Reverse Pascals Wager

[Entropist]

But there can be Evolution from life's origin with or without a Creator.

Even Augustine didn't take the creation story in Genesis literally. According to him, he suspected that one day we would discover the the inner workings of how life came to be on earth, and it would not involve a six day creation.

Sad when a 5th century theologian is more sophisticated and nuanced than Bible-thumping hicks from Tennessee in the 21st century.

[Captain Scarlet]

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

I know the theory is about natural selection and parts of natural selection I agree with but why do you say that evolution is not part of spontaneous life. I thought you did not believe in creation. I thought it was either creation or evolution.

---

[quote='Godschild' pid='88496' dateline='1282453809']

Abiogenesis has never gotten off the ground and it never will, man's endeavor to recreate what scientist believe happened to bring about the first life form is interference by man(giving a helping hand) and that is not spontaneous anything it is simply interference. As I see it abiogenesis is part of evolution. There are only two sides to this argument creation or abiogenesis/evolution.
I see no need to apologize for stating you're a child, you act like one that will not accept anything but total agreement with your beliefs, here where I live we call that being a brat.

Theres only one gent throwing his toys out the pram on this thread. I'm patient though. Those who resort to petty name calling have lost the argument..and here you go again.

You made the claim you understood evolution and did not accept it. Your stated reason was infact the failure of science (thus far) to assemble a convincing theory on abiogenesis. Clearly not the same thing as evolutionary theory. I have asked you once so I'll ask again (politely as ever), to identify the problems you have with evolutionary theory or whether you infact accept it.

If you are going to come back with.....:
- "have you ever seen a cat giving birth to a dog",
- "no one has seen macro evolution",
- "if evolution is true why are there still chimps"
...you'll need to file them in the same bin as crocoduck and Ray Comforts brillant thesis on the banana.

I don't ask for total agreement with my position, as you will see from other threads. Science is a discipline steeped in humility, the leaders of religions on the other hand are staggeringly arrogant (as are some of their adherents) who claim knowledge they do not have. Like you they do not like being called out on this. And now you have asserted Abiogenesis will fail with no knowledge at all. A scientific endeavour having had around 50 years to make the advances it has with limited funding. Religion has had over 2000 years having near unlimited funds from dubious sources and has totally failed. It is only possible to respect, respectable opinions. Debunking evolutionary theory with vaccuous statements is not respectable.

[Minimalist]

I thought it was either creation or evolution.

Yes, this is what happens when you waste your time reading both answersingenesis and the bible.

[Godscreated]

This may suprise you but I do understand the theory behind evolution I just do not accept it.

That started out so well and then you said this:

There is not one shred of proof that life could have come about without help.

And with that one sentence you show hat you really don't understand the theory of evolution through natural selection or you would have known that that is not what the theory is about.

I know the theory is about natural selection and parts of natural selection I agree with but why do you say that evolution is not part of spontaneous life. I thought you did not believe in creation. I thought it was either creation or evolution.

---

[quote='Godschild' pid='88496' dateline='1282453809']

Abiogenesis has never gotten off the ground and it never will, man's endeavor to recreate what scientist believe happened to bring about the first life form is interference by man(giving a helping hand) and that is not spontaneous anything it is simply interference. As I see it abiogenesis is part of evolution. There are only two sides to this argument creation or abiogenesis/evolution.
I see no need to apologize for stating you're a child, you act like one that will not accept anything but total agreement with your beliefs, here where I live we call that being a brat.

Theres only one gent throwing his toys out the pram on this thread. I'm patient though. Those who resort to petty name calling have lost the argument..and here you go again.

You made the claim you understood evolution and did not accept it. Your stated reason was infact the failure of science (thus far) to assemble a convincing theory on abiogenesis. Clearly not the same thing as evolutionary theory. I have asked you once so I'll ask again (politely as ever), to identify the problems you have with evolutionary theory or whether you infact accept it.

If you are going to come back with.....:
- "have you ever seen a cat giving birth to a dog",
- "no one has seen macro evolution",
- "if evolution is true why are there still chimps"
...you'll need to file them in the same bin as crocoduck and Ray Comforts brillant thesis on the banana.

I don't ask for total agreement with my position, as you will see from other threads. Science is a discipline steeped in humility, the leaders of religions on the other hand are staggeringly arrogant (as are some of their adherents) who claim knowledge they do not have. Like you they do not like being called out on this. And now you have asserted Abiogenesis will fail with no knowledge at all. A scientific endeavour having had around 50 years to make the advances it has with limited funding. Religion has had over 2000 years having near unlimited funds from dubious sources and has totally failed. It is only possible to respect, respectable opinions. Debunking evolutionary theory with vaccuous statements is not respectable.

Explain to me if you will how it's possible for a single cell creature with limited DNA to evolve upward into a different species that has more DNA, how is it possible to gain code. Why did the eye evolve if all the species were getting along without eye sight. How would it be possible to evolve eye sight with it being one of the most complicated systems. I believe the earth's systems are far to complicated for the trillions of trial and error accidents to have occurred in an order to reach today's earth systems before a disastrous occurance in the DNA coding would have at least limited the evolution of earth's systems to something far more primative. What was the need for color before eye sight. Explain if you can the fabulous skin of the cuttlefish. Please do not give answers that make nature sound like it has a brain or a plan because we know that the evolutionary process can only be accidental processes. On and on I could go but we'll start with these simple questions first.
One more thing if you will, the skeletal structure of the hand is seen in many different species and it is quite effective in each one and every versatile in its design, so why is it that evolutionist use this to discount creation. Engineers use the wheel in many different inventions because it can serve a multitude of purposes so why would God not do the same with the skeletal structure of the hand.

[Cego_Colher]

Explain to me if you will how it's possible for a single cell creature with limited DNA to evolve upward into a different species that has more DNA, how is it possible to gain code. Why did the eye evolve if all the species were getting along without eye sight. How would it be possible to evolve eye sight with it being one of the most complicated systems. I believe the earth's systems are far to complicated for the trillions of trial and error accidents to have occurred in an order to reach today's earth systems before a disastrous occurance in the DNA coding would have at least limited the evolution of earth's systems to something far more primative. What was the need for color before eye sight.

DNA - I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but I'll differ to the judgment of someone who knows more science then me.
eyes- just because everything was getting along fine doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. The eye developed in stages, I'd imagine. Dogs can only see in black and white. (they can hear things we can't, though.) bats can't see very well– yes they have other ways of 'seeing' (Also hearing things we can't.). color is just wave forms of light–which is energy. I'm sure you know that the color of things is just how much energy the object reflects and how much it absorbs. We can't see all of the light spectrum that's why we call some of it the "visual spectrum."

[DeistPaladin]

Why do you presume you can set the rules for God's court. God has already set the rules and guess what you can not get in on your own merit it will not stand up to God's rules.

It's interesting how Christians assert that they believe in an absolute and objective standard of morality and then claim that God (or their god Yahweh) operates by a different set of standards that can't be properly understood by humans. This is how they justify the oddities that human sacrifice somehow makes everything better and how a loving god can torture people in Hell forever.

If you believe in an objective and universal standard of morality, than the same rules should apply to Yahweh as any human ruler of a country. So you can see that I'm not "setting the rules for God's court" but am simply applying the same judgment that I would to any court.

One universal standard of moral justice that I think we can agree on is that moral justice demands that the criminal alone must pay the penalty for a crime. An innocent person can't be punished in place of the criminal, even if the innocent person is willing. We would never accept this from any other country. "Jesus took our place on the cross"? Why is it OK for Yahweh to have this standard of justice?

And what about this ancient idea that blood sacrifice makes everything better? If I told you that I worshiped a volcano god and my people once sacrificed a virgin by throwing her into a volcano and that appeased the wrath of the gods, you'd probably say my belief was both ridiculous and barbaric. Even if I didn't participate in the sacrifice ritual, how could I glorify such an act of cruelty? What if instead I believed that 2000 years ago, we took a pure-hearted virgin, beat the crap out of him and nailed him to a cross to appease my god's wrath?

I'm sure you and I could also agree that a leader of a country who punished people for thought-crimes would be immoral, yes? What about when Yahweh does it? According to you, the most important aspect of our character is what our metaphysical beliefs are, at least in Yahweh's eyes. If I fail to believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, Yahweh will torture me forever in Hell. This is eternal torture for thought crimes.

And let's talk about the morality of Hell. The purpose of punishment is to correct bad behavior. Moral punishment is both proportional to the crime and seeks to correct the behavior or at least protect future victims. Hell is the most horrific torture imagined by humans, the kind that would be condemned by international law were it ever to be implemented by any leader of any country. Additionally, since there is no possible parole from Hell, it can't rehabilitate. It's sole purpose is for torture.

Any parent who poured gasoline on a child and burned the child alive would be rightly arrested for child abuse, no matter how naughty the child had been. What about when Yahweh does it?

By the standards that we would evaluate the morality and justice of any world leader or parent, can you honestly say that Yahweh is just?

[leo-rcc]

I know the theory is about natural selection and parts of natural selection I agree with but why do you say that evolution is not part of spontaneous life. I thought you did not believe in creation. I thought it was either creation or evolution.

I believe you that you thought that, but it really isn't. Evolution and it's theory is about the diversity of life, not the origins of life itself. That is also why Darwin named his book "The Origin of Species" and not the origin of life.

As for abiogenisis, I can't comment on it as I am not convinced about it yet. But that does not mean that I therefore just assume what happened. I'm perfectly willing to say I don't know and withhold judgement until evidence comes along no matter where this evidence might lead to. But any evidence given so far for a creator, is nothing more than mere speculations and baseless assertions and not very convincing at that.

Anyway, that has bugger all to do with my atheism anyway.

[Captain Scarlet]

So the general form of your arguments against evolution are Arguments from Incredulity and are an informal logical fallacy, either as:

I can't imagine how X could possibly be false
Therefore, X.

I cannot imagine how X could possibly be true
Therefore, not-X.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way (bioligists). This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Now I'm sorely tempted to leave it there because even if I couldn't respond to your arguments, your arguments would still not go through. Your questions however do not have simple responses, as there are complex processes at work. I totally agree that evolution is a blind bottom up process which is mindless. But to describe it as accidental is misleading in 2 ways. Firstly some genetic mutations (perhaps most) are random, but the process of natural selection means that variation within species with positive survival results are selected for (not by a mind) but by the fact the organisms survive for longer and have better reproductive chances (as will their offspring survive more often). Secondly there are changes to the gene phenotype which permits the organism to adapt to its environment as ity grows, these are not random (see epigenetics). These changes can get passed on to offspring effectively turning stuff on and off. Other similar mechanisms can be simulated in the lab eg we can turn on the reptilian genes dormant in birds by applying chemicals during the development stages "whilst in the egg", these chemicals activate the dormant genes (junk genes present in all living creatures) and the birds will develop teeth and reptilian tails.

Of the points you raise:

DNA gaining code. Not sure what you mean by this, I know you've tried to clarify it, but DNA and for that matter RNA mutates spontaneously (and this has been observed). Over time changes accumulate via flow through and other mutational mechanisms. Are you representing the ID claim that new 'information' cannot make its way onto DNA? If so it will help me, to help you with this argument?
Why and how did the eye evolve. Ah the poster child of ID along with the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum. All very well documented. Rather than me regurgitate it you can look it up; Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller (the latter a practising catholic) has summarised the research in these areas. But there is lots more detailed research out there that back up the findings.
Why was there colour before eyesight. Not sure why this is a problem at all, or in particular for evolutionary theory?
Fabulous cuttlefish skin Random mutation combined with natural selection. Cuttlefish that could camoflage had an evolutionary advantage.
Skeletal structures in the hand. I agree if I/you were the designer and if creationism is true, then I would re-use designs whether the eye or the foot. The major flaw in this argument is that there is only evidence of design by a blind causal process. Because equally if I/you were the designer I /you would not leave useless structures in place that would lead to more suffering than add value (the human breathing and eating holes pass through the same plumbing, meaning people choke to death every day), nor imperfect designs (eg flatfish such as the flounder), nor leave junk genes in place etc.

[downbeatplumb]

Explain to me if you will how it's possible for a single cell creature with limited DNA to evolve upward into a different species that has more DNA, how is it possible to gain code.

Imagine the early earth. a primordial soup of organic matter, amino acids and other complex molecules bouncing around interacting, being stimulated by ultraviolet radiation and intense bursts of lightening, its a dynamic changing environment. Into this the first life was born simple,(probably).
Over time this developed probably a sexually gradually gaining in complexity, but what is certain that eventually this simple life would have become food for later life.

What you see today as a simple single celled creature has had exactly the same time to evolve as you have. its like comparing a spear to a space shuttle and saying their the same thing.

Why did the eye evolve if all the species were getting along without eye sight. How would it be possible to evolve eye sight with it being one of the most complicated systems.

oh for fuck sake read a book that isnt the bible for once, Darwin de-bunked this one two hundred years ago.
Creatures alive today have sensitive spots on their skin that react to light, this imparts an advantage over creatures that cant detect changes in light, (a sudden shadow might mean a predator is ovehead), from this you can evolve to where we are today, TA DA.

I believe the earth's systems are far to complicated for the trillions of trial and error accidents to have occurred in an order to reach today's earth systems before a disastrous occurance in the DNA coding would have at least limited the evolution of earth's systems to something far more primative.

Heres a revelation they dont have to all happen one after another, There are three trillion people on earth today each with differing DNA, theres three trillion evolutionary possibilties right there. does that help your math.(come on you can do it).

What was the need for color before eye sight.

Really you dont know?

Well for a start grass is green because grass needs all the other colours to photosynthesize so it is green as a waste product.

There are a million other reasons why things are the colur they are, READ A FUCKING BOOK.

Explain if you can the fabulous skin of the cuttlefish. Please do not give answers that make nature sound like it has a brain or a plan because we know that the evolutionary process can only be accidental processes. On and on I could go but we'll start with these simple questions first.
One more thing if you will, the skeletal structure of the hand is seen in many different species and it is quite effective in each one and every versatile in its design, so why is it that evolutionist use this to discount creation. Engineers use the wheel in many different inventions because it can serve a multitude of purposes so why would God not do the same with the skeletal structure of the hand.

the evolutionary process is not random chance, when will this finally sink in, Evolution is the process whereby if an adaption imparts some advantage no matter how small in the chance to reproduce then it will be carried forward and possibly amplified over time.

Example: imagine a drought, there is water in a sink well only the elephant with the longest trunks can get the, they survive, shorter trunk elephants die, so long trunked elephants mate with long trunked elephants and the trunks get bigger.

This is why natural disasters sometimes act as a spur to evolution.

As to the skeletal structure in the hand, its that way because it was that way in our distant ancestors.
Its down to our distant ancestors that we are lumbered with have a digestive/breathing tract that is interlinked with often fatal results, (although not detremental enough to have evolved it out)

[Godscreated]

Explain to me if you will how it's possible for a single cell creature with limited DNA to evolve upward into a different species that has more DNA, how is it possible to gain code. Why did the eye evolve if all the species were getting along without eye sight. How would it be possible to evolve eye sight with it being one of the most complicated systems. I believe the earth's systems are far to complicated for the trillions of trial and error accidents to have occurred in an order to reach today's earth systems before a disastrous occurance in the DNA coding would have at least limited the evolution of earth's systems to something far more primative. What was the need for color before eye sight.

DNA - I'm pretty sure it doesn't, but I'll differ to the judgment of someone who knows more science then me.
eyes- just because everything was getting along fine doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. The eye developed in stages, I'd imagine. Dogs can only see in black and white. (they can hear things we can't, though.) bats can't see very well– yes they have other ways of 'seeing' (Also hearing things we can't.). color is just wave forms of light–which is energy. I'm sure you know that the color of things is just how much energy the object reflects and how much it absorbs. We can't see all of the light spectrum that's why we call some of it the "visual spectrum."

No the process would take far to long according to evolutionary theory and the first parts to develope would be discarded before the next step evolved. The sight system is far to complicated to have evolved in segments.