The Idea of Existence

[ArtDrake]

That sentence was not grammatically correct, and "defute" isn't a word. Try again.

In your second attempt at English, please consider not taking quotes out of context, expecially dependent clauses that merely state recieved information.

[Deagonx]

How about, instead of dwelling on my typos, you make valid points? I mean honestly if I had a dollar for every time you commented on a misspelling I could buy Apple.

[ArtDrake]

They aren't typos, they're errors that make what you think you're saying into nonsense that is indecipherable. What if you choose to, instead of dwelling on my insistence for correctness, use valid sentences?

If I were to have a dollar for every time you've misplaced a comma in a way that screws up the meaning of the sentence it was in, I would have about $10.00.

[Deagonx]

defute-refute


It was a typo.

[ArtDrake]

GCK: [Ah, so my religion refutes my points by itself?]

DUCK: No, but I simply had recieved, in past disagreements, the impression that you had the tendency to ignore certain undeniable pieces of evidence that clearly support the opposing case, which I (possibly mistakenly) attribute to your religious background, as these tend, especially in Christians, to result in strong conviction in the religion and associated dogma without factual or empirical evidence.

This later instills the tendency to ignore further knowledge or, if you will, evidence that supports an alternate viewpoint. This is evidenced in arguments between creationists and cdesign proponentsists* on one side, and with scientists of a relevant field who support the theory of evolution on the other. Throughout history, the Church has chosen to ignore clear evidence of viewpoints that challenge a literal interpretation of the Bible, including the cases of Gallileo and Copernicus, and the entire field of carbon dating.

I further insist that the Big Bang is, at the moment, unprovable, but highly likely; unfortunately, it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, and as a result, Christians will ignore data and collective knowledge established by the scientific method in order to preserve their anachronistic inferences gained from the "Good Book."

*It's an inside joke, not a typo.

[Rob]

I have noticed that once people make up their mind about something, they tend to hold on to that idea no matter what the evidence says. This applies to Christians, but I also think it applies to all other people. Christians will hold on to their beliefs because they are right in their own eyes. Evolution, as you should know, is far from a perfect theory with no flaws or loose ends in it, regardless of what people say. Therefore, since there are flaws or loose ends, Christians can exploit these flaws, and use them to disprove evolution in their own minds. Once people believe something fully in their mind, it becomes right. Any evidence to the contrary often gets ignored. This is a people thing, not necessarily a Christian thing. I doubt loose ends of evolution are highly discussed by scientists or in text books. Why should they be? To the scientist, evolution seems like the only rational explanation for our existence, and if there are any gaps or loose ends or flaws, they are probably based on a lack of human knowledge of the subject related to the gap or loose end or flaw. To a Christian, however, those flaws or loose ends or gaps are very important. Christians do not necessarily ignore clear evidence, they ignore evidence that to them is not clear. To a scientist who believes evolution and holds it as a truth, however, many things can be seen as proof for evolution. If you believe that the Big Bang is unprovable, why do you expect Christians to embrace it. At the very least, they hold their own faith to be unprovable, so why would you ask them to exchange their belief and values for something that is, at the most, no more provable.

[ArtDrake]

I don't believe that all people hold dearly to ideas that have been evidenced to be untrue. I only wait for new evidence to be brought to light, or seek to bring it to light myself, and only then change my mind.

If you would care to highlight a few of the flaws in the theory of evolution, I would be much obliged.

I can also say that proponents of scientific theories  do often discuss and argue over the implications and the details, along with major premises of the thinking behind them. Evolution has been throroughly debated and discussed, and was subjected to harsh review when first proposed. The flaws that there may be are not widely discoursed upon in textbooks for the reason that textbooks are to inform the reader of what is known, and not, for the most part, of what remains unknown.

Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.

I also would like to say the at the present time, the Big Bang cannot be proven, but that it is open to proof. The Christian mythology surrounding origin is not open to scientific proof or disproof, and thus is both unscientific and most likely only a story. I embrace what could be proven, and that for which there is quite a bit of evidence displaying.

Oh, and I don't expect Christians to give up their values; I don't even expect them to give up their interpretation of the Bible. I only wish they would the latter.

[Deagonx]

I don't believe that all people hold dearly to ideas that have been evidenced to be untrue. I only wait for new evidence to be brought to light, or seek to bring it to light myself, and only then change my mind.

If you would care to highlight a few of the flaws in the theory of evolution, I would be much obliged.

I can also say that proponents of scientific theories  do often discuss and argue over the implications and the details, along with major premises of the thinking behind them. Evolution has been throroughly debated and discussed, and was subjected to harsh review when first proposed. The flaws that there may be are not widely discoursed upon in textbooks for the reason that textbooks are to inform the reader of what is known, and not, for the most part, of what remains unknown.

Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.

I also would like to say the at the present time, the Big Bang cannot be proven, but that it is open to proof. The Christian mythology surrounding origin is not open to scientific proof or disproof, and thus is both unscientific and most likely only a story. I embrace what could be proven, and that for which there is quite a bit of evidence displaying.

Oh, and I don't expect Christians to give up their values; I don't even expect them to give up their interpretation of the Bible. I only wish they would the latter.

Well, riddle me this duck. What are the odds that so many species and organisms would evolve on such an advanced level? Even more so, what are the odds the food chain would go together so well? I find it entirely silly that you think all this happened by chance.

Why are we the only species that has a language? Or is intelligent enough to go farther than some of the most basic life processes?

[ArtDrake]

The odds are astronomical. They're astronomically great.

The current theory on the origin of life is that it was preceded by self-replicating molecules. One definition of life is that it must be capable of reproduction, and these fitted that parameter. The first was RNA, which promptly created copies of itself all around the world, and occasionally the RNA surrounded itself with other molecules that protected it, and which could also replicate along with the RNA. These became proto-viri.

The viri further developed survival measures by random bonding and replication errors over hundreds of millions of years. That means sextillions of generations of proto-viri, all over the world, each of which might have had some minute error that might prove beneficial and cause it to reproduce more effectively than other proto-viri. These developed sturdier protein jackets, and even a metabolic system, which oxidized sugars, turning them into energy for use by the now proto-cell.

Energy for use opened up many possibilities, including flagella, propelling the proto-cells to new locations quickly, at several body-lengths per second. No longer did these basic almost-life forms have to rely on ocean currents for movement. Organelles, smaller at first, but then becoming larger in size through the generations through what was now mutation, served vital roles in these early cells. Plasmids detailing the genetic instructions for parts of the cells were exchanged, and new mutations were quickly spread throughout the population. I think a biology teacher told you the rest. And yes, the odds of, in warm, acidic water, full of organic molecules, ribonucleic acid forming is quite likely.

The food chain only occurred because predators reproduced and adapted in a way that they created new niches. Prey developed first, only checked by resources and disease, but then predators, small at first, evolved to hunt different sorts of prey; unlocking a new, bigger food source was a hugely beneficial trait that was quickly passed on. However, hunting the new prey might take the adapted strain of the existing predator elsewhere, and separate the groups. Such separation leads to species differenciation.

This, by the way, is a great opportunity to explain why monkeys don't spontaneously turn into people. Homonids filled a niche that required intellect and the ability to make tools, along with other tasks which need higher thinking. They filled this niche very well. If modern-day chimpanzees were to attempt to outcompete humans in our niche, they would have to spontaneously "turn into humans," something that is biologically impossible, or about as likely as Game Crazy Kid listening to reason, logic, and science.

The niche change was, instead, something gradual and over millions of years. We outcompete monkeys in our niche so hopelessly that they couldn't hope to adapt so as to barge in on what humans do so well. In was only evolutionarily recently (about 300 years or so) that conservational efforts were enacted so as to prevent humans from killing anything attempting to steal livestock or kill in the same area we attempted to. We shoot wolves, trap tigers, fight bears in gladiator arenas because we can, and subject any predator worth its salt to a hunt so fierce it has nearly wiped out a great number of the species.

Nothing can happen evolutionarily, on a large scale, within the time frame of 300 years. It would be like me asking you to put together as much of a puzzle that could be assembled correctly in 1000 different ways out of billions of possibilities as you could in five seconds. Five hours is different. Five years is different.

I might add, at this point, that I find it equally, if not more so, as ridiculous as you find my views that you believe, and hold dear the belief with all your little heart, that God slapped us all (us all being all life) down onto the face of a barren rock in six days, despite the fact that two of those days were measured against a rotation of a planet that didn't even exist yet.

We're the only species that's intelligent enough to hold a conversation (oh, and parrots), but other species have other methods of communication, such as clicks, screeches, thumps, and odors.  These, given time, and given a lack of an omnipotent predator having gained control of the planet (that's us), might evolve into complete language.

Finally, I ask you this, in response to your last question:

Do you think purring, fighting, whining, building, climbing, digging, emitting a sound of greater than 200 decibels, running 75 miles per hour, coaxing termites out of a hole with a stick, and singing are nothing more than basic life processes? I certainly hope not.

[bugfartboy]

Ducky, you claim that

Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.

But, have you even looked? Might I provide a magically magical magic link to a site that actually does present one of your allegedly non-existent alternative theories?

Simply click here to see something that doesn't exist, as you say.

[Deagonx]

Ducky, you claim that

Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.

But, have you even looked? Might I provide a magically magical magic link to a site that actually does present one of your allegedly non-existent alternative theories?

Simply click here to see something that doesn't exist, as you say.

Bug, you just won the game.

[Deagonx]

Many of the issues in the world are caused by a lack of empathy such as yours.

Empathy: The ability to understand and share the feelings of another.


I understand the feelings of another. But why should I be grieving over something like, for example, China's earthquake? There is absolutely nothing I can do about it. It DOESNT concern me.

That, and almost half a million people die every day. Growing up in this era, the shock factor is quite low.

[ArtDrake]

Evolution is currently the only scientific theory that explains the origin of species. There have been no alternatives proposed.

Yep. I looked. I looked all over that page, and I didn't find any alternative scientific theory.

What I did find was a cartoon-illustrated mockery of science that states that scientists are finding evolution because they aren't looking for God. Scientist cannot arrive at conclusions based on existing assumptions that have no basis in fact, and as a result, they cannot arrive at conclusions based on framing evidence around the pre-existing conclusions that have already been made by a holy book.

Instead, they objectively take evidence and fit a theory around it, and it just so happens that what they find fits the theory of evolution.

Oh, and I'll tell you a secret. I think they might not be looking to propose an alternative scientific theory at all, but rather are trying to debase science and prove that someone went to the trouble of creating platypi, among other things.

[bugfartboy]

You didn't read it all, then. Inside is a very simple theory. You just have to read it.

Might I also add that it addressed some of the flaws of evolution.

[Duskling]

(I' am a neutral person in this debate, and I may or may not participate in this debate in the future on either side's behalf)

You didn't read it all, then. Inside is a very simple theory. You just have to read it.

Might I also add that it addressed some of the flaws of evolution.

Buggy, I think Ducky would like for you to present this theory instead of just telling him that there is one. That, at least I believe, would make things much simpler.