Evolution doesn't make sense.

"I am not advancing that the world was created by extra-terrestrials...i am simply stating thatthere is no logical,sensible reason to believe that if the ID theory is accurate that this intelligence absolutely or even likely belongs to an all powerfull divine being. The simple fact is that we do not even know if there was an intelligent designer behind the many wonders of the world. One may chose to assume that there is,for whatever reason but ID is far from being a foregone conclusion."
--The ID argument is not a conclusion, it is more accuratelly portrayed as a 'study'. It is a study on how things function and what its feasable implications on origins are, as for example, I see the origin of the giraffe as inconceivably acceptable in 'E'volution.

------------------

(Philosophical/Theological/Non-Scientific Argument)

quote:

---

--Just a quick note, sounds like something an Intelligent designer would give to his creation, ability to replicate and build veriety, If you turned this moth into a fly or a grasshopper, that would be interesting, Creation has no conflict with this accept that some claim that this is 'E'volution in action.

---

TC, I feel like you're opening a door here that maybe you shouldn't. If a Creator gave His Creation the ability to build variety, such that the Creation would be able to better survive, then what we have is theistic evolution. I feel like you have inadvertantly justified evolution through theology and I'm intrigued by it. If a Creator gives moths some ability to change over short timescales, what will happen over longer timescales? If at some point they would suddenly turn back to the original form when conditions did not warrant it, this would make the original adaptation moot and therefore it would be a pointless addition to an organism's design. Logically they would be required to maintain the change until it was no longer in their favor to hold it (moths turning back to their peppered form). What happens when future adaptations become dependant upon extant adaptations? You have a compounding progression of changes in a population that continuously builds variety, and sometimes even complexity, and you end up with an ecology that has extraordinary redundancy and versatility in coping with whatever calamities might befall it -- something I would think God would probably be pleased with. If a population of moths had to turn into something that was not an insect in order to survive over millions of years, do you not feel that God would allow them to? Even through "natural" mechanisms, which might have been a part of His plan?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:

Creationists believe in a universe of creation by God. Evolutionists believe in many years of organism evolution. These are the facts and they are undisputed.

As a Creationist how can an evolutionist say that by complete and utter chance:
The earth is at just the right tilt to that we don't burn or freeze to death.

---

Lots of people have pointed out that tilt is more about seasons than
overall temperature. As the earth rotates around sol, the tilt means that sometimes the northern hemisphere is closer to the sun (summer)
and sometimes farther away(winter).

If you doubt that I think you'd best check it out. A quick web-search
should do it.

More importantly the climate on earth isn't coincidently exactly right
for life ... the life on earth developed to live in the earth
environment. If we had a different climate we would have different
life.

On a small scale one can consider the differences in life adapted for
alaska compared to the African Veldt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
We just happened to evolve the correct life processes such as krebs cycle, cellular respiration, DNA sythesis etc.

---

Again we didn't just happen to ... those chemicals and combos of
chemicals which support life survived because they support life.

Once the first set of chemicals capable of replication emerged, they
replicated and consequently proliferated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:

The planets just happen to orbit the sun without running into each other.

---

What's so special about that ? If they did bash into one another,
some would be destroyed, or orbits would be shifted, until no
more collisions happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:

Everything in life depends on a pattern of something creating something else. Your mom and dad didn't evolve into you, they "created" you through a complex system of reproduction.

---

Yes. And changes brought about by mutations and the resultant suitability for the environment are evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
It only makes sense that something or Someone was the first Creator.

---

To you, perhaps. And you're more than welcome to any opinion you
might have.

It's not the only thing that makes sense to many others, and so
as an argument point it's somewhat irrelevant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
And if I'm not mistaken evolutionists believe in the Big Bang theory?

---

You ARE mistaken. There are a number of scientific explanations for
the origin of the universe, none of which have anything to do with
evolution (which is about biology NOT cosmology).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
Where did this comet or particle come from that supposedly started all life? Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?

---

Not sure about this comet comment. Although there is some current
hypothesis being put forward that the earth is constantly bombarded
by small comets which break up in the upper atmoshpere, and that
these comets are responsible for water and the materials for the
chemical matter required by biological systems coming to the earth
in the first place.

This is a relatively new idea (although viruses have been linked to
comet proximity to earth) and not entirely supported.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
Your theories are quite weak.

---

A theory can be neither weak nor strong ... only the evidence to
support it (pedantic I know but I couldn't resist )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
Chickens lay eggs, they don't turn into eggs.

---

What has that to do with evolution or creationism ?

Although the chicken and egg question is a nice abstraction of the
debate

if anything does not make sense, it is creationism and its followers.

maybe you should tell Stephen Hawking that evolution "just doesn't make sense."

i do not see what is so unbelievable about time is circular and has no beginning or end. I think that people are getting so tied up in their world of microscopic madness, that when they see something that is simply part of life and our universe, it seems enormous and they simply cannot bring it into focus with their microscope. the universe is our world, our existence. It surrounds us, and yet we cower in our cacoons, shielding ourselves from its vast void.

This is religion. Relgion is a shield, that makes humans feel important in a universe with more than a quadrillion stars...

If you look at the universe in the night, you will realize, over time, how small we are. and if you're brave enough to peek out of your protective shell, you'll see and live in a whole new world.

"if anything does not make sense, it is creationism and its followers.

maybe you should tell Stephen Hawking that evolution "just doesn't make sense."
--Stephen Hawking is a theoretical Cosmologist, he doesn't deal with biological evolution.

------------------

The earth is at just the right tilt to that we don't burn or freeze to death.
The planets just happen to orbit the sun without running into each other.
________________

You are having trouble understanding how things behave in a cause/effect relationship. The universe is a closed, self-contained, control system! Imagine your furnace wrt its thermostat. Would you say, ‘isn’t that remarkable, how the furnace reaches the right temperature so that the thermostat no longer asks it be on’? Must be that there is an intelligence inside the furnace, making sure that it works! Do you see how this is no more non-forgiven than is yours?

Where did this comet or particle come from that supposedly started all life?
_____________

I do not accept the unlikely idea that life came on a comet/meteor, or the very ridiculous idea that the water on earth had similar origins! There is no essential rationale to suggest this, and, as far as I know, there certainly is no supporting evidence! I expect that an old-fashioned respect for the conditions of the early earth suffice to endow it with everything that we find today! What will they think of next? Can this be just another effort to go against science, like alternative medicine is, or creationism is, for that matter? )

Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?
_____________

Time is not a line segment whose endpoints can be connected! Is this what you have in mind? Succeeding time intervals can be represented by successive line segments, directed say, from left to right, or from down to up. But this is just to aid our imagination, primarily for the purpose of using mathematics. Just as the imaginary ‘whole line’ has no end at either extremity, the ‘time line’ need not have, a priori, a beginning or an end! Our time of experience shares an equal conceptual quality with the space of ordinary experience, in classical physics. To Newton, there was no beginning or end of time in his equations of motion, which incidentally, were symmetric in both space and time! Now, what does it mean operationally, that time had a beginning? That there is no time before the beginning! How could we find out, test it that is, if there is no time to experience this absence of time? Do you have an idea of where I have been, where I am now, and what a mess I will be in if I continue with this? Another )

Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?
________________

Sorry, Lorenzo, that was supposed to be a 'happy face' - for 'don't take offence'.
And NO, about 'time being circular', but YES about 'time having no begnning'! I tried very hard to make myself clear.
Incidently, I am not yet up on the icons, so i don't know what face wll appear and where!

Hey! I like this 'afterthought editing feature!

This is my last editing. Ha-Ha-Ha

[This message has been edited by chafihar, 02-18-2002]

[This message has been edited by chafihar, 02-18-2002]

[This message has been edited by chafihar, 02-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
When a new protein evolves, there will usually be other proteins already there.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-16-2002]

---

Ok, Ok, Stop Right there.... Have you seen a protein evolve? I seriously doubt it.

[QUOTE][b]Ok, Ok, Stop Right there.... Have you seen a protein evolve? I seriously doubt it[/QUOTE]

[/b]

See the thread on nylon-metabolising bacteria, in which a new type of protein (specifically, an enzyme) evolved under laboratory conditions, as a result of chance mutation.

Of course, bacteria are known for this sort of thing. An entirely new serotype of Vibrio cholerae appeared in Madras, India in 1992 and rapidly spread across southeast Asia, where it is now endemic and is replacing the O1 strain. This is Serogroup O139, so different from the O1 strains that immunity to the latter does not confer immunity to the former. This means that O139 has a different antigen or set of antigens on its cell wall. An antigen, by the way, is a protein which the human immune system targets. And if you wanted more examples I could delve into emerging diseases, antibiotic resistance, and why we need new flu shots each years, but I won't waste my time.

Nobody has seen a protein evolve because it's really really difficult to get the tip of a scanning-tunneling microscope inside a living cell and examine the entire proteome without killing it. But the effects are there.

Your claim that evolution is not a science because it uses so many inferences that were not seen is absurd because, quite frequently in US courtrooms, people are sent to be executed because the prepoderance of evidence indicates that they are guilty. This is forensic science. Why then, are you not calling that a religion?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lorenzo7:
Creationists believe in a universe of creation by God. Evolutionists believe in many years of organism evolution. These are the facts and they are undisputed.

As a Creationist how can an evolutionist say that by complete and utter chance:
The earth is at just the right tilt to that we don't burn or freeze to death.
We just happened to evolve the correct life processes such as krebs cycle, cellular respiration, DNA sythesis etc.
The planets just happen to orbit the sun without running into each other.
Everything in life depends on a pattern of something creating something else. Your mom and dad didn't evolve into you, they "created" you through a complex system of reproduction.
It only makes sense that something or Someone was the first Creator.
And if I'm not mistaken evolutionists believe in the Big Bang theory?
Where did this comet or particle come from that supposedly started all life? Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?
Your theories are quite weak. Chickens lay eggs, they don't turn into eggs.

---

I'm curious...how many of the above questions do you actually think have anything to do with evolution? I assume all of them, or you wouldn't have posted them in support of a claim that evolution is false. But, I'm sorry to tell you, but...

[b] [QUOTE]
As a Creationist how can an evolutionist say that by complete and utter chance:
[/b][/QUOTE]

Evolutionists don't suggest anything at all about most of the things below, and they don't suggest that anything at all to do with evolution happened by 'complete and utter chance'. Do you actually know anything about evolutionary theory? From your question, it doesn't appear so.
[b] [QUOTE]
The earth is at just the right tilt to that we don't burn or freeze to death.
[/b][/QUOTE]

This question has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
[b] [QUOTE]
We just happened to evolve the correct life processes such as krebs cycle, cellular respiration, DNA sythesis etc.
[/b][/QUOTE]

Yes, we did.
[b] [QUOTE]
The planets just happen to orbit the sun without running into each other.
[/b][/QUOTE]

This question has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
[b] [QUOTE]
Everything in life depends on a pattern of something creating something else. Your mom and dad didn't evolve into you, they "created" you through a complex system of reproduction.
[/b][/QUOTE]

I have no idea what this point is supposed to illustrate. Certainly, evolutionary theory relies on the fact that every being is created by a parent being, in some sense.
[b] [QUOTE]
It only makes sense that something or Someone was the first Creator.
[/b][/QUOTE]

You mean that TO YOU, it only makes sense. That's your problem. If it 'only makes sense' to me that pink elephants live on the far side of the moon, that doesn't mean they do. It means I have a problem.
[b] [QUOTE]
And if I'm not mistaken evolutionists believe in the Big Bang theory?
[/b][/QUOTE]

You are mistaken. Some evolutionists do; some do not. The big bang theory has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Your question is like saying 'And if I'm not mistaken evolutionsts are republicans?'. The answer would be the same - some are, some aren't, and in any case it's got nothing to do with evolution.
[b] [QUOTE]
Where did this comet or particle come from that supposedly started all life? Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?
[/b][/QUOTE]

Once again, how all life started has nothing to do with evolution.

So, by my count, ONE of your 'questions' had anything at all to do with evolution. Nice going...but if I were you I'd try to learn a little about the theory before you try to debate it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chafihar:
Where did this comet or particle come from that supposedly started all life?
_____________

I do not accept the unlikely idea that life came on a comet/meteor, or the very ridiculous idea that the water on earth had similar origins! There is no essential rationale to suggest this, and, as far as I know, there certainly is no supporting evidence! I expect that an old-fashioned respect for the conditions of the early earth suffice to endow it with everything that we find today! What will they think of next? Can this be just another effort to go against science, like alternative medicine is, or creationism is, for that matter? )

---

See:: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1262000/1262216.stm

I guess the short answer as to where it came from would be ... space

It does raise some interesting possibilities re: abiogenesis however.

We cannot find conditions on earth that are absolutely convincing
as to abiogenesis (although there are a lot of things which fit).

Also we have the creationist probablistic arguments, but they
make an assumption that abiogenesis ONLY ocurred on earth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chafihar:

Are you telling me that time is circular and has no Beginning?
_____________

Time is not a line segment whose endpoints can be connected! Is this what you have in mind? Succeeding time intervals can be represented by successive line segments, directed say, from left to right, or from down to up. But this is just to aid our imagination, primarily for the purpose of using mathematics. Just as the imaginary ‘whole line’ has no end at either extremity, the ‘time line’ need not have, a priori, a beginning or an end! Our time of experience shares an equal conceptual quality with the space of ordinary experience, in classical physics. To Newton, there was no beginning or end of time in his equations of motion, which incidentally, were symmetric in both space and time! Now, what does it mean operationally, that time had a beginning? That there is no time before the beginning! How could we find out, test it that is, if there is no time to experience this absence of time? Do you have an idea of where I have been, where I am now, and what a mess I will be in if I continue with this? Another )

---

Time doesn't actually exist (try measuring it directly like-for-like).

It is a convenient abtraction that fits with our perception of
reality.

I know Im going to get hammered for this, but has any ever noticed much of this debating is basicly the same arguement over and over. To me it just seems a lot of posts just look reworded and sometimes modified from ones from the past. Don't get me wrong theres always a lot of new stuff but still...
Maybe its just me.

------------------
And with that he threw down his flaming sword, and gave God the finger. Since then it has been decreed that angels are hence forth not to consume alchohol.~~~Metetron the Voice of God (Alan Rickman)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solid Snake:
I know Im going to get hammered for this, but has any ever noticed much of this debating is basicly the same arguement over and over. To me it just seems a lot of posts just look reworded and sometimes modified from ones from the past. Don't get me wrong theres always a lot of new stuff but still...
Maybe its just me.

---

No it's not just you - it is in the nature of the debate that people on both sides come to it afresh and rediscover and revisit the arguments.

Part of the fun of the debate is in the ingenious new twists and turns it takes within familiar lines.

BTW, nice sig from a very funny film, but do spell Metatron's name correctly - he was pretty temperamental and I, for one, would not want to get on his bad side.