible information to disprove natural selection. I'm glad we've come full circle and now agree.

 

[Denny Crane]

In fact, they're supporting my suggestion about something in the environment being a catalyst.

 

[Denny Crane]

So this really isn't any new credible information to disprove natural selection. I'm glad we've come full circle and now agree.

I never tried to disprove natural selection.

I've been told that kind of thing is a straw man.

 

[GMJ]

I never tried to disprove natural selection.

I've been told that kind of thing is a straw man.

1) Please try to stay on topic.

2) No? You do know this all started with

There is evidence of no natural selection for billions of years after the first life was formed.

 

[Denny Crane]

1) Please try to stay on topic.

2) No? You do know this all started with

That is true. There is no evidence of natural selection, as the pbs link says, for most of the first 4B years.

That's a different thing from me saying "there's no such thing as natural selection" which is what you imply is my point.

The Theory of Evolution relies heavily on Natural Selection and implies that life progressed from a single celled organism and over eons of slight mutation turned into all today's modern species, including Man. I pointed out that this is not correct.

Life didn't progress for 2B years, so something else (catalyst) is involved and omitted from the Theory.

Catastrophic events completely alter the long term effects of mutation and adaption. The species that survive aren't the fittest, they're the ones that were furthest away from where the asteroid hit the earth.

If not for the asteroid hitting the earth 65M years ago, there's no reason to believe the earth wouldn't still be ruled by dinosaurs. After all, they dominated for hundreds of millions of years BUT their chain of succession via Evolutionary principles was abruptly terminated.

And for millions of branches on the Phylogenic tree to appear all at once suggests that Natural Selection or Adaptation or Survival of the Fittest was not involved.

 

[speeds]

Well not to let this get too far off topic, but please everyone be mindful that the term 'theory' is deliberately misconstrued by some who wish to treat evolution as divided opinion rather than fact. Gravity, relativity, and germ theory are all classified as theories. That's not to say theory is unwavering fact (what is?); science is built on skepticism and challenging and debunking theories leads to greater scientific discoveries. Note how you will rarely (never?) hear creationism or intelligent design referred to as 'the theory of creationism' or 'the theory of intelligent design'. The pushers of that doctrine have perverted the word theory to their own ends. The term theory is reserved for what they disagree with which (by definition) ironically lends credibility to their opponents, or at least steals credibility from their own line.


With regards to Cambrian radiation, fossil records aren't complete. We're talking about, as Denny has pointed out, an extensive time line of life on Earth, of which we have limited fossil records. The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is the oldest argument in the (non-text) book. Just because we can't explain something with our current science doesn't invoke the need for a lazy "God did it" answer--it invokes the need for more scientific investigation! I suppose "we're working on it" seems like an equally weak answer to "God did it, now STFU," but if the religious are true in their stance, they have no need to fear scientific results. Everything will eventually end with God, right? Once the Cambrian explosion is figured out there will be something else for creationists to jump to, but each foothold they reach gets more precarious.

Creationists (Dembski, etc.) have been quick to jump on evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for a quote in Watchmaker where he says "...we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." But that quote is taken out of context, much in the same way the word theory is used out of context. Its just the preface to his probe into the possible explanations for such gaps, including macromutation. The theory of evolution is still evolving. Perhaps that is why the religious treat science in general with such scorn--religion doesn't evolve. Is it fit to survive?


To the topic at hand, though--there are several examples of why religion is unnatural. Take, for example, the disdain for the human body. If religion is natural, why is nature so reviled? The perfectness of design is very easily debunked scientifically, but religions typically debunk their own assertion in the way they (mis)treat human genitalia and the libido. Or the fact that almost every species to exist on Earth has gone extinct--that one is a bit suspicious, no?

 

[Denny Crane]

Speeds,

My comments and observations are aimed at improving the theory of Evolution. Most descriptions of the theory include 4 or 5 basic principles or laws, including the passing on of genes to the next generation, adaptation, not having a species eaten out of existence, etc. And Natural Selection. I'm just suggesting it needs 6 or 7 or 8 basic principles to be more complete.

I suggested a missing catalyst explains the lack of evidence of Natural Selection for more than half the life of the planet. Some scientists posit this catalyst was the atmosphere reaching a certain level of oxygen, which is plausible and the kind of thing I'm looking for. It's just a guess, though. There are other possibilities I can see, like the moon moving away to a far enough distance to keep the tides from being 100 feet tall. That'd be one thing missing from the theory.

I suggested that the Phylogenic Tree has been burned to the ground and regrew from near scratch. Mammals became dominant after the dinosaurs were killed off by a freak but recurring/periodic kind of catastrophic event. Evolution from a single cell to Man over billions of years was only possible because of asteroid strikes and other natural type disasters. The theory should include this fact.

And there is an artificial component needed to update the theory. We cross pollinate plants for characteristics that have nothing to do with adaptation or selection or survival of the fittest. We pollute the water and kill off entire species (almost another kind of catastrophe). We make poisons to kill off undesirable pests. We're manipulating genes with science, and that's a radical alteration to any natural kind of growth of the Phylogenic Tree. In fact, you could classify this as a kind of intelligent design - we are the designers, not in the creationism sense of the words. I'd consider this critical to having a more complete theory.

 

[igotask8board]

Well time is a way of measuring where we are in relation to our position around the sun, as well as the rotation of our planet. So I'm going to disagree based on the fact that other planetary bodies are in motion as well (with the measure of time being different as it is a relative measurement).

Well, if you want to get technical about it. I was going to say galaxy but no one knows for sure what's out their.

Religion's just an easy, lazy way to explain shit we don't know. It gives false hope, and a false sense of security. It makes crackpots seen as great, amazing, possibly even "God-like".

The lazy are the ones that want in your face proof. If you don't really know, how can you call if false hope?

Who cares about your text book? Natural selection is hugely flawed.

Life formed as single celled organisms about 1B years after the earth formed. For about another 2B years, it didn't evolve at all. Those same single celled organisms are found throughout the fossil record for that period, and there's no other differentiated life forms. So there was zero natural selection going on. The earth certainly evolved geologically over that time, giving life a reason to evolve/adapt.

Evolution and natural selection do not at all explain the cambrian explosion. Here you had a huge variety of life forms appear in the fossil record all at once. There's not enough time in that equation for generations and eons of natural selection to do what it's advertised to do.

Finally (for this post), the dinosaurs didn't disappear because they evolved into something of a higher order. There was a catastrophic event that wiped them out. That wasn't the only cataclysmic event in the geologic and fossil records. The theory of Evolution doesn't account for these events.

Care to explain who/what created these single celled organisms. If God is as smart as we say he is, don't you think he would have given proof to fuel the nonbelievers? Of course he knew man would continue to evolve over time. By giving man scientifical evidence we would all have some doubt, but in the end it's our decision, not Gods. I believe in the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang. It's just God is the one who threw the curve ball.


The brain is an overrated organ.

 

[speeds]

igotask8board-

The Prime Mover argument is one of the last vestiges for people almost willing to accept science but unwilling to accept their own finite mortality. There are several counterarguments to it, but the simplest is as follows: if the proponent of the cosmological argument is willing to accept the scientific method, tracing the origin of the universe back to its initial stage and then throwing out the scientific method when that point is reached is contradictory. You can't say you agree with science in what we've learned about the development of the universe and then put a divine stamp on it at year zero. Either you believe in the scientific method or you don't--you can't have it both ways. Another problem with the casual argument is that if everything has a cause, what is the cause of god and design? If it is exempt from cause, why? If everything has a cause, EVERYTHING has a cause, right? Also, if there is a cause, why must that cause be divine? Couldn't the cause be something else? Unmoved mover proponents prefer not to delve into these questions in favour of using the "god did it" line which is no better than other religious viewpoints against science.

 

[Denny Crane]

Care to explain who/what created these single celled organisms. If God is as smart as we say he is, don't you think he would have given proof to fuel the nonbelievers? Of course he knew man would continue to evolve over time. By giving man scientifical evidence we would all have some doubt, but in the end it's our decision, not Gods. I believe in the Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang. It's just God is the one who threw the curve ball.


The brain is an overrated organ.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't claim to know/explain how the first forms of life came into being, nor do we fully know. I don't at all suggest it came about because of some supreme being.

What it does do is attempt to explain how all the varieties of life we see have evolved from the simplest forms. Over eons and countless generations of reproduction with random chance of the tiniest mutation as genes are passed on, the forms of life became varied and more complex. That mutated forms that weren't viable did not survive. That inferior species became prey for the superior ones and the superior ones simply lived to reproduce. That some species survive to pass on their genes simply by producing so many offspring that predators can't kill off the species. The fossil record, even with significant gaps and missing species in that record does support that all this is true.

My argument here is that this theory is incomplete.

1) None of these processes happened for most of life's history, so some catalyst or set of conditions must also be present to enable or kick start the whole set of processes. I'm not at all suggesting an intelligent designer or supreme being, but something along the lines of the right mix of gases in the atmosphere and/or the right influences of the moon's gravity on the tides and/or other conditions that we don't fully understand at this point. The right kinds of catalysts or conditions can rapidly alter the Evolutionary processes (explain the Cambrian Explosion).

2) That Evolution does not fully explain how life evolved from simpler forms; it is at least a combination of accepted/proven Evolutionary principles and a number of catastrophic events throughout history that combine to determine which species survive and which species abruptly disappear. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs is the example I use to support this - the dinosaurs didn't die off because they couldn't adapt to the environment, nor were they some inferior species that got eaten out of existence.

3) That man is an intelligent agent that has radically altered the Evolutionary processes. The Buffalo became near extinct because we made guns and hunted them to near extinction for sport. We create poisons to kill off undesirable forms of life (pests). We selectively breed plants and animals for traits that suit our desires (bigger faster horses, sweeter pineapple, grapes without seeds, pigs with lower body fat etc.). And more recently we have the know-how to scientifically alter genes (and clone!) to select traits we desire.

 

[pegs]

The lazy are the ones that want in your face proof. If you don't really know, how can you call if false hope?

Creating a whole religion based on bullshit some crackpot said doesn't sound all that great to me. Why have so much hope in something so silly?

So, how are the lazy the ones that want in your face proof? Cause, instead of just sitting there saying, "Oh, that's explainable by God! Just like everything!" They actually go out, do experiments, research and shit and try to find that proof. I'm not sure what you meant, but it sounds completely different from what I meant.

 

[huevonkiller]

igotask8board-

The Prime Mover argument is one of the last vestiges for people almost willing to accept science but unwilling to accept their own finite mortality. There are several counterarguments to it, but the simplest is as follows: if the proponent of the cosmological argument is willing to accept the scientific method, tracing the origin of the universe back to its initial stage and then throwing out the scientific method when that point is reached is contradictory. You can't say you agree with science in what we've learned about the development of the universe and then put a divine stamp on it at year zero. Either you believe in the scientific method or you don't--you can't have it both ways. Another problem with the casual argument is that if everything has a cause, what is the cause of god and design? If it is exempt from cause, why? If everything has a cause, EVERYTHING has a cause, right? Also, if there is a cause, why must that cause be divine? Couldn't the cause be something else? Unmoved mover proponents prefer not to delve into these questions in favour of using the "god did it" line which is no better than other religious viewpoints against science.

Well the "proof" isn't something I can show you guys, it is more on the lines of anecdotal accounts of my private life which I don't wish to share. There are some other historical pieces of evidence but that is just complimentary to my personal experiences.

To me "being with God", whether you believe in him or not, is simply being a good person. In the end no matter who is right, that is all that matters.