Evolution vs. Creation (on Earth) (page 3)

MYOHNSEPH

"The laws are simple, and it is therefore more reasonable to conclude that they happened randomly,"

Say what?! These "laws" govern everything from how one ant knows another one is in trouble to the processes of nuclear fission to processes we haven't begun to understand yet. And they're "simple"?! Well, help me out, if you will, with one ver "simple" example:

When water cools, like almost everything else we know about, it condenses, it gets heavier. In a large body of water, in very cold regions, surface water will sink as it cools, displacing the warmer water, which in turn will cool and sink until the entire body of water is about 4 degrees centegrade. But as the surface water continues to cool below 4 degrees and toward freezing, the process reverses. It begins to expand, it's specific gravity decreases, it gets lighter and as ice forms it floats instead of sinking. Now ain't that interesting! Especially for something that just happened "randomly", an accident! Can you imagine what would happen to far northern lakes and oceans and all the life in them, were it not for that "simple" little quirk of "nature"!

Help me out here, funkyderek. Enlighten me. Help me understand how the laws governing this process is so "simple" and why "it is therefore more reasonable to conclude that they happened randomly".

peacefulpete

While the ord "law" used used often to describe the consistancy of matter and energy it is in reality misleading. Laws are formulated to artificially control behavior when a variety of behavior is possible. It is an anthropomorphism. The constituent parts of a molecule act very consistantly and as a result produce predictable results when combined. When we observe something we did not anticipate we will upon furthur study learn why the parts interacted as they did. The question of "why" the parts do as they do is innane, as they can do nothing other than what they do. And the statement that "if things were not as they are things would not be as they are" is nonsensicle. Yes if things like water acted differently things would be different. We would not be here but something would be. These arguements always presuppose that we are here intentionally when there is only our ego to suggest this.

MYOHNSEPH

"Yes if things like water acted differently things would be different. We would not be here but something would be. These arguements always presuppose that we are here intentionally when there is only our ego to suggest this."

With all due respect, this seems to be the perspective of a forgone conclusion that we are not here intentionally. I can accept that as one possibility, but rather than "these arguements" presupposing that we are here intentionally, to my mind they strongly suggest that to be the case. If we set aside the issue of evolution vs. creation, creator vs. no creator, take religion completely out of the picture and just look objectively at the mechanics at work here and the practical result, it's really difficult for me to see how anyone would conclude that there is no intent or purpose manifest here. I don't think we typically use that kind of rationale in other issues we encounter in life. Other than the presumption that the universe is here purely by accident, what is there, specifically, about any of the countless processes that foster and sustain life that would suggest to an un-indoctrinated mind that it is all random and without intent or purpose?

LittleToe

I still believe in creation, but can't go along with a 6 literal day creation.

On the subject of evolution, I have to ask why primates have 48 chromosomes, and then dropped two, to become human (since we have 46). It seems a strange thing to do. Maybe we were able to drop 2% of our genetic code, to lose the hair, strength and climbing agility.

There are a few conundrums like that, in the genetic world, that make me pause to think...

LucidSky

I have to ask why primates have 48 chromosomes, and then dropped two, to become human

LittleToe, it's not the size of your genetic material, it's how you use it!

LucidSky

I believe in evolution, based on the scientific and historical evidence. And that spontaneous generation could have conceivably formed life -- (and if that's true) it will only be a matter of time before scientists can reproduce nature's experiment. I am also skeptical of the "life came from outer space" scenario. How did that life get started and survive?

"God" keeps getting pushed further back in his involvement in "creation". The question still remains though -- what caused the immense explosion and laws that resulted in the universe and ultimately life? Perhaps "God"? Or perhaps something indeterminate? Either way, I don't believe in the concept of God as described in the Bible. God has never once shown to me or anyone I know conclusive proof that he exists. Could "God" just be something impersonal, with power and intelligence? I don't know, but it would agree with a universe that has no absolute morality.

D wiltshire

Q) Why is the sky blue?

A) Because that's just the way it is.

Q) Why are there laws of nature?

A) Because that's just the way it is.

I think we can say laws of nature just don't come out of nowhere. We know these are not answers that resolve the questions. And to be fair we can ask, Why is there a God? too.

The way I see it to believe or not to believe are not so much based on conclusive proof because both sides have their so called "proof". It is more of a choice, based on how you interpit the evidence, which may be prejudiced by what a person is wanting to believe.

Me personally, I get a measure of comfort in beleiving in God, and I feel such beleif is waranted based on my research and examination the evidence.

funkyderek

On the subject of evolution, I have to ask why primates have 48 chromosomes, and then dropped two, to become human (since we have 46). It seems a strange thing to do. Maybe we were able to drop 2% of our genetic code, to lose the hair, strength and climbing agility

Chromosomes can be different sizes, and the two pairs of chimp chromosomes in question contain almost exactly the same genetic material as the one pair of human chromosomes which appear to be a fusion of the two.

Here's the best article I could find on the subject with a quick search:

http://www.prometheussociety.org/articles/DaCapo.html

funkyderek

And to be fair we can ask, Why is there a God? too.

No we can't. At least not until we've asked the question "Is there a god?" and answered it in the affirmative.

The way I see it to believe or not to believe are not so much based on conclusive proof because both sides have their so called "proof". It is more of a choice, based on how you interpit the evidence, which may be prejudiced by what a person is wanting to believe.

So is it not possible to determine for certain whether something is true or false? Considering how much easier the believer's task is in this debate, it's a bit of a cop-out to blur the issue like that. You may be prejudiced, but I will do my utmost to believe only what the evidence compels me to believe.

Me personally, I get a measure of comfort in beleiving in God, and I feel such beleif is waranted based on my research and examination the evidence.

Is the "comfort" you get from believing in God because there is a god, or just because you believe in one? If you're believing for any reasons other than evidentiary ones, then there is no point in debating the matter.
I notice you "feel" that your belief is warranted. Do you think it's warranted?

truthseeker1

I, along with everyone else on earth, can only guess how life originated. To me, life is a bunch of chemical reactions so to me it could come about spontainously, in the right circumstances. The right chemicals at the right time, slowly became more and more complex over time. Thats the only believable answer to me. Through the billions of years that there was no life on earth, I think it could have happend.

Evolution vs. Creation (on Earth)

Share this