|
Post by Hussar on Oct 6, 2003 8:51:36 GMT -5
Happened to be flipping through a Scientific American today and came across an interesting web site: objective.jesussave.us/creationnews.htmlApparently, there has been some debate as to whether or not this site is a hoax or not. Me, I really, really hope so. If it's true, and there really are people out there who think like this... Well... I just have to say that that idea scares me.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 6, 2003 10:19:47 GMT -5
Well, Hussar, hate to say this, but I have heard (from rational people/places) that the theory of evolution does have a few nasty holes in it. Irreducably complex systems (namely, the parts of living anatomy that would have no function in a partially evolved state), neutral drift (a trait with no advantage, but every member of a species on Earth just happens to get it anyway), and the simple time factor all challenge evolution, or at least the fact that it is the only factor involved. Keep in mind, I am not arguing creationism in the least, but some people out there arguing against evolution are not stupid. But, that said, this guy is a nut. Try to find his article an a "dinosaur expedition."
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 6, 2003 10:33:07 GMT -5
I liked that one. It was funny. ;D
The thing is, the scientists are not saying that they have all the answers. Or, if they are, then they are guilty of bad science. However, evolution is still the best explanation of where we came from.
By irreducible functions, I assume you are referring to the "eye" arguement. It states that you can't have half an eye, and since the eye is such a perfectly complex organ, it cannot have developed piecemeal.
Well, a couple of very bright scientists, whose names escape me at the moment, designed a computer model where random changes were introduced into a light sensing organ. Improvements were kept and bad things were not. After about 4000 or so generations, you came up with something that looked amazingly like a human eye. Not exactly, but close enough. 4000 generations is an eyeblink ('scuse the pun) of time. And, at no point, was there, "half an eye."
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 6, 2003 11:10:08 GMT -5
Love the inner gorrila! On topic, I have two points about that: One, did these scientists design the computer model to have a significant mutation every generation? Or was it meant to follow normal evolutionary timesapns? 'Cause if the light sensing organ could evolve in 4000 generations, it seems like we would all be quite a bit more evolved than we are now... Two, look at the most basic system of all: the cell. Basic things for a cell are 1)cell wall. Not too hard to imagine getting this randomly. Just keeps the thing together. 2)organneles. These do everything from power generation to waste disposal, all of which are necessary for survival, period. Most these days are not ("extras", if you will), but in the evolutionary days of yore there still had to be a few just so that a cell could last long enough to propogate. 3)DNA. This one is rather difficult to account for in a random sense, wouldn't you agree? Not only do we have a massively detailed list of the cell's traits, I feel that we often miss the most imporant point: it actively describes the environment around it. By a series of random events? 4)Self-replication. Another one that is so massively complex that its hard to describe as an act of chance. There are, in the most basic cell imaginable, systems in place to split the cell and DNA in half, longways, and then recreate any missing parts. I doubt that we could replicate a process this complex artificially (not bashing science! ;D). Another point: this "most basic" cell existed something like a billion years after the Earth came in to existence. For much of this billion years, the planet was a molten ball of rock that couldn't have possibly supported life as we know it. So, it took random molecules only a few hundred million years (a few imes longer than the separation between the dinosaurs and ourselves) to form an organism with the above traits BY CHANCE. It always seemed a bit silly to me...
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Oct 6, 2003 12:11:53 GMT -5
Evoltion not acturate, hmmmmm. Lets open that can of wyrms (bad pun, couldn't resist)
The story of creation is filled with absurd ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 6, 2003 13:04:01 GMT -5
Worms come in a can, but wyrms are sold in a squeeze tube ;D.
Welcome to the forums, Galadon! You should stop by the Gates and introduce yourself formally.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doom III on Oct 6, 2003 13:36:23 GMT -5
Intelligent Design the theory that there is someone/something behind evolution that moulds it is a real theory and as far as I am concerned more likely then random chance.
|
|
Rayst
Peasant
If I knew then what I know now, would I really have changed anything?
Posts: 41
|
Post by Rayst on Oct 6, 2003 16:26:12 GMT -5
to all you science nuts and religious freeks! ;D JK.
The supreme being is playing Sim-universe!
I'll go into more detail when i get back...
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Doom III on Oct 6, 2003 18:11:12 GMT -5
If only he knew the cheat codes.
|
|
Rayst
Peasant
If I knew then what I know now, would I really have changed anything?
Posts: 41
|
Post by Rayst on Oct 6, 2003 21:07:24 GMT -5
Ok, here goes. The universe started with a big bang. There was nothing then there was everything. The supreme being (SB for short) pushed power on his/her/its game console. SB created the heaven and earth in six days, cosmic deity days not earthling days mind you. "What about dinosaurs and the flinstones and such?" you ask. Well SB started with them, but hit reset. By accident or on purpose, we may never know. He then made us. And has been screwing around with the program ever since. All that sea parting, bush burning, vision showing, miracle working and such was just ole SB saying, "What does this button do?" Now, here is the good part. They say SB rested on the seventh day. Well, back to the whole cosmic day thing. We are in the seventh day. The SB is off getting a six pack and a thing of nachos right now, leaving us to fend for ourselvs. And you can see where that leaves us. Whew, if you can follow that, please let me know. So you can explain it to me.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 7, 2003 1:05:56 GMT -5
Lol, I like that Rayst. God is a Console Gamer.
On the subject of cells:
A cell's DNA does not describe it's environment in any way shape or form. A cell's DNA simply encodes the "Make a Cell" recipe for creating another cell and some coding for altering chains of molecules so that another cell can be created. Whether that cell exists in liquid water, inside a rock or in the opening of a underwater, volcanic vent, it doesn't matter. Nothing in a cell's DNA has anything to do with it's physical location.
You might want to check your timing of events there bud. 5 billion years ago, the earth was formed. 2 billion years ago blue green algae first appeared. Less than 1 billion years ago you find the first vertabrates. That means it took over a BILLION years to go from single celled organisms to vertabrates, not the few million you are talking about.
About the computer designers. It's true that our eyes did not develop in 4000 generations. Of course not. The point of the experiment was that an eye could develop from a simple light sensing patch into something that resembled a human eye, including cones, through random mutations. The time is irrelavent. What is important is that at no point do you have "half an eye" and you can develop an eye through evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Sharess on Oct 7, 2003 11:23:01 GMT -5
Interesting, sorry I couldn't read the whole thing but I got the piont after giveing the site a skim. It seems to me that people that really and I mean really believe in God are trying their damnest to make people see only what they want you to see. And the scarey thing is they seem to be doing a good job of it . So listen up the turth quite simpley is that we will never know it all. There will always be a new mystery a new puzzle to solve. And if we were know the "turth" about everything this would be a very boring world. Some things are not ment to known. Sorry about ragging but overzealet chistanes really tick me off and make me feel very ashamed of my faith
|
|
Sanguine
Peasant
Alea iacta est
Posts: 6
|
Post by Sanguine on Oct 7, 2003 11:46:34 GMT -5
Any light sensitive organ, no matter how developed, is going to be of use and give the animal an edge in the survival stakes. The more developed the ‘proto-eye’ the better the edge. There is no reason why an organ as complex as an eye could not have been arrived at through evolution.
I think at this point it is worth mentioning that the theory of evolution does not say anything about the origins of life; it describes genetic changes in populations of species from one generation to the next. The theory that life spontaneously emerged from nonliving matter is the theory of abiogenesis, which is a comparatively recent proposition and is still ‘work-in-progress’. Abiogenesis does not suggest that a series of chance chemical reactions produced a living organism, organelles and all. It proposes that the first beginnings of life were very simple chemical structures that were far simpler than even the most basic modern organism. They would have been rudimentary self-replicating molecules (of which several are know and can be created in laboratories). Given the right conditions these molecules can form relatively quickly from a moderate concentration of amino acids in a body of water. These acids would not only have formed the self-replicators required for the beginnings of life but whole host of useful proteins as well. For example there would have been proteins present to form a lipid membrane (a primitive cell wall) to better protect the self-replicating molecules from environmental conditions.
While there is a certain amount of chance involved in the formation of these molecules; the laws of chemistry and physics are not random. Chemical bonds form in quite specific ways that appreciably lowers the odds. Also take into account that just 1 kilogram of amino acids contains well over a billion billion molecules. This makes the chance formation of a significant number of self-replicating molecules very likely indeed.
As Hussar says, Wyrmfire’s time scale is a bit off. Fossil bacteria have been found in rocks as old as 3.5 billion years, the Warrawoona series in Australia is a good example.
Intelligent design? I’ve yet to see any evidence for it and evolution theory does not require divine intervention, so by means of Occam’s razor… slice!
The theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God, Sharess. It only contradicts any theory based on a literal interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. The beauty of evolution theory is that with a little scientific knowledge anyone can see the evidence for evolution before their very eyes. While no one can say for certain what the truth is, one can undoubtedly uncover what is most likely to have happened. The question is: what to believe? The evidence of your own eyes and understanding or an old book of dubious origin?
|
|
|
Post by Sharess on Oct 8, 2003 18:39:47 GMT -5
Sanguine, I was not trying to say that the threaroy of eveoltion dineys ( sorry bad speller) God the fact was that I had 3 very chisten co workers preach to me YET AGAIN and I really did not jugde the mentionrd wed site fairly for this I give my most humble aplologies, for letting my dislike of certin co workers affect my jugdememt.
|
|
agamoto
Soldier
Greetings and salutations one and all!!
Posts: 239
|
Post by agamoto on Oct 8, 2003 19:57:40 GMT -5
I my self have not come to a personal conclusion yet, however I ask this.
Is there any solid irrefutable evedence that "God" did not create the world in 6 literal days?
Is there any solid irrefutable evedence that he did?
Many evolutionists are promoting evolution as a fact when it is still a THEROY!
And many cristians are promoting creation as a fact, when there is not have enough evedence to prove it irrefutably.
Untill one or the other comes up with that I shall remain undecided.
|
|