Earth didn't "get lucky". Earth is 4.54 billion years old, which for reference's sake, is a shitload of time. Given enough space and time, the least frequent of events can occur. The chance that a stalactite will form in a cave may not seem outwardly probable, but we know from experience that they do.
In terms of Science I accept and believe everything that has 100% evidence and can be tested, observed and repeated. I'll say then that I believe in evolution, however everyone becomes so confused when I say that. Evolution has two meanings, Micro and Macro. Micro-evolution is a synonym for 'change', whether it be Natural Selection, Mutation, Adaption etc. These have been proven, therefor I accept it. Macro-evolution is the evolution from one species to another, in terms of the Theory, the gradual advance from the simplest living thing through fish, reptiles, etc. to us, which hasn't been proven, therefor I don't accept it because there is no evidence for this. The fossil record has no evidence for it. Therefor if I were to take another step back, the theory of the big bang seems even more impossible. I have never blindly leapt into a belief, I have always been skeptical of everything. Since I am a skeptic I'm always looking for answers, Naturalism almost had me until I really did my research. In my discoveries I found out that it defies many Laws of Science. The Law of Biogenesis, Mass Action, Inertia, Angular Momentum, Probability, The Fossil Record, Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect. Evolution requires Billions of years of time for which there is no empirical proof.
Just out of curiosity, what would constitute "proof" in your eyes? I'm truly curious what "proof" you have found for your religion that is so much more compelling than the mountains of evidence for evolution.
Evidence for Evolution? What about the abundant amount of evidence against evolution? I gave you 9 reasons that disprove it. I stated that there are two different kinds of evolution. Micro and Macro. Which evolution are you talking about that has this evidence? Sorry disprove is a bad word. I should have said, 'I gave you 9 reasons that make evolution less likely'.
Macro and Micro evolution are just differences in scale. They aren't even terms that anyone uses outside of creationist groups. As for evidence, how about DNA showing how related all of the different species are, where how closely related DNA evidence says we are corresponds with what we would expect from evolution? How about the fossil record showing that animals thousands and millions of years ago looked similar but distinctly different from those today? How about we look at things like animals in caves losing eye function? As for your 9 reasons, all you've stated is that evolution violates those laws. The only reason I even understand what you're talking about is that I've seen several of those exact arguments posted before. You didn't explain how evolution supposedly violates any of them or give any indication that you yourself understand why evolution supposedly violates them. And you've dodged the question. Since you apparently want to demand firsthand observational evidence of a process that takes millions of years, I assume you also demand firsthand observational evidence of the beliefs you hold. I'm very interested to hear about such proof.
You do realize that evolution and creationism don't have to be exclusive ideas.. right? I'll give my 2 cents: On the broad topic of mere existence, we are, things are.. the fact that there is an are must mean there's some form of a higher being. According to science: Things don't just go from nothing to something. I think that's proof enough to believe in some form of a god. Organized religion, however... Is a very disputable topic in my opinion. The fact that a higher being exists? Not so much. So there's my input.
Jay you raise a good point. Macro Evolution is "believed" to have been over the course of millions and/or billions of years. In a sense that sort of Evolution requires faith just like believing in God. In recent years I am hearing more and more people (on both sides of the argument) consider big scale Evolution to require faith just like believing in God, because you can't prove everything, just like you can't prove everything in the Bible. It's just a matter of what you want to put your faith in, religion or science. That's kind of why the two have developed into a social dichotomy that people have a hard time putting the two together in similar schools of thought. Also here is some good reading on macroevolution: Linky Head down the page about half way to "Evolution Rebuttals." Don't worry it's not your usual stuff, they actually use science and evidence from actual scientists who study evolution.
Religion vs Science is definitely a false dichotomy, however macro-evolution is not really at all disputed, and there is plenty of evidence for it... My favorite, essentially unbiased video explaining evolution and some misconceptions about it: Video
They are just differences in scale, but to ignore that one is has observable, testable and repeatable evidence and the other is based off of assumptions, isn't smart. That is why Creationist groups use these terms. I can say I believe in evolution, but majority of people would misinterpret what I have said and think I believe in Macro evolution. That is why I find it important to explain that evolution should be placed into two different meanings. What we would 'expect'. That is an assumption. If you were to look at the evidence you will see that the DNA does not become more complex, it is only downward and unchanging. This is only an example of micro-evolution. There is no evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record. This evidence you have told me is micro-evolution. That's a Downward complexity. Micro-evolution. The animal didn't evolve into another species, it simply lost it's eye sight, just like if we lived in darkness for majority of our life, we'd lose our eye sight. The law of biogenesis teaches that life can only from come life, not from lifeless chemicals. To believe or accept life came from lifeless chemicals is an assumption scientists have made and cannot be proven or have evidence. The law of mass action teaches that chemical reactions to be in habit of equilibrium. Defined by thefreedictionary* "A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system." The chemical reactions that merge amino acids to create proteins are also reversible. So the chemical reaction that creates proteins can also break them down. If the balance of water is on the protein side of the reaction, the protein will break down into amino acids. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that breaking down is certain unless it is built up by intelligence or design. However in the end the second law always wins, thus chemical reactions try to find equilibrium. This then proves that evolution doesn't move in upward complexity or organisation. Only downward or unchanging. The law of inertia states that objects stay in still or are in motion will remain that way unless caused by an outside force. For the theory of the big bang to occur what was the outside force to allow such an expansion that gave us everything from nothing? The law of probability shows that time and chance cannot explain origins. Prime scientists admit that for the first protein to emerge is highly improbable, let alone thousands are needed to produce a simple living cell. For example, the odds of the first protein are much similar in winning the lottery that has a one in a million chance, except you have to do that a million times in a row. Then for thousands of them to occur to create a simple living cell, is ridiculous. The fossil record is supposedly historical evidence for evolution, however there are no fossils that show organisms can transformation into more complex organisms. There should be millions of them if macro-evolution were possible. Evolution takes billions of years of time, however there is no empirical proof for this. There is the theory of the Uranium decaying into lead, which explain that earth is 4.5 billion years old. In order for this to be true these assumptions have to be made: 1) At year 0 there had to be Uranium and no lead. 2) No Uranium is allowed to escape or enter the sample. 3) No Lead is allowed to escape or enter the sample. 4) No events are allowed to destroy the sample. If destroyed the clock is reset. 5) The decay rate has remained the same for the 4.5 billion years. There a many natural clocks and only a few give a long age of the earth. Many of them use the same process of Physics and Chemistry and they give a very young age for the earth. How come the assumption for the Uranium theory is mostly utilised, who decides that that assumption is more likely? There could be evidence of a process that takes millions of years if the fossil record proved otherwise. I'd certainly reconsider if there were solid evidence showing that one species evolved in a upward complexity into another specie. However there is none. To believe that evolution is the origin of life is faith. Just like having faith in an intelligent designer who created all basic kinds and they have micro-evolved. If you want some reasons, I cannot explain them right now as it's 2am. I will when I have time tomorrow. For now I suggest you watch the documentary called, 'The Case for a Creator', written and directed by Wayne P. Allen. It stars Lee Stobel and William Lane Craig as well as many credible Intelligent Design Scientists. *equilibrium - definition of equilibrium by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Big Bang > God The > means "more realistic". I don't mean to offend anybody, but I personally don't believe in God at all. There's so much more proof behind science than there is of God.
Also here is a good answer to the OP and the original graph about IQs: Link No offense taken We live in a free world, the right to choose what you believe belongs to everyone.
You can't use chance as disproof. While there may be a small "chance" of something (I say "Chance" because I personally don't believe in chance, I believe in absolute physics), it doesn't mean it won't happen. Also, according to some theories, space is infinite. If space is infinite, then all possibilities exist in all forms infinite times. Also important in this specific topic - emergence. Systems are likely to emerge from chaos. Many systems cause other systems to arise, or make them more likely. According to Quantum Physics, there is no such thing as nothing. What most people think of as nothing would have a constant flow of virtual particles and fields. Even if you disprove evolution or the current theory of abiogenisis, that isn't worth a sudden leap to religion. Existence doesn't require a "higher" being. How would you even define a "higher" being?
Okay good points but... In the last 10 years scientists have created simple bacteria and viruses using artificial chemicals. They create the chemical compounds of the organism and then apply it to a form of gel, which is naturally procued from these organisms, but it's just a chemical, not a living material. This is life, created from artificial compounds. The only reason the gel derives from living bacteria is because it is too time consuming and expensive to research building the gel when it is readily available. The law of inertia, along with laws of motion, gravity, relativity etc, all break down in the event of singularities. It is common knowledge and has been argued for about 50 years, it's just there aren't any alternatives. It doesn't exactly back up he science side of this arguement, but this topic is a hotspot in scientific research, and there are so many disputable theories i don't think we will find a conclusive answer for a while. The Uranium Lead dating mechanism is (i'm guessing) because Lead is the lowest element in the periodic table in terms of the nuclear valley. Elements from Hydrogen up to Iron all form in stars, and elements above Iron, which are increasingly unstable, all come from large supernovae in star clusters. These elements all gradually decay until they will reach Lead, where they remain. Measuring the time taken for Uranium to decay into Lead gives us the youngest possible date for the Earth. We can be geologically certain that the ore was on this planet during creation, just from some complex rock study. And because Lead is not created in supernovae, we know that any on Earth must have come from Uranium or a higher element (however higher ones decay much faster so this information is less important). Radioactive decay is a pretty complex topic, and elements all have specific (although many) decay patterns. It's a pretty conclusive scientific study. I don't understand what you mean when you say chance.. Quantum physics and thermodynamics, which together make up the atomic structure of the visible universe, revolve around chance and probability. However this could only be because the true information is far too complex for us to yet comprehend, and at the moment we only understand the trends. I think it's no stretch of current science to say that space is infinite. Space is constantly warped and stretched, expanded and contracted, everywhere. Space is currently expanding outwards at an incredible rate (70,000km/s if i remember rightly). And that is just the edge of the observable universe. The reason we cannot see past this is because the space there is moving away from us faster than light. Yes there is so much quantum theory it's quite likely there are a shitload of other particles in our universe that do not react to the electromagnetic spectrum, thus we cannot directly see them. Such as Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which are becoming increasingly better proven (Dark Matter is pretty much conclusive now). There are also theories like 'super symmetry', which predict twice as many fundamental particles as we already know, and also 'vacuum energy'.
In JAY's eyes, species can adapt to their environment, but not become so different that they can't still breed. Genetically, they hit an "invisible barrier" that prevents them from becoming any more genetically diverse so that breeding is impossible. To say that "micro-evolution" won't inevitably lead to speciation is ridiculous.
"If something must have a creator in order to exist, then the creator must exist and therefore must also need a creator. You can go ahead and define the creator as not needing a creator itself, but then why can't the universe also be defined as not needing a creator? It's just as easy to say that the universe exists without needing a creator as that a creator exists without needing a creator-creator." See, this is a false dichotomy, something that most atheists criticize Christianity for having. To say that those are the only to options is devoid of any intelligence, and a far out-dated mechanism of debate.
Quote from the link: The problem we have is that the raw data from the original study is mentioned, but not provided (citation links are broken). So, we are left unsure which of the following two possibilities is true. Either A) the study used one scale for the entire world, as the link here insinuates, or B) the researchers used a local scale for each region sampled and extrapolated the overall trend of the data in making the chart, which would be the obvious procedure to follow. edit: OK I found the link at the bottom, a spreadsheet that seems to answer my question. It places all countries on the same scale. I wouldn't consider any IQ measure that didn't take culture into consideration to be accurate. Regardless, all the link does is raise another possible explanation, without adding any weight other than mentioning it.
Yeah, that's what I mean, I think behind all this seemingly random chaos is a set of laws of physics that we just haven't found out yet. (and probably never will because of the uncertainty principle) Dark Matter & Energy are too stable to be considered virtual particles. Virtual Particles are particles that tend to be created and very quickly disappear, causing effects that appear to have come from nowhere. The point was that virtual particles may be the cause for the big bang.
Hahaha...you said credible intelligent design scientists Ever heard of the kitzmiller v. Dover Area School district trial? This is where ID "scientists" tried to push ID onto children in schools. Here is what they said: "Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Yes, a court DID rule that "intelligent design is not science" and therefore there is no such thing as an intelligent design scientist. Also, show me ONE paper that an ID "scientist" has published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Hint, it doesnt exist. Oh and about "macro-evolution" What you appear to be looking for is Speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation Just do a quick ctrl-F search of the page for "examples" It will pop up 14 results. Now, if speciation-the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise, does not show macro evolution THEN WHAT DOES? oh and a definition of species: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."
I have a lot of challenges with Macro Evolution. This article covers pretty much all of my challenges and the guy isn't even in favor of Intelligent Design. I'll spare some time if you want my biggest issue, which can be found in this quote: If you ask me, Evolution is faith based just like Religion. Anything that can't be proven with repeated scientific study requires a degree of faith in said theory or idea.
So he considers biology lesser than something like physics which can be experimented on in a lab. So what? A glance at his Wikipedia page reveals more quotes where he states that evolution is very powerful and well supported as an explanation for observed events, specifically including bacterial adaptation to penicillin. That is exactly what a theory is, an explanation for observed facts. Evolution is the theory that explains the observed facts, and using the theory we can make certain predictions which can then also be verified or falsified by observing facts. You can not prove theories, you can only attempt to disprove them. Evolution has not been disproven, and it is the best explanation we have for the facts. Look, it's apparent that you're not actually debating from your own knowledge, just regurgitating info from that GodandScience site that comes complete with the header "Evidence for God." If you want to pit your creationism apologetics website against, say, TalkOrigins.org, I'll be happy to do that, but that hardly seems like an interesting debate. For now, if we're playing the "here's my source go read it" game, I have to recommend you watch Ken Miller's Lecture on Intelligent Design.YouTube - The Collapse of Intelligent Design:Kenneth R. Miller Lecture It's even by a Christian! I know you probably won't actually watch it, and that's why I hate this kind of proxy debate, but this talk utterly and completely skewers creationism. And yes, intelligent design is creationism, as you might see in that lecture.