Too much scientific opinion, not nearly enough scientific sources. I'v been put off continuing to read this because lately there have been far too many bulky and almost pointless posts. You don't need to explain the science to justify your point, this isn't education it's a debate. Just cite it, explain it and source it. Organize your sources well and then people can choose to take in what information they want, without being overwhelmed by a myriad of unstructured points.
Thats in large part due to the false dichotomy of the whole science v. religion topic, as the people on the religion side who actually disagree with anything about science tend to BE creationists. And because of that, when those same people make arguments they tend to center upon evolution, the favourite straw man. If the discussion was to be more about theoretical ideas on why or why not people believe in god, then the title should have been Atheist or Theist not Science or Religion. However, for a discussion of this type, this is actually one of the calmest I have seen.
Agreed, but this is Forgehub, I think the only thing people get worked up about here are sweet new maps.lol.
This exact same conversation has taken place here, more than a few times. We're actually doing good this time around, I think.
The funny thing is that there is also no proof that a deity doesn't exist. So, atheism and religion continue to exist in an uneasy equilibrium... EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I am atheist. And I believe in evolution. In fact, I can easily recall of two things that may prove evolution. 1. Ever seen a whale skeleton in a museum? I have. And if you look carefully at it, you can see tiny bones in the lateral fins that look like arms, and tiny legs down near the whale's flukes (aka tail). Limbs that slowly disappeared when the whale moved into the water? 2. We are slowly evolving too. Try looking at your toes, then at an old person's toes. The older person's pinkie toe will likely be longer and less pudgy than your pinkie toe. Why? Humanity has been wearing footwear for so long, evolution is slowly causing our toes to disappear, because of lack of use.
Huh? I fail to see how that is evidence of evolution. Also my wife works in Cosmetology and sees feet of all shapes and kinds from various ages and your claim doesn't hold up to what she sees every day. Also toes help us walk...but whatever. I just don't see how your logic holds up on that one in particular. Maybe you could explain that one more, I feel like I'm missing something...because what you described in that point just sounds like the effects of old age, not evolution.
True. But we're losing toes becuase they don't help us walk anymore, becuase now we're wearing footwear all the time. And yet, my "old person" thing doesn't work well. Try looking at an old skeleton, I guess? But you can't really rebuke the first one. After all, why would a whale have limbs if they don't do anything?
You have unknowingly committed a logical fallacy; There is no such thing as proof of non-existence, and therefore the statement you made is illogical. [br][/br]Edited by merge: This is a misunderstanding of evolution... Evolution does not apply much to humans at the moment, because we tend to be able to mate regardless of changes, so there is no natural selection in play, so it would not favor those with smaller toes. Have you ever seen a guy that didnt get a date because he had a bigger toe? No, it doesn't change the way we get to mate, and so natural selection doesn't apply in this case, and if natural selection doesn't apply than neither does evolution. Also, toes work to balance us regardless of shoes, so their loss would always be counter productive for us.
Okay then. Let me rephrase that. There is no solid proof that deities exist, yet there is also no solid proof that evolution exists. Also, you may have evolution slightly confused. It's not only about finding a mate, it's also about adapting to the species' environment. Since humanity has been wearing footwear for thousands of years, we don't need as many toes to support us. So, similar to the whale, as I mentioned originally, the smaller toes simply melt into the body over generations. Finally, I must say, I'm surprised that this thread has existed this long without flaming. It's good to discuss religion versus science without excessive hatred and such.
no, thats not how evolution works. Its all about reproductive ability, which can be related to trying to get a date, but more often, is about survivability. For example, a certain type of underground rodent (I forgot the name) has evolved eyes out of the equation. All they have are divots in the front of their skulls where eyes would have been. This didnt happen because the eyes just wouldnt help in the darkness, it happened because the eyes posed a hazard to the animal. in the darkness, eyes were just a tender, prone to infection area on the face. Thus, smaller eyes meant more survivability. After generations of smaller eyes being favored, the eyes eventually dwindled into nonexistence. All we are left with are light sensitive divots where the eyes would have been. Human society has greatly reduced the effect of natural selection. With advanced medicine, communal support, and overdone safety precautions, death is all but random, and the only obviously favored trait, is intelligence. While I would love to have your example in my arsenal, it just doesn't work when all of the facts are taken into account. You may have just run into a coincidence of viewing old skeletons with long toes, and modern people with short toes. The only other reason I can think of, would be something like foot binding, but that doesn't seem very likely.
Evolution in simple terms is random mutations and natural selection. The way it works is when a random (tiny) mutation occurs, that mutation has a chance of being slightly beneficial or slightly detrimental. Over many generations, the ones that get beneficial mutations would have a higher chance to survive to mate(natural selection), therefore they would pass their genes with that mutation down, slowly changing the population. Evolution in the case of the whale that you pointed to would be feet being less beneficial so the more fin-like they are, the better their chance to survive and reproduce would be. Your misunderstanding is that evolution is directed. It has no direction, it is just the process of random mutation and natural selection, and if there is no selection it really just is random mutation, which is not evolution in itself. Oh and as ladnil said, that is nowhere near an equivalent comparison between evolution and deities...
When has a mutation ever helped any animal? If a mutation impairs the animal's survival skill it would be done away with, died out of the species. Right? But, complex mutations require hundreds of simple mutations that by themselves, would have no use to the animal. It could even be harmful to the animal. Look at a bird's wings, wouldnt the expansion of the bird's arms before it could fly impair it's movement?
It's thought that the evolution of wings from arms was due to the ability to run up steep vertical land to escape. If a bird tries to run up a steep slant it will flap it's wings. This will help because the other dinosaurs are not adapted to steep terrain. Complex mutations can actually happen quite suddenly, a small change in the DNA of some creatures can result in twice as many chambers in the heart. As well as many small changes being beneficial, some seemingly useless adaptions, even if they actually are useless (many are actually good) remain because the animal or plant may already be quite superior. And mutations help species all the time, immunity to certain things is a common example.
This is a misconception, as a mutation is not necessarily bad. Mutations are merely changes, and often very tiny ones. The common thought of mutations being things like a cat with 6 toes on a foot or whatever is not actually the meaning of mutation. As an example, in the spoiler is a way the wings COULD have evolved in birds without being harmful to them. I am not an expert on this so don't take it as what actually happened. Spoiler For the example of a bird's wings, they would likely be changes that occurred gradually and simultaneously. What likely happened is that (I say likely because I have not actually looked it up, and am using what I know of evolution to make an educated guess) the wings originally served another purpose for the animal, such as for use as arms or something, and eventually through successive mutations that made them lighter in order to be faster, they developed their arms into wings(this I dont actually know how it happened, however I would suspect that it took a long time), while leaving the ability to use the arms/wings while hunting intact for a while until the point where the ability to fly would prove more useful than the ability to use the wings as weapons, at which point those that did develop wings would be more successful, reducing the attack power and increasing the function for flight. This may have even been a result of the animals it hunts being less powerful, and so the need for the arms decreased, fell into non-use and folded back, at which point they went through changes that initially were just adding feathers to keep warm, then eventually changing to wings. That is one way it could have happened without being a negative effect to the animal. That said, it probably could have happened a number of other ways, I don't actually know for certain. Feel free to look it up though...
Alright, you and I know that this could go on forever. Even if I asked you to explain the eye, intelligence, morality, people sacrificing their lives to protect others, big bang, ect. No matter what argument I use I'm sure you will provide a well thought out explanation for it like that above. If not you, then someone else will respond. This could go on until one of us gets tired or our hands fall off. There is just one thing I don't understand. What is so bad about the fact that the universe shows signs of intelligent design?