Evolution vs Creationism

Hello, in response to statements in another thread that we cannot discuss religion without flaming, I propose a game. The rules are as follows:

#1 You may only respond to the post directly above your own. You may reference earlier posts, but not in a way that degrades the poster, or to argue against those points.
#2 All points must be supported by logic and if applicable, reliable sources. (No Wikipedia does not count.)
#3 You must offer a rebuttal to all points in the previous post, and then post 3-5 of your own points.
#4 You may not flame, degrade any other person, or insult anyone in any way.
#5 Due to the fact that I believe in both Evolution and Creation, (Which hopefully will keep me from being bias.) I will be the judge when there is a dispute.

Oh, and I'll throw in special rules from time to time. (In example, I might make a rule on a specific day that you must argue for the exact opposite of your point of view for that day, and grade everyone according to how well they do.)

The first poster gets to set the stage. Commence.

Is it okay if I sort of disregard what Kuro said? I don't want to be disrespectful, but there's nothing for me to argue. There was no statement of fact, just a statement of opinion.

So, I'm not here to argue whether or not God exists, but, rather, to debate the mechanism that advances our and all species on this earth. That mechanism has been termed evolution. There are several theories that have been passed around, but the truth is that no one entirely knows how it works. I'm going to try to explain a theory that I learned in a survey class over the summer.

Sexual Selection and the Sexy Sons Theory:
Survival of the fittest is the often passed around theory. The question asked, usually, is something along the lines of, "If the strongest survive, then why does X, Y, and Z still exist?" which filters into a larger question, if one species changes, then why does its precursor still exist? For example, if man evolved from Chimps, then why do chimps still exist? The answer, is that they are a cousin on the family tree, so to speak. We branched off a couple million years back and haven't looked back. However, why did we branch off? Therein comes the Sexy Sons theory.

Have you ever thought about why peacocks have such extravagant tails? As it turns out, it has something to do with this theory. Simply put, there are genetics that control attraction. Somewhere along the evolutionary line, the females of the species "decided" that the more impressive tails were the attractive thing. Once this gene gets introduced, it gets passed along to both sexes. The females carry the extravagant tail gene for the male in addition to the attraction to the extravagant tail gene for the female. Why carry both in a female that doesn't need the "extravagant tail" gene? Because they have a chance of producing male offspring. In order for a male to reproduce, it has to be able to offer something that attracts a female. In order for a female to reproduce, it must survive to maturity because a female will almost *always* have a suitor.

Thus, the peacock's extravagant tail was deemed sexy or sexually attractive and, thus, flourished. Evidence of this can be seen in the canary as well.

The song that the canary sings is genetically programmed and the men with the sexier songs are more likely to find a female willing to mate; however, the males with the less attractive songs are far more likely to stay with the female after mating and into the chicks' maturity. The answer that the canary came up with was to settle down with the less attractive males but "cheat" with the sexier singers so that they would have a male around, but also give her sons a greater chance to have a mate in the future.

In the genetics game, the winner is that which has grandchildren, not just children. Thus, in order to ensure a greater number of grand children, both male and female offspring *need* to be attractive. For the female, this is easy. For the male, it requires something extra.

So, what does this have to do with human evolution? As it turns out, it has a bear ton to do with humans.

Have you ever pondered language and its intricacies? Language is incredibly difficult to learn. This is why we are the only (or one of the few) species on earth that has the ability to communicate through speech, through language. Language comes at a price, however.

30% of the body's calories are used by the brain. Not only that but they are a specific kind of calorie: those derived from carbohydrates. This may not sound like much now with supermarkets like Wal-Mart, but in our infancy as a species, this was huge. Language is what made sons sexy for our ancestors. Why else but the illogical allure of sex and reproduction would a creature ever evolve to use 30% of its fuel from a difficult to find source on something like the brain? Think about animals. They do perfectly fine without the use of complex language and complex brains. In fact, all of the other advanced functions that we've come to see the mind as having today may have, in fact, started with the brain building in complexity to suit the needs of what was deemed sexy. Language is difficult and requires an intense amount of brain power. Thus, I posit that all of our side effects such as reading, writing, calculus, etc. came as a side effect to our enlarged brain to facilitate the use of language and allow our male ancestors an advantage when it came to sexual selection.

**That's the gist of if, and I'm too tired to correct it, so if it's weird, then that's why.
***It may not really completely cover the evolution vs. creationsim thing, but my point was to outline a view of evolution that made it more logical.

Quote :

but the truth is that no one entirely knows how it works.

So why believe in one theory over another? Or, why believe in Evolution, over Creationism? Science, by definition uses systematic reasoning and experiments to dismiss theories, untill one theory can hold up to all critisism. Evolution on the other hand has more flaws than Creationism itself. Of course, one should keep critiquing the theory and either changing the theory untill it works or getting more evidence/facts to help prove the existing theory. However, it's found more and more often that people change the facts rather than change the theory, or use presumptions to come to conclusions, when it later turns out there presumptions were based on little, if any scientific evidence. Why then, would a person of science choose to change the facts to match the theory instead of changing the theory to match the facts? Of course, it's not enough to dismiss a theory because of the errors of some, but why would some do that? What motive did they have? Is it science is becoming less intellectual, and more commercialized? Or were they honest mistakes.

Quote :

For example, if man evolved from Chimps, then why do chimps still exist? The answer, is that they are a cousin on the family tree, so to speak. We branched off a couple million years back and haven't looked back.

So why do they not evolve? What causes certain monkeys to evolve, but not others? And then, not only do they evolve, but they become dominant and produce more. For example, assuming small adaptations - one monkey has a shorter tail, as they start to no longer need their tail. That monkey mates with another monkey with a normal tail. Over the generations - the dominant gene must be, the shorter tail untill the point that there is no tail. However, how is it possible, let alone likely, that this animal would survive over the years to grow into a whole new species, when it has been mating with monkeys with normal tails. How is it then possible, that the old species still exist and the species as a whole did not change? If it is adaptation, and survival that is what triggers evolution - why in some, but not in others? Especially if one could survive without adapting in the least bit. Of course, the trigger to evolution may still yet be found - however, currently the only explanation is chance. The chance of evolving from pond scum, to intelectual beings over random chances, make it a very unlikely one. Also, assuming small adaptations over many years...how is it that there is not a fossil for every single transition of animal, especially when this takes place over millions of years? How is it that those intermediate species, not only do not have fossils, but they too do not exist anymore - unlike lesser beings who still do?

If evolution is to be taken as a scientific theory, then it must not rely so much on chance, and more on actual evidence. How is it that cousins can be around, however intermediate creatures do not have any history or are still not around in present day, while thier predacessors are? How is it possible that they were stronger and that they evolved to present day beings...if they themselves were not around long enough to either be fossilized or observed? Even today, we never see even the most minute changes from a reptile having any characteristics of a bird - let alone having that chance of becoming it's own species, which would one day evolve into a bird. Out of the billions and billions of animals today, it is not observed that any animal has such defects or changes that would cause it, not only to prosper - but to become another species itself. Which brings me to the point of, how could these minutely changed animals prosper at all? In the animal kingdom, even the slightest defect means that they will be ostracized and not be able to fend for itself. Even if they are beneficial alterations, it does not give them a chance to become a new species. How does ones genes change so much as to one day go from scales, to feathers - and that animal still be "fit" enough to survive and reproduce - with that trait as a dominant gene?

Quote :

In the genetics game, the winner is that which has grandchildren, not just children. Thus, in order to ensure a greater number of grand children, both male and female offspring *need* to be attractive. For the female, this is easy. For the male, it requires something extra.

And what triggers one to change their DNA as to become more attractive, so much so that it causes them to split off and become a whole new species and not even be able to mate with their former species?

Adaptation and evolutions are 2 different things in my eyes. You spoke a lot more about adapting than you did actual evolving from cingle celled organisms, to multi-cell organisms that not only are able to sustain themselves - but are able to ponder their own existance. As far are I'm aware, no other creature has much of a conscience. Not only do they not even recognize them selves (for example when a fish looks into a mirror, it assumes it's another fish) but they recognize things around them, and causes and effects and can even ponder existance it self. To think, that to be sexier these beings came about...is just a slap in the face to life itself. How is it, that these beings came to have conscience while it's predacessors have no such thing.

Note: This wasn't looked over very carefuly and wasn't planned or thought out all that well so it may sound a lot more rantish than it does proffesional, and I apologize for that.

That was an excellent start, and I'm glad this sort of took off.

@Aqua:

AquaAscension wrote:

30% of the body's calories are used by the brain. Not only that but they are a specific kind of calorie: those derived from carbohydrates.

Source? That sounds reasonable, but it would be nice if you found a science website to back that up.

You didn't really separate your post into three different arguments, but I'll let it slide since you posted a long mostly well thought out thing.

@Jay:

Jay.J wrote:

Evolution on the other hand has more flaws than Creationism itself. Of course, one should keep critiquing the theory and either changing the theory untill it works or getting more evidence/facts to help prove the existing theory. However, it's found more and more often that people change the facts rather than change the theory, or use presumptions to come to conclusions, when it later turns out there presumptions were based on little, if any scientific evidence.

State your source please. That statement will be considered conjecture and inadmissible until you do so. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you made a large assumption with no logical explanation for it or research.)

Your second argument is ok, but it asks alot of questions rather than making as many statements. It seems to be trying to mislead and confuse your opponent more than defeat them. Just a heads-up for the future, if you do that TOO much; I might strike some of your statement. (Bolded and capitalized to emphasize that I'm pretty lax on it.)

Jay.J wrote:

Adaptation and evolutions are 2 different things in my eyes.

Pure opinion. At least explain why you have that opinion, so that it can be properly rebutted.

Jay.J wrote:

To think, that to be sexier these beings came about...is just a slap in the face to life itself.

Remember Jay, don't try to insult the person or their arguments. Statements like those can turn into flame eventually if left unchecked.


Ok, so feel free to edit your posts as you see fit now, and then continue the game. That was an excellent start and I am glad to see this is doing well.

Quote :

Science, by definition uses systematic reasoning and experiments to dismiss theories, until one theory can hold up to all criticism

Actually, not entirely accurate. The truth is that science is always skeptical and there will never be one right answer because all the facts can never be completely in. We just take the most reliable information to date and call that "what we think to be true but can never entirely prove". Evolution, by nature is skeptical of itself because it is a product of science; whereas, Creationism is not skeptical of itself because it is a product of religion.

Quote :

So why do they not evolve? What causes certain monkeys to evolve, but not others?

Technically, everything is evolving. We simply don't have a record of every species' path during its evolution. I don't have an answer for why the "original" species is gone, but I have a feeling that chimps and man evolved from the same organism that is long since lost. The key is not to think of "man" as the ultimate form of evolution, or where the game ends. Not every species needs to get to the point of intelligence; each species needs to reproduce.

Quote :

If evolution is to be taken as a scientific theory, then it must not rely so much on chance, and more on actual evidence.

Quantum Physics relies *solely* on chance to make its calculations, but it is the most up to date and accurate way to describe reality as we know it. Take, for example, the phenomenon known as Quantum Entanglement. If two particles become entangled, then those two particles will be influenced by each other no matter the distance between them, and, get this, it happens instantaneously. So, if I find the spin of one electron which is entangled with another, then the spin of the other electron will conform to the one that was measured. Newtonian physics says this is impossible, but it happens.

Quote :

Source? That sounds reasonable, but it would be nice if you found a science website to back that up.

Should I quote my teacher? That's kind of where I got it from. His name is Sam Milazzo. I can check for websites to confirm, but I'm somewhat meh on the subject.

I'm sorry if I got somewhat off track, my arguments against Jay's probably aren't the best since they are only loosely related counter examples/clarifications of my points.

Quote :

Actually, not entirely accurate. The truth is that science is always skeptical and there will never be one right answer because all the facts can never be completely in. We just take the most reliable information to date and call that "what we think to be true but can never entirely prove". Evolution, by nature is skeptical of itself because it is a product of science; whereas, Creationism is not skeptical of itself because it is a product of religion.

All though, you can not prove 100% something in science, because you can never have 100% of the knowledge in the world, and every single possibility etc etc. Doesn't meant that it's not true. Science is skeptical of itself, however some theories less than others as they stand up to most possibilities presented. Regardless - the point was more that Evolution does not stand strong against too many criticisms, and until a time where it can stand to most criticisms it should not be regarded as purely scientific.

Quote :

Technically, everything is evolving. We simply don't have a record of every species' path during its evolution. I don't have an answer for why the "original" species is gone, but I have a feeling that chimps and man evolved from the same organism that is long since lost. The key is not to think of "man" as the ultimate form of evolution, or where the game ends. Not every species needs to get to the point of intelligence; each species needs to reproduce.

Alright then, doesn't really answer what causes things to evolve. Nor does it answer how some things evolve faster than others. Nor does it answer things such as intermediate species being actually handicapped - such as the transition from reptile to bird. Any intermediate form would actually be handicapped, outcast and ostracized and not be able to properly reproduce to the point where it creates a new species, and subsequent new species.

(Also this is a question, but have they ever been able to produce life from inanimate objects, like when the earth was formed and eventually created life? Like in actual reproducible tests, not just theory of how first life forms were formed?)

Quote :

Quantum Physics relies *solely* on chance to make its calculations, but it is the most up to date and accurate way to describe reality as we know it. Take, for example, the phenomenon known as Quantum Entanglement. If two particles become entangled, then those two particles will be influenced by each other no matter the distance between them, and, get this, it happens instantaneously. So, if I find the spin of one electron which is entangled with another, then the spin of the other electron will conform to the one that was measured. Newtonian physics says this is impossible, but it happens

Point conceded as I know very little of the topic, besides grade 12 Chemistry/Physics. Though, I will say - just because it's the most up to date science, doesn't mean it's right.

Quote :

I'm sorry if I got somewhat off track, my arguments against Jay's probably aren't the best since they are only loosely related counter examples/clarifications of my points.

Neither are mine. It's because we never started out that amazingly (No offense, your first post was good) structurally. It wasn't great for structure in the sense that you had a Premise, and if said said premise was true, than the conclusion too must be true.

Ex. All Californians are American. <-- Premise I
All Americans live in North America. <-- Premise II
____________________________________________
All Californians live in North America <-- Conclusion

Obviously, you can't have such an easy If A is B, and B is C, the A is C in such a complex debate - however, it is such a broad topic, and it started out with only one theory, opposed to a broad introduction.

Quote :

Also this is a question, but have they ever been able to produce life from inanimate objects, like when the earth was formed and eventually created life? Like in actual reproducible tests, not just theory of how first life forms were formed?

From what I understand, yes, they have been able to come with a theory and experiments to prove the current theory. This reminds me of a somewhat off topic idea (again, gained in my survey class)...

Cool article About the Earth's beginnings

Did you know that about 2 billion years ago, there was a poisonous build up of oxygen in our atmosphere? Almost all life had adapted to using Carbon Dioxide as a source of energy and had been producing O2 from the resulting chemical reaction. Well, Oxygen is corrosive. Just look at metal and rust for proof, the metal oxidizes and becomes corroded. This event was known as the Oxygen Debacle. In order to deal with this problem, it is thought that a symbiotic relationship was formed between single celled bacterial organisms and the only creature that could use Oxygen as a form of energy, Mitochondria. As proof, mitochondria has its own DNA apart from the DNA of the cell in which it resides. The funky thing, however, is that the only members of the species that pass on mitochondrial DNA are the females. Thus, some scientists believe that the mitochondria produce something called "male killer" DNA. However, our own biological resilience stops the efforts of the mitochondria. Mainly, it achieves this by keeping the males alive =/. Crazy huh?

(I've tried searching online for the Oxygen Debacle but it just gave me a bunch of crap, so that may be a little used term)

Quote :

Alright then, doesn't really answer what causes things to evolve. Nor does it answer how some things evolve faster than others. Nor does it answer things such as intermediate species being actually handicapped - such as the transition from reptile to bird. Any intermediate form would actually be handicapped, outcast and ostracized and not be able to properly reproduce to the point where it creates a new species, and subsequent new species.

My understanding is that it is baby steps. If my theory of sexual selection is true, think about it...

Let's say that big hands are sexy, and for some reason this is programmed genetically. Well, one generation might produce slightly larger hands and the men with those slightly larger hands would be more attractive and, thus, reproduce more. The next generation may have slightly larger hands but nothing much noticeable. Over hundreds of generations, hand size may grow to an extreme. It may grow so much so that the genetics are so different that the males with bug hands can no longer reproduce with females from the normal hand size group.

Now, let's add an extra condition. The two groups of people are separated geographically (as several of the early hominids were). One group, because of its geographical disposition favors the big hands for such and such a reason; whereas, another group favors the "normal size hand" people for such and such a reason. If they are separated for a long, long time and suddenly come into contact, then yes, the big and small hands would most likely not be attracted to each other and may indeed ostracize each other (as what may have happened between neanderthals and homo sapiens).

Now, apply that logic to other creatures. For example, it is thought that whales evolved from dogs. If dogs and whale-dogs lived in different areas, then over time, the species would look incredibly different. Not only that, but they would not be able to mate at all. How it may work is something like this (thought experiment): food along the coast is somewhat scarce; however, food in the shallows is somewhat abundant. The whale-dog that has webbed footing becomes a better swimmer and can gather more food more easily and can thus provide for its pack more easily and can thus reproduce more frequently. The children will have webbed feet (assuming it's a dominant gene) but will not be so different looking as to be ostracized. Over time, the nostrils may start moving to the top of the head (but very slowly) so that it doesn't become so different as that it can not reproduce with others. After several years, several generations, the whale-dogs and dogs would not be able to breed together anymore. However, this change is not sudden and would not cause the two groups to ostracize each other because the change is very slow and over a long, long time. That is my understanding.

Quote :

Neither are mine. It's because we never started out that amazingly (No offense, your first post was good) structurally. It wasn't great for structure in the sense that you had a Premise, and if said said premise was true, than the conclusion too must be true.

No offense taken.

AquaAscension wrote:

From what I understand, yes, they have been able to come with a theory and experiments to prove the current theory. This reminds me of a somewhat off topic idea (again, gained in my survey class)...

It is my understanding that while they have been able to produce the building blocks of life (Such as amino acids and proteins.) using such experiments, no one has ever actually created life from non-living objects. That is the primary argument that creationists use to spout their often illogical and often nonsensical ideas. (Yeah, I don't like pure creationists or pure evolutionists. You have to allow room for logical debate and change of opinion, otherwise your just a fanatic.)


P.S. I actually found the religion that semi-fits me the other day, but I forgot what it is called. Essentially it is a group of people that believe God drives evolution. Creationism goes against plenty of evidence, but evolution is extremely unlikely. My view is that evolution is only possible because of God's help. The reason this religion doesn't fit me though, is because they believe like Jews other than that belief. Whereas I am a Christian, except for that one belief.


Sorry for spouting my views and interrupting your debate, feel free to ignore me and continue, or crush my unsupported hypothesis. (I do have proper arguments to back up my beliefs, but I didn't mean to intrude on your debate even this much.)

@Dragonheart91

Quote :

Pure opinion. At least explain why you have that opinion, so that it can be properly rebutted.

Quote :

State your source please. That statement will be considered conjecture and inadmissible until you do so. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you made a large assumption with no logical explanation for it or research.)

From Merriam Webster.

Adaptation: adjustment to environmental conditions:

Evolution:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state

Science: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study

If it's systematized then it goes through a bunch of steps to gain "knowledge" (General term, not used as a philosophical term. Assumes we can acquire knowledge). That means correcting and editing until it's "right" (To a point where the other side can't be argued until further evidence). That means you either change the theory, or need to get more facts.

If you mean the first sentence, by definition - you shouldn't be changing religion since it's from God. You don't change scripture because of new evidence. You assume that evidence is misleading, and that even further new evidence will prove the current theory wrong, until it turns out you were right all along. The key in most religion, is faith. Faith that you're right and will be proven so eventually.

Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

@ AquaAscension

Quote :

From what I understand, yes, they have been able to come with a theory and experiments to prove the current theory. This reminds me of a somewhat off topic idea (again, gained in my survey class)..

They have a theory, however from what I have gathered, have never been able to reproduce the effects in an experiment. The whole point of science is to follow theories and hypothesis up with experiment. Otherwise, it's just philosophy. It's just mind experiments. Now, it doesn't mean that it's WRONG. However, you can't call it science if you're using "evidence" that can't be tested, or at least, has been tested and failed. On the other hand though, we don't know what causes gravity, and that's considered science...But on that issue - we can at least see that gravity works - just not it's explanation. On the side of evolution - you can't fully explain, nor can you use tested things to back up theories.

Quote :

My understanding is that it is baby steps. If my theory of sexual selection is true, think about it..

And, again, there would be proof - in either existing animals that have "Medium" sized hands, and animals that have "Large hands" and others who have "Small" hands. (Use hands as the evolutionary chain). The fossil record shows, little to no evidence of MANY of the theories of chains of evolution.(not putting a source, Google it if you want). Current observations also, do not show animal intermediates. If some animals just have a slower evolution rate than others, and you just don't know the mechanism that triggers it, fine. However - we should see animals that just didn't evolve further from dogs, or from whales. If it's logical to say, some dogs just didn't evolve, then it should also be logical to say that some dog-whales didn't evolve. However, we see none today. We see none in fossil records. We see no EVIDENCE of this anywhere, outside of theory.

That's one of my main problems with Evolution. It's just NOT backed up by many facts. It's a lot more...mind experiments. Sure it's "Possible". However, if you're going to say it's a scientific theory - then it should be critiqued just as hard as any other scientific theory. The fact that it lacks evidence on more than one level, and is too much in it's "Theory stages" makes it more philosophy than it does Science, however it's continuously is projected as a science. It's a little hypocritical, no? At least Creationism says "Listen bud, you can't test it because God did it. You can test something, and then that's just HOW God did it. It's his Universe, his laws - he put those laws in place."

And now this just becomes a "Does God exist?" thread? To which it can have MULTIPLE paths. Argument from evil, Aquinas first four ways etc..

People have experimented with evolution. You just have to know where to look.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4161281,00.html
Article about fruit flies and how they demonstrate evolution, seems fairly effective as an argument to me, but other people may not be so convinced.

Basically what it says is that a scientist back in the 30's decided that he was going to do some research on fruit flies, he went to a lot of different areas and collected fruit flies, and observed that their DNA varied from area to area. But not only that, the DNA would change rapidly (relatively speaking) over a short period of time and that different DNA patterns would become prominent in different seasons, because certain traits and properties allowed for increased survivability and reproductive prowess (natural selection) at different temperatures and other conditions.

I believe some lab tests were also done after this in which different fruit fly populations were isolated and allowed to reproduce under different conditions, resulting in odd evolutionary changes. One example of such a change would be having a population of fruit flies with 4 wings instead of 2. I could be mistaken about this last part, but if you're interested in fruit fly experiments, google away

Now I'm going to make an argument for an abstract version of creationism that, using reason, you will have very little cause to doubt, after the initial shock of course.

This universe was created 5 seconds ago. Your memories and experiences from before that time are fabrications. God created everything as it seemed 5 seconds ago, including you, and gave you the memories to facilitate that creation. God gave this world a false history, and you were never born as you believe you were. You were created. Nothing happened before 5 seconds ago, the universe wasn't even here.

That argument seems perfectly sound for an omnipotent God, except that the sort of creation described above would be deceitful and would go against the traditional western conception of God.

As far as evolution goes, it is not mutually exclusive with creationism, unless the person who believes in creationism infinitely underestimates omnipotence and omniscience.

Quote :

Basically what it says is that a scientist back in the 30's decided that he was going to do some research on fruit flies, he went to a lot of different areas and collected fruit flies, and observed that their DNA varied from area to area. But not only that, the DNA would change rapidly (relatively speaking) over a short period of time and that different DNA patterns would become prominent in different seasons, because certain traits and properties allowed for increased survivability and reproductive prowess (natural selection) at different temperatures and other conditions.

Still only shows adaptation, as far as I'm concerned. The question of the mechanism of some animals adapting, while others do not AT ALL, and the question of observations in todays society (and recorded history) among intermediate creatures, and general fossil records, as well as probability of evolution doesn't allow me to believe in it yet.

Quote :

This universe was created 5 seconds ago. Your memories and experiences from before that time are fabrications. God created everything as it seemed 5 seconds ago, including you, and gave you the memories to facilitate that creation. God gave this world a false history, and you were never born as you believe you were. You were created. Nothing happened before 5 seconds ago, the universe wasn't even here.

Your premise is that God is deceitful. I can't really think of a reason to NOT think that...however I'm sure there is some.

Actual proof of evolution being possible would be if those flies changed so much that they were not able to breed with the original incarnation. THAT would be evolution at work. (However it would still not prove that all life evolved that way, it would simply prove that it is possible.)

Fail. Latin quotes must ALWAYS be repeated FIRST in their native tongue. Cogito Ergo Sum. (I can spell it from memory.)

Secondly, trying to distract us with pretty colors is bad! How am I supposed to doubt you when the pretty colors are all on your side?

Dragonheart91 wrote:

Fail. Latin quotes must ALWAYS be repeated FIRST in their native tongue. Cogito Ergo Sum. (I can spell it from memory.)

Secondly, trying to distract us with pretty colors is bad! How am I supposed to doubt you when the pretty colors are all on your side?

Fail, quoting things directly from Latin would have been counter to my point. When trying to reach people you don't want to sound like a pompous ass by quoting something in Latin and then translating it for everyone who isn't as smart as you. In the same spirit, I don't really care if they know that Rene Descartes was the source of that line of reasoning, just that they know the implications.

Colors are always good though.

Quote :

Simple belief in an omnipotent being dictates that nothing that you experience can be believed to be true.

False. I know that I believe that I know I exist. I believe that I exist, and that these experiences are real. I actually want some clarification on that sentence. Why can I not believe my experiences to be true? I can believe anything I want, whether it IS true or not is what's in question.

Quote :

The traditional western conception of God is that He is not deceitful, which would make my hypothetical argument weaker to people who believe in that way.

For your own argument though, is there a logical reason to think that God is not decietful? (Let's assume God exists with this).

Quote :

Basically though, it's an interesting thought to think that if you believe in an omnipotent being, then you can't prove that anything existed before this particular moment. All you have to show for it are memories and thoughts and physical objects, all which are within the realm of altering by said omnipotent being

.

So isn't that part of our premise? We assume observations are real? You can't prove deductively...that's for sure - but you can't really prove anything useful that way. It's an inductive argument which assumes the premise to be true, and if that premise is true than you have a high probability of being right, no?

Quote :

The worst explanation is that they were always here, which obviously isn't true.

No, because you can also say that it was never there until 5seconds ago .

Quote :

Did God directly intervene in this universe and create the different species at different periods of time? Even though He is omnipotent and omniscient and could have just as easily set everything in motion at the time of the Big Bang so that it would play out as He willed without needing direct intervention? I personally would tend towards an efficient God rather than an inefficient God.

Well, under the assumption God works through a means as he's the one who created the Laws of the universe - there must be some logical way that we came to being (Also assuming God isn't deceitful here). However, Evolution just doesn't cut it. Atleast not now. I'm not saying it can't eventually be right - but in it's current state I think it's silly to think Evolution did it, since it's so peiced out. It's like a huge puzzle, and you only have a cornor done and saying IT'S A MOOSE, when all you can see is some brown stuff.

Quote :

Then you have the other possibility, aliens of some sort delivering various species to this planet, and that's a whole nother can of worms that I'm not going to get into right now.

Not really, because then you have the question of where did they come from...and you go back to first causation and such.

Alright, I have been swayed by Pythagoras' undefeatable logic. Colors ARE always good.

Special rule: All arguments must be colorful until 12:00 EST tonight.

Quote :

there must be some logical way that we came to being (Also assuming God isn't deceitful here). However, Evolution just doesn't cut it.

I guess what strikes me about this sentence is that you throw in the word "we". I guess it implies that you think that "we" are special rather than adhering to the innate laws of biology. Reproduction and passing on genetics. That's pretty much it. I hate bringing this into a cynical point of view, but, yeah, that's it. We live so that we can continue living - it's circular and depressing, but that's it. That's the inherent truth to life (in a Godless world). Some may say existential. Although, to throw in existentialism means that there is no inherent truth; that we only exist to continue existing and (with biology) to ensure that our genes go on. Well, if that's the truth, then what is the point of life? It becomes nihilistic. We're doing the same thing over and over and over again and it never stops, somewhat like the cycle of samsara (except that that can be escaped by following your Dharma).

Thus, we believe in something to get rid of this inherent depressing concept and feeling of pointlessness. Some people believe in God, some believe in something else, a higher ideal perhaps. Some keep themselves busy with either shallow or deep pursuits.

There was a book written sometime back called "The God Gene", and that book advanced the theory that there was a gene found that controlled a person's belief or ability to believe in such an abstract concept.

So, sorry for that depressing view of life and its purposes, but that's a view. In all honesty, I'd prefer that to be true, though, so that people can actually celebrate *humanity*. We have the ability to invent, to explore, to do nearly anything rather than sacrificing all of our time and energy to an abstract concept.

I'll not bother you about not separating your argument into 3 parts or rebutting very much of the previous post, because you presented it fairly well.

You spoke of the "god gene," but I have also heard of the "god organ." There is a portion of your brain that is essential to belief in a higher being. Should that portion be damaged, you have basically a 100% chance of becoming an Atheist. All religious and/or paranormal experiences are somehow linked to that part of the brain, and most Atheists are assumed to have damage to it. (Although some just believe in other things like aliens or ghosts instead of God.)

It's kind of interesting to think that there is a possibility that "God" is just a product of our biology; A genetic adaptation to help draw us together and give us hope.

in my view, God is the universe.

He controls our evolution, in a way...

from dust we came and to dust we shall return. God is the dust of the universe, we came from the Big Bang,
and the universe, in a sense we came from God/universe.

its a bit hard to word what im trying to say, but i hope you understand my perspective.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

You spoke of the "god gene," but I have also heard of the "god organ." There is a portion of your brain that is essential to belief in a higher being. Should that portion be damaged, you have basically a 100% chance of becoming an Atheist

Im not even going to touch that till you actually produce some scientific evidence.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

All religious and/or paranormal experiences are somehow linked to that part of the brain, and most Atheists are assumed to have damage to it.

So what your saying is that everyone who is religious has a strong chance to believe in paranormal events?
There is a point were the mind makes a choice, faith or speculation.

Dragonheart91 wrote:

It's kind of interesting to think that there is a possibility that "God" is just a product of our biology; A genetic adaptation to help draw us together and give us hope.

God is a faith, some people prefer to believe that a higher power could save them, that there is the possibility that something that they cannot comprehend is watching over them and protecting them.

Your absolutely right DarkDjinni. I entered the debate when I should have stayed aloof, and broke my own rules.

I'm not going to argue strongly to support my claims, but I will put it into a proper argument form with the correct research tomorrow. (It's sleepy time tonight.) But, it is possible that I will get busy, in which case, you can just ignore my post entirely since it wasn't presented properly.

P.S. The point behind that line of though, is that we might not actually be making our own decisions. If biology shows that the decision is made for us depending on how we are both and/or how our brain forms, then we didn't actually decide whether to believe or not. It is slightly disturbing to think that we might not have our own choices, and they might be made for us by our biology. (In which case it brings up all kinds of other points about the separation between the mind/soul and the body.)

Anyway, I'll find some evidence later and support my own points. You don't need to respect them until that time.

P.P.S. I also made an assumption that belief in the paranormal was equivalent to belief in a god of some form. This is something I have heard discussed previously and found nothing to defeat it, but that doesn't mean I can put it here without support. I'll also back that up or leave it out when I do the rest.

I still want an answer to a logical reason to think God isn't decietful. Very interesting concept.

Jay.J wrote:

I still want an answer to a logical reason to think God isn't decietful. Very interesting concept.

Believing in god is a leap in faith, the leap is not as great for some people as for others. Now ask yourself, would you honestly leap if you knew the person catching you was decietful?

It isn't that he is or isn't, there isn't any proof saying either. But, if your believing in a higher power, your first thought is to believe the best.

There is no logical answer, a logical answer would be asking for evidence, proof or an explanation that cannot be ignored. You cannot prove god exists, there is no evidence and for every explanation claiming god is real there is another explanation claiming he isn't.

But like I said, taking a leap of faith into a pit of snakes isn't exactly what most people want to do. So if they can believe there is a higher power, they are well within their right to believe he is not deceitful.

True, however by logic, I meant lesser assumptions. A faulty example would be - Aquinas degrees arguement for God.

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents
2. If an Object has a property to a lesser extent then there exists some other object that has the property to the maxumum possible degree (call this a maximum exemplar of the property)
3. So, there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
___________________________________________________________________________

Aquinas conclusion is that God exists

Now, it doesn't follow that any ONE being or entity has all good properties - it could be several beings with different properties. It also has the contradiction in saying if one being has all exemplar properties, then it follows that that being is infinately stupid and intelligent at the same time, which we know cannot be true, or then there must be one being that is infinately stupid and one that is intelligent (or any other property).

Under the assumption that there is an exemplar good being, and that same being happened to create the universe (Aquinas argument of causation/motion) then that would "prove" that God is not decietful. Now, the problem with that is that it has a few too many assumptions. However, if these assumptions are true - it would prove God is not deceitful.

For visualness:

1.A being is all good and all powerful etc.
2.That same being created the universe (This is where the argument is faulty, but plausible)
___________________________________________________________________________

3. That being (Named God) is not decietful.

Nothing in Philosophy can be answered and proved but it can be argued - and under certain assumptions "proved" true. If you believe the premises, than you must also believe the conclusions. However it's the premises that are difficult (If not impossible to prove). Obviously there are some that are more obvious such as the very first premise in Aquinas Degree arguement (Look above).


Note: It doesn't matter if you know who or what Aquina thinks (He's outdated anyway) since I have his arguments posted anyway. The point was to show if it was possible to construct a good argument in that manner (I don't think the one I showed was very good - and was just an example of how it would be done to "prove" it. Less assumptions are needed in the proof basicaly.