Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Davros of Skaro

2/4/14 Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham

110 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro

For one to correctly form a complete picture of the theory of evolution, one needs to know how it came to be.

One of those 'steps' constitute Erasmus Darwin's scientific poem The Temple of Nature, or The Origin of Society.

It would also be of possible value to identify the environment in which the 'fathers of evolution' moved themselves.

It's the Theory of Evolution, not Darwin's Theory of Evolutuion, which means we have come a long way in understanding since Darwin's discovery, keep in mind Gravity is a Theory.

People that believe that other people will have their Skins scalded, and a new Skin is made to repeat the process if they do not believe a Book from a 7th century Warlord have defective reasoning in the Brain, which leaves them unable to think clearly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Rlyeh

For one to correctly form a complete picture of the theory of evolution, one needs to know how it came to be.

One of those 'steps' constitute Erasmus Darwin's scientific poem The Temple of Nature, or The Origin of Society.

It would also be of possible value to identify the environment in which the 'fathers of evolution' moved themselves.

Do you? Do you need to know about alchemy in order to understand modern day chemistry?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redhen

Isn't that like rejecting the existence of water because you don't know how the first atom formed?

No, that still doesn't rule out a creator. There are many theists who believe in evolution.

I've read both these books and they make valid arguments.

Finding Darwin's God by the biologist Ken Miller, who argued in the Dover District school board trial against "intelligent design".

The Language of God by the former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

No, that still doesn't rule out a creator. There are many theists who believe in evolution.

I wasn't talking about a creator, I was talking about rejecting evolution because the origin of life isn't explained.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

My problem with evolution - and it's a major one - is that it doesn't stop with natural selection. It's obvious that life evolves in this way - according to it's surroundings and needs for survival. My problem is that though there is no proof of how life came to be, evolutionists claim that ground. Not being well informed on this I will gladly look into any source that can show me the process that preceded the moment of life first appearing. How did an amoeba appear? With all the vast machinery of a cell...how was it contrived? What set it in motion or set the parameters for it's existence?

Evolution does not involve only living things. Inorganic molecules evolve too. The beginning of "life" is a rather arbitrary point on the continuum between "living" and "dead." Perhaps your search for the "beginning" should start with how the first molecule came to be.

The amoeba is not a simple being. It is a highly-evolved organism. It's DNA has been through trillions more iterations than ours, enough to evolve whole new genera. That would make US the primitive organism by comparison.

The simplest cell is a self-replicating molecule, like RNA, trapped in a bubble. Once that first self-replicating molecule exists, getting it trapped in a bubble is inevitable and where there are waves, there are myriad bubbles.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

No, that still doesn't rule out a creator. There are many theists who believe in evolution.

There is nothing about evolution or deep time that excludes god from the universe. The problem occurs when people try to use religion to explain the physical world without understanding that physical world. Rather, use the knowledge acquired by science to inform religion. The creationists are getting it backward.

Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ambelamba

My recent topic got utterly obliterated because the debate reminded me of how heroin addicts I met justified their addiction.

EDIT: Now, all I need is the right resources and equipment to be The Joker.

Edited by ambelamba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

My recent topic got utterly obliterated because the debate reminded me of how heroin addicts I met justified their addiction.

EDIT: Now, all I need is the right resources and equipment to be The Joker.

I know an Alcoholic that is waiting for Jesus to tell him to stop drinking.I asked him:If you go to Heaven, and you ask Jesus why he did not tell you to stop, and Jesus says that he sent that guy (me) to tell you to stop, then what would you say to Jesus?He just looked at me funny.

joker-and-batman-cats.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

There is nothing about evolution or deep time that excludes god from the universe. The problem occurs when people try to use religion to explain the physical world without understanding that physical world. Rather, use the knowledge acquired by science to inform religion. The creationists are getting it backward.

Doug

Good point, Doug.

Why I am skeptical of the Creation perspective is they ignore the physical evidence, as you pointed out.

If someone were to say God created the universe, but let it grow on its own (or even interacted with it every once in a while), I'd be a lot more attentive and receptive.

I mean, in reality, who is to say God didn't create the physical laws that govern all matter?

That would insinuate all scientific laws are legitimate, but not completely rule out the idea of some sort of divine creation.

Edit: typo

Edited by Drayno
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spacecowboy342

As I said, it's ultimately self-defeating, maybe the past twenty minutes since I posted my comment hadn't actually happened except in my mind, and what I'm about to post is the first "real" thing that actually happened :P

"Why are there still monkeys", I forgot that one on my list of buzz phrases. Ah well, can't get all of them all of the time.

Again, the catch-22 here is that if God created an old universe, this is unfalsifiable and so ineligible to be a scientific theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.