Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Since you ask a valid question without intent to flame, the answer most creationists would give you is, we are here in a universe with a far too perfect order to have been random. The fact that we and it exists is the proof. Now you don't have to buy that theory either, but it is no more far fetched than multi-universes, or any of the other scientific conjecture currently being considered as gospel by the die hard atheist crowd. No theories can be proven at this point in time, which is why they're theories, not to put too fine a point on the obvious. Perhaps it might be worth considering that physicists are just philosophers with a math fetish.
More...

I get the fact that many think the universe is far too perfect to have been random. But then again, who says the world is too perfect? By the same logic, couldn't I say "Man, this world is fucked up. Boy is it ever imperfect!" and therefore, god couldn't have created such an imperfect thing therefore god does not exist?

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. Is the god hypothesis not, as well, just a theory? There are far more religious advocates who trumpet the god theory as gospel than there are atheists who trumpet their theory as gospel.
 
Given what we know about physics and chemistry, the forces at work at the molecular level, attraction, binding, could an entity such as the prion have evolved by chance? I say it could have.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Given what we know about physics and chemistry, the forces at work at the molecular level, attraction, binding, could an entity such as the prion have evolved by chance? I say it could have.
More...

given enough time (billions of years) and survival a PRION might eventually not only sit beside us but outscore in calculus class :eek:
 
"Richard Dawkins- The Person
Clinton Richard Dawkins, probably the most renowned atheist alive today, currently serves as the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford, and Professorial Fellow of New College. Dawkins received his M.A. and D.Sc. degrees from Oxford University and has since been awarded five honorary doctoral degrees. Quite the rhetorician himself, Dr. Dawkins at least attempts to summarize his keys arguments for logical consideration.
Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion On pages 157 and 158 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins encapsulates the central argument of his book in six points. The following comes directly from Dawkins’ book, except that I chose to shorten a few of the points here for the sake of brevity.1

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.

4. Darwinian evolution by natural selection offers the greatest, most powerful explanatory scope so far discovered in the biological sciences. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that -- an illusion.
5. We don’t yet have an equivalent well-grounded, explanatory model for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
6. We should not give up the hope of a well-grounded explanatory model arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying model to match the biological one, the relatively weak models we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating God hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
7. If the argument of this chapter (book) is accepted, the factual premise of religion -- the God hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. This is the main conclusion of the book so far.


http://www.allaboutscience.org/richard-dawkins.htm"

See that Stu read 4 and 5.... - you do not even understand science, even though I have spoon fed it to you. I realize it was too emotional for your brain power. But now it is clear for you.

Don't worry Dawkins tells you to not yet give up hope... for a model may come that explains the appearance of design. I agree ... but in the mean time... you have been owned.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

given enough time (billions of years) and survival a PRION might eventually not only sit beside us but outscore in calculus class :eek:
More...

I submit that we were prions a few billion years ago.

PS: it is a coincidence that I brought up prions, and Swiss cheese, in the same day.
 
Quote from Kassz007:

I get the fact that many think the universe is far too perfect to have been random. But then again, who says the world is too perfect? By the same logic, couldn't I say "Man, this world is fucked up. Boy is it ever imperfect!" and therefore, god couldn't have created such an imperfect thing therefore god does not exist?

The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. Is the god hypothesis not, as well, just a theory? There are far more religious advocates who trumpet the god theory as gospel than there are atheists who trumpet their theory as gospel.
More...

For me the God hypothesis is a theory and I agree that far too many religious advocates trumpet the theory as gospel. What else they gonna' do?
I don't think the world is fucked up, the people on it, that's another story. Leads to the obvious question, if people were created by the same being that created an otherwise perfect universe...WTF? I don't pretend to know the answer. My only argument is, and always has been, you can't dismiss the argument of creation as silly and then come up with something such as multi-universes as an alternative without the pot meeting the kettle. One is as far fetched as the other, and putting a complex math equation behind a theory doesn't make it any more believable, especially when you consider just how many assumptions are in those equations. Lot's and lot's of holes yet to be filled.
 
Quote from jem:

you mixed apples and oranges.

I do not know how to define evolution or even whose definition should be used. Nor does the definition really matter.

I do know that the definition has change dramatically since it was taught to me in grade school.

I do know Carl Sagan billions and billions of years were not enough if you think the universe evolved randomly. I

I do know I never bought the argument that almost infinite monkeys banging on a typewriter could create war and peace. We don't have time the paper or the molecules.

But that was not my argument for a Creator. I just want truth when it comes to science and if we have had directed evolution that is fine with me. For that matter I do not know why anyone thinks evolution is inconsistent with a literal reading of genesis.
I also do not think the anyone can prove the bible says the earth is on 6000 years old.

Which is why, I suspect, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

------

My argument for design is taken from top physicists...

This is a quote from one of the founders of string theory ---



How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific?

I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper:

Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows:

Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists.

David Gross of UC Santa Barbara says, "Science has managed to explain lots of other weird numbers—so why shouldn't we expect eventually to explain the cosmological constant and other key parameters?"

David is entirely correct in one respect. The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate. So far they show no signs of doing so, but surprises happen. It is certainly premature to declare victory and close the question. I would be very worried if all theoretical physicists "gave up" (as David puts it) looking for a mathematical explanation for the "weird" value of the cosmological constant. But I think David exaggerates when he claims that science has explained anything like the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind

You may wish to read a lot more about this...

but the point is that it abdication of intelligence to think that the cosmological constant and all those other parameters are fine tuned by chance or necessity.

A nobel prize winner cited the Cardinal for understanding that fact. You need to understand it to.

We are either designed or we have been dealt infinite universes.

Or our understanding of science has to change.
---------------------
For instance

"British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the 123rd power. There are [many] such quantities and constants present in the big bang that must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And it’s not just each quantity that must be finely tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely tuned. Therefore, improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers."

The above quote from someone elses site. I lots the cite.
More...

To be honest, your answer to my question is quite watered down with way too much information than required. As well, most of what you've presented seems to argue that the existence of god is proven due to flaws in the evolution theory, or that "there is no way this could have all been random, therefore god exists."

Instead of disproving evolution, try presenting evidence FOR creationism. It is not enough to say "the theory of evolution is flawed, therefore god exists." Is it not possible that there is an entirely seperate theory out there that could be correct?

Disproving evolution does not prove creationism. Again, pretend the theory of evolution has never existed. Now explain to me the evidence that god exists.

The only "evidence" I've ever come across, is something that was written in a book a long, long time ago, and passed on for centuries. And even this "evidence" has been altered/construed/etc. This is the reason I am not able to believe in god.
 
Quote from Kassz007:

...The only "evidence" I've ever come across, is something that was written in a book a long, long time ago, and passed on for centuries. And even this "evidence" has been altered/construed/etc. This is the reason I am not able to believe in god.
More...

What is "evidence" is key. In the scientifc worldview, evidence is limited to the five senses and repeatability, and feelings are out. In the spiritual worldview, for lack of a better term, feelings are in. So, you have not come across any evidence because you do not have the God feeling.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

For me the God hypothesis is a theory and I agree that far too many religious advocates trumpet the theory as gospel. What else they gonna' do?
I don't think the world is fucked up, the people on it, that's another story. Leads to the obvious question, if people were created by the same being that created an otherwise perfect universe...WTF? I don't pretend to know the answer. My only argument is, and always has been, you can't dismiss the argument of creation as silly and then come up with something such as multi-universes as an alternative without the pot meeting the kettle. One is as far fetched as the other, and putting a complex math equation behind a theory doesn't make it any more believable, especially when you consider just how many assumptions are in those equations. Lot's and lot's of holes yet to be filled.
More...

I understand what you're saying. Which is why I cannot believe how so many people can believe in god. Sure, it is a possibility. Anything is possible. But I believe the probability of god existing, given the current evidence, is very low . I mean, honestly. What evidence is there of god existing, besides a bunch of stories that originated a long, long time ago?
 
Quote from Ricter:

What is "evidence" is key. In the scientifc worldview, evidence is limited to the five senses and repeatability, and feelings are out. In the spiritual worldview, for lack of a better term, feelings are in. So, you have not come across any evidence because you do not have the God feeling.
More...

Indeed, the definition of evidence is key (maybe the key) to this debate. Some scientists will spit out a bunch of intelligent, foreign sounding stuff and claim it as evidence. Those of us who can't understand what they're saying, really have no idea if they're making shit up or it actually is evidence. Which I think is why many religious people blow off certain scientific findings - they can't understand them. Then again, maybe they're just making shit up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top