Evolution vs Creationism Debate

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
You're arguing my posts towards the 'Stupid Design' and expecting it to prove God doesn't exist, and expecting that it is the evidence to prove evolution, to prove there is no God.

The video you first quoted, isn't about proving anything. All it is saying, the underline of the message. "We're not that important in the scheme of things"

We're one part of a much larger picture. Refusing to let go of being great, of being the most cherished.

And? We still stand unique in being able to think as we do. To reason as we do. Findingmultiple earth like planets proves many things and does open worlds (tee hee) of thinking. But until we find other "sentient" life there is nothing for religion to reject. You can be in up points in how some extreme people may react ( and I do believe that is what you expect from me, but it still holds little bearing on religious teaching at all. Religion is quite possibly one side of the coin that demonstrates our strange reasoning. The other side being science. The irony is the coin is intolerance.

What I've come to expect from you isn't extreme, or fanaticism. I find debating with you interesting, you come into things from a more philosophical stance.

It's not simply about, well religion is dead wrong. There are thousands of religions, thousands of Gods. It's not about proving God does not exist, but rejecting what the Bible is saying about creationism, what creationists are saying about 6000 year old Earth. Rejecting the current and opening much more to explore. Something religion is refusing to do, they're far more interested in clinging onto the Bible and trying to attack anything, mostly with straw grasping arguments. Or using 'evidence' which is either partly untruthful or just plain lying.

Sure there are a few religious people, who are willing to accept more. But majority, is not. Mostly out of faith, others want to truly believe there is something beyond this life. It's to do with our mortality, no one wants it to end.

I also want to point out size means little. A black hole is but literally a point of extreme gravity. A single point in your grand galaxy, yet that point is what is holding the galaxy together. Something to think about "bigger doesnt mean better, and size is not a prize."

Universe, there are billions, upon billions of Galaxies, more than you could count, more than we could even imagine. No one is saying bigger is better, but you're referring to a supermassive Black Hole. Which is measuring in the hundreds of thousands of solar masses, one solar mass equals the mass of the Sun, up to billions of solar masses, these objects posses an immense power. A supermassive black hole, is something located in the core of a galaxy and is apparently at least partially hold galaxies together.

Biggest isn't best, and I'm not suggesting it is. There is so much more to see, so much to discover, so much to do. Sadly, Organized Religion will often promote ignorance instead of intelligence. I'm sure you have seen many Pro Religious arguments against Science, and have indeed seen ignorance and fanaticism. I've never suggested that you do that.

The Bible isn't the answer to everything, it's a book that was written a very long time ago.

When I think of the Bible, I think it was meant to be something to keep on going. To keep getting new pages, to change as we change, to keep going through generations. Not stopping and becoming doctrine. Is it meant to be the book of God? Or the book of Man?
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
I never claimed to have an open mind.

Which shows, when using evidence about lava being dated incorrectly. Even though, that is nonsense Creationists grasped onto without even understanding what they were on about. Or bothered to learn the Scientists weren't even dating lava...

It's one thing to have an closed mind. Another to hold onto false facts, and shouting "Evidence of refutations!"
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
Yeah... what W'rkncacnter said.

Cause that's why lmao


I'd love to contribute more to this however all I do anymore is work. No one cares what I think, even if I had time to.

I do wonder...
Just out of curiosity: you have been defending evolution in the past 9 pages. Yet you hand out agree ratings to a post that says 'there is no evidence for evolution. Evolution is false' (few pages back).

So what exactly is it you think?
 

W'rkncacnter

Mister Freeze
Rather than re-hashing the same arguments over radiometric dating methods again and again and rejecting each other's claims why don't we move on. No one has bothered to answer my questions about Irreducible Complexity.
 

NENALATA

Last King of the Ayleids - RETIRED
30811.jpg
NENALATA said:
Yeah... what W'rkncacnter said.​
Cause that's why lmao​
I'd love to contribute more to this however all I do anymore is work. No one cares what I think, even if I had time to.​
I do wonder...
Just out of curiosity: you have been defending evolution in the past 9 pages. Yet you hand out agree ratings to a post that says 'there is no evidence for evolution. Evolution is false' (few pages back).

So what exactly is it you think?


I'm an enigma. Don't be hatin'
 

NENALATA

Last King of the Ayleids - RETIRED
*UPDATE*

What exactly do I think? I dunno. For one thing, anymore I'm usually too tired to think. lmao

I'm a moderate. Try to see everyone's side. The new guy did very well Anouck, as you have done in the past and as always, Mage and you have my eternal support for saving the Empire of Tamriel. We have different views but that is our common ground.

Anyways, new guy did good. I've NEVER. EVER. seen a Christian or anyone sympathetic to Christ get on here and argue as well as he did.

He won my assistance in that regard. Still got mad love for you and Mage though.

Although *technically speaking*, I support Jarl Baalgruuf & Whiterun first ~ And the Empire second. And like the Empire, I really have nothing against the Thalmor, just they they need some change.
 

Anouck

Queen of Procrastination
What exactly do I think? I dunno. For one thing, anymore I'm usually too tired to think. lmao

I'm a moderate. Try to see everyone's side. The new guy did very well Anouck, as you have done in the past and as always, Mage and you have my eternal support for saving the Empire of Tamriel. We have different views but that is our common ground.

Anyways, new guy did good. I've NEVER. EVER. seen a Christian or anyone sympathetic to Christ get on here and argue as well as he did.

He won my assistance in that regard. Still got mad love for you and Mage though.

In fact, if it makes you feel better I'll stop supporting the Thalmor and just support the Empire from now on.

He argued better than some other people. Although refusing to 'accept' arguments against him was not exactly helping him.

I find discussing religion especially interesting from a philosophic point of view. When facts come to the table, people are not going to agree anyway.
 

Seanu Reaves

The Shogun of Gaming
What I've come to expect from you isn't extreme, or fanaticism. I find debating with you interesting, you come into things from a more philosophical stance.

It's not simply about, well religion is dead wrong... Rejecting what the Bible is saying about creationism, what creationists are saying about 6000 year old Earth. Rejecting the current and opening much more to explore. Something religion is refusing to do, they're far more interested in clinging onto the Bible and trying to attack anything, mostly with straw grasping arguments. Or using 'evidence' which is either partly untruthful or just plain lying.

Sure there are a few religious people, who are willing to accept more. But majority, is not. Mostly out of faith, others want to truly believe there is something beyond this life. It's to do with our mortality, no one wants it to end.
Hmmm yes. I do suppose I almost fell off point :p

I suppose I take the philosophical route because that is what religion is closely related to compared to science. Now it is interesting you say that because while I agree "Religion is the slowest evolving religious institution" I notice it often appears to jump. Truthfully I think most religious people are willing to accept more, but it has to be little by little. A sort of a "You get a 72 oz. steak (yeah I am hungry right now sorry) one side you have to eat it all in one sitting, the other you get to eat it at your leisure."

I mean there are very few issues when you look at it that "religion" makes you inflexible, but that is over morals not "how did we get here." I mean I have to ask, what do we do that isn't based off faith? Unless you are also a scientist that utterly understand the process you are still going off faith. And that is a faith on other human beings, which can be seen as a bigger risk. Which is also the reason for such fallout between the two camps.



Biggest isn't best, and I'm not suggesting it is. There is so much more to see, so much to discover, so much to do. Sadly, Organized Religion will often promote ignorance instead of intelligence. I'm sure you have seen many Pro Religious arguments against Science, and have indeed seen ignorance and fanaticism. I've never suggested that you do that.

The Bible isn't the answer to everything, it's a book that was written a very long time ago.

When I think of the Bible, I think it was meant to be something to keep on going. To keep getting new pages, to change as we change, to keep going through generations. Not stopping and becoming doctrine. Is it meant to be the book of God? Or the book of Man?


Hahaha. I have no arguments for pro-religion, and I have no arguments for science. Both are two very different things. Organized religion often promotes morals, and has no interest (and may I say no business either) when it comes to intellectual pursuits, people may utterly rely on the bible and the church will accept that. But what religion is about nowadays is how you should live and interact with your fellow man.

Whether or not the bible should constantly change is a new debate I suppose, but overall enough of the aesops of the stories and books can, and do stand. Though many would say those that do stand are in the New Testament, which was more inclusive than the Torah/Old Testament.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
No one has bothered to answer my questions about Irreducible Complexity.

To make you happy.

"We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions... in such cases natural selection might easily specialize, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual, to give on instance, there are fish with gills, at the same time they breathe free air in their swimbladders... one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ orginally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration." Charles Darwin
Michael Behe was refuted 93 years before he was born.

---​

In investigating a biological entity to make his irreducible complexity argument, Behe works backwards – looking at complex systems and then removing parts in order to show that the system could not work without them. This is a process called "ablation". Ablation is an intuitive process: children use this method to learn about objects. A child may take a phone apart to see how the phone works in the absence of that particular part. A loss of a particular function is used as a pointer to the part's function.

Working 'backwards' in this fashion isn't a problem as long as you remember that things don't evolve 'backwards'. This in itself might seem a simple matter.... but observe: a very subtle mindset enters the picture when we work backwards: we begin to observe the present function of a part as the 'goal' of the evolutionary process.

Therefore, by working backwards, Behe admits that he creates the illusion that the function of the system is the ‘goal’ of the system. Yet evolutionary theory is not eschatological - systems are not goal oriented; they exist due to random mutation, and they continue to exist because they allow the life form to procreate successfully, as per natural selection.

Therefore, Behe himself admits that the mindset he uses to make the Irreducible complexity argument introduces a false sense that biological entities have 'goals' or purposes'. Yet Behe's entire argument is that some biological entities are designed! For Behe to argue that there is intelligent design, he has to prove that there is purpose. Yet he has never proven any such thing; ‘purpose’ is only an illusion born of his Backward thinking, which in turn, is a function of his dogmatic presupposition that there is a designer.

Behe admits that organisms with non functioning complex systems could still live and procreate. This admission alone is all that is required to refute his argument.

Behe argues that irreducible complexity only takes place at the molecular level, not the organ level, yet ID makes arguments on the organism level.
 

W'rkncacnter

Mister Freeze
I thought the agreed method for natural selection was from worse to better? Now evolutionists want to claim various middle-stage changes that are at best benign and at worse detrimental to the organism occurred with such frequency that complex elements were created? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

How about structures such as DNA that require proteins it is creating for it's function?
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
I thought the agreed method for natural selection was from worse to better? Now evolutionists want to claim various middle-stage changes that are at best benign and at worse detrimental to the organism occurred with such frequency that complex elements were created? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Natural selection doesn't just work like that. Since there have been five mass extinctions... and in fact a very simple lifeform compared to us, has survived all mass extinctions, and can live in environments where we'd surely die. Known as the Tardigrade.

How about structures such as DNA that require proteins it is creating for it's function?

Even though you won't accept it...

A computer model of the coevolution of proteins binding to DNA in the peer-reviewed journal Nucleic Acids Research consisted of several parts (DNA binders and DNA binding sites) which contribute to the basic function; removal of either one leads immediately to the death of the organism. This model fits the definition of irreducible complexity exactly, yet it evolves.(The program can be run from Ev program.) In addition, research published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature has shown that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for complex features to evolve naturally.

Have you found any more straws?
 

W'rkncacnter

Mister Freeze
I thought the agreed method for natural selection was from worse to better? Now evolutionists want to claim various middle-stage changes that are at best benign and at worse detrimental to the organism occurred with such frequency that complex elements were created? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Natural selection doesn't just work like that. Since there have been five mass extinctions... and in fact a very simple lifeform compared to us, has survived all mass extinctions, and can live in environments where we'd surely die. Known as the Tardigrade.
Natural Selection favors those that are able to survive and reproduce more than others. If changes are detrimental they will generally be weeded out. What you are claiming is that "benign" changes happen with enough frequency and avoid becoming detrimental often enough to create the complex structures we see today. I don't see it with certain aspects of world around us.

Which also brings us to sexual reproduction. First we have the "how" question: how did an asexual organism managed to keep reproducing while developing the parts for sexual reproduction as well as the drive/instinct for it? Then we have the "why" question: With asexual reproduction being so much more efficient at maintaining reproduction and the survival of an organism why would sexual reproduction even come into being?

How about structures such as DNA that require proteins it is creating for it's function?

Even though you won't accept it...

A computer model of the coevolution of proteins binding to DNA in the peer-reviewed journal Nucleic Acids Research consisted of several parts (DNA binders and DNA binding sites) which contribute to the basic function; removal of either one leads immediately to the death of the organism. This model fits the definition of irreducible complexity exactly, yet it evolves.(The program can be run from Ev program.) In addition, research published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature has shown that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for complex features to evolve naturally.

Have you found any more straws?

Could you give me the source? I'd like to read the research that was published if possible.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
I thought the agreed method for natural selection was from worse to better? Now evolutionists want to claim various middle-stage changes that are at best benign and at worse detrimental to the organism occurred with such frequency that complex elements were created? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I think there may of been some confusion between us here, where exactly are evolutionists claiming this?

What you are claiming is that "benign" changes happen with enough frequency and avoid becoming detrimental often enough to create the complex structures we see today. I don't see it with certain aspects of world around us.

Where am I claiming that? I said natural selection doesn't solely depend on changes. Natural disasters have a role also, five mass extinctions did occur. You're the only one mentioning 'benign' changes at the moment, so unless you're showing me what you're on about. I won't be able to properly explain the situation.

Could you give me the source? I'd like to read the research that was published if possible.

It was on the wiki page for Irreducible complexity, so I presume the research would be located in sources. Irreducible complexity is an argument that is majorly rejected in the scientific community, for good reason.

It's a flawed argument, removing a part of a modern cell and yelling doesn't function without it. Of course it doesn't function without it, because that modern cell took billions of years to get like that.

It's akin to saying your fingers are irreducibly complex because if I cut off your hand. You can't move your fingers.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
Which also brings us to sexual reproduction. First we have the "how" question: how did an asexual organism managed to keep reproducing while developing the parts for sexual reproduction as well as the drive/instinct for it? Then we have the "why" question: With asexual reproduction being so much more efficient at maintaining reproduction and the survival of an organism why would sexual reproduction even come into being?

Because asexual reproduction is from one parent, which basically means it is a genetic clone and the only way to gain diversity over generations is due to mutations. So why wouldn't we have sexual reproduction?

Sexual reproduction adds diversity through mixing genetics of both parents, and further diversity can occur through mutations.

Sexual reproduction is more conducive to driving evolution than asexual reproduction. With much more genetic diversity available for natural selection to work on, evolution can happen over time. When evolution does occur in asexually reproducing populations, it typically happens very quickly after a sudden mutation. There usually is not a long time of accumulating adaptations like there is in sexually reproducing populations. An example of this relatively quick evolution can be seen in drug resistance in bacteria.
 

NENALATA

Last King of the Ayleids - RETIRED
I think his point was 'how' the two types of reproduction became separate processes. We know the benefits of both forms of reproduction, however the mechanics behind both method(s) of reproduction are so different from one another that they only bare a resemblance in purpose.

Meaning both forms of reproduction were planned for each type of organism, even in said organisms most primal state and evolved from there.

The second part with the 'why' was probably intended to point out that while asexual reproduction was more efficient, sexual reproduction was more 'creative', artistic like. Which showcases two of God's talents:

1) To create by the numbers (Efficiency, Time, Resources whatever)
2) To throw out what is suited best by the numbers and create something instead that is fundamentally flawed by creative standards, yet is a work of art that cannot be produced without it's flaws, which makes it unique and one of a kind.
 

DrunkenMage

Intoxicated Arch-Mage
I think his point was 'how' the two types of reproduction became separate processes. We know the benefits of both forms of reproduction, however the mechanics behind both method(s) of reproduction are so different from one another that they only bare a resemblance in purpose.

Meaning both forms of reproduction were planned for each type of organism, even in said organisms most primal state and evolved from there.

The second part with the 'why' was probably intended to point out that while asexual reproduction was more efficient, sexual reproduction was more 'creative', artistic like. Which showcases two of God's talents:

First of all, sex didn’t evolve out of nothing. At its very essence, the purpose of sex is the horizontal exchange of genetic material between members of a population. Now, although bacteria are technically asexual, they have been observed to exchange bits of DNA with each other. This is a very rudimentary kind of genetic exchange, and it’s not considered sex, but I mention it only to let you know that it’s the same kind of exchange that characterizes what we would truly consider as sex. Also, sex is not all or nothing. That is, an organism doesn’t have to choose between only sexual or only asexual reproduction. Take yeast, for example- ordinary baker’s yeast. Yeast is actually both asexual and sexual- depending on the environment. If the environment is favorable, then yeast are happy to reproduce just like bacteria. But if the environment becomes difficult, then yeast undergo sexual reproduction. And how in the world does a single-celled organism like yeast have sex? Well, remember, the purpose of sex is exchange of genes. So this is basically all that’s happening- genes are being exchanged.

Asexual reproduction isn't more efficient in the long run.

Let’s look at an example of how populations change without sex. Bacteria, as I mentioned before, reproduce asexually- one becomes two, becomes four, becomes, eight, becomes sixteen, etc. The only mechanism for genetic change in bacteria is simple mutation. Mutations occur randomly in a population, and only affect one bacterium at a time, which means that unless some overwhelming environmental pressure is present, that mutation might appear and disappear just as quickly when that bacterium dies. If, however, some change in the environment makes that mutation extremely advantageous, so much so that death is the alternative, then the entire population crashes down to a handful of bacterium which have that mutation. So the life of a bacterial culture is very chaotic- it can be fine an dandy one day, and then the next the entire population is reduced to one or two lucky cells, which just happen to have protective mutations. Now, obviously, this strategy has worked out reasonably well for bacteria- as I mentioned, they’re the most populous type of organism on the planet. But it’s only efficient for them because they’re so small, they don’t need large sources of energy to survive, and they reproduce very, very quickly. In the evolutionary past, organisms which began to expand larger than bacteria found that asexual reproduction wasn’t as efficient or effective anymore.

Calling sexual reproduction creative, artistic, and God's talent. Is much like saying not jumping into a volcano is evidence of an 'artistic creation'. Sexual reproduction is efficient and effective for lifeforms of our scale.
 

W'rkncacnter

Mister Freeze
I hope you don't mind if I back out. I have way more fun discussing a video game than attempting to prove miraculous events. I'm not inclined to move this to a debate where we quote long pages of text from various web sites with no resolution in sight (except in our own minds). And if one of us doesn't pull the plug we will continue to spin. It's been a joy, I'll see you and your alter ego in the Skyrim discussions.
 

Seanu Reaves

The Shogun of Gaming
And that is why I never took a stance to prove anything like everyone "has to do" with conversations like this. Thank you for participating man :D hope to see more of you around the forums.

Allah all akbar (or something like that.)
 

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top