Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#11 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:50 PM

Let me just state right off the bat that I don't believe in Evolution. I know of several holes picked in this theory, and there are many more that I have either forgotten or never heard. Lets look at the origins of life on earth. Lets not go before the point of matter since there is really nothing that we can know from then. But after the earth was, then we can have some more definite guesses. I am not to clear on the most excepted theory in evolution about how life began, but aside from the unbelievable improbability of even the simplest chromosomes being formed from random molecules floating around and all the organelles needed for this cell to live, how could it survive and reproduce? Possibly asexually, but even if it did that, how, after there are many asexual organisms, could they some how become organisms that reproduce sexually. There are so many organs, cell parts, and other building blocks that serve no purpose if they are even the tiniest bit different. Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew? There are many, many, many more unanswered questions and downright impossibilities in this theory.
Although you have already been warned against Intelligent design, I believe that there is some merit in the theory. Here is a fairly in depth article about it. I know that it is long, but if you believe that Intelligent design is stupid, this might change your opinion.

Well hanks for that link bociniki - I'll read it later. Ithttp://brainden.com/forum/style_images/1/folder_editor_images/rte-bold.png's pretty obvious where you are coming from, so I'll let someone else (Octopuppy looks on line), shoot you down. It seems rather closed minded. Especially the way you have introduced your dissing remarks of what you know/dont know (see bold type above) can you not at least form your own rather than just say that it 'easier' for you to feel more comfortable with the god did it theory to explain ALL things like a comforting panacea that weighs up for you personally, and lets you off the hook for explanation.
No offense but you seem to be in safe/unacceptable mode
  • 0

#12 Jrod_Writer13

Jrod_Writer13

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:54 PM

Or it could be that whenever I drop an object, God pulls it to the floor because He wants to. In which case, similarly, there is no reason to assume that he should continue to do so. He may change his mind at any moment. Likewise, this is a highly unlikely explanation because if God was merely exercising free will to move objects around it is unlikely that this would manifest itself in a behaviour so consistent as to appear to be a universal force with clear mathematically defined magnitude and direction. The other problem with that hypothesis is that it requires the existence of a god, which makes it a very complicated hypothesis indeed, and raises all sorts of awkward questions about how such a god could come to exist, why such a god would be doing what he is doing, the mechanisms by which he operates and so on.


First of all, where are you coming up with this idea the theists believe that "God excercises free will on gravity"? NO theists I know, nor myself, believe that is what is happening. Gravity is very real, and has little to nothing to do with evolution. God created gravity, of course he can control it at any point he feels the need, but its not like he is the one pulling objects onto the earth at all times, and if he wanted to "trick"(????) us, he could move objects around with inconsistent behavior. That's not how God works.

Believe it or not, God uses reason...which in another forum on evolution, some of the atheists were saying was not compatible with religion. And quite frankly God uses reason as a framework of his power. Its like if a person was gonna jump of the empire state building, trying to prove that if he prays to God on the way down, he wont die. That is a big problem most atheists and the scorners of Jesus back in the Bible days argued. Of course God could and can do anything, but by attempting to commit suicide, is that a reasonable thing to do? No. Just like if you said, "Hey God, put a pink elephant with purple polka dots and a cape in this room right now." Most likely, God will not oblige to something that foolish. If something isnt done for the glory of him or a need( as in a need, not a want)of the person asking, God will see it as being utterly pointless, and it was a stupid decision the person made in the first place.

Back to the point of Reason which was discussed in another topic....answer this question I am about to ask you aloud before you read any further.

Was Darwin a man of Reason? (Did he use reason in his depiction of evolution?)
I am imagine most if not all of you atheists said, "yes, he was a man of reason". I can't disagree. He had to use reason, just like any other human being thinking logically, to employ the topic of evolution. Being a man of reason, as we have now descerned, and the fact that it was mentioned that reason and religion are not compatible...
Charles Darwin in fact gave his heart to the Lord on his deathbed. Will all of his reason used throughout his life and science, did he in fact use reason in his choice to except Jesus into his heart, and except Creation as the basis of our complex human world? By deduction, he had to of. He WAS a man of reason.

One more question. Knowing what I have told you, Charles Darwin accepting Creation after a life spent devoted to a silly conjecture, with which in an instant he through out the window in return for living into eternity, this very man of reason, which you have devoted your debate to also, how does that make you feel knowing in that very moment he gave it up, knowing it was just in fact a huge intellectual and physical mistake; the theory (conjecture) of evolution. ???

Edited by Jrod_Writer13, 10 December 2008 - 10:57 PM.

  • 0

#13 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:56 PM

This is unrelated, but about 2 years ago one of my best friends came up with a selective breeding plan that would create humans with tails, or rather, give humans back their tails. I'm not so sure on the details, but I can ask him about it if anyone's interested.This sounds interesting - we need to hear it don't we gang.

Mental and physical, in my opinion. Earlier this year, Eli (he's registered on here but never comes on :P)and I were going for a walk, and created our Theory Hypothesis of Superhuman Evolution. This wasn't referring to the way humans are already evolving on their own, but rather how we could make them evolve. It has to do with being capable of using more of our mind and muscles during life-threatening situations. In spite of adrenaline having quite a bit to do this with, I think the more often you are exposed to situations that challenge you physically and mentally, the easier they will be to overcome. We thought that if perhaps we had a hundred or so infants, who were completely contributed to science, we could perform a few trials ("experiment on" seems like such a bad term to use in this case >_>) on them and look at the results. If our hypothesis is correct, that the infants grow and are capable of using much more of their brain and muscle than generations before them, a superhuman race is in the breeding, and the geniuses of today will not even compare to the dumb people of tomorrow. That's one rather large step for mankind methinks, albeit an important one.

sounds awesome - where can we get hold of these babies. Actually there maybe a couple of groups or so that may be offended - yet again I am sure we can round up a few quid to purchase some from the poor and needy :)
Can you rationalize theory so that we may all diss it :P . I hink it has no merit on the usual basis that nature acts better when ready otherwise it upsets other facets of nature, just as if a temperature rise of 1 or 2 degrees and the ice-burgs melt, water where there as none before, fine balanced animals that are out of there comfort settings die etc.

edit DMS - we can always say that God designed man to think a particular way - it just does not hold up without the evidence, please do not use the he does not want us to se him or we are not worthy to see him, we should not doubt him etc

nb When God made man - she was only joking.

Edited by Lost in space, 10 December 2008 - 10:59 PM.

  • 0

#14 Impervious

Impervious

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2413 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 10:58 PM

. Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew?

See my post about natural selection. Evolution doesn't occur overnight. It's a slow process. if it did occur overnight the world would never really be able to fully adapt to each new species. Which, in turn would result in total chaos (or something like that ;))
  • 0

#15 bociniki

bociniki

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:20 PM

Sorry LIS, but I don't see any bold type in you reply to me. And if it came across closed minded and dissing, I am sorry. I thought this discussion was for people to put forth some evidence that they have seen, heard, or observed, and then discuss it. Obviously I think that evolution is wrong (that's why I am arguing against it), and I don't think that I am too closed minded, but I have looked into this a little bit, and everything that I see looks (to me at any rate) like it is not in favor of evolution, so in one way I am closed minded, which doesn't mean that I won't change, or that I can't change, but it does mean that I think I am right.
  • 0

#16 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:27 PM

Let me just state right off the bat that I don't believe in Evolution. I know of several holes picked in this theory, and there are many more that I have either forgotten or never heard. Lets look at the origins of life on earth. Lets not go before the point of matter since there is really nothing that we can know from then. But after the earth was, then we can have some more definite guesses. I am not to clear on the most excepted theory in evolution about how life began, but aside from the unbelievable improbability of even the simplest chromosomes being formed from random molecules floating around and all the organelles needed for this cell to live, how could it survive and reproduce? Possibly asexually, but even if it did that, how, after there are many asexual organisms, could they some how become organisms that reproduce sexually. There are so many organs, cell parts, and other building blocks that serve no purpose if they are even the tiniest bit different. Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew? There are many, many, many more unanswered questions and downright impossibilities in this theory.
Although you have already been warned against Intelligent design, I believe that there is some merit in the theory. Here is a fairly in depth article about it. I know that it is long, but if you believe that Intelligent design is stupid, this might change your opinion.

Well, like you said, it's a long article, so I only glanced at the first page so far, and it already seems disingenuous in my mind. It starts by reassuring the reader that Intelligent Design is not "repackaged Creationism." :rolleyes: If ID actually had the legs that it claims, then those legs should be the focus of the paper, not the "fact" that ID is in no way, related whatsoever, under any conditions, to Creationism. It starts on the defensive. It's essentially saying, "People are attacking the beliefs that you cherish; never fear, I am here to defend those beliefs."

Many were impressed by the discovery that the laws and constants of physics are
improbably “finely-tuned” to make life possible. As British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle put it,
the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics suggested that a designing intelligence
“had monkeyed with physics” for our benefit.


This quote from the first section relates directly to the short speech that Douglas Adams made about a puddle:

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.


It may seem like a truism, but it is really true to say that life exists because the conditions for life are nearly perfect. Admittedly, I think that the puddle would fit a little better in its hole if the sun had a little less UV radiation. Then, it would be perfect... :rolleyes: My point is that it wouldn't be possible for any of us to be having this conversation without the physics constants being "finely-tuned to make life possible." The only possible way for life to exist is if those constants are just right, so it's a necessary condition for life. Every time we find that life exists, we have to find that those constants are right for life, so, it by no means justifies that the Universe had to be designed for life.

I think that's enough about that aspect for now. On to what you said regarding evolution. :P

Evolution's main theories (to date) focus on what life has done since it began and they do not cover how it began. That is still an open question, but there is still a lot of evidence for evolution to have played a role even at the beginning. The first organisms would have to be the simplest (and oldest:) Bacteria. All unicellular organisms reproduce asexually and the first ones converted H2S released from steam vents on the ocean floor into food through some process that released Oxygen into the water (and the atmosphere.) I don't remember the exact process, but doing so allowed other more developed and complex organisms to form.

How could new multi-cellular creatures develop from unicellular ones, you ask? Mutation is likely a good answer, but to go into more detail, it is accepted that he first organisms, like the bacteria of today, didn't have nuclei, which limited their complexity, but through some favorable mutations (one bacterium swallowed another, but the other continued to exist inside it; when one bacterium reproduced, instead of dividing like its peers, it didn't fully disconnect and the two cells remained together.) Variations like these could provide the mechanisms for evolution on the microscopic level at the beginning of life.

I will conclude by saying that Biology and Evolution are not my areas of expertise and most of what I am saying above are by no means conclusive or supported by oodles of research, but they make sense to me as logical extensions of what I do know. Some derives from vague memories of high school biology and others are pure inference on my part. (The sulfur vents part is Biology class and the mutations are my own concoction from memories and my own reasoning. B)) )

To conclude, I think that an amazing book that everyone should read (but especially if you have an interest in this area) is The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. In it, he examines a lot of the claims of evolution and does a very good job (IMHO -_- ) of putting the idea that "there is no evidence of evolution happening right now" to rest. I've heard that some people have found it a little boring to read in parts, but I think that the whole thing is fascinating and I would highly recommend it to any and everyone. :D
  • 0

#17 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:30 PM

Sorry LIS, but I don't see any bold type in you reply to me. And if it came across closed minded and dissing, I am sorry. I thought this discussion was for people to put forth some evidence that they have seen, heard, or observed, and then discuss it. Obviously I think that evolution is wrong (that's why I am arguing against it), and I don't think that I am too closed minded, but I have looked into this a little bit, and everything that I see looks (to me at any rate) like it is not in favor of evolution, so in one way I am closed minded, which doesn't mean that I won't change, or that I can't change, but it does mean that I think I am right.

I have started to use google chrome and thought I could just do <ctrl+b> so It did not come out bold. Anyway to not get off to a wrong footing. I was just trying to point out that it is easy to say I have read and don't believe, but nicer inout would be to quote something specific - your link is hellishly long bociniki, could you at least copy in the text that is relevant - otherwise I will not have time for a few days. Not that it can not wait. I'm not impatient. I can be a little lazy and I prefer not to have to fish out information of a few lines out of thousands
FanQ
  • 0

#18 Lost in space

Lost in space

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4009 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:47 PM

I can recommend LIFE by Richard Fortey. It explains everything from the beginning. if I don't go for Dawhs beak of the finch I'll reread LIFE
  • 0

#19 bociniki

bociniki

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:51 PM

Two things.
One, dawh said that on the first page of the article that it is not a "repackaged Creationism." As LIS said, this is a very long article. It is fairly complete and I would ask you not to judge it by its first page. I only expect you to read this if you are really interested in debating this point, in which case, since I don't know that much you will probably "win," but since this is about showing our opinions and evidence to others, debating can always be a win-win situation.
Second the likelihood of there being helpful mutations instead of harmful ones are very unlikely. How come the bacteria didn't turn into a bacteria eating organism and eat all the bacteria and then die?
  • 0

#20 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:52 PM

Let me just state right off the bat that I don't believe in Evolution. I know of several holes picked in this theory, and there are many more that I have either forgotten or never heard. Lets look at the origins of life on earth. Lets not go before the point of matter since there is really nothing that we can know from then. But after the earth was, then we can have some more definite guesses. I am not to clear on the most excepted theory in evolution about how life began, but aside from the unbelievable improbability of even the simplest chromosomes being formed from random molecules floating around and all the organelles needed for this cell to live, how could it survive and reproduce? Possibly asexually, but even if it did that, how, after there are many asexual organisms, could they some how become organisms that reproduce sexually. There are so many organs, cell parts, and other building blocks that serve no purpose if they are even the tiniest bit different.

It's clear that all life goes back to a common origin. What is not clear is exactly what happened at that origin. Looking at Wikipedia there is information on both the origin of life and origin of sexual reproduction. These are ancient events that only had to occur once, so while there are plausible theories it may be impossible to determine exactly what happened. Frankly, it's not my field and I can't offer any comment on the mechanisms beyond that.
Mathematics and probability, on the other hand, are much more up my street. Let's just say for the sake of argument that abiogenesis is, as you say, unbelievably improbable. Suppose it requires very specific conditions and a crazy amount of luck. Given a planet suitable for life, let's say the chances of it happening within any given year, over the space of the entire planet, are one in a trillion (picking an arbitrarily big number out of the air here). Not good odds, you might say. Estimates of the number of habitable planets in the Milky Way vary, but taking a conservative figure of 10 million, the probability of abiogenesis occurring within the Milky Way in any given year would then be 1 in 100,000. So you'd expect life to pop up somewhere in the Milky Way roughly once every 100,000 years (in that case you'd expect there to be several thousand worlds currently supporting life in our galaxy alone). And of course I haven't even considered all the other galaxies out there yet. But hey, maybe it's less likely than that. Doesn't matter really. In order for the development of life not to be an absolute certainty, it must be completely impossible. Unbelievably improbable just doesn't cut it. Any possible event will happen, given enough chances. And it's a big universe.

Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew?

:blink: A friend of mine had a baby last week. There you go.

There are many, many, many more unanswered questions and downright impossibilities in this theory.

Unanswered questions are the lifeblood of science. Scientist seek them out, and in such a complex field, you would hope to find a few questions currently unanswered. But downright impossibilities? Name one.

Although you have already been warned against Intelligent design, I believe that there is some merit in the theory. Here is a fairly in depth article about it. I know that it is long, but if you believe that Intelligent design is stupid, this might change your opinion.

I just get a blank screen there, so I'll have to stay out of that one for now. :(
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users