close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Evolution? Impossible!

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by JBnTX, Dec 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Are you saying that if we can create life with nothing supernatural, that it would be evidence of life being created by something supernatural?
     
  2. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    If I've misstated your stance let me know. But you seem to imply that a creator is just as possible as abiogenesis. I maintain that one is far more probable as it has massive amounts of evidence supporting it and the other has none as of yet.
     


  3. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    The carefully controlled conditions are to replicate what a pre-life earth environment would be like. Not the environment of a lab. That's why they're carefully controlled, as not to give results that don't answer the question at hand.

    And yes, it does illustrate that it's possible for life to be created... by beings as simple as us. Doesn't require a deity. However... there still is no evidence that such a being has ever or does exist. As far as we know we are the only beings in the universe with the power attributed to God. But that's not surprising since man most likely invented the concept of God.
     
  4. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    Yeah, if anything it illustrates that it's quite possible we were created from organic beings just like us if anything. I think we've most definitely learned it doesn't require magic or wizardry. Just organic materials and the right conditions.
     
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Ok, please provide this massive amount if evidence, you might just convince me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    If life was created by other beings, wouldn't intelligent design be something that could be taught in a science class.
     
  7. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    Sure, but first we'd need at least some tiny basic evidence that such a being existed before it could be considered science. Without that... it's a fairy tale. We're fairly confident life can be created by beings just like us with the right technology. But that still doesn't imply a design really. Perhaps planting a seed understanding the nature of how it will evolve. But design... eh... that might be pushing it. However... a race of beings far more advanced than us might have the technology not only to create life but structure its evolution. But as of yet there is nothing to support such a claim so we go with what we do know.
     
  8. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    Read anything you like on abiogenesis. I don't have the evidence in my back pocket. It's available. We aren't going to start playing the "Believers" game that if I can't link you to the wealth and mankind's scientific knowledge then it doesn't exist.
     
  9. You seem to have missed the crux of my post (which admittedly was longer than intended), which is what evidence do the Creationists have, that you have accepted, that would cause you to place their claims on an even footing in a science class with science which has evidence of many things?

    -ArtificialGrape
     
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Honestly, it's just about as scant. The complexity and interdependent relationships of organelles, cells, organs, and organisms are complex enough to open the possibility of a design, hence a designer. It's not that either case is convincing, it's that both are not convincing. We know a lot about life, but really not much about how it started.

    Also, we are talking about a paragraph in a large book admitting that we really don't know. Then other time on what we do know.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  11. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.

    Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing. Boyle suggested randomly creating a 747, even a tricycle would be difficult to believe.
     
  12. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    Can you explain why you're 50/50 though? Seems there is so much more evidence to support one over the other. I don't understand why you give one possibility with no supporting evidence as much credence as one that does.
     
  13. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    The evidence is available for all. It's not hard to come by. I refuse to keep educating people in this forum. Especially when every time I turn around they still deny the information exists. You're not a stupid man. You can find it if your're truly interested.

    Which part?
     
  14. You demonstrate a few things in the following 2 quotes.
    In the 1st quote you demonstrate that you don't know enough about logic fallacies to avoid making an argument from incredulity. We're not talking about opening the possibility of a design/designer, we're talking about evidence appropriate for a science class. What evidence for this design/designer would you care to present?

    As a medical provider you have experienced first hand many of the examples of poor (or unintelligent) design. If there was a designer I think we can clearly rule out an intelligent one.

    Within the framework of evolution, all these examples of poor design make sense. Evolution cannot start from scratch. It can only work by adapting, repurposing, etc. existing anatomy, and many features are far from optimal. All the examples of poor design do more to discredit an Intelligent Designer than examples of efficient design does to support an Intelligent Designer.

    This leads into your 2nd quote above which demonstrates that you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of how evolution operates (or you do, but you still feel compelled to repeat well dismantled Creationist claims).

    Paley's watchmaker was explained away by Darwin's Origin over 150 years ago, but regurgitated later as Fred Hoyle's (not Boyle's) junkyard 747. Nothing about evolution claims that a complex organism randomly appeared in its current, complex form. Organisms have slowly moved from simple to complex through mutations. Some mutations are injurious to a organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those die off in future generations. Other mutations are beneficial to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those then exist in future generations in higher and higher numbers. Evolution explains how natural processes can lead to efficient features that would have an appearance of design.

    So again I must ask, what evidence for a Designer would you care to put forth that would earn it a place in a science class?

    -ArtificialGrape
     
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    It's only a fallacy if it's false. Given the possibility of natural phenomena creating very complex structures, where minor defects are incompatible with life, and an intelligence creating it, both are rather hard to believe. Recognizing the extrapolations and assumptions made on both sides of the issue, whether philosophers and logicians agree or not, it seems logical to withhold judgement until such time as enough evidence is present to decide. I also recognize that on both sides there is bias. Some Theists really want to believe they can prove life was designed and created. Some Atheists really want to prove that it was not created and just a natural phenomena.

    Your example of an Unintelligent Designer is an example a lack of perfection is not a lack of inteligence. Just figuring out how difficult it is to make a cell work is very complex, figuring out how to make it replicate, differentiate within a mamal, the positive and negative feedback loops between relatively distant tissues within the body to handle small details that without which, it all stops working. I think you are trying to rule out a perfect design, and assuming a perfect designer must make a perfect design, and that you would understand the big picture much better. First, I make no assumptions about the characteristics of a possible designer, not even sure there is one let alone what the characteristics would be. The human body is very complex, homeostasis is a constant and active activity, it's very easy for one defect to stop it all from working pretty quick. To assume if there was a designer that the design isn't good enough is comical. After all, if there were a designer, the design has lasts millipns of years and led to you being able to complain about it. What would happen if animals did not grow up, grow old and die naturally, I see problems with that. We all get to die at least once. It is what it is. BTW: wouldn't arguing that it could not have been designed because the design is uninteligent also be an argument from incredulity?

    It is what it is. It was probably either made or just a result of natural phenomena. Both possibilities are incredible. Was life made? Some say yes, some say no, I say maybe.


    Can I ask if you've noticed how much information I have proposed putting in front of a science class?
     
  16. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Actually, there is a lot of conjecture and biased examination of what is observable to be skeptical of both. Lets suppose that all the right pieces just happened to fall into place millions of years ago, when the planet was devoid of life. That's quite a statistical feat. But then why today, when you can find building blocks of life all over the planet, with animals shedding cells and leaving DNA everywhere, and we are knee deep in building blocks for life, are we not witnessing abiogenesis in nature now?

    Each side has their fans, both even have their fanatics, I just landed in the middle.

    The real interesting thing to think about, is that since there are strong feelings on both sides, and no real proof, why would either side trying to suppress the other and exclude the other possibility from even being taught, unless there was an agenda at work???
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  17. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,343
    698
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    Don't forget about me, now, Doc. :wavey:
     
  18. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    You can't actually make the statement that it is "quite a statistical feat" without being able to determine how many trials actually occurred.

    If you have a probability of an event occurring of 0.00000001, if there is one shot at it the probability of one success is, naturally, 0.00000001

    If there are 1000000000 trials, the cumulative probability that there is more than one success exceeds 0.997. That's 99.7%. The 0.3% left over is the probability that it happened either 0 or 1 times. The probability it happens /at least once/ is so close to 1 that the calculator I used just states 1. It's practically a certainty (although this hypothetical event could still not happen).

    It doesn't matter how low the probability of an event is for a single trial - a sufficient number of places in which the event has a chance of occurring will raise the probability of that event, sometimes to near-certainty.

    Please consider that before you decide that something is "quite a statistical feat", and ask yourself if you (or anyone) currently even knows in how many places in this gigantic universe we exist in conditions were sufficient to be considered a "trial". We know there's at least one. What we do not know is how many trials are hidden in that 'at least'.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  19. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    Because there is some evidence for one side, but not the other. We've been over this.
     
  20. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    A good way to explain this to people...

    Go find the largest parking lot you can. Pick a car at random, and look at the vin#. What are the odds that you were going to find a car with that vin? Effectively zero.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.