Do you believe in macroevolution?

[mmafan555]

Wrightpython,
You make life seem like an endless misery for all. I would hope that is a long way from the reality. Most certainly some individuals get a raw deal compared to others. I see the explanation as a non-interfering creator. There are those who would say that individuals put through undue suffering here will be compensated in the spiritual hereafter.

It is.....Life has been an endless misery for 95 percent of people who have ever lived on this earth...It may not be so bad nowadays (in the 1st world) but thats a fluke because of SCIENCE and technological advance...Anyone who has studied history knows that for the most part life has been a horrible misery for a huge percentage of the population. Human death rates and disease rates have been astronomically high for almost all of our existence....with women dieing in child birth all the time...premature mortality....diseases taking out hundreds of thousands in months....natural disasters ravaging a much more vulnerable population etc...Only in the last 50 years or so (once again due to science) have human beings really not been in an existence filled with misery and thats just for the 1st world nations.


I don't accept that explanation...Non interfering god? Their are MORE parasitic species on earth than non parasitic species....in fact they outnumber non parasitic species almost 2-1....I don't think any rational person would accept "a non interfering god" as the reason for this...Like for instance why did he create so many "horrible" species in the first place? To torment his supposed children that he supposedly loves, created in his image and gave free will to (and their is significant evidence that most parasites alter the behavior of the host in at-least some ways...meaning "free will" may not be so free after all)

There are 2 reasons why things don't get done. Either you CANT do it or you WONT do it...So either "God" can't get rid of parasitic disease, viruses, and other pathogens that kill a torment millions or he won't do it...If he can't do it then he seems like a pretty worthless weak god and I frankly don't see any point in worshiping him...let alone giving up my whole life to him when I could just be a humanist and focus on myself and other humans beings.....If he won't do it then he is obviously a cruel psychopathic lunatic who enjoys tormenting his "children" almost like an abusive stepfather lol.


And then their is the obvious answer to any rational person who isn't freaked out by death....He doesn't exist....and religion is nothing more than a psychological flaw for human beings...the only species on this planet that knows it will eventually die and cease to exist entirely.

 

[slim6y]

Everyone knows carbon dating is flawed - I even pointed out that carbon dating couldn't tell the age of the Earth - but it is easy to use other methods of radio dating to tell the age of the Earth.

Carbon dating on the other hand can be a fairly accurate representation - even if you take into account fluctuations in C-14, you'd still have a reasonable assumption of age.

Unfortunately I'm not too sure how carbon dating really affects the way you're thinking about creationism - for a number of reasons.

1) I actually don't care enough to warrant researching creationism, macro or micro-evolution. I love science, but I leave the stuff like that to people who enjoy a good argument on something they know about. And I clearly don't know enough!

2) I'm quite anti the idea of a superior being being infinite... But yet poorly creative. Seems a little off in my mind - so again, I never bothered to research it. However, I know enough about C-14 to suggest it could be flawed, but not enough to allow me to believe that some intelligent design took place.

3) I've never believed in religion because all religions (Buddhism included) are about control. Pure and simple...

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

When I was young I was amazed people believed all of this was created by something/someone nobody has ever seen, now in 2012 I am even more amazed it is still believed.

haha when I grew up i found it so hard to believe that people could be brainwashed into blindly believing a theory that the powers that be wants you to believe rather than questioning it when their own laws of physics say it's absurd and impossible

 

[Australis]

Then you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" ........

irreducible complexity (IC) is just re-branded intelligent design (ID) both of which have been completely debunked. With i believe at least one (which ultimately means both) being ruled in a US court of law as not Science.

Asserting that dating methods are unreliable and following it up with "irreducible complexity" its obvious you have been exposed to creationist pseudoscience. which of course isn't Science at all.

Do yourself a favor, if you haven't already done so, diversify your research and look at the arguments against IC and ID.

I consider myself reasonably well versed in the main arguments used my creation advocates. Ive more than likely read the same websites watched the same videos promoting creation.

I tend to only believe in things with evidence, so im not now, and never was a creationist. But a few things i think worth considering is firstly that part of the pseudo science nature of the arguments presented on creationist websites is the "papers" written by people with PhDs and a bunch of letters to match this can be very persuasive and seems to add an air of credibility to the arguments presented.
Soon enough i noticed a trend, and digging a little deeper, sure enough it would appear these people did in fact have PhDs.. but what i noticed was none appeared to have a PhD in biology.. but typically in unrelated fields like economics and so on. Occasionally i would be so intrigued by the overwhelming intellectual dishonesty of these "papers" i would find myself checking their references (imo also part of an attempt to add a feel of academic legitimacy) and i would find the cited work to also come from someone with out a Biology background.
This is the blind leading the blind.

Ah.. there is so much i could say, but ill end on this... if Biology (You cant even begin to understand Biology without evolution) and Geology (as far as dating is concerned) is as flimsy and full of holes and problems as you assert in your post, it would stand to reason if your claims are true, groups of non-believers (Atheists etc) would exist also debating against these alleged weaknesses.. Hell even Scientists!! But im yet to see any.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

The poll is to determine how many people believe in macroevolution. But as I said at the bottom of the OP people could leave their comments pertaining to the subject of evolution. Of course, there has been some creationist bashing and religion has also been mentioned, but for the most part I don't think anything offensive has been posted.

people are too easily offended these days, it won't bother me what people say. Thick skin, soft hearts is what we need. Everyone has their own beliefs, it's just up to us to keep an open mind about it.

 

[mmafan555]

haha when I grew up i found it so hard to believe that people could be brainwashed into blindly believing a theory that the powers that be wants you to believe rather than questioning it when their own laws of physics say it's absurd and impossible

Yea the "powers that be" clearly want you to be brainwashed into believing evolution over religion......Ya looking at history really gives evidence to that statement

 

[DarwinBrianT]

Everyone knows carbon dating is flawed

Carbon dating on the other hand can be a fairly accurate representation

lol

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

I was totally going to stay out of this thread mainly because i'm ashamed of my post count but... How is God [the idea of a deity and the deitie's actions] not magic and how is calling it magic offensive?

non God fearing people do not understand the difference of God's works and magic. It's supernatural so they classify it all the same. I find it funny when people say how can He do this and how can He do that and how can He make the universe in 6 days...all along forgetting that we work on the idea that He is God , He is not bound by time nor our laws of physics, these are just rules and guidelines used for the universe WE live in. A bit like if one of us made a computer game...we make up the programming involved plus the rules of the game yet we ourselves are not restricted by what is possible in the game......

 

[slim6y]

lol

It's both flawed and fairly accurate.... wished I had proof read that before posting.... But the same outcome... You can be flawed and accurate you realise?

The flawed nature of C-14 also leads to a better science and some great forward thinking discoveries.

The flaws are accountable (in most cases) and therefore decrease some of the uncertainty in the results. And even if they were out by 10 or 20% that still suggests that C-14 dating is better than 'creationism'.

 

[Fuscus]

I have always been scientifically minded from school to uni, and yes I did believe in evolution...
d have done a fair bit of research..
Then you have problems like irreducible complexity

You could not have done much research if you fell for the irreducible complexity fantasy
The Mullerian Two-Step, or Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is silly

 

[dihsmaj]

3) I've never believed in religion because all religions (Buddhism included) are about control. Pure and simple...

You'll get what you deserve when you die mate, me, I'm gonna be up in Valhalla fighting with Odin and the gods.

 

[Wrightpython]

If there was no money or control involved would there be religion. i am an atheist in the sense i dont believe in religion be it christianity, buddism, jewdism, muslim or whatever but i do believe something created the earth. We as humans may only be seeds planted here from another planet, we may have been sent in spacecraft etc which is why we believe our maker to have come from up there and look upwards to god when praying. Adam and eve could represent the first humanoids to come to earth not 2 people but two sexs sent at different times, the asteroid may have been a bomb of some description sent to rid world of dangers before plantation could take place. The ark could have been a collection device for a universal zoo and one day the yankees may win the universal title not just world series. We are talking about things that happened far to long ago to be sure and as long as people are peaceful and respect others it doesnt worry me what you believe in if preying to cows or rats or elephants or some mysterious being that no one has ever seen then hey what ever floats ya boat.

 

[D3pro]

If there was no money or control involved would there be religion. i am an atheist in the sense i dont believe in religion be it christianity, buddism, jewdism, muslim or whatever but i do believe something created the earth. We as humans may only be seeds planted here from another planet, we may have been sent in spacecraft etc which is why we believe our maker to have come from up there and look upwards to god when praying. Adam and eve could represent the first humanoids to come to earth not 2 people but two sexs sent at different times, the asteroid may have been a bomb of some description sent to rid world of dangers before plantation could take place. The ark could have been a collection device for a universal zoo and one day the yankees may win the universal title not just world series. We are talking about things that happened far to long ago to be sure and as long as people are peaceful and respect others it doesnt worry me what you believe in if preying to cows or rats or elephants or some mysterious being that no one has ever seen then hey what ever floats ya boat.

I'll have what he's having

 

[Wrightpython]

I'll have what he's having

yer i dont think the yankees will ever win again either. ( i hope thats what you ment)

 

[DarwinBrianT]

It's both flawed and fairly accurate.... wished I had proof read that before posting.... But the same outcome... You can be flawed and accurate you realise?

Yeah I know mate and I'm on your side. Just thought it sounded funny.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

irreducible complexity (IC) is just re-branded intelligent design (ID) both of which have been completely debunked. With i believe at least one (which ultimately means both) being ruled in a US court of law as not Science.

Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart. One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell. At the time he assumed that cells were a simple structure of which the step from elements and soil matter to a functioning cell is not such a hard one, when in fact (with todays technology) we now know that these so called simple cells are the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. We know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
[h=2]W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239[/h] A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.
The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."
One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.

Ah.. there is so much i could say, but ill end on this... if Biology (You cant even begin to understand Biology without evolution) and Geology (as far as dating is concerned) is as flimsy and full of holes and problems as you assert in your post, it would stand to reason if your claims are true, groups of non-believers (Atheists etc) would exist also debating against these alleged weaknesses.. Hell even Scientists!! But im yet to see any.

Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.

 

[junglepython2]

How can people still swallow the irreducible complexity crap from creationists when some of their own flagship examples have clearly been shot down and shown not to be irreducibly complex at all.

 

[Just_Plain_Nuts]

How can people still swallow the irreducible complexity crap from creationists when some of their own flagship examples have clearly been shot down and shown not to be irreducibly complex at all.

Like???

 

[waruikazi]

You are blind!

You are talking about abiogenesis (where life came from), not evolution. Darwin didn't deal with that theory.

Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart. One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell. At the time he assumed that cells were a simple structure of which the step from elements and soil matter to a functioning cell is not such a hard one, when in fact (with todays technology) we now know that these so called simple cells are the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. We know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
[h=2]W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239[/h] A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.
The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."
One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.


Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.

 

[Surroundx]

Who cares what a court of law says...do you even know what irreducible complexity is about..Darwin essentially based his whole theory on a few key points. If any of these pivotal points were proven untrue he himself said that the whole theory would fall apart.

Even if Darwin thought his theory would fall apart, doesn't mean it actually would. People can be wrong. I'm not saying would or wouldn't fall apart, but you need to consider the possibility that it wouldn't.

One of these key points is his assumption of a simple cell. At the time he assumed that cells were a simple structure of which the step from elements and soil matter to a functioning cell is not such a hard one, when in fact (with todays technology) we now know that these so called simple cells are the most complex systems mankind has ever confronted. We know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.

Cell biology is not a topic which particularly interests me, but you should actually look at virus cells, which are simpler. The complexity of cells has evolved just like organisms.

W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."239. A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.
The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been "created."

Nothing comes into being via "chance". That is simply a human label when we do not understand the mechanism/s behind something. The "chance" of me rolling a six on a dice is 1 in 6, but if I knew all the variables I could precisely calculate the true probability.

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

Irreducible complexity has been debunked already. Unfortunately you need to know a fair bit about bio-chemistry and the like to understand it. Which is unfortunate because it has caused the myth of irreducibly complex structures to perpetuate itself and become a notorious meme.

The probability to form a cell such as a red blood cell is 1 in 10 to the power of 650. For those not mathematically inclined, physics regards any probability beyond 1 in 10 to the power of 50 as Absurd and must be disregarded as impossible yet 1 in 10 to the power of 650 is SOOOOOOOO much bigger I wont even begin to try to explain it. It would be more than there are drops in the oceans of the world.

Only the very first type of cell would have genuinely been "formed". All other cells are mutated forms of ancestral cells, so to say the chance of x type of cell coming into being is "xyz" amounts to a strawman.

Ah but there are atheists and scientists alike. The arguments and debates about evolution and which parts are right and which links are relevent etc etc are endless, none can agree.

Of course there is debate within the scientific community, specifically the life sciences. But there's far more debate concerning god and religion between theists, deists and agnostics. Does that fact alone call into question the existence of god? No.