i don't buy the argument the whole argument that common genes indicate evolutionary process. Ever thought that maybe we were just created this way and that we do share common parts(genes) with other creatures and that's it?
what you are suggesting is similar to the following:
my computer has an Intel CPU and your computer has an Intel CPU, therefore they MUST be the same brand because they are related by a common part.
i don't buy the argument the whole argument that common genes indicate evolutionary process. Ever thought that maybe we were just created this way and that we do share common parts(genes) with other creatures and that's it?
what you are suggesting is similar to the following:
my computer has an Intel CPU and your computer has an Intel CPU, therefore they MUST be the same brand because they are related by a common part.
also, the probability of life forming from nothing is too slim
That doesn't make the probability of an invisible giant doing it any less slim. Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on you (hence, "faith", not "fact").
i don't buy the argument the whole argument that common genes indicate evolutionary process. Ever thought that maybe we were just created this way and that we do share common parts(genes) with other creatures and that's it?
what you are suggesting is similar to the following:
my computer has an Intel CPU and your computer has an Intel CPU, therefore they MUST be the same brand because they are related by a common part.
That's not the molecular evidence I was talking about. Having lots of the same genes is only part of it.
Also, don't forget that speciation was produced in a lab last year.
i don't buy the argument the whole argument that common genes indicate evolutionary process. Ever thought that maybe we were just created this way and that we do share common parts(genes) with other creatures and that's it?
what you are suggesting is similar to the following:
my computer has an Intel CPU and your computer has an Intel CPU, therefore they MUST be the same brand because they are related by a common part.
But.. wouldn't using technology as an argument be mostly invalid for you? Technology does, in a sense, evolve. The parts are common because they have been developing for years and years.
does anyone here actually buy into creationism? it's not fun if the absurdity doesn't come from someone who's genuine.
I don't buy into creationism, but I think I can come up with some arguments for it.
The fine-tuning argument is "supposed" to be the strongest argument for the likeliness of a creator existing (not stating that a creator exists, but only probable that one exists).
Here's an example: Suppose we were to setup a fish tank for fish to live in. We would try to make the environment as suitable for the fish as possible. We would put rocks, sand, coral, other sea creatures into the tank. And of course beneath the tank, we would need filters, oxygen supplies, pumps, etc. Then we test the water and add in the fish if everything is correct.
Now suppose the fishes in the fish tank are swimmin around and thinking: Hmm...how did this world come into existence? Did all this just happen due to chance or did some creator make this environment? It's certainly possible that everything just occurred by itself and somehow made life possible for us, but wouldn't it be more likely that there is a creator?
Back to our case....we are like the fishes. The world we live in is so suitable and "fine-tuned" for life that it seems that it is more probable that a creator created it rather than happening by chance. It's true that even a very tiny slim chance IS a chance, and for that small chance to occur, it would seem that there needs to be a very large number of combinations of laws to exist and we somehow ended up in that perfect combination. For that to happen, more likely, it would seem that there is a multiverse where each universe possesses a different combination of laws and that we happen to be in one with the right set. But of course, we have no proof that there is a multiverse.
But.. wouldn't using technology as an argument be mostly invalid for you? Technology does, in a sense, evolve. The parts are common because they have been developing for years and years.
no. the parts are common because they happened to be chosen for different models
Genesis states that God created life in the sea first "and the sea brought forth..." about 4,000 years ago
According to the theory of evolution, micro organisms formed in the oceans 4,000,000,000 years ago, right?
soo
Theory of evolution = 1000000(Genesis - God)
seems about right.
Theory of Evolution explains the origin of species, not life. Science cannot explain where we come from, that's where creationism comes in. Creationism is based on faith, not facts.
Life didn't happen by chance, and creationism is not an alternative to that. Evolution is a plausible solution and it's the only workable alternative that has ever been suggested. Creationism faces the same objection as chance and that it's improbable. The higher the improbability, the higher the implausibility.
From what I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're treating evolution as a single, one-off event like creationism. Well it's not, it's an accumulation of events.
There are serious working models for the origin of life, though the time spans involved mean that we'll probably never know which one of them is true. However, Agentbob is correct that evolution says nothing about the origin of life, that is the first self-replicating "cell," only how things progressed once that first cell had been established. Some choose to say that God created the first replicator. This seems like a god-of-the-gaps argument to me, but whatever. At least it doesn't directly contradict the evidence, though it also has no evidence in its favor. Contradicting evolution, however, is to blind yourself to the mountains of evidence that exist, in favor of a fairy tale with absolutely no evidential backing whatsoever.
Theory of Evolution explains the origin of species, not life. Science cannot explain where we come from, that's where creationism comes in. Creationism is based on faith, not facts.
Life didn't happen by chance, and creationism is not an alternative to that. Evolution is a plausible solution and it's the only workable alternative that has ever been suggested. Creationism faces the same objection as chance and that it's improbable. The higher the improbability, the higher the implausibility.
From what I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're treating evolution as a single, one-off event like creationism. Well it's not, it's an accumulation of events.
Even so, creationism as an origin for life in general has zero evidence, proof, or plausibility.
Saying god created everything is an easy answer, and is no more valid than me saying an object we would later name as a donut created everything. I think it is beyond any of us how matter comes into existence...or is it? How far has modern science come in this aspect?
what you are suggesting is similar to the following:
my computer has an Intel CPU and your computer has an Intel CPU, therefore they MUST be the same brand because they are related by a common part.
If computers could only be formed from a computer which split and part of that formed a new computer, then yes that would be true. You have to be really dense if you think that is a working example.
I think Arch 131 would be a great course for you... make yourself a little less ignorant before spouting this shit.
At SFU? I don't believe that. I took bio 300 (evolution) and there wasn't a single creationist.
there's not even 40% creationists in the entire canadian population (not to mention university population). must have been a really messed up class list.
Why would you do this Broken Lizard? Saying there's a debate just encourages them. When they bring something scientific to the table they can play with the big kids but until then there is no debate, there is no controversy, there is no conversation.
I'm pissed about the debate they just held yesterday because it was designed to make it seem like creationism and actual science were on equal footing. As long as they create some sense of legitimacy for themselves, they win.
Also, IVT: Why don't you explain how you think we think evolution works. Tell us the details of this hypothesis that you think is so wrong. Don't spew more insane analogies about computers or watches or whatever, tell us what you think we think.
The debate was held and funded by Campus for Christ. Ferrous, (weclome!) I don't agree that it's a problem to hold the debate. If it were evolution vs creationism, I wold agree. But it wasn't, it was "Does God exist?" That's a different question.
The thing about these debates is that it's pretty pointless. Most debates I've seen, the theist leaves feeling they've proved a point and that atheists are ridiculous, while the atheists leaves feeling smug and intellectual superior. Nothing's changed.
I understand the main point of these debates is not necessarily to change someone's view points, but to get people to start asking questions and be more rationale. However, the "Does God exist" debate seems to have failed that. It seems like both debtors are afraid of being offensive/harsh and were holding back.
Comments
what you are suggesting is similar to the following:
my computer has an Intel CPU and your computer has an Intel CPU, therefore they MUST be the same brand because they are related by a common part.
jeez, things douches believe in these days
Phil
Also, don't forget that speciation was produced in a lab last year.
insatiable is gonna freak out haha
The fine-tuning argument is "supposed" to be the strongest argument for the likeliness of a creator existing (not stating that a creator exists, but only probable that one exists).
Here's an example: Suppose we were to setup a fish tank for fish to live in. We would try to make the environment as suitable for the fish as possible. We would put rocks, sand, coral, other sea creatures into the tank. And of course beneath the tank, we would need filters, oxygen supplies, pumps, etc. Then we test the water and add in the fish if everything is correct.
Now suppose the fishes in the fish tank are swimmin around and thinking: Hmm...how did this world come into existence? Did all this just happen due to chance or did some creator make this environment? It's certainly possible that everything just occurred by itself and somehow made life possible for us, but wouldn't it be more likely that there is a creator?
----------------------------------------------------------
Back to our case....we are like the fishes. The world we live in is so suitable and "fine-tuned" for life that it seems that it is more probable that a creator created it rather than happening by chance.
It's true that even a very tiny slim chance IS a chance, and for that small chance to occur, it would seem that there needs to be a very large number of combinations of laws to exist and we somehow ended up in that perfect combination. For that to happen, more likely, it would seem that there is a multiverse where each universe possesses a different combination of laws and that we happen to be in one with the right set. But of course, we have no proof that there is a multiverse.
Life didn't happen by chance, and creationism is not an alternative to that. Evolution is a plausible solution and it's the only workable alternative that has ever been suggested. Creationism faces the same objection as chance and that it's improbable. The higher the improbability, the higher the implausibility.
From what I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're treating evolution as a single, one-off event like creationism. Well it's not, it's an accumulation of events.
Saying god created everything is an easy answer, and is no more valid than me saying an object we would later name as a donut created everything. I think it is beyond any of us how matter comes into existence...or is it? How far has modern science come in this aspect?
If computers could only be formed from a computer which split and part of that formed a new computer, then yes that would be true. You have to be really dense if you think that is a working example.
I think Arch 131 would be a great course for you... make yourself a little less ignorant before spouting this shit.
funny story, i'm in an biology evolution course, and we find out 40% of the class steal believes in creationism.
thats wacked.
you'll hear how stupid creationists sound.
note: kent hovind if you don';t already know is supposedly the greatest creationist debater in the world
I'm pissed about the debate they just held yesterday because it was designed to make it seem like creationism and actual science were on equal footing. As long as they create some sense of legitimacy for themselves, they win.
Also, IVT: Why don't you explain how you think we think evolution works. Tell us the details of this hypothesis that you think is so wrong. Don't spew more insane analogies about computers or watches or whatever, tell us what you think we think.
Also hi everybody, hell of a first post huh?
I understand the main point of these debates is not necessarily to change someone's view points, but to get people to start asking questions and be more rationale. However, the "Does God exist" debate seems to have failed that. It seems like both debtors are afraid of being offensive/harsh and were holding back.