Creation vs. Evolution

[Touring Mars]

(Dawkins) is very aggressive in the way that he writes.

Maybe he comes across that way in very specific parts of The God Delusion, but he rarely, if ever, comes across that way in any other book I've read of his. He reserves his most strident remarks for people and things that richly deserve harsh criticism - but so far I've never come across anything that Dawkins has said that could be described as unfair, let alone anything beyond unfair.

 

[hampus_dh]

If Dawkins is aggresive what is this guy then?

 

[Touring Mars]

If Dawkins is aggresive what is this guy then?

Unfortunately, GTPlanet's swear filter prevents an accurate description of Ted Haggard being expressed...

 

[hampus_dh]

 

[Tic Tach]

I've never saw (seen) a person hate Dawkins, but I've saw (seen) people showing a lack of respect towards him....

Gah!

...which I think is a justifiable act to do.

So let me get this straight; you theists demand, whine and complain about not getting "respect" when you ignore evidence, go round & round in circles with logical fallacies, and engage in such baseless assertions, mental acrobats and theological gymnastics enough to make a grown man weep........and yet you feel it justifiable that theists show a lack of respect to a professor of biology at Oxford who firmly but politely debunks supernatural BS.

At what point do I scream bloody murder?!

 

[Hun200kmh]

The world of american christianity and their multitude of litle churches based on some self-proclaimed priest/pastor/whatever is absolutely alien to me.

It always reminds me of that famous "Jesus He knows me" song and video (Genesis in case youngsters don't know) and why I loved it so much. Of course, when you are a catholic or an orthodox from the old (2 thousand year old) eastern churches you tend to look at protestants and all these sects in the USA as some kind of long lost relatives that went wrong. I feel zero connection to any of it, and I even think it is a shame they (the guys in charge) pretend to collect money and get rich using the name of Jesus to do it.

 

[TankAss95]

Maybe he comes across that way in very specific parts of The God Delusion, but he rarely, if ever, comes across that way in any other book I've read of his. He reserves his most strident remarks for people and things that richly deserve harsh criticism - but so far I've never come across anything that Dawkins has said that could be described as unfair, let alone anything beyond unfair.

Dawkins was so successful with his books because he made the topic of evolutionary biology accessible and interesting to a new generation of readers. He was popular for his clarity, beautiful use of helpful analogies and entertaining style of the books he produced. All of his previous books took a back seat when he released 'The God Delusion', though. Dawkins new 400 page book achieved such a level of popularity because of the wide range of criticism that it took. Many Atheists not only disliked the book, but was ashamed of it because of the sarcastic, arrogant, and disrespectful style of writing that Dawkins used.

If Dawkins is aggresive what is this guy then?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhcScBdnEhY&feature=related">YouTube Link</a>

Sorry but I cannot watch the video on my phone. I'd just like to say that there is no single man that represents Christianity as a whole. There are some idiots who call themselves Christians, but it is purely single minded to use them as a representative for Christianity as a whole. Same goes for atheists. I don't base my opinions about every single atheist on my opinions towards Dawkins.

Gah!

So let me get this straight; you theists demand, whine and complain about not getting "respect" when you ignore evidence, go round & round in circles with logical fallacies, and engage in such baseless assertions, mental acrobats and theological gymnastics enough to make a grown man weep........and yet you feel it justifiable that theists show a lack of respect to a professor of biology at Oxford who firmly but politely debunks supernatural BS.

At what point do I scream bloody murder?!

Right, English is not my strong point. I hardly managed to pass standard level in school. I try my best though, and I think my grammar is at a suitable level. Mods, correct me if I am wrong.

We do not demand respect, but rather expect it, and the same goes for every single person. Dawkins book is rather a withering criticism against every form of religion.

 

[Sureboss]

Respect is earned and is obtained in no other way. I'm sure the nutters of the Westboro Baptist church in the US expect respect from everyone, but they don't get respect from anyone with half a brain cell because they're insane. That's a fairly abrasive example, but it gets the point across.

I have no respect for religion, it's outdated, wrong and serves no purpose in modern civilisation. However, I can respect those who follow whichever sky pixie they picked out of the hat. Whilst Dawkins was very controversial in said book, there is a difference between respecting a person and theism.

A cookie for whoever can spot the irony.

 

[DK]

I have a couple of questions for Young Earth Creationists: what ethnicity (e.g. white, black, Middle Eastern, Asian etc.) were Adam and Eve? If they were members of one particular ethnicity, how did other ethnicities come into existence?

 

[Tic Tach]

I have a couple of questions for Young Earth Creationists: what race were Adam and Eve? If they were members of one particular race, how did other races come into existence?

There are no other "races", there is one race, the human race.

Link.

 

[DK]

There are no other "races", there is one race, the human race.

Good point, I'll go fix it now.

 

[cullenand]

I have a couple of questions for Young Earth Creationists: what ethnicity (e.g. white, black, Middle Eastern, Asian etc.) were Adam and Eve? If they were members of one particular ethnicity, how did other ethnicities come into existence?

Pretty sure it had to do with the regions in which they lived. For exanple, in Africa people are black, and that provides sort of a natural sunscreen.

 

[homeforsummer]

Pretty sure it had to do with the regions in which they lived. For exanple, in Africa people are black, and that provides sort of a natural sunscreen.

Early humans were thought to have originated from Africa and migrated across the globe from there. So all early humans would have been black, pigmentation only disappearing after hundreds of generations in cooler climates.

 

[hampus_dh]

Well the oldest human we have found was in Africa so i think that is why we think we originated from Africa.

Black people do have a sort of sun cream to protect them from the sun, the afro is also a sun protecter keeping sun rays from hitting the skull.

And from what ive read, black people generally have a better immune system then white people.

I've always wondered about the asians and why they have eye lids like that. from what ive heard it's to protect from sand.

 

[TankAss95]

A video I found in response to Dawkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwtCyjrXgOM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Tic Tach]

Pfft. William L Craig has been ripped to shreads many, many times, yet you'll see him a week later churning out the same old lines.

 

[TankAss95]

Pfft. William L Craig has been ripped to shreads many, many times, yet you'll see him a week later churning out the same old lines.

As with Dawkins...

I'm currently reading a book right now called: The Dawkins Delusion. It shows the flawed, withering criticism that Dawkins uses against the existence of God, or the need for religion.

 

[Tic Tach]

As with Dawkins...

I'm currently reading a book right now called: The Dawkins Delusion. It shows the flawed, withering criticism that Dawkins uses against the existence of God, or the need for religion.

Great. Then read this.

 

[TankAss95]

Great. Then read this.

I have not read either book yet, but I just have read Karen Armstrong&rsquo;s &lsquo;The Case for God&rsquo;. Armstrong is a religious historian. She has very sound theological knowledge and I find she speaks from careful self reflection and deliberation. I suspect she has a better grasp on issues of religion and faith (they are different constructs by the way) than either Dawkins or McGrath. She was given an award from TED, and you can read her statement on line, it is a very powerful appeal for compassionate activism.
I would like to add that academic arguments are not likely to influence ordinary people&rsquo;s loyalty to their belief systems or particular denomination, on either side of the debate. Belief and value systems are too intricately tied to cultural identity, civic freedoms, community and aescetic sensibilities, to which atheists are not very attuned. It seems to me that time would be better spent on respectful, peaceful co-existence rather than this violent discourse between the two camps. The tension should be taken down a notch or two . In fact, I would issue a challenge to opposing parties, henceforth to speak respectfully, calmly and peacefully with each other as an example of what both camps claim they envision for the world. I believe that any author writing on sensitive subject matter, has a social responsibilty not to incite reactionary feelings or behaviours, if it can be avoided. Authers should carefully study methods of non violent communication . Authors should consider how their readers are influenced by what they read, and what kind of behaviour and attitudes are being modeled for them, by high status, high profile figures.
In fact I challenge everyone from both sides of the religious debates, henceforth to speak and write in a way that does not mock the other, does not attack the person, has no perjoritive undertones, and which does not incite reactionary anger or distress to the other party. If peaceful dialogue can be accomplished on micro social levels , then it can be accomplised between communities and nations.
- From someone in the comment section

 

[Tic Tach]

I've listened to Karen Armstrong, and while she may indeed have a fairly good grasp on "history", many of the things she says I find quite dim.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm currently reading a book right now called: The Dawkins Delusion. It shows the flawed, withering criticism that Dawkins uses against the existence of God, or the need for religion.

Much as I'm not really a fan of Dawkins, his criticism is no more "flawed" or "withering" than some of the rest of us have been putting forward in this thread.

He makes some genuinely good points, just not necessarily in the best manner. That doesn't make them any less valid.

 

[BobK]

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

But it happens all the time. Codons, genes (and entire chromosomes) occasionally get duplicated and/or imperfectly copied. This can cause, for instance, a gene with an extra codon to generate a slightly different protein. That amounts to added information.

Yes, and isn't that just classed as mutation?

Still it's information being added, which you just claimed doesn't happen in microevolution (I have no idea where you got that notion BTW). And you say that macroevolution doesn't happen, so just where would a mutation fit into the scheme of things?

 

[Exorcet]

Not only that, but info doesn't need to be added, as in longer genome. A simple changing of base pairs would keep the length the same and could possibly result in a helpful mutation.

Also, most mutations aren't harmful. Most do nothing. I think it was niky who posted a "translation" of DNA into words. It was mostly junk. That is DNA, mostly junk. When the junk gets mutated, it often doesn't lead to anything.

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

Micro and macro are the same thing anyway, but adding info is not needed. If a mutation turns some of the "junk DNA" into something useful, it's like a whole bunch of stuff was added into the DNA. Also, there are mutations which add to DNA. When DNA replicates, it can split or reassemble imperfectly. This sometimes results in more/less base pairs.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Micro and macro are the same thing anyway, but adding info is not needed. If a mutation turns some of the "junk DNA" into something useful, it's like a whole bunch of stuff was added into the DNA. Also, there are mutations which add to DNA. When DNA replicates, it can split or reassemble imperfectly. This sometimes results in more/less base pairs.

Then it comes down to math if you have enough time for mutations to find a useful gene sequence. The math isn't good from what we have seen so far. Even if a useful mutation is found it will most likely to be deluded because of sex especially on a grand scale as lab research has shown. This make the odds of soft mutation (not life or death situation) almost impossible to become fixed in a large population. So you need a large population to have any chance find a useful mutation then almost immediately reduced down to a very small population to have any chance to become fixed. This has to be repeated for every single small step.
It's even hard for bacteria antibiotic resistance to become fixed on the grand scale.

 

[homeforsummer]

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

How many times will this have to be explained before you understand it?

Genetic mutations don't add things. The DNA doesn't get added to in order to make changes, it just changes. These changes result in creatures that are slightly different from their ancestors. Some of these slightly different creatures will be better adapted to their surroundings than creatures which didn't have the tiny genetic mutations, and this means their line is more likely to survive than the ones without the changes.

Evolution is not the constant development of a species in order to meet the conditions it lives in. Evolution is the result of some creatures being more suited to the conditions they live in than their competitors. Those which survive breed with others and their offspring will benefit from the tiny mutations of the last generation.

Evolution does not "demand that information be added", merely that some creatures are better adapted for living than others. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. As I mentioned in the other thread, you've clearly been "studying" evolution in the wrong places.

 

[TankAss95]

Then obviously am missing the point. Discard my previous posts on the topic of evolution, I obviously have a distorted view of the theory. I will continue to study the subject.
Please remember through that I am making an effort to understand. Encouragement would be nice instead of discouragement, but if I have got in inaccurate understanding of such things as evolution, then by all means make sure that I get the point, even if it means metaphorically shouting at me.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Then obviously am missing the point. Discard my previous posts on the topic of evolution, I obviously have a distorted view of the theory. I will continue to study the subject.
Please remember through that I am making an effort to understand. Encouragement would be nice instead of discouragement, but if I have got in inaccurate understanding of such things as evolution, then by all means make sure that I get the point, even if it means metaphorically shouting at me.

Don't worry even scientist having trouble understanding evolution. While evolution doesn't require genetic "information" being added yet stuff like eyeballs requires a lot.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...dator-was-giant-shrimp-with-amazing-eyes.html
Complex eyes seems to have pop into existence.

"Paterson says the threat of Anomalocaris would have forced other species, both prey and other predators, to evolve rapidly"

This statement is like saying because of the highway squirrels had to quickly evolve body armor.
What did these creatures do, ask Santa Claus for a set of eyes for Christmas?

 

[TankAss95]

Don't worry even scientist having trouble understanding evolution. While evolution doesn't require genetic "information" being added yet stuff like eyeballs requires a lot.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21251-first-top-predator-was-giant-shrimp-with-amazing-eyes.html
Complex eyes seems to have pop into existence.

This statement is like saying because of the highway squirrels had to quickly evolve body armor.
What did these creatures do, ask Santa Claus for a set of eyes for Christmas?

👍
I particularly don't agree with macro-evolution being taught as a fact in schools, as it did in mine. It should be taught as a 'theory with considerable degrees of uncertainty' or just a 'hypothesis'.
It's the same with religion, they treat all religions as beliefs as they should, but why should evolutionism take a higher priority title over Christianity?
But anyway, I'll have to study further on the subject before I jump to more conclusions. Thanks for the support, I feel like a lone wolf in this whole debate.

 

[BobK]

http://www.newscientist.com/article...dator-was-giant-shrimp-with-amazing-eyes.html
Complex eyes seems to have pop into existence.

It says no such thing.

This statement is like saying because of the highway squirrels had to quickly evolve body armor.
What did these creatures do, ask Santa Claus for a set of eyes for Christmas?

I will continue to study the subject.
Please remember through that I am making an effort to understand. Encouragement would be nice instead of discouragement, but if I have got in inaccurate understanding of such things as evolution, then by all means make sure that I get the point, even if it means metaphorically shouting at me.

Just a suggestion here, but you may wish to find some books and articles on genetic algorithms and artificial life. Then find an A-life simulator or two and play around. It can help a lot in understanding some of the principles of evolution.

Now excuse me while I try to track down a copy of Tierra and play with it a bit myself

 

[SuperShouden]

*raises hand* I've got a question for Evolutionists: Haven't human beings utterly disrupted the evolutionary flow of things? I mean, we've eradicated species, introduced evasive species and done a lot of other things that would ultimately affect evolution. If fact, because of the things we've done to that evolutionary chain, couldn't it be said that we are at our evolutionary peak?

Also...what about homosexuality? How does that fit into evolution? It exists in every known specie on the planet, but how does it contribute to evolution?