Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 3 of 20

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

JOSSIZBOSS

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:

Evolution says simpler life evolved into more complex life via natural selection.

Just thought I'd throw this little tidbit into the fray:

The theory of evolution does not state that a simple lifeform will evolve to become more complex via natural selection. Natural selection results in selective pressure that will favor the survival of one trait over another. This trait could however be something we might consider simpler or more primitive. Evolution is a pretty random process that sometimes -appears- to be fairly directed due to natural selection (e.g. becoming more complex often is advantageous).

- JIB

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:20 AM

I have to point out that the flying spaghetti monster page contains a drastic innaccuracy:

Good old fashion piracy on the high seas is actually at an all time historical high. Furthermore, it's highest where the water is warmest.

Think about it, far more wealth is being shipped over seas by boat than ever has been before, this should hardly be a surprise, but the logical conclusion.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:25 AM

My question is this. If the argument is that nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer, who designed the designer, since he must be at least as complex as his creation and nothing that complex can "just happen?"

JAYTEE

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:32 AM

Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?

Jaytee

CAUSAL

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I do not doubt that fossils are real.
Then they must be God's practical joke on us, eh?

Most of the science here discussed is somewhat over my head (or, at the least, yawn-inducing). But I would like to point out that creationist is not necessarily young-earth creationist. They are two different camps of the creation theory split largely on philosophical/hermeneutical lines (vs scientific ones). Being that I find the case for old-earth creationism much more compelling, I just wanted to make sure that the difference is respected.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NEVERED

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
""The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Blasphemy! We all KNOW it was the flying spaghetti monster!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
www.vengaza.org

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

the sad part is that the spahetti monster guys are kidding.

the space wizard guys aren't

CAUSAL

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
My question is this. If the argument is that nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer, who designed the designer, since he must be at least as complex as his creation and nothing that complex can "just happen?"

Ahh, the old "infinite regress" theory.

The mistake here is to take as axiomatic that everything in the universe is contigent (that is, causally explained). If that's the case, than we can go on forever. Who designed the designer? Oh yeah? Well who designed the designer of the designer? And who designed the designer of the designer of the designer? Ad infinitum. And therein lies the problem. To posit an infinite regress forces one to posit the existence of an actual infinite. But an actual infinite is impossible, rationally speaking, for any number of reasons. Chief among these is the notion that we reckon time sequentially. So if there's an actually infinite number of total days leading up to this day, it stands to reason that there is a day positioned an actual infinite number of days before today. Confusing? It should be. Because it's irrational. There's no way to cross the actual infinite, since time is only ever reckoned sequentially. Interestingly, Hubble's discovery of red-shifted galaxies proved that time did indeed have a beginning at the Big Bang. So it is not the case that there is an actually infinite past. If that's the case, then the only rational explanation left to explain the existence of--well, everything--is to posit the existence of some necessary thing, something that exists not in the chain of causal events, but that stands either outside the chain or acts as the impetus for the inauguration of the chain. The necessary event posited by astronomers is the necessary-but-un-created Big Bang. Old-earth creationists take a step back from that and posit the existence of a necessary being who caused even that. Basically, the answer to the question is that God didn't "happen". That makes the mistake of putting God in the chain of causal events. He is not a contingent being, who depends on something for his existence. He is, rather, a necessary being, on whom all else depends for its existence.

Basically your whole question "begs the question" in that you presuppose a philosophy of causality which doesn't admit the existence of any necessary thing, only contigent things. This takes as axiomatic some kind of extreme Newtonian mechanism by which no appeal can be made to the essence of the thing or the purpose of the thing, because such things don't exist in a strictly material-monist worldview. The only avenue of inquiry left is causality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I'm really not all that interested in the science of the thing, so please don't attack me with scientific examples, as they will only make my head hurt. My chief interest in this type of debate is philosophical, and since Fletch went there, I went, too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add: I am neither Fundamentalist nor young-earth creationist, though I am a theist, and am attract to I.D. from a philosophical perspective. Please, oh, please, do not lump me in with the "man-and-dinosaurs-lived-at-the-same-time" crowd.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add:
Just one more, I swear! My apologies to anyone who knows the Kalam and Thomist arguments better than I. I'm drastically foreshortening those arguments, I know, but golly--I gotta sleep some time tonight.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?

Jaytee

I can, but it would be better if you listened to the radio series Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I think it's mentioned in episode 10, but I'm not sure. It's in the books too.

Someone who is hoopy is a really together guy, and a frood is a really amazingly together guy. "Guy" is gender inspesific in this case.

But when I actually say the definitions they sound so bland.

FLETCH2

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:02 AM

Yes I believe that covers it. If you presuppose that I was at all interested in the answer

CAUSAL

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Yes I believe that covers it. If you presuppose that I was at all interested in the answer

Well, in that case, why ask the question? I mean, if your mind is made up, why not just state your beliefs and have done with it? Because the way it comes across is something like, "I'm asking a rhetorical question because anyone who disagrees with me is dumb." Hardly the stuff of civil discussions. I realize I'm getting into this conversation late, but hell's bells, I wish for once we could all talk about these things calmly and rationally.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE