1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleNo, I disagree! I am looking for what you think, I cannot get that out
I have no religion;
You don't have to talk with Darwin, my friend, however you will find the answers you are looking for at his "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection";
of anything Darwin wrote. I did not start this conversation with you,
you replied directly to me, and unless you start actually following
through with your statement about debate I'll just write you off as
all blow and no go.
Statements made by black beetle:
Page 5
“However I stand for the theory of evolution because it is backed up from the science instead of religionist axioms;”
elsewhere same page:
“You asked for specific examples, my friend KJ; well, for example, I think that the eyes of the human beings are clearly a product of an evolution process and not disigned by a supernatural genious. We may have a debate over this in case you disagree;”
Okay, from here these are the first times I recall have ever read you
before. You said, and I quote, “We may have a debate over this in
case you disagree;” So I took that to mean you would debate me if
we disagreed, was I wrong, that was not what you meant when you
said, “We may have a debate over this in case you disagree;” I’d like
to know because if you can say things like that and didn’t really mean
them; I don’t know how I can trust anything you say. You said
religionist axioms are the foundation of religion, personally I don’t
care what you think makes up religion, it is your science I’m interested
in, and so far your justification just from what I have read on page 5 is
nothing but a statement of belief on your part, you think/believe,
“…the eyes of the human beings are clearly a product of an evolution
process and not disigned by a supernatural genious.” Okay, clearly
a product of an evolutionary process, why? What is so clear about that,
that only evolution and not a design could come up with the likes of a
human eye? Please be specific if you were serious about debate, if not
just say so I’ll leave you alone.
Statements made by black beetle:
Page 6
“Therefore Biology prooves that the human eye is not at all designed, it prooves that there is not any "perfect" organ -every ogn is a product of the evolution process. Creationism has not the slightest scientific buck up, but the Theory of the Evolution has it. There is not a single organ of our body that is "designed", my friend.”
Where was your proof evolution had anything to do with the human
eye? You talked about a variety of eyes some better than others, and
seem to suggest that shows that evolution should be given credit for
the human eye. I pointed out to you and if you responded to me I
have not seen it yet, that variety in design is seen all over the place
and I gave examples of bridges to show you. That should dispel your
variety proves evolutionary design, if you still disagree, please tell me
why. So at this moment the only thing you have done is really just
state over and over the belief you have that evolution is the reason
the human eye is the way it is, not much more than some of the
things you were complaining about with religion don’t you think?
Elsewhere same page:
“Answering to KJ too, I remind you that Science prooves that Life is unique although the species -the versions of Life- are still countless. The species of our planet, human race included, are mere versions of the Life phenomenon. Some species are more advanced and some are not.
Regarding the power behind it, C U -the force behind everything: I don't know the answer but I refuse to make speculations through religionism; Philosophy may offer some explanations and Science some more, but religionism none;”
Again you come back with there are varieties in life and some how that
proves evolution, and again I would remind you that proves nothing
towards evolution, as it does not prove anything toward creation
either. If you are going to suggest evolution should clearly be given
credit for something I suggest you get examples where the same
thing could not also happen with creation too, since you seem to mix
your statements of faith about evolution with your statements of
distrust of religion. I have to tell you to date, I am not sure what the
difference between a religious statement of faith and your statements
of science are since so far nothing you have brought forward is
anything but statement of what you think is true, or what you believe.
Statements made by black beetle:
Page 8
“The so called "word of God" (OT, NT, Bible) is a compilation of myths and doctrines written by human beings in order to help a unique race to advance. In addition, there are numerous religions along with uncountable Christian heresies which all claim that they are "the word of God".
Regarding the issue "Evolutionism Vs Creationism", Darwin and Wallace have all the answers down for you my friend. Every evidence shows that evolutionim has by far more possibilities that creationism. That's all;”
Let’s get a couple of things straight here, you are not my friend, I
don’t know you from Adam and I pick and choose my friends. Two I
was not asked by Darwin and Wallace to enter into a debate with them
I was asked by you, and again just to respond to your point, about
evolution, creation and possibilities, I have stated here numerous
times that creation and evolution are not the same thing they are
apples and oranges, one being proven wrong does not mean the
other is right, and in addition to that, they could both be true at the
same time, or false at the same time they are not mutually exclusive,
unless you get into specific creation stories or specific “beliefs” about
how evolution started.
If you want to tell me that evolution does have its fair share of myths
and doctrines written by man in order to help man advance, I suggest
you rethink that statement or tell me how the evolutionary process
started without giving me some sort of made up story about a
possibility how it may have, could have, possibly have begun. I
assume you know Darwin is a man and he wrote his book, so the
distinction between evolution and religion is sort of dispelled if they
both share the fact man was involved in them too don’t you think? I
could go on, but why bother you have yet to address anything put to
directly.
Kelly
I am not a native English or American; I called you “friend” because I suggest that this is kind and not because I had the intension to insult you. I always debate over issues, never over persons, and I stand firmly for ones’ right to express freely his opinion. Instead of “friend” I can call you “Sir” or KJ or Kelly or KellyJay or whatever you please.
An eye commences as a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and without any other mechanism, and from this low stage it gets a moderately high stage of perfection -as is the case with the human eye. There is an evolutionary linkage, and the fact that there are missing species/ links in the evolutionary chain process does not mean that the eye was designed but rather that the scientists have still to work hard in order to fill these gaps efficiently. Even our brain and our way of thinking follow an evolutionary process. Creationism suggests that everything was designed simply because of these missing links, therefore stands against the theory of the evolution.
In addition, a “perfect” organ like the human eye is not that perfect, not only compared to the eye of other species but also to the eyes of other human beings: a pilot has a perfect 20/20 vision ability while other people are born with visional problems. Why the eye of the pilot is perfect and some others’ not?
Every organ of the human being, and also many of our illnesses are a product of the evolutionary process and not "the will of God"; i.e. our back suffers of pains because a million years ago we were walking at four, and only lately we became able to walk using our feet. There is not “god” in this procedure. The predators are perfectly “designed” to kill their victims, while their game is perfectly “designed” to survive. Which one the “god” supports, the Predator or his Game?
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleMissing links in any alledged gradual process of evolution, valid or invalid, doesn't insist that the eye is not designed by a Creator.
I am not a native English or American; I called you “friend” because I suggest that this is kind and not because I had the intension to insult you. I always debate over issues, never over persons, and I stand firmly for ones’ right to express freely his opinion. Instead of “friend” I can call you “Sir” or KJ or Kelly or KellyJay or whatever you please. me is perfectly “designed” to survive. Which one the “god” supports, the Predator or his Game?
Imperfectly functioning design is still a design.
You have no scientific "slam dunk" that God is not the Creator.
Originally posted by black beetleI did not take your use of friend as an insult I was pointing out that
I am not a native English or American; I called you “friend” because I suggest that this is kind and not because I had the intension to insult you. I always debate over issues, never over persons, and I stand firmly for ones’ right to express freely his opinion. Instead of “friend” I can call you “Sir” or KJ or Kelly or KellyJay or whatever you please. ...[text shortened]... me is perfectly “designed” to survive. Which one the “god” supports, the Predator or his Game?
our relationship has not gotten to that level, it could before it is all
said and done.
You again seem to give evolution credit for the formation of the eye,
yet without real cause. I pointed out to you on several posts that just
because we see several different types of eyes does not mean they
were not designed, and for that matter seeing some eyes more
complex than others does not automatically mean one came from
another either. To suggest such a thing is right up there with the
Bible is true, because the Bible is true. You cannot tell me evolution
caused humans eyes because you see a variety of types of eyes,
as I pointed out a variety of types of bridges are there and they were
designed, so can i use that to say that proves eyes were designed?
Kelly
Originally posted by jaywillIn the past everybody used to explain everything he ignored as an act of "god", and your thought follows that path; on the other hand, an imperfect eye could not have been designed by the so called creator because then we would be forced to agree that that creator is not that efficient;
Missing links in any alledged gradual process of evolution, valid or invalid, doesn't insist that the eye is not designed by a Creator.
Imperfectly functioning design is still a design.
You have no scientific "slam dunk" that God is not the Creator.
Originally posted by KellyJayIn looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, Biology looks exclusively to its lineal ancestors. Instead of this procedure, in the past everybody used to explain everything he ignored as an act of "god", and your thought follows that path. If humanity was satisfied with the way you advocate, we would still jumping from tree to tree.
I did not take your use of friend as an insult I was pointing out that
our relationship has not gotten to that level, it could before it is all
said and done.
You again seem to give evolution credit for the formation of the eye,
yet without real cause. I pointed out to you on several posts that just
because we see several different types of eyes does ...[text shortened]... e there and they were
designed, so can i use that to say that proves eyes were designed?
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle===================================
In the past everybody used to explain everything he ignored as an act of "god", and your thought follows that path; on the other hand, an imperfect eye could not have been designed by the so called creator because then we would be forced to agree that that creator is not that efficient;
In the past everybody used to explain everything he ignored as an act of "god",
=====================================
First of all you underestimate that "everybody" did not think the same thing in the ancient past.
=========================================
and your thought follows that path; on the other hand, an imperfect eye could not have been designed
======================================
I don't see how that has to follow. Especially it doesn't if the perceived "imperfection" you see is only the result in your own lack of complete knowledge.
Secondly, because other factors could be at work such as to damage that which was once in better working condition. Biblically speaking the fall of man has damaged his human creation. So that could account for blemishes in the design of human organs.
Death itself is said to be a negative which entered into the world through man's sin.
=======================================
by the so called creator because then we would be forced to agree that that creator is not that efficient;
==================================
That is another matter. That is your concept that if God designed it you don't like the way God did it. That doesn't say that God did not design it. A poor design is still a design.
You have no sure fire logic to scientifically garuantee for us that no Designer designed the biological lives.
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetleNot necessarily. I am talking about the fact that you have no slam dunk science to prove that God did not design things, especially living things.
The real cause! The real cause of the evolutionary process is the further development and the easier survival of the species in a specific environment;
Or you were talking about the origin of Life?
Saying "Well, God didn't do a good job" is beside the point. Perhaps God is artistic. Some people would say that Picasso didn't do a good job of painting a scene of panic of people and animals in a barn.
I don't see how the boast "Well, I could have done a better job!" proves that the eye was not designed by an Intelligent Designer.
There's no helicopter that can manuevor as well as a bumble bee in the air. And I am doubtful that any human made camara can equal the human eyeball in visualizing ability.
Originally posted by black beetle=================================
The real cause! The real cause of the evolutionary process is the further development and the easier survival of the species in a specific environment;
Or you were talking about the origin of Life?
The real cause! The real cause of the evolutionary process is the further development and the easier survival of the species in a specific environment;
====================================
What determines that there should be survival of species in the first place?
Are humans a means for the survival of sperms and eggs or is it the other way around ?
How did that program of assured survival come into being ?
What was the very first act of natural selection ?
You see? There's still plenty of room for a Ultimate all powerful and intelligent Creator. You have not eliminated the very idea as proposterous yet. And not for a long long time.
IMO, you never will.
Originally posted by black beetleStill jumping from tree to tree...wow.
In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, Biology looks exclusively to its lineal ancestors. Instead of this procedure, in the past everybody used to explain everything he ignored as an act of "god", and your thought follows that path. If humanity was satisfied with the way you advocate, we would still jumping from tree to tree.
To your points, looking for gradations by which an organ in any
species has been perfected, I'd say this borders on myth or fairy tales
too, you can show me the lineal ancestors of humans back how far?
I'm want to see the facts on the ground, you take me back from the
present time in your view of human evolution and give me some
reason to believe you, and we can start talking about the lineal
ancestors. If you cannot do that with confidence I suggest you have
done nothing again except state your beliefs and are trying to pass
them off as facts.
I take it you believe, because I said variety is not proof for evolution
that is akin to "an act of 'god' “, or did you have something else I said
bring you to that conclusion in this discussion, you care to elaborate?
What point did I give you lead you to say, “If humanity was satisfied
with the way you advocate, we would still jumping from tree to tree.”
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…What determines that there should be survival of species in the first place? …
[b]=================================
The real cause! The real cause of the evolutionary process is the further development and the easier survival of the species in a specific environment;
====================================
What determines that there should be survival of species in the first place?
Are humans a means for the survival of s ated the very idea as proposterous yet. And not for a long long time.
IMO, you never will.[/b]
Nothing -which is partly why species sometimes go extinct. The force of evolution doesn’t tend to necessarily make a species AS A WHOLE better able to survive (sometimes it doesn’t!) -it merely tends to make individuals acquire characteristics that make them better able to compete against other members of the SAME species both with regards to survival and passing on genes (although ‘survival‘ is part of what is required to pass on the genes so it is really just about passing on genes).
Actually, this sometimes a bit too simplistic of an explanation because, perhaps surprisingly, there is now good evidence that evolution often works at a group level as well as on an individual level (I.e. it can tend to make whole GROUPS of individuals within the SAME species acquire characteristics that make them better able to compete against other GROUPS of individuals of the SAME species both with regards to survival and passing on genes)
-having said that, evolution never directly operates on a SPECIES level. The fact that individual selection as well as group selection often does (but not necessarily so) make a species as a whole better able to survive is just a happy accident.
…Are humans a means for the survival of sperms and eggs or is it the other way around ? …
Since we cannot continually reproduce without both these parts of our life cycle, the answer to this question is: “both“.
…How did that program of assured survival come into being ? …
What do you mean by “program of assured survival”?
…What was the very first act of natural selection ? …
Are you asking what was the very first characteristic that natural selection selected for in the very first living thing that helped it to adapt to the specific environment it was in? -if so, nobody knows -and it doesn’t matter.
…You see? There's still plenty of room for a Ultimate all powerful and intelligent Creator.…
Since evolution fully explains how the current diversity of life came about and fully explains this without any divine intervention, the hypotheses that an powerful and intelligent creator had something to do with the creation of this diversity of life is rendered an unnecessary hypothesis.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMr. Hamilton,
[b]…What determines that there should be survival of species in the first place? …
Nothing -which is partly why species sometimes go extinct. The force of evolution doesn’t tend to necessarily make a species AS A WHOLE better able to survive (sometimes it doesn’t!) -it merely tends to make individuals acquire characteristics that make them be r had something to do with the creation of this diversity of life is an unnecessary hypothesis.[/b]
The one who can't take a reference to the Bible. I'll play in your ballpark for a little while. But I don't expect to change your mind about anything.
===================================
Nothing -which is partly why species sometimes go extinct. The force of evolution doesn’t tend to necessarily make a species AS A WHOLE better able to survive (sometimes it doesn’t!)
=======================================
That is one of the problems. Most mutations adversly effect the species. The fortunate mutations would be vastly in the minority.
What I gather is that the statistics stacked against the minority of fortunate mutations to drive the evolution engine is overcome by adding lots and lots of time.
Maybe some other explanations should be explored.
=====================================
-it merely tends to make individuals acquire characteristics that make them better able to compete against other members of the SAME species both with regards to survival and passing on genes (although ‘survival‘ is part of what is required to pass on the genes so it is really just about passing on genes).
===================================
When you look at the overall picture reducing it to just passing on genes is a simplification of an astounding phenomenon.
This has the same kind of plausibility to me as saying that Mt Rushmore had the four faces carved on it because of just some dust and erosion in "fortunate" places over a long long period of time.
I am welcomed to hear what other ideas there may be about it.
=====================================
Actually, this sometimes a bit too simplistic of an explanation because, perhaps surprisingly, there is now good evidence that evolution often works at a group level as well as on an individual level (I.e. it can tend to make whole GROUPS of individuals within the SAME species acquire characteristics that make them better able to compete against other GROUPS of individuals of the SAME species both with regards to survival and passing on genes)
=========================================
Okay. That is like something I just pointed out.
=====================================
-having said that, evolution never directly operates on a SPECIES level. The fact that individual selection as well as group selection often does (but not necessarily so) make a species as a whole better able to survive is just a happy accident.
===========================================
That is as plausible as me saying that the four faces carved on Mt. Rushmore is just the result of many happy accidents.
I see a Programmer behind this life development. To what degree evolution like mechanism worked I don't know. I think looking in the direction of sudden changes might yield better results.
Perhaps something cataclysmic alters living things every now and then. I don't think I can ever go back to not believing in a God behind life 's development.
"Happy accidents" just don't do it for me when I look around at the world of living things.
==========================================
…Are humans a means for the survival of sperms and eggs or is it the other way around ? …
Since we cannot continually reproduce without both theses parts of our life cycle, the answer to this question is: “both“.
==========================================
I say that Someone is mighty clever. "Happy accident" just doesn't do it for me in this astounding circular algorithm of reproduction. Sorry.
I just don't have enough faith to be an athiest.
=================================
…How did that program of assured survival come into being ? …
What do you mean by “program of assured survival”?
========================================
The concept ... I mean. If the word program is not the right word, I don't know what is. Perhaps there is a limitation of human language to exactly describe it.
But for one who once was a programmer I see a logic. I see loops and algorithms. I see nested logic and decision gates. I see loops of logic within logic.
I can't attribute this harmonious operation to happy accidents. Evolutionists see Big Time. I see a Big Mind.
==============================
…What was the very first act of natural selection ? …
Are you asking what was the very first characteristic that natural selection selected for in the very first living thing that helped it to adapt to the specific environment it was in? -if so, nobody knows -and it doesn’t matter.
=======================================
Either way I don't think it is a question that anyone can answer.
I respect when someone can admit that we don't know something. Allow me that same freedom when you grill Christians about the hows and whys. We also have to confess sometimes -
"You you? We don't know that yet. Got an easier question ?"
Originally posted by jaywillHey jaywill, hi again my friend!
Not necessarily. I am talking about the fact that you have no slam dunk science to prove that God did not design things, especially living things.
Saying "Well, God didn't do a good job" is beside the point. Perhaps God is artistic. Some people would say that Picasso didn't do a good job of painting a scene of panic of people and animals in a barn.
I ...[text shortened]... doubtful that any human made camara can equal the human eyeball in visualizing ability.
It's wrong to assume that an eye is a kind of telescope; an eye is an eye, and that means that it works (and sometimes it works as a telescope too) as it works in order to permit us to survive, first of all; the telescope is designed by human beings in order to let them fulfill their needs afterall.
The origin of Life is another issue and has nothing to do with the theory of the evolution;
No, I cannot proove that "god" doesn;t exist. However it is more possible that he doesn't, and until his existence will be prooved at full beyond any doubt I will stick to the theory of evolution;
Originally posted by KellyJayIt doesn't borders the myth, unless if one day we will find an apolithoma of a bunny dated from the Procabrian period;
Still jumping from tree to tree...wow.
To your points, looking for gradations by which an organ in any
species has been perfected, I'd say this borders on myth or fairy tales
too, you can show me the lineal ancestors of humans back how far?
I'm want to see the facts on the ground, you take me back from the
present time in your view of human evolution ...[text shortened]... satisfied
with the way you advocate, we would still jumping from tree to tree.”
Kelly[/b]