life: Accident or Intentional?

[UnderDrive]

What do you believe and why?

Did life evolve slowly by random chance over millions of years?

or

is life intelligently designed?

[_controlfreak]

[insert member of your choice]'s life was obviously an accident: But luckily prophylactic technology has evolved considerably over the last century!

I like how the theistic evolutionist option is the same as the Creationist's [sic re capitalization]. Way to go. Btw, natural selection isn't "random chance." The abiotic origins of the universe were the "random chance." Everything after that was anything but random. Not really a surprise that you're a Creationist; thanks for perpetuating the stereotype. Here it comes . . . "Everyone appreciates it!"

[UnderDrive]

What about the eye?

how did that evolve?

It would have to be fully functional for natural selection to realize it's advantage.
Not only that but the brain would have to evolve simultaneously in order to correctly
interpret the signal coming from the optic nerve

So unless natural selection knew what it was aiming for with the eye it would not realize ANY advantage to a half baked eyeball.

Spontaneous generation? So evolution just happend (accidentally) to place all the right dna in all the right places
and suddenly there was a fully functional eye? and then theres the question of why two eyes?

So sight wasn't enough? creatures that didn't even know about sight all of a sudden not only have one eye to see with but they have two for depth perception?

Yeah, evolution did this all by it's self?
what a crock....

[_controlfreak]

Click the picture; you missed the point. I was simply pointing out that your average-sized evangelical gonads were impotent/dysfunctional, not favoring a particular poll choice. In fact, I'm pretty sure I addressed the quality of the poll in the first sentence.

[UnderDrive]

The fact that you're <kind of> funny will only get you so far....

Are you still stuck on the 1+1 = or will there be an Intelligent response to my argument concerning the evolution of the eye?

[_controlfreak]

^There won't be, because as I said in the first sentence of my last post, my point wasn't that Creationism is bunk (and while that wasn't my point, it doesn't mean that I don't believe it is bunk...). And it looks like I'm gonna be stuck on " 1 + 1 = ? " for quite some time, seeing as you got hung up on the question when the best parts were the poll's options.

[gregwar]

will there be an Intelligent response to my argument concerning the evolution of the eye?
Meaning: an attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities

biology is not my field but there was a considerable debate on this subject only 150 short years ago. like any useful statement darwin deals with alternative views adequately and isn't spinning pure rhetoric (warning: a lot of reading! better skip it and stick to your guns): http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/Origin/orig ... cid1864548
here is a condensed version: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html

since you posted this in plato's cave you should be aware of the evils of rhetoric he identified before even jesus as if he knew about creationists all along: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/

the least you could do is include 'none of the above' even corporate surveys on toothpaste or whatever usually have that option somewhere. i'm critical of plato's views on certain things especially anything to do with determinism. its part of the wikipedia 'certainty' series you can also check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

people who say: "accept this guy as your savior or you'll be EFF'ed in an enchanted fairyland called the afterlife, you know hellen from church? she's seen it!" they are not their brother's keeper imho.

*edit: having said all that there is one creationist myth i really enjoyed. to be fair its more like a strange theory by prof rogers and not by any means direct or self-evident: http://academicearth.org/courses/milton
the gist was that milton had a difficult time reconciling his views on monism, spirituality and personal gastronomical issues. according to rogers milton was fixated on the 'evacuation of gas' as the cause of his blindness (encouraged by high science at the time). so rogers sort of extrapolated this theory that after we're dead eating the nectar of fruit or something would cause our bodies to ascend to heaven i though that was really amazing.

*edit: sorry i assumed this was in the cave, its not yet but...

[U2bonoman]

The 2nd one, not that that surprises anyone.

[UnderDrive]

well the votes are 50/50 so far...

and I thought this was going to be a landslide in favor of accidental mutations that increase comlpexity

BTW: gregwar,

I read most of the links you posted and....
I still think evolution is a big pile of doodoo
I do however appreciate you taking the time and effort to post some really intriguing and thought provoking
stuff.

I still have a problem with that eye thing....of course we can reverse engineer the eye and say all it took was 1842 genetic steps to get there....

We could take apart a Chevy Silverado too and say that all it took was these 1842 modifications to make it run...
but that still doesn't negate the fact that the vehicle was DESIGNED to be a Chevy Silverado....

[musikron]

Creationism is fine and dandy, and lets assume it is the correct theory for how we got here. We were designed by an omnipotent super being.

This logic leads us to believe nothing got here by chance. Well, lets follow it up the chain to the top. There the theory collapses, you get to the master planner and how do you continue that to the beginning of time? Who created the creator? Creationism insists that everything was designed, therefor logic dictateds something must design the designer and so on to infinity.
Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Experiments have been performed in which you can clearly measure lifeforms evolving. Show me a scientific experiment which proves creationism that doesn't fall back on faith, which is the polar opposite of fact.
In this day and age I am appalled that there are still members of the Flat Earth Society.

[UnderDrive]

[

Who created the creator? Creationism insists that everything was designed, therefor logic dictateds something must design the designer and so on to infinity.

And that's where your logic fails.

Experiments have been performed in which you can clearly measure lifeforms evolving.

Evolving as in adapting the their environment yes. Changing into a completely different species? Show me that experiment...

[TakeFlight]

What about the eye?

how did that evolve?

It would have to be fully functional for natural selection to realize it's advantage.
Not only that but the brain would have to evolve simultaneously in order to correctly
interpret the signal coming from the optic nerve

So unless natural selection knew what it was aiming for with the eye it would not realize ANY advantage to a half baked eyeball.

Spontaneous generation? So evolution just happend (accidentally) to place all the right dna in all the right places
and suddenly there was a fully functional eye? and then theres the question of why two eyes?

So sight wasn't enough? creatures that didn't even know about sight all of a sudden not only have one eye to see with but they have two for depth perception?

Yeah, evolution did this all by it's self?
what a crock....

Or just maybe you aren't able to comprehend how half an eyeball could be useful. You talk in absolutes like you know that half an eyeball (or an eyeball not fully evolved to the level of a modern eyeball) could not be useful. How do you know this? It's entirely possible that the part that evolved into what we now call an eyeball had a completely different function than it's current function.

Evolution is not random chance. It is genetic mutation typically over VERY long periods of time via natural selection. If a gene mutation creates a better chance of survival than that gene will have a better chance of propagating within the species. There is another type of evolution we can see in much shorter periods of time via artificial selection instead of natural selection... dog breeding

[TakeFlight]

[

Who created the creator? Creationism insists that everything was designed, therefor logic dictateds something must design the designer and so on to infinity.

And that's where your logic fails.

Isn't that where "your" logic fails?

It doesn't take logic and reason to come up with the idea of a creator. It's a feeble explanation for everything and it requires almost no thought at all. It's the easy way out. It's the answer for those that don't want to be bothered by the details and little things like evidence, testing, peer review, etc. Science is the only thing we have to find the truth. And just because science can't provide all the answers at this moment in time does not mean defauting back to the idea of a creator is a better option. Why would it be a better option to go with the idea that has been passed down through the generations from people long ago that were way less educated and knew so much less about the world then we do now?

[UnderDrive]

It doesn't take logic and reason to come up with the idea of a creator. It's a feeble explanation for everything and it requires almost no thought at all. It's the easy way out. It's the answer for those that don't want to be bothered by the details and little things like evidence, testing, peer review, etc. Science is the only thing we have to find the truth. And just because science can't provide all the answers at this moment in time does not mean defauting back to the idea of a creator is a better option. Why would it be a better option to go with the idea that has been passed down through the generations from people long ago that were way less educated and knew so much less about the world then we do now?

yep that is the typical reponse from an evolution believer....
yes we creationists are all dumb hicks that live in the woods and refuse running water because it is "one of those fangeled contraptions"

There is nothing wrong with exploring the world around us and finding out how things work...
So I will reply with another "typical" creationist response:
A scientist will find a crude rock that resembles a spear head and instantly think "this must have been carved by early man as he discovered how to make tools"

But the same scientist will look at something infinately more complex oh like say: the human body
and he will say this came to be over millions of years of trial and error with no intelligence behind it.

If it all (complex organizms) can be traced back to this idea of trial and error over ions of time...then there is no such thing as 'spirit' and we don't have "souls" and there is no meaning to life and nothing afterward.....

The simple fact that we can contemplate our origin and existence sets us as humans WAY apart from the animal kingdom...How come we advanced (intellectually) SO much further in the same time span....

I mean it is no "little" difference here...humans are 100,000 times more "intellectually" capable than any other species
on the planet.

Logic (my logic that is) says that everything givin the billions of years to advance would suggest that another species
would also develope intellect at a similar complexity as ours....but what do we see in reality?
big gaping chasm between humans and animals (intellectually)

Also - this "natural selection" model (again my own logic) should surely have "trial and errored" enough that at least ONE other species that walks upright, builds vehicles and researches medicine....

Brain power is a distinct survival advantage isn't it?

Which brings me to my next question:
If Brain power is NOT that much of an advantage - then what advantage do we have (survival speak) in contemplating
mathmatics, philosophy and where did humor come from?

"who created the Creator" that statement in itself is a logical fallacy - but you have to understand the definition of "Creator" I guess.

In the bible, God refers to himself as "I am", "the alpha AND the omega" the beginning and the end....nothing came before him and nothing will outlast him - he simply "IS" always "was" and always "will be"

Interesting that finite beings that supposedly were just an accident and have never seen or heard of anything in the natural world that had no beginning could even come up with the concept of an infinite "god"...

Again that fact that we are here typing on keyboards pontificating these "heady" notions connected by the man made "intelligently designed" inter-net...oh never mind....

[aww-de-oh]

The simple fact that we can contemplate our origin and existence sets us as humans WAY apart from the animal kingdom...How come we advanced (intellectually) SO much further in the same time span....

I mean it is no "little" difference here...humans are 100,000 times more "intellectually" capable than any other species
on the planet.

Logic (my logic that is) says that everything givin the billions of years to advance would suggest that another species
would also develope intellect at a similar complexity as ours....but what do we see in reality?
big gaping chasm between humans and animals (intellectually)

First off,
I don't have the answers... either way on this or any other debate to this end.

But
If you look at us compared to "animals", we totally rely on the use of our brains in order to survive, eat, defend ourselves, ect. That's why, supposedly, we are the way we are... we have no other natural abilities compared to "animals". We don't run fast, we can't really jump or climb, our eyesight isn't all that great, we don't have sharp fangs or claws. We rely on our ability to out-think the prey and predator.
That could be argued as a reason we are the way we are.

And wasn't there something about dinosaurs?

[UnderDrive]

awe-de-ow,

I don't know all the answers either and I am sorry if I come off sounding like I do....

But to call creationists void of intellect, dismissing the obvious "facts" is pretty short sighted.

I do want to give the Evo "theory" a chance but it continues to leave serious gaps....

Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as it is now called seems to fit pretty well with the current state of life here on earth.

In debate you make your arguments and the opposing side makes theirs...hopefully...not always but hopefully
thoughout the process of debate BOTH sides can learn something that maybe their one sided approach didn't allow for.
that said...
I appreciate opposing views all the more....

Now that I got that out of the way...

You do have a point about human intellect being our survival advantage....
But to what extent? Obviously (to me anyway) if traits are kept for survival advantage alone...
then it seems our intellect is a little over kill?

I mean, we have mastered flight, electricity, we have complex emotions like Love, Empathy, jealousy...
Humor....artistic expression....

Natural selection, evolution... simply does not account for these traits...now before I get rammed
let me state my logic is based on this "survival" being the main cause for genetic mutation being "valuable"
and inherited based on the advantage of that "value"

What genetic advantage do toe nails have? We all have them yet they are more of a nuisence than an advantage.
And if you see the humor in that - what advantage does humor provide us?
Obviously it helps me get through my day...haha
but seriously....

[aww-de-oh]

awe-de-ow,

I don't know all the answers either and I am sorry if I come off sounding like I do....

But to call creationists void of intellect, dismissing the obvious "facts" is pretty short sighted.

I do want to give the Evo "theory" a chance but it continues to leave serious gaps....

Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as it is now called seems to fit pretty well with the current state of life here on earth.

In debate you make your arguments and the opposing side makes theirs...hopefully...not always but hopefully
thoughout the process of debate BOTH sides can learn something that maybe their one sided approach didn't allow for.
that said..

What's shortsighted is attributing other people's posts for mine!
That was my first post in this thread! I didn't call anyone anything!
Now, take this chair please!

[UnderDrive]

oh dude....

I didn't mean you....sorry... you're right it sure looks like I was referring to you but I meant to include another quote and it didn't make it...

Yup...pretty short sighted of me..

Again...sorry.

[TakeFlight]

I'm not intentionally making any personal attacks here even though I know my language is blunt. I say the idea of a creator is feeble not necessarily the person that believes it.

I've decided I don't feel like going back and forth on this issue. I stated my position. I don't feel I need to say anymore other than to say that I would recommend reading Richard Dawkins' latest book, The Greatest Show On Earth. Anything I could say on this topic has already been said much better (and then some) by Dawkins.

[ollin227]

How about both and none?