• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Funny that miracles are always highly subjective and unprovable. God cured my cancer, but he didn't regrow my arm. God saved my life but chose to ignore the orphan with abusive foster parents that got raped and murdered in the gutter. I wonder if the guy who got struck by lighting 10 times considered it to be a miracle that we was alive, while discounting the miracle of getting hit by lighting 10 times. If it's subjectively good, it's a miracle, bad, it's chance. The child who got raped and murdered probably doesn't consider the vast improbability that he was born to a specific set of parents who abandoned him and he just happened to be put into a home with a child rapist and murderer a miracle. If you want to see miracles, you will see them and ignore all other explanations.

This reminds me a Futurama episode where a ghosts passes before their eyes and the robot says "there is a perfectly logical explanation for that". Classic...:biglaugh:

Besides, I was being fecetious. But, by all means continue with your parade.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Yeah, it's called a miracle. :D
Nah... Its practically impossible for the sand to fall in general (IE throw the sand and calculate the odds it landed the way it did) but you do throw the sand, so something will happen...
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Besides, I was being fecetious. But, by all means continue with your parade.
I figured as much. But eh... I'm bored at work and had time to explain more =)
 

Aasimar

Atheist
This reminds me a Futurama episode where a ghosts passes before their eyes and the robot says "there is a perfectly logical explanation for that". Classic...:biglaugh:

Besides, I was being fecetious. But, by all means continue with your parade.

I love parades! Unless I'm walking the same direction, then they are so freakin boring.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Nah... Its practically impossible for the sand to fall in general (IE throw the sand and calculate the odds it landed the way it did) but you do throw the sand, so something will happen...
I know.....:) Just saying that if it fell and formed a pumpkin or pink unicorn that certainly would impress me, no matter how many formulas explained it.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
I know.....:) Just saying that if it fell and formed a pumpkin or pink unicorn that certainly would impress me, no matter how many formulas explained it.
I do feel I should clarify something with the math. Depending on how many drugs you are on... It might be very probable to see a unicorn on top of a pumpkin in the sand.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I do feel I should clarify something with the math. Depending on how many drugs you are on... It might be very probable to see a unicorn on top of a pumpkin in the sand.
Well, drugs can also cause you not to see it. ;)
 

A-Fighter

New Member
Hello everyone, I am a new member and I would like to join this debate about Evolution.

I want to show a website to all the Atheists here and see what they think about it.
It is an 800-page book written by someone called Harun Yahya: harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php


Please reply back when you have read it.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
A-Fighter said:
Hello everyone, I am a new member and I would like to join this debate about Evolution.

I want to show a website to all the Atheists here and see what they think about it.
It is an 800-page book written by someone called Harun Yahya: harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php

Please reply back when you have read it.

I'm sorry... I only read the caption of one picture... Here is what it says:

"One of the major findings that invalidates the theory of evolution is the fossil records, which reveal that the structures of living species remained unchanged for tens of millions of years. Pictured is an insect living in our day and its 50-million year old fossil. This species, which remains the same after 50 million years, refutes evolution."

The person who wrote this book was very ignorant of the theory of evolution.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I'm sorry... I only read the caption of one picture... Here is what it says:

"One of the major findings that invalidates the theory of evolution is the fossil records, which reveal that the structures of living species remained unchanged for tens of millions of years. Pictured is an insect living in our day and its 50-million year old fossil. This species, which remains the same after 50 million years, refutes evolution."

The person who wrote this book was very ignorant of the theory of evolution.

Just do us a favor and don't put us (theist) all in that basket. :cover:
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
Victor said:
Just do us a favor and don't put us (theist) all in that basket. :cover:

It all depends on how you answer this question:
Was said basket intelligently designed or did it evolve from a plate? :rolleyes:
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
Please explain in detail so I know what you are talking about.

In the second paragraph on the web site you link to, it says "According to his evolution scenario, inanimate substances came together by chance to give rise to the first living cell." Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection makes no claims as to how life may have started.

The sixth paragraph says "Fossils reveal that life forms on Earth have never undergone even the slightest change and have never developed into one another." There are several examples of fossils showing change. Check out TalkOrigins for one.

Shall we continue?
 

Anti-World

Member
"The odds you would get that picture are so high for all intents and purposes it is impossible for any one person to do. Now, if you had a family of people who threw the sand every day for a few billion years you might get somewhere =)"
I've heard this several times... Prove it. I don't even care if you do it mathematically. Show me how a bunch of sand can form a picture on its own.

"Also if you throw the sand one time and then pick it up and throw it again, the odds you get the same exact pattern from the first time are pretty much impossible (without outside forces)"
Also incorrect. You are going to get a *very* similar pattern **every time**. It homogenizes thoroughly no matter how many times the sand is shaken. That's important because it shows that creation by "random" processes is not possible.

There's alot of questions I'd like to know concerning this, if it is correct. A few would be: Since all creation is affirmed to be from set laws and organizing factors, where do they come from? What is causing matter to "want" to build and create new things? What makes animals and plants "want" to survive? Why would a cell or micro-organism constantly develop new parts? What drives it to do so? Sentience? Laws that are simply in place because we are one of a million possibilities in an infinite number of timelines? Or is it "just the way things are", there is no rhyme to the reason.
 

Ryan2065

Well-Known Member
I've heard this several times... Prove it. I don't even care if you do it mathematically. Show me how a bunch of sand can form a picture on its own.
Well... Is it impossible for any one piece of sand to fall the right way? No. There are certain odds that each piece of sand will fall in the exact place. You just multiply all these odds together and you get the chances it will fall the right way.

I expect it would be pretty high... Even if there was a 1 in 100 chance (probably much higher) and 10,000 grains of sand (probably a ton more) the chances would be 1/100^10000

Or is it impossible for any 1 grain of sand to fall in the right place? =p

Also incorrect. You are going to get a *very* similar pattern **every time**. It homogenizes thoroughly no matter how many times the sand is shaken. That's important because it shows that creation by "random" processes is not possible.
So if you get a pattern in the sand... Say a unicorn... Then you put all this sand in a jar, shake it up, and throw it randomly back into the sandbox you will get a picture resembling a unicorn? Am I reading this right?

There's alot of questions I'd like to know concerning this, if it is correct. A few would be: Since all creation is affirmed to be from set laws and organizing factors, where do they come from? What is causing matter to "want" to build and create new things? What makes animals and plants "want" to survive? Why would a cell or micro-organism constantly develop new parts? What drives it to do so? Sentience? Laws that are simply in place because we are one of a million possibilities in an infinite number of timelines? Or is it "just the way things are", there is no rhyme to the reason.
It is just the way things are... Someday we might be able to answer all of these questions (I believe there are already answers to some of them) but we don't *need* to answer the questions. I don't know is an acceptable answer... I don't understand why people don't think it is.
 

Zeno

Member
That's important because it shows that creation by "random" processes is not possible.

I understand where you are coming from here but you must understand that evolution is not a random process. The only remotely random component of evolution is the nucleotide base pair changes that occur in genetic mutations. The process of natural selection itself is anything but random. It even has the word selection in its name.

In regards to genetic mutations, the throwing sand analogy is a stretch. Genetic mutations occur on the order of millions each day, in every individual on the planet. When you so much as walk outside (even on a cloudy day) the DNA in your somatic skin cells mutates due to the UV light. While your body has mechanisms to repair this, the mutations still occur. When the body's thorough "check up" system for DNA replication fail, you can see this manifested in skin cancer.

While germline mutations are less common, you need to understand the magnitude of the numbers we're talking about. DNA mutations have only been actively reproduced in lab settings for 50 years, and these are conducted with radiation and chemical baths. We have learned much about the Drosophila (fruit fly) genome by causing these mutations. Maybe 50 years seems like a lot do you, but when we are talking millions of mutations over millions of years, you start to lose the ability to grasp the magnitude of things.

There's alot of questions I'd like to know concerning this, if it is correct. A few would be: Since all creation is affirmed to be from set laws and organizing factors, where do they come from? What is causing matter to "want" to build and create new things? What makes animals and plants "want" to survive? Why would a cell or micro-organism constantly develop new parts? What drives it to do so? Sentience? Laws that are simply in place because we are one of a million possibilities in an infinite number of timelines? Or is it "just the way things are", there is no rhyme to the reason.

[Caveat: only questions 3 and 4 relate to evolution]

Question 1:
If you are referring to the physical constants of the universe, such as the speed of light, the mass of a proton, and the charge held by an electron, then you are hitting on possibly the sole respectable argument (in my opinion) for a deistic God. My answer to you is that it is currently an area of heavy research and controversial theories (such as the multiverse) exist which offer explanations. If you are curious about others, ask me and I can post some other theories as well.

Question 2: Matter does not "want" to build things. If you are talking about why certain chemical reactions occur, then this is a restatement of your first question.

Question 3: Again animals and plants do not "want" to survive. They only "want" to pass on their genes. The reason they have become so "good" at adapting to survive is so that they may best pass on their genes to future generations. This process is guided by natural selection.

Question 4: Organisms do not spontaneously generate new parts. Any objective analysis of the fossil record will reveal this. Natural fluctuations are sifted out because what enables an organism to best pass its genes is selected for. Even a "part" as complex as the eye, abounds with intermediates found in nature. The only reason that you perceive animals has have a guided "drive" is because the animals that didn't have a "drive" to survive or pass on their genes didn't last long.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
"The odds you would get that picture are so high for all intents and purposes it is impossible for any one person to do. Now, if you had a family of people who threw the sand every day for a few billion years you might get somewhere =)"
I've heard this several times... Prove it. I don't even care if you do it mathematically. Show me how a bunch of sand can form a picture on its own.
The reason this sand picture analogy doesn't work is because evolution doesn't start from scratch with every generation. Evolution builds on each previous generation to create patterns which only appear to be designed. Here is a good video on YouTube explaining the concept.
 

Anti-World

Member
"Question 3: Again animals and plants do not 'want' to survive. They only 'want' to pass on their genes. The reason they have become so "good" at adapting to survive is so that they may best pass on their genes to future generations. This process is guided by natural selection."

'The reason this sand picture analogy doesn't work is because evolution doesn't start from scratch with every generation. Evolution builds on each previous generation to create patterns which only appear to be designed. Here is a good video on YouTube explaining the concept."

Wonderful answers but it didn't hit on exactly what I meant. When the *first* micro-organism(s?) was(were?) created why did they keep moving? Why not just die out? When these first little organisms were created they already had a basic instinct to eat, reproduce, and grow which is the fundamental basis of evolution, as I understand it. I don't even know what the first organism was so I'm doing a little bit of guesswork here.

"Well... Is it impossible for any one piece of sand to fall the right way? No. There are certain odds that each piece of sand will fall in the exact place. You just multiply all these odds together and you get the chances it will fall the right way.

I expect it would be pretty high... Even if there was a 1 in 100 chance (probably much higher) and 10,000 grains of sand (probably a ton more) the chances would be 1/100^10000

Or is it impossible for any 1 grain of sand to fall in the right place? =p"

Also a good answer but it is only theoretically possible. Evidence supports that the grains of sand will not ever create an intricate design, like a unicorn, a turtle, a human face, etc. If you could show me an experiment in which it is proven I would be very grateful, show me a setting in which this happens. (I know I'm being a bit of a liar here because I said if you could prove it mathematically I would be happy.)

"Question 1: If you are referring to the physical constants of the universe, such as the speed of light, the mass of a proton, and the charge held by an electron, then you are hitting on possibly the sole respectable argument (in my opinion) for a deistic God. My answer to you is that it is currently an area of heavy research and controversial theories (such as the multiverse) exist which offer explanations. If you are curious about others, ask me and I can post some other theories as well.

Question 2: Matter does not "want" to build things. If you are talking about why certain chemical reactions occur, then this is a restatement of your first question."

These questions have everything to do with evolution because it questions the basis of evolution. I also agree completely that matter does not want to build things yet many evolutionists would say that's exactly what matter did at the begginning of the universe.

Note that I have no problem (Except the lack of fossilized and DNA evidence.) with evolution as it occurred after the first organism and perhaps there is a different word or theory for the creation of the universe that I'm refferring to and that I'm not aware of. It's the basis of the first evolutions that makes little sense to me. Somehow, somewhere, an organism was spontaneously generated (Can this be reacreated in a lab?) and after that, Darwinian evolution takes hold as the strongest survive, who happen to have that instinct for survival, and continue to change and adapt to their environment.

**I don't see how life can be spontaneously generated.** In a nutshell, that's what this is about.

The universal constants of the universe do seem to support (an) underlying system(s). Something or things that exist outside of time (Like light) and controls or set these constants. I don't know whether that supports a god theory and I'm not about to arbitrarily state that it does.
 
Top