Did it ever occur to you to consider that it is possible that there could be a creator, and that the only reason for creating something so bizarre as this creature was to show us just how powerful He is? What if there is a God, and He simply wanted to show us how creative He is, so that we could see that no matter what, He will always love us?
Don't really feel like getting into a debate, just felt that this would be a nice little addition to the conversation.
Okay, good. There are intelligent people here on these forums. Thank you for pointing out that obvious leap from fact to fiction.
I don't really think that God needs to create something bizarre to show us that He loves us, but can you give a reason as to why this species existed using evolution? Besides the obvious easy route of "well, we don't know how it happened, but we do know it couldn't have been created by some 'higher power.'" I just wonder why evolutionists have a hard time when creationists say that things couldn't have evolved, but they can't say how God created it. The whole point behind all this is, WE DON'T KNOW!!!! Your theory is just as good as mine. There is no way that any devout Christian is going to be persuaded otherwise, but there is also no way that a strong believer in evolution is going to change his beliefs either. However, each theory has its weak points, and I happen to think that the evolutionary theory has more weak points than the creation theory does. Of course that is the very argument used against Creation, is that it cannot be proven wrong, due to the "God of the Gaps" scenario.
Sorry about all the rambling, it's just that I kinda messed up my first post on this forum, and I'm sorta trying to redeem myself.
quote:This has been said so many times at EvC, and yet I have seen no person stick around to actually detail these numerous weak points. Will you be the first?
Well, I'll just use one, and we'll just see how well your theory holds up compared to the creationist theory. How do you explain the fact that almost every species of animal developed 2 sexes, and only 2 sexes? If evolution is true, then why don't we have some species which keep progressing into more sexes? There are also species who simply have both sexes in each organism (like the earth worm) or simply divide itself (like the ameoba (sp?)). Those mechanisms seem to work just fine, so why did "evolution" deem it necessary to split the sexes up? Also, how big of a genetic mutation would have to take place in order to go from dividing oneself into two separate organisms, into having two sexes that must mate in order to reproduce? I want to see an exact diagram that shows all of this.....
Now do you see what I mean when I say that evolutionists do the same thing creationists do? Evolutionists simply say that "it had to happen. We don't know how, or when, but we're sure we'll find out someday." Creationists, on the other hand say something similar, yet entirely different. "We don't know how it happened either, but we do know that it could not have happened by chance, so therefore, we believe that it had to be created." Do you see the difference between the two? Neither one knows how it happened, and both take a huge leap of faith in order to beleive their theory, but in my oppinion, the leap from no gender to 2 genders in one body, to one gender in one body, and then none of the species developed a third or fourth gender; and all of that just happened and the evolutionary theory can't do anything to explain it. Just as the creationism theory can't do anything to explain it either. They are both dealing with metaphysical properties at this point, so either one could be right, theoretically. I have just chosen the one that eliminates the possibility of it happening by chance.
Oh, and that doesn't even hit the tip of the iceberg. You still have to explain to me how it is possible for all that matter to get there in the first place. The origin of the universe is a great little topic, one for which evolutionists have absolutely NO answer for, unless maybe you can give me one I've never heard before.
So, if you want to use Occam's Razor, you are falling short of explaining how the sexes came about. You do not have enough information to explain how the different sexes came about, nor can you detail the exact description of how the genetic mutation will work, so therefore you cannot prove it. You CANNOT rule out God at this point, because "natural mechanisms" do not account for the obvious fact that any one of us can see is here today; the fact that there are only 2 sexes, no more, no less. An species may have no sex, but if it does have a sex, it either contains one or both of the sexual organs in one organism.
If I am way of base, please feel free to show me where I have erred, but I believ you will find that very hard to do.
P.S. I think I like this forum (its my first day here), and I do beleive I will stick around, unlike some of the other forums I have tired of.
I had a good little response all typed out, but then I lost it. Oh, well. I'll try to re-do it, only it will be condensed.
quote:I think I can safely say that the real danger for the theory of evolution doesn't come from creationists, but from the the way science is practiced.
I agree. What I think we disagree on is the fact that you can disagree with evolution, or at least question the evidence used to support it; but only if you are not trying to support ID, or creation, or whatever.
As for "God of the Gaps", my point is that both evolutionists and creationists use "gaps", the only difference is, creationists use a God to fill the gap, and evolutionists use extremely long lengths of time and miniscule chance in order to explain how something happened. Neither of these is satisfactory in a sense, but if God created it, then there is really no need for us to worry about it is there? I think that if there is a God, which is what I believe, then He would have created a world where we could find His hand in it if we wanted to find Him.
About the sexes thing, let me look at that site, and then I'll get back to ya.
Oh, yeah. Thanks for the welcome. This place has much more intelligent people than other sites do, probably because one of the other sites was based on video games, but hey, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. As for my style of argumentation, I prefer to use more of a common sense, simplified approach; but that does not mean I can't, or won't use a more elaborate method to make my points. I prefer to use arguments as if they were my own, and not try to use someone else's work (journals, notes, etc.) in order to back up my claims. If it doesn't make sense, someone should be able to point it out without using somebody else's information. I look at it as kinda like a competition. Who can outsmart the other one, with their own personal knowledge? That's my way, but of course, there are some things that must be researched and shared, such as this multiple sexes thing.
I checked out that link you put up, and here is the headline for it:
quote:Scientists in Britain believe that the reason there are only two sexes is due to a bacterial infection our ancestors caught about two billion years ago.
Okay, here we go. We're right back to the whole "gaps" thing. Essentially, there is no answer! This doesn't explain anything more than what MIGHT have happened! I'm sorry, but this is not proof of anything.
quote:"It looks as though there used to be bacteria where mitochondria come from. So we think that we got them about two billion years ago from bacteria taken into ourselves. So they became part of us, and that ability to replicate at will is left over from their bacterial ancestry."
It LOOKS as though? What ever happened to real, hard evidence? How come it's okay for an evolutionist scientist to say this, but it's not okay for a Christian to say something very similar about God, and still be taken seriously? Evolutionary theory is based on such things as this. That is my whole point. You're standing on really thin ice here. This same scientist went on to say that "we THINK (emphasis added) that we got [mitochondria] about two billion years ago from bacteria taken into ourselves." Well, this still doesn't answer the question of how the bacteria developed these mitochondria; nor does it answer the question of how we obtained traits from something that was living inside of us!!! I would sure like to see that explained!
The bottom line is, there are gaps that the evolutionary theory, or atheistic worldview, or whatever; cannot answer. It cannot give a comprehensive view of everything that must take place in order for us to be here without the existence of a supernatural being.
So, since both evolution, and ID are in the same boat, why is it that ID cannot be taught in school? What are the atheists so afraid of? I believe that they are terrified of the thought of actually having to answer to a higher power, but that's just my oppinion.
Oh, and Parasomnium, I hope none of this seems too hostile. I'm not "attacking" you as a person, I'm "attacking" your ideas that you have presented. I hope you will do the same.
quote:In what way are the "gaps" of evolution not satisfactory?
Read the new post that I made about the link you gave for the multiple sexes scenario.
quote:Well, since many people have wanted this, and did indeed try to find God's hand in the world, and nothing definite has come up as yet, maybe the tentative conclusion should be that God might not exist.
Well, that's exactly where you miss it. I HAVE discovered God, whether you believe me or not. And I would venture to say that He is trying to reach out to you as well. If you don't believe me, or if you think I'm crazy, then why is it that as you read this, you get this feeling inside as if there must be something more? There's no way to really put it into words, but that's the way it is. Right now as you read this reply, God is trying to get you to listen to Him. How do I know? Because that's how God works, with small, subtle hints. He is just waiting for you to give Him a chance, but if you don't, He will not force you to. That is how much He loves you. He wants you to love Him not because you must, but because you want to love Him. I know, because I have experienced it.
Along those same lines, you would have to get rid of the United States, as well as alot of those things that you say religious people would have to get along without; because alot of those things were developed by religious people. This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people. So, next time you want to attempt to slander "religious people", think again; because some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"
[rant mode OFF]
I must have hit a nerve, but oh well. My only point in this whole thing is, there is a leap of faith on both sides, and no matter how you slice it, you are never going to be able to convince me that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution, or whatever it is you want to call the whole atheistic worldview; just as I will never convince you that it doesn't take faith to believe in God. However, I am ready, willing, and able to admit that my belief is a religion; and that you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable, and therefore, you think you can force it on every other person in the world in the name of SCIENCE. What happened in a creature's body 2 BILLION YEARS AGO is not science, but speculation. I can come up with any theory I want about how the sexes were developed, and as long as I use a scientific community, or a well known scientist to advance my ideas; and everybody will say, "oh, that's not speculation, that's science. And the way we know that this is the best theory as of today is becuase if it weren't, then other scientists would disagree."
Well, the fact of the matter is, hundreds of well-respected scientists, who were avid supporters of evolution, as well as atheists; have begun to question many different teachings that originated with the evolutionary theory. They have begun to raise questions about how these things could possibly come about by chance. However, as soon as they speak up, they immediately get branded as "religious" for trying to destroy science because they don't agree with the way that the scientists are using the information to support evolution. I just have to wonder what it is that makes evolutionists get so antsy as soon as someone brings up ID. Are evolutionists really so willing to listen to the flaws in their own theory as they say? And why is it that we can't say that evolution has numerous flaws without bringing another theory that has to be better? I am simply trying to say that the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but neither is my own theory.
This is primarily food for thought, but anyway, I don't really have a lot of time during the day to argue these things, so I will only answer the things I can answer the best.
So, let us put our personal differences behind, and I'll try not to do any "evangelism" as I am sure Parasomnium felt I was doing, any more. I hope I haven't offended you, because that is the last thing that I would want to do. I was simply trying to make a point that I do know that God exists because I have experienced Him, and that I know you at least have an inkling that He exists, because you could feel Him when you read that post.
Darn it!!! I just did it again! Oh, well. It won't happen anymore.