Evolution and Global Warming

[quote name='myl0r']
The Christian viewpoint is that we WERE created perfect, but given free-will. With the free will, man decided at one point to disobey, making him imperfect.[/QUOTE]

Contradictory. If you're given free will, it ain't so.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']Contradictory. If you're given free will, it ain't so.[/QUOTE]

Did I get free will when I told the gods to shovel sand down a rathole?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpazX
Alright, are you for teaching kids in history class that some people say that the holocaust didn't happen, and then present the evidence they use to support that? Or perhaps that some people say that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK, and then present their evidence?
I wouldn't make it mandatory, but I wouldn't be bothered by it either.
Click to expand...

Thank the flying spaghetti monster this is a fringe view.
 
[quote name='myl0r']Evolution is just a theory, it is not a proven fact that it is real. There is evidence on either side of the argument, but it is not a proven fact.[/QUOTE]

Most people don't understand that the scientific definition for a theory differs from the layman's definition of a theory. A layman will use the term "theory" when what they really mean is a hypothesis, whereas a true scientific theory has enough weight of evidence behind it to be accepted as fact. Evolution falls into the same category as the Laws of Thermodynamics and e = mc squared, where there's overwhelming experimental evidence to consider the model as best fit for reality as we know it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well of course you weren't given free will FoC, because you don't have it :p.[/QUOTE]

The coupon I used said otherwise. Sure, there was some jelly on it and it was expired, but I used it.
 
The fact that evolution can be so contested is a testament to how poor science education is in this country and how unduly influential religion is in the public sphere. Sure, the details need to be adjusted as we gain new evidence, but the core of the theory holds true no matter what slight modifications we make along the way.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Here we go: http://www.creationtips.com/evoluwrong.html

I know 1 is irrelevant, 2 is slightly less irrelevant, 3 can be blown out of the water, and 4 is too specific.[/QUOTE]

Well FoC, it's unfair to pick the stupidest arguments from some random site :p. But I would be happy if everyone would stop with the origin of universe/life stuff when talking about evolution. Clearly the universe existed before the earth did, clearly the earth existed before life did, clearly life existed before it could evolve. How all that happened is irrelevant to how evolution happens and would involve completely different processes. It may be philosophically relevant to an individual, but it's not at all relevant scientifically.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well FoC, it's unfair to pick the stupidest arguments from some random site :p. But I would be happy if everyone would stop with the origin of universe/life stuff when talking about evolution. Clearly the universe existed before the earth did, clearly the earth existed before life did, clearly life existed before it could evolve. How all that happened is irrelevant to how evolution happens and would involve completely different processes. It may be philosophically relevant to an individual, but it's not at all relevant scientifically.[/QUOTE]

That's a good summary of why I have started to have growing sympathy for those that say they want to home school their kids.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well FoC, it's unfair to pick the stupidest arguments from some random site :p. But I would be happy if everyone would stop with the origin of universe/life stuff when talking about evolution. Clearly the universe existed before the earth did, clearly the earth existed before life did, clearly life existed before it could evolve. How all that happened is irrelevant to how evolution happens and would involve completely different processes. It may be philosophically relevant to an individual, but it's not at all relevant scientifically.[/QUOTE]
wouldn't you saying determining what/how life originated is essentially to determining if the discussion of evolution is even prudent?

Also, as long as people use evolution as an argument against a divine creator, creationists are going to continue to ask where that "primordial soup" came from to begin with.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's a good summary of why I have started to have growing sympathy for those that say they want to home school their kids.[/QUOTE]

How is that?

[quote name='myl0r']wouldn't you saying determining what/how life originated is essentially to determining if the discussion of evolution is even prudent?

Also, as long as people use evolution as an argument against a divine creator, creationists are going to continue to ask where that "primordial soup" came from to begin with.[/QUOTE]

Prudent?

How anybody "uses" evolution is also irrelevant to the theories. There are theories of how life originated, but it's not relevant to evolution. You could also ask where the divine creator came from to begin with.
 
[quote name='SpazX']How is that?



Prudent?

How anybody "uses" evolution is also irrelevant to the theories. There are theories of how life originated, but it's not relevant to evolution. You could also ask where the divine creator came from to begin with.[/QUOTE]
I was simply stating a reason why I think many people bring up origin of life when discussing evolution. I never said their logic or reasoning was sound.
 
[quote name='myl0r']I was simply stating a reason why I think many people bring up origin of life when discussing evolution. I never said their logic or reasoning was sound.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, but I think most people bring that up because they misunderstand what evolution deals with or they're trying to find a reason to reject it. You could easily reconcile any god with evolution just by saying that it was that god that was behind evolution. It's not like there's a burden of proof, you'd be asserting something that's untestable.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well FoC, it's unfair to pick the stupidest arguments from some random site :p. [/QUOTE]

But the website said:
"Good arguments against evolution"

Actually, I was looking for the website where somebody has issued a challenge to debate creationism versus evolution and nobody took up this random somebody's challenge in ten years.

I didn't find the website though.
 
IIRC, I think Kent Hovind had that challenge. He was pretty famous in the creationist movement. Eventually got busted for refusing to pay taxes or something, so his son runs the site now I think. www.drdino.com
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well FoC, it's unfair to pick the stupidest arguments from some random site :p. But I would be happy if everyone would stop with the origin of universe/life stuff when talking about evolution. Clearly the universe existed before the earth did, clearly the earth existed before life did, clearly life existed before it could evolve. How all that happened is irrelevant to how evolution happens and would involve completely different processes. It may be philosophically relevant to an individual, but it's not at all relevant scientifically.[/QUOTE]

The question of how life came into existence certainly does have scientific relevance.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Not to evolution. They're separate processes.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see your point. I don't think we know enough yet to make that assumption.
 
[quote name='camoor']Ah, I see your point. I don't think we know enough yet to make that assumption.[/QUOTE]

Evolution requires life, the way that life is formed is not relevant to the evolutionary process - it's not required to understand how life formed to understand how it evolved. If you said god created life and then it evolved it wouldn't make any difference.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Evolution requires life, the way that life is formed is not relevant to the evolutionary process - it's not required to understand how life formed to understand how it evolved. If you said god created life and then it evolved it wouldn't make any difference.[/QUOTE]
It could be important to know what the first form of life was, to know what evolved into the variety of life we have now. Do we have any idea as to what it was?
 
[quote name='myl0r']It could be important to know what the first form of life was, to know what evolved into the variety of life we have now. Do we have any idea as to what it was?[/QUOTE]

It would be nice to know, but it still doesn't matter to the theory in the sense that it wouldn't change anything about what we know about later life and how it evolves.

There's an article on talkorigins about abiogenesis, and the wiki has a lot of information about different theories as well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

There are several with different focuses that I don't have a lot of knowledge about so you'd probably be better off looking at those. AFAIK the simplest form of life now is a virus, and it's debatable whether or not they're alive, depending on your definition.
 
[quote name='SpazX']There are several with different focuses that I don't have a lot of knowledge about so you'd probably be better off looking at those. AFAIK the simplest form of life now is a virus, and it's debatable whether or not they're alive, depending on your definition.[/QUOTE]

I was just about to say this. Is a strand of DNA life? Can inanimate things (such as coding - think of a computer program) evolve? I don't think it's fully a question of semantics either.
 
I like how Spaz has had to say the same thing in, like, the last ten posts.

I salute you.

EDIT: Also, no, a strand of DNA is not generally considered "life". Unless you've got some funky definition of life goin' on.
 
[quote name='camoor']I was just about to say this. Is a strand of DNA life? Can inanimate things (such as coding - think of a computer program) evolve? I don't think it's fully a question of semantics either.[/QUOTE]

Well in the end it's always going to come down to definition since it's just a concept. It will depend on what criteria you use to determine it.

I'm learnin' some people here Crotch (maybe).

EDIT: To add to Crotch's edit, DNA isn't considered life because it can't really do anything. It can't replicate sitting there by itself. Viruses border life and non-life because they have some general characteristics of life, but not others. They have a little section for it in the wiki for virus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Darwin never said anything about the origin of life. In fact, he left religion a lot of room with this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well in the end it's always going to come down to definition since it's just a concept. It will depend on what criteria you use to determine it.

I'm learnin' some people here Crotch (maybe).

EDIT: To add to Crotch's edit, DNA isn't considered life because it can't really do anything. It can't replicate sitting there by itself. Viruses border life and non-life because they have some general characteristics of life, but not others. They have a little section for it in the wiki for virus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately I think language, in acting as a framework for thought, can box thinking in.

As I see it, the problem of ascribing too much importance to the "creation of life" is that it opens the whole "gold watch in the desert" arguement (taking aside the fact that humanity is hardly a gold watch, it is not proven we are a desirable end-point or we serve a function in a cosmic sense).

With the exception of intriguing and controversial categories (such as AI) hanging the mantle of life solely on cellular carbon-based life is about all science can do these days. With that definition, IMO the "creation of life" is not the be-all end-all beginning point that most people ascribe it to be. For humans it's obviously an incredibly important milestone, but in my view it doesn't preclude the option that intelligence or an intelligent system of some sort (outside of what I believe our narrow definition of life is) had a hand in our creation.

Now - maybe if you chain it backwards from this point, the increasing complexities of intelligent systems begetting even more complex intelligent systems offers an alternative to the whole "gold watch in the desert" arguement.

Just an idea that's been running around my head for a while.
 
[quote name='SpazX']ooo, satanic possession, nice.[/QUOTE]

Finding a Pentium II or equivalent next to a skull of a T-Rex would be wicked cool, but blaming Satan just reduces it to a facepalm.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Evolution requires life, the way that life is formed is not relevant to the evolutionary process - it's not required to understand how life formed to understand how it evolved. If you said god created life and then it evolved it wouldn't make any difference.[/QUOTE]

There is the idea of chemical evolution; though RNA and DNA aren't life all on their own, they do have the ability to replicate themselves from simpler compounds, have variations in structure and in a sense "evolve" over time.

EDIT: To add to Crotch's edit, DNA isn't considered life because it can't really do anything. It can't replicate sitting there by itself. Viruses border life and non-life because they have some general characteristics of life, but not others. They have a little section for it in the wiki for virus.
Click to expand...
DNA as we know it today might not be able to replicate easily without the help of polymerase, helicase, etc. but going off chemical priniciples a single strand of RNA can automatically pair up, provided that there's the right complementary molecules. Self-assembly is always possible (if not always effective at producing something functional).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top