The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Master Crimzon3,287 pages
Master Crimzon Baby Killer

Alright.

1. The first- and most important reason- is the existence of blatant evil in the world. Corruption, crime, death, rape, starvation, unequality. It is believed that God is, inherently, a good being who loves life and humanity- why does he not, then, do anything about it? People like Lord Knightfall will preach about God giving people the ability to 'choose'. I think that's a load of bullocks. God has control of everything- he could have, originally, made humanity so evil simply does not exist. He could have eliminated the very concept of evil. Evil people would not be 'forced' to be good against their will- they would simply, originally, not be evil. I don't believe there is any sort of debate on whether the world would be a better place without evil.

I don't need to go on such a level of extermism, actually. Regardless of whether God made humanity like they are today, he should still- on occasions- intervene when humanity itself utterly failed. He most certainly can, because he is omniscent. Look at some Biblical stories- while I still, personally, believe that some of God's acts in the Bible (at least certain stories I'm familiar with) were wrong and evil, he still intervened in the affairs of humanity when evil went overboard and became rampant.

I also cannot, under any circumstances, come to believe that God would make his presence known to humanity. Indeed, as we see by the Ten Commandments (is there any debate on whether they were invented by humans or by God?), supposedly humans were made with a certain conscient that would enable lawmaking and the order of the world. So, yeah, even if we had no concept of 'God', we'd still have a concept of justice. And, outside of it, organized religion has ultimately brought more pain, suffering, hatred, and bigotry to the world than it has brought good. God knows everything that will be. So, why would he reveal his existence, knowing that it would inevitably cause endless destruction? I don't know.

2. There is absolutely no proof that God exists. Yes, I know some people will say "Hey! There's no proof he doesn't exist, either!". It doesn't work like that. When somebody makes a claim (for example, "God exists"😉, they need to prove he does- or at least present a logical basis for believing in him. That's the idea. Just like I can't say "We evolved from monkeys!" without proof. And when people ask why I believe in it, I can't say 'Hey! Prove it's not true!'. So, yeah. I simply cannot believe in something when no logical basis exists to support it.

Well, these are my two primary reasons for not believing in god. I guess I could list more, but these are my two biggest motivations. I have absolutely no problem if somebody believes in God, thouigh, even if I think these views are wrong. I have a problem with organized religion.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Organic molecules, specifically the primordial, pre-cell molecules are not dissimilar from living matter. The current consensus (which is volatile and changes rapidly) is that early life was in the form of "self-replicating molecules. These would be similar to DNA without a cell around it, or proteins that could absorb other matter and convert it to energy.


Its still a consensus, I believe, and the fact is it conflicts with scientific law, and while that law may be simple or empirical, it's still something that can't be discredited without a huge amount of evidence, not just the proposition that a molecule gradually evolved into something with life. We don't have anything akin to self replicating molecules today, either.

Abiogenesis is not a finished product. We have studying it for only a few centuries, and have only had a good grasp of molecular genetics for 50 years: the Human Genome was sequenced only in 2003. As a young science, we can't expect it to be instantly flawless. It took thousands of years to realize that the sun was the center of the Solar System.
Could it be that abiogenesis is such bad science that it will never be finished, but should be disregarded relatively soon? I mean, its not flawless, its not even close to what i would call "flawed" but downright science fiction.

[/b]
I was talking without knowing where I was going. This was a (lackluster) attempt to differentiate between variation through genetic diversity and the changes that primordial organic molecules underwent. For all intents and purposes it was evolution, except that they were DNA/RNA instead of swapping DNA. Organic molecules developed gradually (evolved) into more complex forms, the sole survivor of which is the cell.
so now non-living matter is evolving and reproducing like life forms before it has life? the wonders of modern science.

In fact, the key point of information that I failed to convey is that early organic matter was DNA, or a variant thereof. The self-replicating molecules suggested by the theory would be most closely related to DNA. A cell =/= molecule + complexity, and I was wrong for saying so. But, this does not lessen the "truthiness" of abiogenesis, it merely increases the amount of small, gradual changes that had to occur between early proteins and early cells. (DNA is a protein)
but what gave it life? why don't we have any living molecules? we don't even fully understand what life is or where it stems from. There had to be a critical point at which it became alive, not just organic matter.

[/b]
Why not? The improbability of a cell arising from the muck is absurd, but no one is claiming that. I am saying that a set of changes had the net result of [insert newest claim of irreducible complexity here]. Dawkins's metaphor of a gradual slope will serve here. Imagine a mountain with one cliff face, completely vertical. To ascend would require an act of God (as you are suggesting.) Evolution provides an alternative to this. Instead of a single obstacle, one single, impossible event, there is a gradual slope of change- a steady easy path that arrives at the same place without need of the supernatural. Occam's razor therefore can be used to remove any sort of Creator force from the equation. This is the theory of evolution. The theory of abiogenesis has its own issues, far more obvious and open, but to put a creator in the "gaps" in the theory puts it at risk of being strangled. Scientific gaps are filled every day. Do you want to put Yahwe at risk of being pushed out of the gaps altogether? A far better tactic would be first to explain why you find creationism a believeable concept and bear in mind that we learn more every day. To rest your faith on a momentary uncertainty puts your worldview at risk.
I didn't say that creationism was a viable theory, thus it is not on my head to prove it, although I can show some evidence for it, in due time. I just stated that I didn't think that evolution was complete enough to be taught in public schools. The fact is, it isn't, its just a theory, but people are being taught that it is fact. All the evidence is flawed, the majority of it is something made up and penned down on a sheet of paper, such as "abiogenesis", which has, in truth, never been seen or proven, but is instead a theory, which was written as fiction to fill in one of the gaps in evolution, the problem of "where did life begin?" I'm not saying that creationism is the right answer, just that evolution is the wrong answer, and in alternative, intelligent design (not going to argue for god, but something intelligent designed the world) is a more viable theory, but not complete enough either to be taught in schools. My belief is that NONE should be taught in schools and we should not force children to believe in something that is not absolute scientific FACT.

[/b]
I hate to quote Wikipedia, but my own respnonse was three additional sections:
"Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it." (emphasis mine)[quote] really there is your answer. Law is simple, its impirical, its proven, its undeniable. Theory is an observation that explains an observation, relates it to more observation, and predicts test results. why evolution will never be a law or a fact, is because you can't really test something that was supposed to happen a ga-zillion (to borrow the colloquial) years ago.
[quote]
A theory includes a law. It explains it. It connects it and relates it to other facts. Laws are simply observations of constants- an observation should not change- theories can, because they include a variety of facts and data. Theory = Law + Thought
wrong. *sigh* yet again, you get the entire thought process wrong. Scientific method: hypothesis-->tests-->theory-->more tests, and after a very long time with nobody who can possibly disagree and its been proven in every example-->law. its not Hypothesis-->no tests-->law-->explanation and thought--> theory. gravity is a law, its not a theory. "for every action there is both an equal and opposite reaction" is a law, not a theory. the current model of an atom is a theory, because you can't actually look at sub-atomic particles with today's technology.

[/b]
In a field that thrives on peer review, the doubts and obvious flaws in a concept are quickly outed. If there were any grounds for valid scientific dissent, there would be scientific dissent. The truth is that there is no mainstream objection to the theory of evolution.
its probably because they do not consider ID believers as peers who are capable of reviewing their theories. And there are intelligent design doctors and scientist supporters. Ever watch the documentary "Expelled"? It depicts numerous times when university professors lost their job because they happened to mention intelligent design as a possibility. Its not a peer review free speech thing. Their are scientific "thought police" if you will.

You were referring to the theory of evolution- not abiogenesis. "Really, like how the THEORY evolution requires that both LAWS of thermodynamics must be invalid?"[I fixed a html bracket but it was a copy/paste] I'm not informed enough to discuss the applications of thermodynamics on abiogenesis, but I'd be very surprised if it required energy being created or destroyed or the net reduction of entropy (remember that is the only thing prevented by the 2nd law.) I study the effects of evolution- not the rise of life anyway.
I'm sorry the big bang violates the first one, i forgot that we were separating the steps of the secular viewpoint on how the earth began into individual theories.

[/b]
If you must know, I'm still in high school. (I have found that one's age has relatively little bearing on relative intelligence, however much my teachers try to persuade me otherwise.)
thankyou for being honest. I won't devalue your opinion or discredit it because of your age. However, age=knowledge, not intelligence. You pick up more as you go along and your teachers all have P.H.D.s so they probably do know more, not that you should take what they say for granted.

There is plenty of proof, although I had planned on introducing the technical aspects after I brought in the individual case studies. The bulk of the evidence is in genetics- much of modern evolutionary theory stems from our increased understanding of genetic traits and DNA. The last 50 years have shown rapid growth in comprehension.

k I'll wait 🙂

The fossil record: Fossils provide a good start for any casual study of evolution, the changes through time are best noticed in stone form, it shows the diversification of species and we get to look at dinosaurs!
ooo dinosaurs! 😱 jk but you realize that the fossil record only has one fossil that could even hope to classify as a transitional form.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted


The variation of species is another arrow pointing towards evolution. The speciation in the Galapagos islands is famously what inspired Darwin to the theory in the first place. Each bird (because he was observing finches) was very similar to the others on the island, but they were all subtly different. The same bird appeared to have filled multiple niches and in the process became multiple species.
that's basic genetic mutation, its not going to lead to a third limb in birds, its not going to lead to birds evolving into some other style of carnivorous bird with claws, its just going to create color/shape variation in birds that continue to classify as finches.

The majority of earth's life forms share genetic code. Organisms with ancestors that split from their common ancestor more recently share more DNA. I'm sure you're aware of the stats: 99.4% similarity between Human and Chimp DNA, 92% similarity between people and mice, even 40% similarity between people and fruit flies. If that doesn't show that there was a common ancestor, and that changes have occurred throughout time then I don't entirely know what will. [/B]
Did you also notice that most mamals appear to have for arms and legs and a head and a tailbone and intestines and eyes and nostrils and a mouth and ears? Creationists believe that that's because god used the basic design for everything. It works both ways, bro. Similarities can be used both ways, and they certainly aren't evidence for evolution.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Put simply, it emphasizes the traits that work. There isn't really any narrowing down: the traits that work are overrepresented in the next generation, which, when compounded by millions of years adds up to hefty, game changing alterations. Mutations are what 'increases' the genetic diversity in a gene pool. Natural selection works on the phenotype of a population- it does nothing to increase or decrease genetic diversity.

I don't think I have ever seen a beneficial mutation or heard about one in documented science. could you provide me with an example?

This was clearly a recessive trait. You might be a carrier. If you marry a girl whose grandmother also had an eleventh toe, your children might have a chance to receive a trait. I don't know how much you remember about punnet squares, but that is the (admittedly simple and limited) layman's method to determine probability of a recessive trait being passed on.
I don't need to be patronized, my good man. I understand the basic premise, but its not going to turn into a huge eleventh toe for all of mankind that can be used as a fifth limb, due to the fact that my grandmother didn't die from it. In the same way, say a lizard-like creature started to evolve into a bird-like creature, its wings aren't going to be of any use to it until maybe 500 thousand years into the process? lets give it that much time? the lizards with the mutation aren't going to survive extra long because they have useless wings, and for this reason, i have to believe that a lot of the survival of the fittest stuff isn't the reason things evolved mainly because, they wouldn't be the fittest until their mutations were complete.

My fictional shrimp was based on reality,

you are confusing reality with theory again. if you mean based on the theory of evolution, so was my lizard-->bird.

and I handicapped it for you.

Don't patronize me.

Some single-celled organisms, some jellyfish, starfish, leeches and various other kinds of worms have photosensitive skin.
could you back up this information please?
They can't determine an image, nor the direction of the lightsource. All they can sense is the presence of light somewhere in the vicinity. They do not have image forming eyes, but they do have the base material for Nat. Selection to work with. If you find it to impossible to believe that simple photosensitivity could develop w/o divine intervention, I'd suggest that you consider how small the cellular level is, and how effective photosynthesis is even for tiny single-celled organisms. Cells are not unaffected by light in the same way that we are.
i never said they were. Once again, the photosensitivity isn't a mutation, as all the worms, and all the leeches and all the varieties that have it, well, have it, not just one or two.
[/b]
The real-life, even less complex animals have it, so lets not sell our shrimp short.
[/b]
basic natural selection, I accept, but the developing of things such as wings, eyes, and such is something I don't agree is possible. I will post an explanation for my views in a moment.

You asked for an explanation of the origin of the eye. I obliged. If you want me to talk about how the eye evolved (or shows evidence of evolution, if you prefer) over 40 times in independant lineages I can do that. If you want me to talk about the relative structure of eyes, or the efficacy of liquid in the lens, or about directional, balancing selection, artificial selection, variables in herity (what is inherited vs. what is left behind) punctuated equilibrium, symbiosis, or even the motivations of opposition to evolution, I could. This is a cursory examination of the facts, and by no means could I fit a comprehensive discussion of even selection pressure into a KMC message box. I'd suggest that we remain in the general, and not get bogged down too much in any one area. We could also talk about how the ranching industry relies on evolutionary principles for its livelihood, how medicine relies on evolutionary principles to save lives, and how humans today are bigger than they were even 200 years ago, let alone 2000. (some of that can be attributed to lifestyle, but average height has grown by about 1.5 feet- that doesn't mean nothing.)
your explanation for the eye is, after all, just theory, and you have nothing to back it up. As for the size of humans, I believe that they started larger and are getting smaller. I don't know why you think they were smaller 2000 years ago, and it would vary from race to race.

If you don't want to use them then i won't bring them up either.
[/b]
explaining away evolution with an unbased analogy really just isn't my style is why. you can use them all you want, but you won't see me using "8 billion monkey's on type-writers" as an analogy of how absurd evolution is.
Here is a fundamental mistake: species never "switch" families- a cat's ancestors will all be cats. They may change substantially, they may become so far removed that they can no longer interbreed, but they will still be cats. Also, it is fallacious to claim that evolution turns one modern animal into another. It would be better to say "change from a dog-like animal into [whatever]." Evolution can only change what it has to work with- a dog can't grow wings over the course of a few generations because it doesn't have wings to emphasize. It can, however, alter its body structure immensely, if given millions of years with which to reproduce.
one of the components of evolution is that lizards turned into birds, which is crossing species.

MicroEvolution vs. MacroEvolution is another tiresome debate- I'm afraid that I can't reconcile your idea of "1 mutation + 1 mutation = some change within species but 1 mutation + 1 mutation + 1 mutation... into infinity =/= BIG CHANGE." If I've misunderstood something, I'd be thrilled to remove the hypocrisy from acknowledging evolution but then saying it does not work. (my impression of micro/macro)
[/b]
Ok here is why. one of the common beliefs of evolution is that the bat evolved from a shrew-like rodent. At some point along this line this shrew-like rodent would have been an animal with super elongated limbs with really no purpose, and useless legs. at this point it would not have been "the fittest" and would have died. Alot of transitional forms would be useless, such as the penis and the uterus. There are problems with what purpose these would have served halfway through evolution and why exactly we evolved so that we needed each other for the furthering of our race. And the list of "unfit" transitional forms goes on.

Please feel free to make an argument for ID. Even if you outdo me (unlikely) and prove that evolution is false, you won't have proven ID. If evolution is wrong, ID isn't automatically right. I'd like to see positive evidence for Creationism, rather than more tearing down of evolution or tying evolution to the completely different concept of abiogenesis.
I create the case for creationism soon enough. I would like to finish the debate on whether evolution is fit enough to be taught as TRUTH or not, though.

[/b]
Those case studies might wait 'till saturday- I don't know when I'll get to the library. (I like to have concrete sources before I post anything just in case ppl. ask for a citation- that's why I'm so slow w/SW source material debates: I live through the library)
to quote han solo: "you'll get no such pleasure from us". I'm too lazy to drive to the library for a debate via an internet message board.

Like I said, disproving evolution won't prove creationism. Also, the evidence I've been given in class/research on my own has been compelling. What did you do in biology class? I shudder to think what the teacher thought about you... 🙂 [/B]
Actually my biology teacher thought I was a bright young man. And I was prudent enough to keep my mouth shut about opinions that clashed with his when I was trying to pass the class. You however, are not going to pass or fail me or put a bad mark on my transcript for disagreeing with you. So here I am debating.

Gideon Restricted
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Gideon, I want to ask you something. Why do you believe in god?

I consider myself to be a highly intelligent person, Master Crimzon. The application of logic is what I do -- on and off of these forums. I've been debating since I was wearing diapers, arguing with people and questioning everything -- trying to find the reason why.

Though I am hardly omniscient or experienced, when I think about my seventeen years of life and survey all around me, I simply cannot reconcile the idea that this universe and all it entails simply spawned without catalyst or reason; that we are all the pleasant results of a dimensional freak accident. Everything about us is so complicated, so complex. We have layers upon layers of personal, intellectual, and philosophical outlets. And the idea that it is simply the result of two wayward atoms randomly colliding just doesn't seem realistic to me. This universe is full of intangible forces that we cannot quantify: emotions. There is no scientific explanation or basis for hope, faith, love. But do we deny their existence? No.

Simply put, I look upon this universe and conclude that we must be the products of a higher power. Even if He doesn't exist, God (or belief in Him) remains the most powerful force this world has ever known. I can't imagine that He is simply a myth that has deceived the most brilliant and numerous of men for thousands of years.

But don't, for a second, assume that my beliefs are necessarily in tandem with the entirety of Christian canon. Because it is in my nature to question, I constantly question God's methods and motives. The idea that God doesn't stop evil or stop crime has come up before, certainly. But the Bible makes it quite clear that God's goal with sin and evil is to test us. You mention free will, choice, and how either are applicable if God is omniscient and thereby knows what we will do. It's similar to how Palpatine (an odious comparison, I know) knew that he was going to be elected Chancellor and ascend to Emperor. That Anakin Skywalker would join him. That he knew doesn't mean that Anakin couldn't have acted or chosen differently. Knowing what someone will do doesn't mean that they do not have a choice; it simply means that you won't be surprised with the outcome.

2. There is absolutely no proof that God exists. Yes, I know some people will say "Hey! There's no proof he doesn't exist, either!". It doesn't work like that. When somebody makes a claim (for example, "God exists"😉, they need to prove he does- or at least present a logical basis for believing in him. That's the idea. Just like I can't say "We evolved from monkeys!" without proof. And when people ask why I believe in it, I can't say 'Hey! Prove it's not true!'. So, yeah. I simply cannot believe in something when no logical basis exists to support it.

As I tried to explain to you, the premise is quite simple: God works indirectly and is beyond the scope of our comprehension. There are devout Christians whose grasp of logic and comprehension are lightyears beyond yours, Crimzon. If the most brilliant men in the world can't understand him, how do you think you should be able to? The reason you denounce God's existence is because you have no proof that he exists. But this isn't like debating Star Wars or comic book characters -- the premise to the whole point is that you will never understand God.

I also have a problem with organized religion. I'm not blind to the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt institutions on the face of the earth and that the religion is becoming politicized by ambitious and amoral zealots.

NonSensi-Klown Restricted

I remember now why I love you.

Elite Hunter Senior Member

Great post Gideon, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on an afterlife.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Its still a consensus, I believe, and the fact is it conflicts with scientific law, and while that law may be simple or empirical, it's still something that can't be discredited without a huge amount of evidence, not just the proposition that a molecule gradually evolved into something with life. We don't have anything akin to self replicating molecules today, either.

That is because any self replicating molecules today would be eaten up almost instantly as food for some sort of microbe.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Could it be that abiogenesis is such bad science that it will never be finished, but should be disregarded relatively soon? I mean, its not flawless, its not even close to what i would call "flawed" but downright science fiction.

It might be, but as laymen (I'm assuming that you aren't secretly Francis Collins) we can't make that decision. If the facts are presented and they are found wanting- if it is not a viable theory then it will be abandoned. There is no reason to continue to support it after it has been discredited. I am unable to speculate as to when it might be disproven, though, and I suspect that it won't happen. For the moment I am keeping it in careful skepticism.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so now non-living matter is evolving and reproducing like life forms before it has life? the wonders of modern science.
but what gave it life? why don't we have any living molecules? we don't even fully understand what life is or where it stems from. There had to be a critical point at which it became alive, not just organic matter.

I can ask around- try to find out where the distinction. Without a token investment of effort, however, I would have to say that I don't know. I'm willing to do so, but you must be willing to wait until tomorrow or Sunday for this. (I'm headed to the university for World History, I might as well look into this at the same time.)
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I didn't say that creationism was a viable theory, thus it is not on my head to prove it, although I can show some evidence for it, in due time. I just stated that I didn't think that evolution was complete enough to be taught in public schools.

So what is it that you propose we teach our children? Evolution is a key to modern biology- in practical terms, anyone who doesn't have a working knowledge will be lost when faced with new discoveries. If you are proposing that we move it to college, fine. Say that. I can look at the pros and cons of moving it to a later stage of mental development. There are no pros for excising it from a college grad's curriculum altogether.

I know you understand the difference in scientific and colloquial usage of the word theory, so why do you insist on bringing it up again? I'll just quote wikipedia:
"Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). In many instances we are constructing models of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and models."
And from the NAS:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact." Source: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

I'm sure you can find the wikipedia entry for yourself.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

The fact is, it isn't, its just a theory, but people are being taught that it is fact. All the evidence is flawed, the majority of it is something made up and penned down on a sheet of paper,

The specifics of it, what I have been telling you about, may be conjecture, but the mechanics of it- how it works- aren't in any sort of reputable doubt at all. We know that species have changed over time. We know that many species share common DNA. We know through embryology that development of similar animals follows similar patterns. We know through observation of the natural world that successful traits are emphasized in the gene pool. There simply isn't the doubt that you are claiming.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
such as "abiogenesis", which has, in truth, never been seen or proven, but is instead a theory, which was written as fiction to fill in one of the gaps in evolution, the problem of "where did life begin?"

Abiogenesis isn't interchangeable with evolution- it will succeed or fail on its own terms. Evolution works on living organisms. How or if it works on primordial organic molecules does not change its credibility.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

I'm not saying that creationism is the right answer, just that evolution is the wrong answer, and in alternative, intelligent design (not going to argue for god, but something intelligent designed the world) is a more viable theory, but not complete enough either to be taught in schools. My belief is that NONE should be taught in schools and we should not force children to believe in something that is not absolute scientific FACT.

Plate tectonics is still a theory, would you like us to stop teaching geology? Einstein's theory of general relativity is "just a theory," would you like us to stop teaching physics? The study of Biology relies on the theory of evolution.

How is ID a more viable theory? I can wait until the next phase of the discussion, but I can't let that pass without the mainstream response: It isn't.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

wrong. *sigh* yet again, you get the entire thought process wrong. Scientific method: hypothesis-->tests-->theory-->more tests, and after a very long time with nobody who can possibly disagree and its been proven in every example-->law. its not Hypothesis-->no tests-->law-->explanation and thought--> theory. gravity is a law, its not a theory. "for every action there is both an equal and opposite reaction" is a law, not a theory. the current model of an atom is a theory, because you can't actually look at sub-atomic particles with today's technology.

There is not a common progression from hypothesis to theory to law. A law and a theory fill very different roles in scientific thought. A law describes empirical observations- like gravity, where the effect is known to be a constant. Generally speaking, laws are constants. Theories include sets of laws, and explain them. Theories are open to change because new information can come to light that changes how the theory fits the pieces of fact together. No scientist thinks "This will be the day that Evolution is promoted to a law!" because it is gibberish. No one wants or expects it to become a law, because a law is fundamentally different from a theory, in composition, use, and discovery.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

its probably because they do not consider ID believers as peers who are capable of reviewing their theories. And there are intelligent design doctors and scientist supporters. Ever watch the documentary "Expelled"? It depicts numerous times when university professors lost their job because they happened to mention intelligent design as a possibility. Its not a peer review free speech thing. Their are scientific "thought police" if you will.

As I understand it, the movie contains testimony from some six professionals who claim to have had their lives destroyed for endorsing creationism. I may as well give a synopsis:
Richard Sternberg- broke convention and didn't have a 2nd editor- he completed the process by himself.
Guillermo Gonzalez- was miffed by his refusal of tenure after endorsing ID. A then B does not mean that A caused B. Many professors are denied tenure. The university had grounds to refuse his tenure.
Caroline Crocker- explicitly endorsed creationism in class and taught factually incorrect material to students. She was not removed during the semester and she finished teaching the class. She was not further censored by the fictitious "thought police," she accepted another faculty position at a different college.
Robert Marks- was requested to remove creationism propaganda from his website, (sponsored by the university) but was unable to reach an agreement. The website is now hosted by a third party. He retains his position.
Pamela Winnick- was a journalist who explicitly endorsed creationism. She continues to write for the paper she worked at (works at) and has published a book about "science's crusade against religion." That the book received a negative review is hardly blacklisting.
Michael Egnor- physician who endorsed creationism/rejected evolution. He suffered no deleterious effects from his endorsement save for a backlash on the internet. His job security was never threatened, nor was his livelihood or practice. He just got scathing comments online.
None of these cases sound to me like examples of censorship.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

I'm sorry the big bang violates the first one, i forgot that we were separating the steps of the secular viewpoint on how the earth began into individual theories.

I'm not going to bite on this debate. I'm not hopelessly ignorant about physics, but I do not know enough to speak intelligently or coherently about it online. I know that during the first few picoseconds, when the universe first began to expand, temperatures were near (or at?) plank temperatures- the hottest theoretical temperature. At plank temperature, like at absolute zero, the laws of physics begin to break down.

If you are talking about the event itself, I can only reiterate that I don't know enough to talk. It seems to me, though, that however unlikely it was, it had eternity in which to occur. Really, it was unavoidable.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

thankyou for being honest. I won't devalue your opinion or discredit it because of your age. However, age=knowledge, not intelligence. You pick up more as you go along and your teachers all have P.H.D.s so they probably do know more, not that you should take what they say for granted.

I don't take it for granted, but as someone who frequently knows more about certain subjects than the teacher, I'm rarely willing to take anything on their word. I like to learn.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
k I'll wait 🙂
ooo dinosaurs! 😱 jk but you realize that the fossil record only has one fossil that could even hope to classify as a transitional form.

I assume you mean Archeopteryx? We also have (relatively) complete records of the horse, the whale, camel, as well as deer.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html is the source I got the forms from.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
that's basic genetic mutation, its not going to lead to a third limb in birds, its not going to lead to birds evolving into some other style of carnivorous bird with claws, its just going to create color/shape variation in birds that continue to classify as finches.

As "basic genetic mutation" compiles over the millenia, you'd be surprised at what it can accomplish. Heck, punctuated equilibrium says that it might not even take such long periods. It could be short bursts of rapid change.

Re-read: No one is saying that it will become carnivorous (they already have claws). They get better at what they do. As the environment and competition with other animals changes, they do different things. Then they get better at those things. Small changes are the keyword here.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

Did you also notice that most mamals appear to have for arms and legs and a head and a tailbone and intestines and eyes and nostrils and a mouth and ears? Creationists believe that that's because god used the basic design for everything. It works both ways, bro. Similarities can be used both ways, and they certainly aren't evidence for evolution.

au contraire. Evolution predicts the similarities we see. It explains them. They are one example of a successful prediction that it has made. They show that they had a common ancestor from which they are all subtly (or, more frequently, blatantly) different from. This is positive proof for evolution. Creationism is a non-answer. It says "God did it." This does not explain how and why god did it, nor does it allow predictions about the natural world. If god did it, then... WHAT? What does creationism predict? (remember that if you say "nothing" then it fails one of the criteria to be a theory.)

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I don't think I have ever seen a beneficial mutation or heard about one in documented science. could you provide me with an example?

Here's one:
1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.

A single clone of E. coli was cultured at 37 C (that is 37 degrees Celsius) for 2000 generations. A single clone was then extracted from this population and divided into replicates that were then cultured at either 32 C , 37 C, or 42 C for a total of another 2000 generations. Adaptation of the new lines was periodically measured by competing these selection lines against the ancestor population. By the end of the experiment, the lines cultured at 32 C were shown to be 10% fitter that the ancestor population (at 32 C), and the line cultured at 42 C was shown to be 20% more fit than the ancestor population. The replicate line that was cultured at 37 C showed little improvement over the ancestral line.

Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.


Found at: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
This site was fascinating. You notice that many of the mutations are in bacteria because we can observe many generations within a reasonable time-frame.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I don't need to be patronized, my good man. I understand the basic premise, but its not going to turn into a huge eleventh toe for all of mankind that can be used as a fifth limb, due to the fact that my grandmother didn't die from it. In the same way, say a lizard-like creature started to evolve into a bird-like creature, its wings aren't going to be of any use to it until maybe 500 thousand years into the process? lets give it that much time? the lizards with the mutation aren't going to survive extra long because they have useless wings, and for this reason, i have to believe that a lot of the survival of the fittest stuff isn't the reason things evolved mainly because, they wouldn't be the fittest until their mutations were complete.

The wing is not an example of irreducible complexity. Many vertebrates live(d) in the treetops. Their locomotion was contingent upon their jumping range. Any mutation that extends their range of motion increases their food gathering radius could be an advantage. The smallest extra bushiness in a squirrel's tail or slight flap of skin would be emphasized- allowing it to survive more often. Eventually bushier tails or extra membranes (as in flying squirrels) would become the norm. The average range of the whole population has increased, even if only by a few inches. Now, any individuals with an even larger skin web can leap even further so that this 2nd extension of skin/bushiness becomes the norm. And so on. For any given adaptation, there exists a gap such that a marginal increase in the extremity of the adaptation makes all the difference between life and death. There is a continuous slope of improvement.

Red Nemesis The Blind Critic

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

you are confusing reality with theory again. if you mean based on the theory of evolution, so was my lizard-->bird.

Don't patronize me.
could you back up this information please? i never said they were. Once again, the photosensitivity isn't a mutation, as all the worms, and all the leeches and all the varieties that have it, well, have it, not just one or two.


I'm having trouble finding a source I can link to. Maybe I'll scan a few pages out of a book...
The general idea is something similar to ocelli- photosensitive cells that are unable to distinguish form, but can detect the presence or absence of light.

I'll work on substantiating the specific animals with this characteristic tomorrow.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

basic natural selection, I accept, but the developing of things such as wings, eyes, and such is something I don't agree is possible. I will post an explanation for my views in a moment.

I gave a general explanation detailing the possible growth of (gliding) "wings" in vertebrates. I look forward to your reasoning.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

your explanation for the eye is, after all, just theory, and you have nothing to back it up. As for the size of humans, I believe that they started larger and are getting smaller.

My scenario was not even a theory- it was conjecture. The purpose was not to give a definite, absolutely truthful answer to how the eye developed, but to show how it could have happened. Your contention is that it was impossible because it would have been useless/couldn't have appeared. The whole thing comes down to whether I can find a digital source showing that many bacteria are photosensitive. (Which would give the base material for nat. sel. to work on)

I don't know why you think they were smaller 2000 years ago, and it would vary from race to race.

Cope's rule says that a mammal will generally grow in size over the course of evolution. Pre-human species grew and eventually peaked with Homo Sapiens. I was mistaken that the general human size has increased. It has gone down for approx. 80,000 years- I was comparing America's height average today of ~6 feet to that of colonial times. I seem to have inadvertantly perpetuated an urban legend. Conscripts in the revolutionary war were "within centimeters of WWII draftees." Cope's rule still holds though.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

explaining away evolution with an unbased analogy really just isn't my style is why. you can use them all you want, but you won't see me using "8 billion monkey's on type-writers" as an analogy of how absurd evolution is.

I'll stay away unless you use them. Which you won't. So I'll stay away.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

one of the components of evolution is that lizards turned into birds, which is crossing species.

Birds are related to lizards. A modern lizard could no more turn into a bird in 1 generation than a dog could turn into a plant. Dinosaurs had millions upon millions of years to work with. They didn't cross families- they developed a completely new one. Birds hadn't arisen yet. They became the first birds. The species slowly mutated into a new one, that could not interbreed with their predecessors.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

Ok here is why. one of the common beliefs of evolution is that the bat evolved from a shrew-like rodent. At some point along this line this shrew-like rodent would have been an animal with super elongated limbs with really no purpose, and useless legs. at this point it would not have been "the fittest" and would have died. Alot of transitional forms would be useless, such as the penis and the uterus. There are problems with what purpose these would have served halfway through evolution and why exactly we evolved so that we needed each other for the furthering of our race. And the list of "unfit" transitional forms goes on.

All forms that I've heard of would have some benefit even before they are completely developed- not one has been discovered that is worthless without all of its component parts. I've talked about squirrels already, replace that with the word bat and you have the explanation of their flying membrane.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

I create the case for creationism soon enough. I would like to finish the debate on whether evolution is fit enough to be taught as TRUTH or not, though.

k
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

to quote han solo: "you'll get no such pleasure from us". I'm too lazy to drive to the library for a debate via an internet message board.

I'll be there anyway on Sunday, so I might as well look it up.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

Actually my biology teacher thought I was a bright young man. And I was prudent enough to keep my mouth shut about opinions that clashed with his when I was trying to pass the class. You however, are not going to pass or fail me or put a bad mark on my transcript for disagreeing with you. So here I am debating.

K. I'm glad you didn't cause problems in class. I wanted to take the part of a super conservative creationist and make waves, but my friends/an influential teacher dissuaded me. I still think it would've been a riot. Everyone else just thought it'd be a disruption that served to make me look like even more of a nerd. They were right. (I asked some of my classmates what they would have thought: the response was overwhelmingly negative.)

Master Crimzon Baby Killer

Originally posted by Gideon
I consider myself to be a highly intelligent person, Master Crimzon. The application of logic is what I do -- on and off of these forums. I've been debating since I was wearing diapers, arguing with people and questioning everything -- trying to find the reason why.

Though I am hardly omniscient or experienced, when I think about my seventeen years of life and survey all around me, I simply cannot reconcile the idea that this universe and all it entails simply spawned without catalyst or reason; that we are all the pleasant results of a dimensional freak accident. Everything about us is so complicated, so complex. We have layers upon layers of personal, intellectual, and philosophical outlets. And the idea that it is simply the result of two wayward atoms randomly colliding just doesn't seem realistic to me. This universe is full of intangible forces that we cannot quantify: emotions. There is no scientific explanation or basis for hope, faith, love. But do we deny their existence? No.

Simply put, I look upon this universe and conclude that we must be the products of a higher power. Even if He doesn't exist, God (or belief in Him) remains the most powerful force this world has ever known. I can't imagine that He is simply a myth that has deceived the most brilliant and numerous of men for thousands of years.

But don't, for a second, assume that my beliefs are necessarily in tandem with the entirety of Christian canon. Because it is in my nature to question, I constantly question God's methods and motives. The idea that God doesn't stop evil or stop crime has come up before, certainly. But the Bible makes it quite clear that God's goal with sin and evil is to test us. You mention free will, choice, and how either are applicable if God is omniscient and thereby knows what we will do. It's similar to how Palpatine (an odious comparison, I know) knew that he was going to be elected Chancellor and ascend to Emperor. That Anakin Skywalker would join him. That he knew doesn't mean that Anakin couldn't have acted or chosen differently. Knowing what someone will do doesn't mean that they do not have a choice; it simply means that you won't be surprised with the outcome.

Thank you. That was one of the better I answers I recieved to that question. So, I'm not going to attack your argument.

What I am going to do, however, is put your analogy into question. The fundamental difference between Palpatine and God is the fact that Palpatine is not omniscent, timeless, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Sure, he possesses an incredible mastery of psychology and has tempted Anakin over the years, but he could never, ever be a million percent sure that Anakin would convert to the dark side. Anakin still had a choice- it wasn't written in some book that he will turn to the dark side. Theoritically, everything we do- everything we think- is part of God's plan. We cannot escape God's plan because everything is part of his plan. So, how do you feel thinking that every single thing you do is the product of a divine being's plan for you?

It's quite complex, really, but the question is thus- if everything you do is predicted and planned, do you still have free will?

Originally posted by Gideon
As I tried to explain to you, the premise is quite simple: God works indirectly and is beyond the scope of our comprehension. There are devout Christians whose grasp of logic and comprehension are lightyears beyond yours, Crimzon. If the most brilliant men in the world can't understand him, how do you think you should be able to?

I don't. But could you give me a name of some present-time uber Christian philosopher?

Originally posted by Gideon
The reason you denounce God's existence is because you have no proof that he exists. But this isn't like debating Star Wars or comic book characters -- the premise to the whole point is that you will never understand God.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Gideon
I also have a problem with organized religion. I'm not blind to the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt institutions on the face of the earth and that the religion is becoming politicized by ambitious and amoral zealots.

Well, yes. And religion isn't just used to political ends (Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc rambling about how "Jesus" and "God" told them to do this and that)- the greater evil is located in people such as Osama Bin Laden.

I don't know what's your interpretation on this. Is Osama a megalomaniac obsessed with domination, who uses religion as an excuse to rally the masses? Or is he an extremist who truly believes that he is doing God's will? I don't know. But the truth is, ultimately religion causes death and destruction. There are more Bin Ladens than Mother Theresa's, sadly.

And, I wonder... are you a fully practing Christian? Or do you simply choose to believe in God?

Cpt. Valerian Republic Navy

Originally posted by Gideon
I consider myself to be a highly intelligent person, Master Crimzon. The application of logic is what I do -- on and off of these forums. I've been debating since I was wearing diapers, arguing with people and questioning everything -- trying to find the reason why.

Though I am hardly omniscient or experienced, when I think about my seventeen years of life and survey all around me, I simply cannot reconcile the idea that this universe and all it entails simply spawned without catalyst or reason; that we are all the pleasant results of a dimensional freak accident. Everything about us is so complicated, so complex. We have layers upon layers of personal, intellectual, and philosophical outlets. And the idea that it is simply the result of two wayward atoms randomly colliding just doesn't seem realistic to me. This universe is full of intangible forces that we cannot quantify: emotions. There is no scientific explanation or basis for hope, faith, love. But do we deny their existence? No.

Simply put, I look upon this universe and conclude that we must be the products of a higher power. Even if He doesn't exist, God (or belief in Him) remains the most powerful force this world has ever known. I can't imagine that He is simply a myth that has deceived the most brilliant and numerous of men for thousands of years.

But don't, for a second, assume that my beliefs are necessarily in tandem with the entirety of Christian canon. Because it is in my nature to question, I constantly question God's methods and motives. The idea that God doesn't stop evil or stop crime has come up before, certainly. But the Bible makes it quite clear that God's goal with sin and evil is to test us. You mention free will, choice, and how either are applicable if God is omniscient and thereby knows what we will do. It's similar to how Palpatine (an odious comparison, I know) knew that he was going to be elected Chancellor and ascend to Emperor. That Anakin Skywalker would join him. That he knew doesn't mean that Anakin couldn't have acted or chosen differently. Knowing what someone will do doesn't mean that they do not have a choice; it simply means that you won't be surprised with the outcome.

As I tried to explain to you, the premise is quite simple: God works indirectly and is beyond the scope of our comprehension. There are devout Christians whose grasp of logic and comprehension are lightyears beyond yours, Crimzon. If the most brilliant men in the world can't understand him, how do you think you should be able to? The reason you denounce God's existence is because you have no proof that he exists. But this isn't like debating Star Wars or comic book characters -- the premise to the whole point is that you will never understand God.

I also have a problem with organized religion. I'm not blind to the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt institutions on the face of the earth and that the religion is becoming politicized by ambitious and amoral zealots.

Bravo, bravo. I have to say, I am in complete and absolute agreement with this.

The 'God is beyond the scope of our comprehension' reminded me of Mass Effect...

SIDIOUS 66 Senior Member

Originally posted by Gideon
I consider myself to be a highly intelligent person, Master Crimzon. The application of logic is what I do -- on and off of these forums. I've been debating since I was wearing diapers, arguing with people and questioning everything -- trying to find the reason why.

Though I am hardly omniscient or experienced, when I think about my seventeen years of life and survey all around me, I simply cannot reconcile the idea that this universe and all it entails simply spawned without catalyst or reason; that we are all the pleasant results of a dimensional freak accident. Everything about us is so complicated, so complex. We have layers upon layers of personal, intellectual, and philosophical outlets. And the idea that it is simply the result of two wayward atoms randomly colliding just doesn't seem realistic to me. This universe is full of intangible forces that we cannot quantify: emotions. There is no scientific explanation or basis for hope, faith, love. But do we deny their existence? No.

Simply put, I look upon this universe and conclude that we must be the products of a higher power. Even if He doesn't exist, God (or belief in Him) remains the most powerful force this world has ever known. I can't imagine that He is simply a myth that has deceived the most brilliant and numerous of men for thousands of years.

But don't, for a second, assume that my beliefs are necessarily in tandem with the entirety of Christian canon. Because it is in my nature to question, I constantly question God's methods and motives. The idea that God doesn't stop evil or stop crime has come up before, certainly. But the Bible makes it quite clear that God's goal with sin and evil is to test us. You mention free will, choice, and how either are applicable if God is omniscient and thereby knows what we will do. It's similar to how Palpatine (an odious comparison, I know) knew that he was going to be elected Chancellor and ascend to Emperor. That Anakin Skywalker would join him. That he knew doesn't mean that Anakin couldn't have acted or chosen differently. Knowing what someone will do doesn't mean that they do not have a choice; it simply means that you won't be surprised with the outcome.

As I tried to explain to you, the premise is quite simple: God works indirectly and is beyond the scope of our comprehension. There are devout Christians whose grasp of logic and comprehension are lightyears beyond yours, Crimzon. If the most brilliant men in the world can't understand him, how do you think you should be able to? The reason you denounce God's existence is because you have no proof that he exists. But this isn't like debating Star Wars or comic book characters -- the premise to the whole point is that you will never understand God.

I also have a problem with organized religion. I'm not blind to the fact that the Catholic Church is one of the most corrupt institutions on the face of the earth and that the religion is becoming politicized by ambitious and amoral zealots.

Gideon, you are only seventeen?

Gideon Restricted

I am, yes.

Autokrat Unknown
Originally posted by Gideon

Though I am hardly omniscient or experienced, when I think about my seventeen years of life and survey all around me, I simply cannot reconcile the idea that this universe and all it entails simply spawned without catalyst or reason; that we are all the pleasant results of a dimensional freak accident. Everything about us is so complicated, so complex. We have layers upon layers of personal, intellectual, and philosophical outlets. And the idea that it is simply the result of two wayward atoms randomly colliding just doesn't seem realistic to me. This universe is full of intangible forces that we cannot quantify: emotions. There is no scientific explanation or basis for hope, faith, love. But do we deny their existence? No.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you (I do agree to some extent), but what you are saying here could very well be taken as an appeal to the consequences.

Gideon Restricted

I don't see how.

I simply survey all that is around me and have a hard time coming to the conclusion that the universe spawned due to chance or coincidence.

Autokrat Unknown

Originally posted by Gideon
I don't see how.

I simply survey all that is around me and have a hard time coming to the conclusion that the universe spawned due to chance or coincidence.

It's like a Libertarian who rejects Determinism because Determinism in many ways rejects the idea of true free will.

In your argument you state that you have a hard time believing that everything came about by chance (as do I) but finding it hard to believe is appeal to consequences because it is an emotional appeal that something seems too impossible to be true so you decided there must be something higher than human understanding or science can explain.

Gideon Restricted

The problem with that is that this isn't an argument. I am not debating the merits of Christianity with Crimzon or anyone else; he simply asked my opinion. If I were debating this topic, then perhaps it could be considered an appeal, but it isn't. I think it is pointless to debate the existence of God, because there is no proof either way.

Autokrat Unknown
Originally posted by Gideon
The problem with that is that this isn't an argument. I am not debating the merits of Christianity with Crimzon or anyone else; he simply asked my opinion. If I were debating this topic, then perhaps it could be considered an appeal, but it isn't. I think it is pointless to debate the existence of God, because there is no proof either way.

I misunderstood then, I thought it was a debate.

Lord Knightfa11 Restricted

Originally posted by Gideon
That said, I think Knightfa11 is like my mother; his demeanor throughout this debate represents everything that is wrong with my religion. We shouldn't be so emotionally bound to the defense of Christianity that we are intolerant of differing opinions. A cool-headed, calm argument is the way to go. Not death threats.
First of all, I am very like your mother. We got along great last night. 😈

Second, if you will notice, I only claimed to disprove evolution, not prove Christianity, as you yourself said, there is no proof that there is a god, either way. And before I am taken aback or offended by intolerance, I would have to ask, Intolerant of what? My "intolerance" could be the intolerance of killing human offspring (an argument I am not willing to go into right now, as I am currently a little busy). Or my intolerance could be akin to racism, where I could be against black people. This would be bad intolerance. Maybe I am intolerant of rape, maybe I am intolerant of the taking of constitutional freedoms. Like I said, intolerance can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Please clarify.