Evolution vs. Creationism... (dramatic music)

[Seditious]

that video does a good job of questioning whether or not cells are too complex to evolve completely out of a selective process.

perhaps cells didn't evolve any more than water did. If the chance of 2 oxygen atoms and a hydrogen bonding can happen, then on a big enough scale perhaps all the particles necessary to bond a more complex system is possible, given enough time.

I suggest this because surely if life was designed, the designer had to take such particles itself and guide them intentionally to manufacture this irreducible cell. This means obviously it can be done, so the only question is whether the googolplex of particles on the millions of planets over billions of years would be able to prove the odds---if it was a 1 in 10 billion likelihood then if we were given ten billion tries we could almost expect it to happen... and only from there did 'evolution' begin after cellular reproduction wars for resources began

 

[Uladyne]

And the question remains, how life does life appear from non-living matter?

One interesting thought I've been having lately, which I'm sure to more seasoned students of philosophy is probably a very old idea, is what is it that actually defines life?

I'm not trying to be in any way sarcastic, I'm actually trying to learn from anyone who has perhaps pondered this before.

Both plants and animals are considered living, but they're so different from one another. They both obviously have a time where at one point they are nothing, then grow to something, then at a certain point they stop moving/thinking/breathing/photosynthesizing, whatever, and decay and disperse into other things, none of which are considered alive. But it almost seems like these are all just different states of existence. If the ability to think makes something alive, then surely plants can't be considered living. I or any other human I'm sure would never doubt the fact that we are alive, yet all the atoms that comprise us are non living. If we could pick ourselves apart atom by atom with tweezers, (to borrow loosely from the words of Bill Bryson) we'd be left with nothing but a pile of lifeless matter none of which is living, all of which was once us.

I'm just going to stop here because it feels like I'm getting off topic. Sorry.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's an interesting topic, to be sure. If I weren't so tired right now, I'd post my own thoughts about it.

I say start a thread for it; it might be a little awkward to discuss here.

 

[Imp!]

Wow, Uladyne, that's a pretty good question, fits right in this topic actually. What is it that seperates living from non-living things? I know the biology explanation and requirements, ability to reproduce, and three more that are trapped in my brain somewhere, but since something with life IS made up of non-living atoms, what the hell makes it "living"? This is even more interesting than the question of where we came from.

 

[YsteJammer]

The video is very interesting so far. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Seditious]

One interesting thought I've been having lately, which I'm sure to more seasoned students of philosophy is probably a very old idea, is what is it that actually defines life?

I'm not trying to be in any way sarcastic, I'm actually trying to learn from anyone who has perhaps pondered this before.

yea that's very much still a problem today. What is considered life is almost more of a value judgment than a scientific category.

I or any other human I'm sure would never doubt the fact that we are alive, yet all the atoms that comprise us are non living. If we could pick ourselves apart atom by atom with tweezers, (to borrow loosely from the words of Bill Bryson) we'd be left with nothing but a pile of lifeless matter none of which is living, all of which was once us.

The same question arises in cognitive science---no individual neuron is conscious, yet you are conscious. and if one by one we replaced all your decaying cells with silicon chips and you were conscious for every stage of the process would you be able to live forever?

personally I have no issues with the 'life from non-life' question because life is but a complex system which comes about from simpler systems, all motion is the mother of life. intelligent life merely is the conclusion of dumb life; 'the cosmic imperative' some call it.

 

[Opethian666]

The question whether you accept the theory of evolution or deny it because of a dogmatic belief in creationism, is the same as the question: Do I want an explanation of the diversity of life that can give me insight in this life, or do I want no explanation at all, and just use magic to fill in my gaps of knowledge? Goddidit is not an explanation.

 

[matgvox1342]

excuse me for saying this, but ive always found threads like this to be pointless :-D you can go on debating for ages and ages, and it will never end.

however, i find that intelligent design offers no possibilty of finding evidence at all, and science has a much better chance of finding a solution for it all, because its not as limited as to as an almighty being with everything written down about him taken as law and is not mutable. science is 10^35 more flexible than creationism, and thus is far more likely to provide an answer for life, even though the probability of ever finding such an answer is slim to none.

 

[Έρεβος]

It's proven already that we've evolved, not created

Wut? Proven? Lawl.

Evolution is just about as likely as gravity ... but it has absolutely nothing to do with creationism.

Not that I am a creationist (hahaha), I'm just not so ignorant an atheist to say anything can prove a God/Creator's non-existence. It just doesn't matter.

Anyway ... yawn.

 

[derek]

Remember where the Burden of Proof lies, it's that simple.

 

[Έρεβος]

Remember where the Burden of Proof lies, it's that simple.

Exactly; this is why it matters not (disproving God's existence).

 

[Russell]

It is, as you said, basically a non-issue in the circles we might frequent. However, to some, this is a most pressing matter (believe it or not).

And sadly, these people are often in charge of school boards, ruining swathes of American children's science education. I was lucky enough to grow up and be educated in a country where these pressures are not present, and am now doing a PhD in palaeontology. Had I grown up in Kansas, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the case.

It is an argument which I've always found interesting, on a number of levels; the debate itself, but also the implications it has for the communication of science and interplay between science and religion. The one thing that makes this important, and more than a 'mere' intellectual debate, to me - and that I find absolutely infuriating about the entire situation - is not people's beliefs (to which they are entitled, however short-sighted or incorrect), but the impact they are having on the science education of innocent children. To entertain intelligent design as a genuine alternative theory in science class requires students to lack knowledge of even the fundamental aspects of the scientific method. For students to graduate with this poor understanding is an absolute tragedy, both on a personal level and for society as a whole. The former because students may well have their enthusiasm for science crushed and have problems understanding the answers to (what they might otherwise consider) some of the most interesting questions we can ask, and the latter, because society needs decent scientists for so very many reasons.

To most of us this isn't even a debate, but tragically it nevertheless affects a large number of people's lives, whether they're aware of it or not.

 

[MetalBooger]

I believe in creationism, simply because I believe in God. And it all depends on how you define creationism and evolution. There is certainly evidence to suggest that evolution is occurring as we speak, and for some time now, and therefore since I am rational and have developed critical thought over years of education, I accept this scientific theory. Now, if the scientific community wants to remove God from the equation, and say that evolution is the explanation for the origins of life, I can no longer accept this particular notion. I therefore must, since given no other choice, accept Creationism. Now this is taking it to an extreme, for many people have a mix evolution and creationism, and creationism can vary in definition also. Think of all the many theories, even in that video where we are given evolution, but with a creator, and intelligent design.

This is an impossible question, and although it can be debated, will most likely not change anything, for people of faith, as we see, are still for the vast majority unaffected by the rapid scientific developments, and will always have faith. Atheism is not getting stronger, just more vocal, and I argue about 10-20% of the world’s population since the beginning have always been either agnostic or atheist, as a result questions that would never have been asked are being debated, like this stupid debate over an impossible question, and you cant create a universal law or curriculum and force people to answer this question.

 

[Pudge7]

And sadly, these people are often in charge of school boards, ruining swathes of American children's science education. I was lucky enough to grow up and be educated in a country where these pressures are not present, and am now doing a PhD in palaeontology. Had I grown up in Kansas, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the case.

Unfortunately, I am an American student and they are teching "Intelligent Design," which in the case of our school, is taught that God created the original life that evolved into humans.
It's a good compromise, however, as an aethist(don't kill me for that), I feel that they are forcing me to accept God's existance, in order to keep from offending those who belive in God.

In the way of Evolution, that is obviously the theory I belive since I do not belive in the Creator. However (sorry if this is a bit off topic) I belive that evolution may end with humans, becuase instead of us adapting our bodies to the changing environment, we are adapting with new devices and technology.
Mabye I am just weird though.

 

[Έρεβος]

Unfortunately, I am an American student and they are teching "Intelligent Design," which in the case of our school, is taught that God created the original life that evolved into humans.

Public school? I didn't think they had allowed such bullshit into public schools yet... not that it is truly any worse than what is already taught.

 

[Pudge7]

Yes, I am still in Public school (but not for long!), and Intillegent Design, is what they teach. Our School Board is very religious, so thus all ideas that challenge the existence of God are frowned upon. I belive that they should just let you belive in what you want (evolution yay!)and not force beliefs upon you that you must accept as fact or fail the class. Science, instead of being viewed as a means to gather knowledge and other noble ideas, is simply being viewed as an oppostion to religion. Even though to me, Evolution makes much more sense as Creationism has no way of explaining the existance of the creator (if somebody can explain it, I'll listen), I at least respect the fact that you may not share my beliefs, and will not try and force them upon you.

EDIT: I normally can spell, just not on those new funny laser keyboard thingies...exkuse teh badd speeling

 

[Seditious]

Yes, I am still in Public school (but not for long!), and Intellegent Design, is what they teach. Our School Board is very religous,

Ugh, that precious time could have been used to include spelling in the curriculum.



jk

 

[Pudge7]

or typing school

 

[Έρεβος]

Ugh, that precious time could have been used to include spelling in the curriculum.



jk

 

[Pudge7]

Actually the "precious time" is spent on Intelligent Design theories...

Okay, fine, I suck at spelling.
But this is getting kinda off topic here...