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.

This is evidence of evolution (to me).

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Gunhaver, Jan 22, 2013.

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

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    Emerald elysia,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica

    Spotted salamander, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100730/full/news.2010.384.html

    And the pea aphid, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/pea-aphids-photosynthesis_n_1819615.html

    What they all have in common is the ability to use plant genes to photosynthesize their own nutrients instead of relying only on food resources. Only these 3 animals, as far as we know, are able to do this.

    To me that begs the question, why only 3 animals when every single plant on the planet can pull it off? Seems like solar energy is a pretty obvious energy source in nature yet nearly all animals are reliant on plants or animals that eat plants for their nutrients. Why would god only gift these 3 lowly critters with the ability to use photosynthesis when all other animals can't?
     
  2. JBnTX

    JBnTX Bible Thumper

    20,043
    4,186
    Aug 28, 2008
    Fort Worth Texas

    Maybe that's part of the wonder of his creation?
    Maybe it's for him alone to understand?

    He explains it in Isaiah 55:8
    "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways", said the LORD
     


  3. Triple7

    Triple7

    542
    1
    May 30, 2011
    I have no issues with evolution and God...... So whatever
     
  4. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Darwin was at a great disadvantage, and at the same time able to witness diversity and adaptation. Very smart fellow. The understanding of the complexity and interdependency of life within single cells, individual organisms, and widely different and geographically distant organisms was not near what it is now.




    But, lets assume that Darwin was correct in his observations, AND life began very simply, and evolved over time into what it is now.

    What if that was the design? Does what Darwin discovered over 130 years ago, disprove the existence of a deity as a creator of life on earth?
     
  5. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Gunhaver,

    You appear to be making an argument from incredulity, no? (I am not anti-evolution - I basically think it's the best explanation we've got at the moment and if we're wrong, we'll figure it out eventually - I just think that the basis of arguments for/against should not be logical fallacies)
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  6. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    Not at all. Religious folks would do themselves a lot of good simply accepting that science as we know it is the best understanding of how God set things up. Issues only develop when they try to deny science is correct.

    Doesn't matter if there is a God or not, whether one believes in a God or not. Science is what it is and it isn't wrong, only incomplete.
     
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I'd not presume to know what other people should think. It's not a bad idea to understand how they got there thought.

    Science is a very good process of discovery, but it is often wrong. It's a human endeavor, and we all know, atheists, agnostics and theists, that humans are imperfect. Right?
     
  8. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    I'm pointing out a new (to me) example of unintelligent design is all. For people who look around and see everything as a put together plan with a god behind it, I wonder why they think this great photosynthetic "design" only made it into 3 animals. It's like putting your best battery technology into a few things and using something far less efficient and far more polluting for everything else. Especially when you talk about that god being a loving and benevolent god, you'd think he'd make full use of a system that eliminates the need for critters to tear each other apart to survive.

    Create a perfect energy system for life, place most life within easy reach of that energy system, create pain and suffering, make one group of the critters you create subject to pain and suffering by being required to search for possibly scarce second parties to tap into that energy source, make another group rely on inflicting pain and suffering on the first group to tap into that energy source, make this a continuous cycle.

    It's like the laryngeal nerve or running a sewer through a playground twixt our legs. Not the best plan that could be designed.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc"]Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson - YouTube[/ame]
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas

    But you still consider it reasonably possible that life WAS created, right?
     
  10. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    From what reading I've done on the subject the evidence seems to mainly point towards life either forming naturally on THIS planet in it's most simple form from available materials and conditions and evolving from that point, or it was deposited here from a foreign object like a comet or such during the heavy bombardment.

    Inserting a creator into either of those scenarios is a God of the Gaps argument since there has been no evidence whatsoever that there ever was or is a creator. And that argument in itself wouldn't be the final explanation as then one would need to ask, who created the creator? And then who created their creator? To then assume that the ultimate creator simply always was and is eternal is sliding into the supernatural and becomes a substitution of actual science with magic and wizardry.

    Given that the idea of a creator or designer originates mainly from religious views and most religious claims about how life, the earth, and even the universe came into being have been proven false... I'd say there's less of a reason to consider the possibility of a creator rather than what the evidence continues to point towards.

    Is it possible? Sure I guess. Is it REASONABLY possible? I don't think so as the idea of a creator is baseless and without a single shred of evidence. So there is little REASON to it. It's equally possible that a giant flaming tiger coughed up a hairball and that hairball became the universe. It's based in just as much fact as there being a creator. I would actually label the idea of a creator as reasonably improbable given the lack of supporting evidence and what evidence we have leaning toward life being something that happens naturally given the right conditions.
     
  11. Maybe you're making things up because you don't have an answer.
     
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Paraphrasing, so the discoveries made of evolution should lead people to understand that there is almost certainly not a creator?
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  13. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    That is not automatically indicative of a lack of design. For instance, when we as humans design things, we will in fact make decisions that will result in not using the most efficient available energy source/engine/whatever. It depends on the design criteria, and the cost limitations. (Of course, an all-powerful deity would not have cost limitations).

    I don't see it as evidence, as there's nothing about the mere fact that only 3 animals use this power source that cleanly indicates a designer would not make that choice.

    Now, thing like the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe, where there's a more direct route that could have been taken, but wasn't, that kind of thing is certainly something that can be the basis for a statement like 'If this was designed, why is it routed like this?" - precisely because it's easy to see that a designer would route it more efficiently. It's still not strictly indicative of a lack of design, because the "designer" could be bad at designing - but it's a far stronger statement.

    Now, if it could be shown through data that this energy source actually would confer a general advantage *and* that it was a relatively recent development when looked at from an evolutionary perspective, you'd have the argument "This is the absolutely the best power source, evolution can explain why more animals aren't using it, whereas the posit of a designer cannot". But without such data it seems a bit of a stretch. (That data may exist, for all I know, all I'm saying is that the mere existence of these three animals, and their use of photosynthesis, is not enough information to build a good argument).
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  14. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    I'll reply directly to this because I don't want you to misrepresent what I'm saying. You use to word "paraphrasing" to allow you to shove words in people's mouth.

    I think that the amount of evidence available for each conclusion shows that one is more probable than the other. Nothing at this point disproves a deity. And evolution in and of itself doesn't address a deity. However, what we keep finding is that things in nature tend to happen without the need for or influence of one. And when we look at the idea of a design we find many flaws in all manner of creature that would suggest that if there is or were a designer... they weren't a very good one.

    So again, I think given what we know, what we can evidence, and what we can't. The idea of a creator is reasonably improbable. However that could change once evidence of one becomes available. But at this point no such evidence has been forthcoming.

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYASxal-PI"]Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists - YouTube[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    You are always so negative. Lighten up. Paraphrasing, when clearly announces and used in a question that is pertinent, to the point of the topic, and not laced with insults is perfectly fine, and you should not feel threatened by it.

    So you're pretty sure. 90% sure? More? Less?
     
  16. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    Given your history, tactics, and usual behavior on this forum I know exactly what you were doing. It would have brought you great joy if you could quote Glock36shooter as saying "Evolution proves there is no God"... just so you could run over and post in the thread that Animal Mother absolutely handed you your arse in. Your attempt to misrepresent my statements is noted. I'm not getting into it with you as it isn't worth the time.

    I said it's reasonably improbable. I would have no idea how to assign a percentage to that so I wouldn't be inclined to do so.
     
  17. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    You do have a vivid imagination. I'll give you that. It
    Shouldn't be long before more of the rational atheists tell you that you're making a fool of yourself again. Do you smell rose petals with a faint hint of vinegar?
     
  18. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    No... but I smell truck loads of BS whenever you post. :wavey:
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  19. Roering

    Roering Sorting nuts

    5,236
    149
    Feb 14, 2008
    Costa Mesa
    Well, if you believe in evolution I guess you would have to conclude from this example and your logic regarding solar energy as a superior source that plants are more evolved than animals....except for the 3 mentioned.

    I thought that the theory of evolution taught the opposite though. That animals are generally a more advanced species than plants and therefore more evolved, not less.

    If that is the case, wouldn't this be evidence against the theory of evolution? :dunno:
     
  20. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    No. It is two things. The totality of science, not just evolution, should lead people to believe that there is almost certainly not a creator. When, to that, you add the fact that every single god myth is untestable and that each is logically indistinguishable, in this respect, from every other and from any that is invented afresh, it makes the concept of a creator even more unbelievable. The multiplicity of different religions does no more than demonstrate a strong tendency of humans to invent new religions and gods and to believe in them with a level of inner certainty which will make them sacrifice their lives or kill others for that belief.

    This, of course, does not make the existence of a creator at some time in the history of the universe impossible, but it does make it a dumb thing to base your life on.

    I can imagine a Religion Shop. Someone goes in a says that his religion is somehow just not giving him what he wants. "Oh yes Sir," says the assistant,"We have lots of people who come in feeling that way but we have 430 different religions you can choose from and I am sure one of them will be just what you want."

    "This one has splendid ceremonies with animal sacrifices and the public deflowering of virgins by the priest four times a year. This one gives a special level of approval and extra perks in Heaven for celibates and hermits. Their fellow religionists who are not quite into being hermits themselves gain credit from providing the hermits with food and old sacks for clothes and bedding. Just between you and me, it has fallen out of fashion in the last few years as so many illegal aliens live like that now. It has just lost a certain exclusivity!"

    "Now this one associates earthly success with status in Heaven and is particularly good for the go-getter personality types amongst us, but many can't live up to it. This one is more exciting because it gives you categories of people that it encourages you to kill. In fact we have several along those lines with different categories. Some prefer killing homosexuals and others prefer bankers. Still others prefer virgins but we discourage those because the supply is limited. We have a very good special on one where the members practice cannibalism on each other but they are rather secretive about how they decide who eats and who is eaten. It is a rather specialized taste of course and not enough people choose it for us to know quite what personality profile it suits. But, as I say, we have 430 different ones to choose from so why don't you start with some of the characteristics you are looking for and I will try to pick a short list for you?"

    When it is possible to choose absolutely any religion or to invent your own, as Ron L Hubbard and the founder of the Mormon's did, and when there is no rational means of choosing between them, why would a sensible person choose any?

    English
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.