evolution beats creationism 10 to 3 and thats generous

can anyone comment on this?

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2] -william L. rowe



Gratuitous evils exist.
The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.[12]
-paul draper

One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus[9] and may be schematized as follows:

If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
This argument is of the logically valid form modus tollens (denying the consequent). In this case, P is "God exists" and Q is "there is no evil in the world".


and finnaly

Another theory exists as such:

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).[2]

the epicuran paradox i don't remember it word for word but here goes

if there is a god then why does evil persist?
if he is willing but unable to stop evil he is impotient
if he is unwilling but able then he is malevelent
if he is willing and able to stop evil then why does it flourish like so?

Originally posted by edmc^2

By the way this question will undermine the very foundation of the theory of evolution if not answered satisfactorily. So here it is again: could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?


[edit on 16-3-2010 by edmc^2]

currently i do not have any ready answer however i will study up on the subject. then i will share my findings with you i assure you sir i will.
as of a designer? i'm still not convinced and perhaps the name of this thread was an ass statement of me i fully accept that i was a bit angry when i began.you have got me at a dead end metaphorically however metaphorically i can back up and choose another road and still argue for evolutions case. you have bested me on that particular detail and maybe just maybe someone else can answer that for you. i still stand by evolution

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

If evolution were true, there would be NO monkeys or no anything else since everything would be in a constant state of change. Unless the slime got stuck in the "mankind" mode for a few gabillion years?

ugh i already explained this to you on the thread of the same name
but heres an updated explanation

where do you think farm animals come from? do you honestly think they came from? do you think god created them as they are today? no they were found in the wild in other forms by our ancestors, we tamed them and they eventually became what they are today.

we did not come from monkeys themselves, however humans and monkeys share a common ancestor.

dogs came from wolves we know this.
long ago our ancestors observed the wolf, an excellent hunter who's skills rivaled their own. our ancestors tamed the wolf and as the tamed wolves no longer lived the same lifestyle as the wild wolves they changed slowly and became the modern dog.
why are their still wolves? the group that was untamed could still do the things they normally do in the wild it didn't change. they also changed over the years but not as dramatically as there relitives the modern dog. the wolves case is called naturaul selection.
the dogs case is artificial selection as are the farm animals that is how evolution is still the right choice have i made any flaws?

reply to post by ashanu90


but i didn't quite answer your question have i?
why are we still in the same form for so long?
we apear to be but we are not
long ago we had excellent vision
impeccable hearing
extrordinary smell

with the rise of technology we don't need them any more and have replaced them with other things

you don't need excellent vision to type things into a computer screen for 8 to twelve hours a day as many jobs require

you don't really need smell for much of anything except for it's link to taste
we need taste to tell if something is obviously unhealthy (bleach rat poison etc)
we do need smell to warn us of certain dangers like smoke in case of a fire although you can see flames feel heat, there are cases however that fire will be in walls or on a lower level smoke travels through vents though and you can smell it

you don't need great hearing to go to a rock concert in fact it's better in that situation to have bad hearing

we are where we are evolutionally (if thats a word)
because this is all that is required for modern life

sorry for the rant

Originally posted by agentofchaos
reply to post by ashanu90

 

And if we except that it is a fact and everything is random and happens for no reason, what exactly is the point to our exitence on this planet? If people except that evolution is final, where do we go from there? Are we really meant to just strip this planet of all its resources and that all animals are here just to support the top of the food chain and thats it? Atleast with Intelligent design we all have a place in this F-ed up life and that nature/someone has a plan for us and that we can live a balanced life with nature and technology...

The point of existence is to procreate, learn, survive and move on. Eventually creating other universes for use of all life.

At the beginning our species were in small groups, nomads traveling from place to place. We did this because we would destroy the resources of an area and because the earth was so big, we would move on to another location, while learning all we could and then destroy and consume those resources.

After a time, our groups got much larger and it was not as prudent to move around, so we stayed put in one area. From there agriculture and laws had to be created (like the code of hammurabi, which told us not to eat each other!)

We have done this for a long while and we are putting our species in every place that is possible and even some places that are impossible.

It will again be our time, to survive the worse dangers, which is not ourselves. It will be to survive periodic destruction of life on this planet from asteroids or other natural catastrophies.

After this is handled, we will look to start the cycle over again. Start back to our nomadic ways and move in to space and this process will begin again. We will then colonize other places, learn, procreate and survive.

Its a constant cycle, if we survive.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by ghpink]

I see my words and questions got glossed over quickly, anyway...

It seems to me that "Civilization" is what caused the higher population numbers. Civilization was a system create by priests to domesticate all life to their will. People don't like to think they were part of that domestication system and that animals are the only casualty. The beehive continues on.

If someone would be so kind as to trackback a bit and see what I had to say, instead of picking easy arguments to attack.

In that case ashanu90 I'll await your response but in the meantime I would like to ask ATS, it's members specifically champions of evolution if they can provide an intellegent and logical answer to my first question.

Originally posted by ashanu90

Originally posted by edmc^2

By the way this question will undermine the very foundation of the theory of evolution if not answered satisfactorily. So here it is again: could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?


[edit on 16-3-2010 by edmc^2]

currently i do not have any ready answer however i will study up on the subject. then i will share my findings with you i assure you sir i will.
as of a designer? i'm still not convinced and perhaps the name of this thread was an ass statement of me i fully accept that i was a bit angry when i began.you have got me at a dead end metaphorically however metaphorically i can back up and choose another road and still argue for evolutions case. you have bested me on that particular detail and maybe just maybe someone else can answer that for you. i still stand by evolution

In that case ashanu90 I'll await your response but in the meantime I would like to ask ATS, it's members specifically champions of evolution if they can provide an intellegent and logical answer to my first question.

As for your other questions I would like to give my side but just for now I'de like others to give their thoughts first.



[edit on 16-3-2010 by edmc^2]

btw ashanu, thank you for your honest reply, it takes humility to do what you just did and for that I thank you.

(edit: I tried adding it to my post above but somehow wont let me.)

So what if you mix some human dna with another animal to create a hybrid would that be considered creationism?

I personally think both side is true to a certain extent. Evolutionist believe in macroevolution with no proof, which I believe is wrong, there is only microevolution. Also, some creationist believe in creating species out of thin air which is wrong, u can create species if you know how to create DNA, which is very possible, ever heard of cloning.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by amfirst]

Originally posted by ashanu90



if he is willing but unable to stop evil he is impotient

i meant impotent my bad

reply to post by edmc^2


after alot of searching i found some things

Re: Meyer - Signature In The Cell
by OgreMkV » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:02 pm

BTW: For the record

Methane is an organic compound and a precursor molecule. There are several processes which can produce methane abiotically. (For example, CO2 and H2 mixing at high temperatures and pressure (like inside the earth's crust).

Now let's look at the Miller-Urey experiment.
We have water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen gases. Ammonia is observed in interstellar space and so can formed from abiotic process.

One step chemical reactions in Miller-Urey produces hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, acetylene, cyanoacetylene, etc.

Formaldehyde, ammonia, and HCN then react to form amino acids and other organic compounds. Furthermore, water and formaldehyde can react to form various sugars including ribose.

So we see that from 4 abiotic compounds (though one of them is considered organic), you can get a large variety of biomolecules as a result... including the precursor molecules for RNA and proteins.

Proteins have been shown to self replicate.

Is this how life started on Earth? Who knows. However, the science is most convincing that it is possible. I'm not sure how you, a chemist, can deny that this occurs.

Re: Meyer - Signature In The Cell
by 95Theses » Tue Jan 12, 2010 4:15 pm

Methanol is found in deep space too, if that is of any use here at all.

reply to post by ashanu90


Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Meyer - Signature In The Cell
by hotshoe » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:48 pm

95Theses wrote:
Methanol is found in deep space too, if that is of any use here at all.

There are hundreds of different organic chemicals found in interstellar space. Unless we claim that those compounds were synthesized by aliens, they had to have formed abiotically, naturally following the rules of chemistry.

Some of the "organic" compounds observed spectroscopically would not be possible to form in natural conditions on Earth - they would be unstable in anything but interstellar cold. Others are more familiar, including the nucleobase uracil.
hotshoe
Forum Member

Posts: 7692
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:04 amTop
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Meyer - Signature In The Cell
by Calilasseia » Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:23 pm

rainbow wrote:
Newmark wrote:
rainbow wrote:
Newmark wrote:
But given that the earth contains life, and that it existed about a billion years before life appeared on it, it does seem like a reasonable upper limit.
Circular argument.
Exactly how is this circular?
...because it contains the inherent assumption that life arose on Earth as a result of undirected chemical reactions.

Oh, as opposed to the far more massive assumption that magic was needed?

It seems as though you need the baby steps again.

[1] There was a period in the past history of the Earth when life was not present on the planet.

[2] At a later period in the history of the Earth, life appeared upon it. Therefore we know that the planet underwent a transition, from being lifeless, to being a planet harbouring life. The question that remains from this elementary observation is how that life arose.

[3] Since life as we know it is based upon organic chemistry, it makes eminent sense to hypothesise that the origins of life were founded upon the same basis. If you think this is an unreasonable hypothesis, then I'd like to see you state a testable alternative. "Magic man did it" isn't a testable alternative.

[4] Starting with this hypothesis, namely that the origins of life were based upon organic chemistry resembling the organic chemistry that sustains life in the present, it makes sense to start asking more detailed questions with respect to the particular reactions that took place. Once those detailed questions are in place, scientists can perform experiments to determine if the postulated reactions work. The moment that they produce repeatable demonstrations that those reactions work, we have evidence supporting the notion that the origin of life was based upon organic chemistry. No "circular arguments" involved.


rainbow wrote:
Therefore the Earth was big enough, and had enough time for undirected chemical reactions to result in life.

An eminently sensible conclusion from the combination of real world observation and laboratory experiment. The only people who disagree with this are people with a presuppositionalist supernaturalist agenda.


rainbow wrote:
You know the difference do you?
Then please explain whether methane is organic, or whether it is an 'inorganic precursor' - as you put it?

Actually, the emerging consensus view is that the prebiotic atmosphere of the Earth comprised CO2, CO, N2 and H2O, with volcanic inputs of H2S, SO2 and, of course, COS (the latter courtesy of one of those papers I've cited in the past). Plus, an interesting paper from 2005 suggests that H2 was presesnt in much greater quantities than previously thought, which means that the prebiotic atmosphere was considerably more reducing than has been thought of late, and that consequently, the environment facilitated a much more efficient production of various organic compounds from the remaining gaseous atmopsheric constituents than previously thought. The paper in question is:

A Hydrogen-Rich Early Earth Atmosphere by Feng Tian, Owen B. Toon, Alexander A. Pavlov and Hans de Sterck, Science, 308: 1014-1017 (13th May 2005) [Full paper downloadable from here]


Tian et al, 2005 wrote:
We show that the escape of hydrogen from early Earth’s atmosphere likely occurred at rates slower by two orders of magnitude than previously thought. The balance between slow hydrogen escape and volcanic outgassing could have maintained a hydrogen mixing ratio of more than 30%. The production of prebiotic organic compounds in such an atmosphere would have been more efficient than either exogenous delivery or synthesis in hydrothermal systems. The organic soup in the oceans and ponds on early Earth would have been a more favorable place for the origin of life than previously thought.

How interesting.


rainbow wrote:
...also if it's trivially easy, then why make a big deal about it?

Because it means we don't need magic to explain the origin of life?


rainbow wrote:
It would be a BIG DEAL if they hooked up into complex self-replicating systems.
...but they don't.

You merely assert that organic molecules don't do this, given enough time. Tell me, do you think we need magic for this? And if so, how come those 78 scientific papers I've cited previously arrive at a different conclusion, one that is manifestly testable?
Calilasseia
Moderator

Posts: 9856
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:01 pm
Location: Near Liverpool, UK

edmc,
i found these on

forum.richarddawkins.net...

reply to post by ashanu90

do i beleive i have a soul? no i don't

I got to tell ya, although I had to guide the question, to get an answer, you
are a rare one not to have taken the fifth. I at least have one here with that much sac. You don't even no how many of you just will not say that.
However
you've already spoken of the mind as you say being part of the brain,
you can't prove that in anyway , sorry dosn't work. Your admission that
they are two different things. The mind is just a psychiatric term for soul.
I do believe you have a soul. I don't even think you are being truthful to say you don't believe you have a soul.
It's evident to me that a person with as much determination and resolve
to push the possiblity of a creator out the window.
Must be living a life style that requires this, to feel comfrortable with what you are doing. So to avoid being a liar, I thank you for at least answering the question and I leave it at that. In other words the defense rests.
Expecting mankind to believe you and not the Bible is lunacy.

All you really suggest is this great already unbelievable magic show.
As if not already incredible enough now is even more incredible by
your THEORY NOT FACT, and they are different period. Evolution has never been a fact and it never will be . I imagine you will keep trying
though. As you go, I'm sure you will notice that you will have to keep eliminating things from existence. God , your soul, maybe love will be
next, who knows? Sirnex was a good one for that. A magic show with out a magician? Even if he's a spiokey sky man. That's more believable than nothing.
I politely suggest at this point an agenda on your part and
anything you may have thought you stumped me on in any previous threads. It couldn't have been to important as I have no remembrance of it. So don't fool yourself Pal. It already looks really bad for everything you are trying to convey in this thread.

Once again the defense rests.
Have a nice life.
You really ought to give it up though.
You will only succeed at making a fool of yourself as long as people like
me are a part of this world. Try again in a few months.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by ashanu90
edmc,
i found these on

forum.richarddawkins.net...

That was a lot of reading, gave me a headache - throwing words that makes your head spin. Did you read the dawkins forum already? Did you understand what the OP was talking about? If you do, can you brake it down into laymans terms so that everyone can understand it and finally do you believe "this hypothesis, namely... the origins of life " based on chemical reactions.

Couple of things I noticed about "this hypothesis, namely ... the origins of life" from the theory of abiotic process. Clear contradictions and full of assumptions and sadly lacking is the answer to my first Q:

could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?

Rather than answer it created more questions - and I'm afraid far worst than my first Q.

In any case thank you for your research.
Btw, how of much of these "hypothesis" do you believe? All of it or just partial?

On my next post - I'll explain what I mean.

ie evolution is how we came about, then explain the eyeball. The eyeball cannot have evolved from a microorganism.

Uh oh. The perennial debate between scientific evolutionists and religious creationists ignites again. It's going to be an unsolvable debate on both sides as I strongly believe both accounts of existence, are wrong. Middle grounds do exist funnily enough; just most people fall into the aforementioned paradigm or cluster.

A couple of points:

There is no man in the sky with a beard watching over us or intervening (not to say there is not a higher power, or a source. I think there most definitely is). We are not evolving into anything other than, humans.

Typical reactions:

"Oh but the Bible is the word of God!". Word of man. The Bible is most likely talking about extraterrestrials.

"Oh, but speciation has been observed in laboratories!". We are finding 'new' kinds of small species all the time. Not examples of Macroevolution.

Hidden Gems

Science has yet to discover, the ether. The source of all life. Out of body experiences are real. Hyponotherapy is real. Near death experiences are real. Don't wait for conventional science to confirm that before it becomes a reality; they have failed to detect this ether where these experiences occur. None of these compliment, either religion or scientific evolution - the beloved paradigm that'll never be exhausted enough.

Hypnotherapy is a hidden a gem. It is generally regarded as ludicurous which is the typical initial reaction for most people (including myself and just about every hynpotherapist who now practice this full time). However, when a patient begins to speak a foreign language fluently that they have had NO previous knowledge of, you know there is a real phenomenon here. When a skeptic goes along and uncovers a past life and begins to find corroborating documents and pictures of themself in black and white photographs; you know this goes beyond mere coincidence.

Near death experiences are real. When patients report flying out of their bodies and are able to regurgitate word for word, conversations happening in the room next door, the room downstairs, their home a few miles away, while they're clinically dead; you know there is a real phenomenon here. When you look at the hundreds of thousands of atheists, religious creationists, agnostics who've had NDE's and all come out with the same worldview; you know this goes beyond mere coincidence.

So I beg members of the ATS community to sharpen their tools and look into these alternative options which are increasingly picking up pace in the collective consciousness of humanity. They all corroborate with each other perfectly, and make much more sense than religion or evolution. What do they all have in common? Mainstream science has yet to explain them. Scientists are not standing on the podium of evolution because evolution does not happen. Use your own sound judgement, and begin to think how illogical it is that we all profess to know the truth. You're more than likely be wrong at the very least once.

The Evolutionist Vs Creationist debate will forever go round and round and round in circles.

PS. Ex atheist; Darwin worshipping evolutionist; God debunking 'rationalist'.






[edit on 17-3-2010 by IrnBruFiend]

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by ashanu90

 

you've already spoken of the mind as you say being part of the brain,
you can't prove that in anyway , sorry dosn't work. Your admission that
they are two different things.


All you really suggest is this great already unbelievable magic show.


[edit on 17-3-2010 by randyvs]

i don't see why you find the mind being the soul. makes no sense to me

magic show? i think not

regardless of what you say about the earth and sky debate i'm still waiting

you really don't seem very pleasant. sorry to annoy you so much. why can't you be more like edmc? he's pleasant

also you will find atheists in coal mines and foxholes and what not go to evilbible.com and read about it if you please

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by ashanu90
edmc,
i found these on

forum.richarddawkins.net...

That was a lot of reading, gave me a headache - throwing words that makes your head spin. Did you read the dawkins forum already? Did you understand what the OP was talking about? If you do, can you brake it down into laymans terms so that everyone can understand it and finally do you believe "this hypothesis, namely... the origins of life " based on chemical reactions.

Couple of things I noticed about "this hypothesis, namely ... the origins of life" from the theory of abiotic process. Clear contradictions and full of assumptions and sadly lacking is the answer to my first Q:

could undirected chemical reactions relying on mere chance create life?

Rather than answer it created more questions - and I'm afraid far worst than my first Q.

In any case thank you for your research.
Btw, how of much of these "hypothesis" do you believe? All of it or just partial?

On my next post - I'll explain what I mean.

i'm sorry i didn't mean for you to read the entire forum just those parts of the arguements. i only read the parts i posted
i beleive it means that molecules are the building blocks of everything and that in some cases that they can mix together and create different molecules and those will mix with others make more mix with others on and on until we eventually have your basic amino acids and that's how we get life

i will do more research on the subject and get back to you (it will probably take a long time)

have you ever considered being on the debates for ats?

thank you for posting