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. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,345
    699
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    I haven't read this whole thread, yet, but evolution does not equal abiogenesis.

    Abiogenesis, or biopoiesis, is the process by which life arose from inorganic matter.

    Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

    People, not necessarily in this thread, seem to conflate these two things often. "God" could have created life on this planet and then evolution occured following that creation. Evolution is not mutually exclusive to the idea of a sentient creator.

    Now I'll read the whole thread. :cool:
     
  2. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,345
    699
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    Possible? Yes. Reasonably possible? Not without any evidence to suggest it was, IMO.
     

    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013

  3. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    Not more or less advanced; better or more poorly adapted. Plants are better adapted for their niche, animals for theirs.
     
  4. Roering

    Roering Sorting nuts

    5,235
    147
    Feb 14, 2008
    Costa Mesa
    Correct, but I'm using Gunhavers logic on this one.
     
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas

    So, would you say that you believe it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a creator?
     
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    So, it's beyond a reasonable doubt?
     
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Oh, you should have asked him about his concept of money before you went there. :wow:
     
  8. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,345
    699
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC

    I see no reasonable evidence to suggest a belief in a sentient creative being is warranted, no.
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Not criticizing, just pointing that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is pretty sure.
     
  10. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,345
    699
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    Do you know of any reasonable physical evidence that points to a sentient creative being?

    You need to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, absence of belief is the null/default position.
     
  11. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    All I know is that what is, is. I don't even claim to know all of what is. I do understand that there is an order to life, and that it is very complex, and not really very likely to have just come together in a primordial soup somewhere, even with Frankenstein's lightning apparatus.

    Right, wrong, or even in the wrong direction, I believe it is roughly equally possible that a deity has existed as it is possible that none has existed.

    I have left the unanswered question unanswered. Not everyone can do that.

    I've toyed with the concept of the null deity. There are a few that it seems it would fit for, but that's not something I am very sure of.

    If you believe something to be true, beyond a reasonable doubt, rephrasing it in the passive sense does not really negate the surety of that belief. The difference in how one leads their life is really negligible.
     
  12. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Rejecting the idea of a god has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution shouldn't lead people to doubt there is a god, the complete lack of evidence for a god should lead people to doubt there is a god.

    You don't have to have an alternate explanation to say "sounds like BS to me."
     
  13. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Evolution didn't occur until after there was life capable of adaptation to it's environment, and enough adaptation that such changes increased the likely hood of survival. Extinction is probably the norm, survival the exception of the good ideas.

    Like I've said, from the middle, both sides seem to be making assumptions. Why assume at all? Why not accept that we aren't really sure, and get ready for bed, because we have to wake up and go to work tomorrow.

    I'm not dictating. Both sides have every right to assume and believe what they wish.


    On a day to day basis, it just doesn't come up that often.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  14. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    Imperfect, without a doubt. But would you care to share the times in the last 100 years in which science has been often wrong?

    As far as you not presuming what people should think I call BS. I'm guessing you presume they should think murder is wrong, theft is wrong etc.

    Brilliant post English.

    Leave it to Doc to ignore all the points English raised and ask a stupid question to deflect.

    And not to answer for English but yes, as he stated, given the totality of science, people should believe is almost certainly not a creator in the religious sense.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  15. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    Understand that none of this eliminates the possibility of a designer to me. It only contradicts the very detailed accounts of what kind of designer was involved by those that are sure they know Him to exist. They claim Him to be benevolent, all powerful, omnipotent, ect. In other words, He really loves and cares more that we can possibly imagine and there's nothing He can't do. You can tell by overuse of capital H who I'm talking about.

    To me, the fact that predation far surpasses photosynthesis as an energy system in animals contradicts those claims. It's obvious that photosynthesis works in animals and if it's not the most advantageous energy system then it could have been made more efficient by His Omnipotence if He wished.

    It's like if you told me that you have a friend named Sarah. I can't disprove that and have no reason to try. If you then tell me that Sarah is a custom jewelry designer and she's the best there ever was at it you nail down your claims down to something that can be evaluated and spark my interest in testing those claims in a single statement. Now show me some work of hers and, knowing a bit about the subject myself, if I see solder joints that are poorly fitted and boiled out, bad eutectic bonds and plain old sloppy fabrications marks left behind I can reasonably say that this person has not shown the level of craftsmanship that would be expected given the claims made of her abilities. Obviously there is some kind of relationship between Sarah and you that makes you biased and gives you motivation to inflate claims of her abilities.

    I often refer to The Great Giant Magnet. That's my placeholder term for any magic or supernatural requirements for this universe as yet undiscovered, a label for that .001% possibility of deity that open mindedness requires. I see everything working in nature as moving along perfectly and ingeniously if created, but, most surely created by an indifferent deity with limited power, if created. At the very least that deity cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot move it. But then, when I imagine what deity might look like I don't get carried away in the character development phase because I'm not trying to sell you anything.
     
  16. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    Well, if G36 is back to responding to you then I'm not going to be the only one that misses out on the fun of pointing out your BS logical fallacies.


    Again, how do you arrive at the likelihood of abiogenesis in our entire universe? Is a number of natural laboratories uncountable to the billionth power running experiments for what may as well be infinite time not enough for some elements to come together in nearly every possible way? Do you not see that a few hundred years of humans working on the problem is nothing compared to that? How many lightning strikes happen simultaneously in one second in all of existence and how many other energy discharges that we don't even know about?

    We just discovered a new particle and from what I hear it's a pretty important one. How do you know there wasn't some past discharge of that particle that may have kicked the whole thing off? Some as yet undiscovered particle? Who's to say we should have this life thing worked out by now? We're still improving on the internal combustion engine.

    Nobody is claiming to know all of what is but many of us are real keen on keeping up the investigation rather than assigning credit to figments of imagination.

    Wait, you just said it's not very likely that life just happened without divine intervention and now you're giving it a 50-50 probability? It's obvious that you aren't thinking about this as much as you'd have us believe.

    Well you're right about that. Those that can't do that are called scientists.

    And the rest is of very little substance so I have no response to that.
     
  17. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas


    English can probably see the point, but I'll try to use small words to help you follow.

    He laid out a series of man described religions and deities (gods:wavey:). Some of them, people just made up. So why choose one? Got that. I'm not bypassing(going around:wavey:) the point, I'm taking it one more level. The descriptions of a god or other religions by men, that are very fallible (they make mistakes:wavey:), are unacceptable (he doesn't like them:wavey:). Got it. Do his examples and the rest of his experiences rule out the possibility of any deity as a creator?




    I find your inability to discuss things without losing your temper funny. But I don't wish you any harm. Try to relax.
    I am going to ignore your point, maybe not forever, but at least for a while. You won't like the answer. Don't want you to stroke out too soon.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2013
  18. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,345
    699
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    Are humans born with an innate belief in a creator, yes or no?
     
  19. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    That is a strangely ambiguous sentence. Did you miss a "not"?

    The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the basis of working decisions in a law court. It never means that there can be no doubt but only that the space left for doubt is small enough to neglect even though that means the decision will sometimes be wrong. On that basis, I believe the belief that there was a creator is false beyond a reasonable doubt and I lead my life on the assumption that there is no god and never has been.

    English
     
  20. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Well, I would guess no. Over time, even a person with no human interaction might wonder where they came from. I'd guess there is more than one possible answer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.