Not really very helpful for people who want to know whether it's actually true or not, since most of the evidence against evolution isn't very good either.


I say we just decide the answer to this debate by flipping a coin. It's not like anyone here has a better idea.

(My first sentence was replying to the post before the last one.)

if you believe logically in a god you better believe in quantum randomness and the constant expansion of the universe, it's the only logical explanation of god that's not oversimplified as zaza has attempted to submit

As I said before I will not discuss my beliefs in God. I am going to take a skeptical look at the debate because I find the topic of evolution fascinating. I believe it has a lot of great aspects about it, but it is too flawed for me to believe in it.

The truth is, none of us have studied it enough to know if its feasible.
We believe because everyone tells us we're crazy if we don't and because everyone else believes.
But they're probably right. :-)

Returning to the topic of evolution:

"God evolved from a chicken."

Discuss.

i fail to see the flaws your pointing out, all you've provided is a logical fallacy, fails to impress me

Yes, dave, peer pressure can't be wrong.

Listen to the voices.

Exactly!

but i doubt all scientists are wrong in all seriousness

pm lol, db: the mob mentality of the majority somehow leads me to believe that much madness is divinest sense, as dickenson pointed out. none of us are qualified to have this discussion. we will get nowhere unless one of us is a specialist here

and the theory behind it makes sense... evidence and practicality I'll take their word for it.

Thanks for keeping it real and in perspective of someone who keeps his mind open. I know me and ottovanbis are stubborn in our beliefs and expect the other to budge. We tell each other that the other doesn't have an open mind when neither of us can accept the fact that the other is right.

That was directed to dave bishop.

dave don't go greek on me with the practicality stuff. another logical fallacy, watch it. the majority is clouded by its own ego. big problem here. it doesn't surprise me that you fail to see it though, as you have defined yourself as part of said majority

I'm a statistician (well, actually, an economist), not an evolutionary biologist. So I'm probably not contributing much to this.


I think the egg came before God but after the chicken, because the fact that chickens are obviously the most awesome creatures on the face of the earth, they are better than eggs and God and therefore came first. Eggs came second because they are good, because they create more chickens.

The problem with debating God and evolution in a open forum (and I'm speaking in general terms here) is that people come into the discussion with their minds already made up. The arguments made will honestly never change these convictions, and this lack of revelation on both sides simply infuriates both sides even further. This is even further aggravated by the incompleteness of text-based conversations and the inability to fully articulate with tone and gestures.

In other words, let's all shake hands and make up, 'K?

otto... my point was I don't *know* and can't *logically* prove my position my proving that evolution definitely could happen on the time scale and in the detail it did.
The truth is, neither can you, sorry.
If you want to, study it at university.

Our positions are similar, and are both correct (in regards to evolution), but they are partly based on faith.
If science taught God made everything, you'd no doubt believe it.

I can't change the minds of those who I argue with. I can change the minds of those following the argument. You don't see the change because they aren't open about it. I believe I've proven something here. No one can offer something that can prove that the ear evolved. Hopefully someone took notice.

I hope, but doubt, people will realize their position on this matter is based largely in faith in others, the same as faith in God.
That's my contribution.

On the surface both sides of the debate do look like like faith. For example, I am not a scientist and I have not personally examined the evidence for evolution - with an electron microscope (so to speak). By the same token I have not personally examined the evidence that light travels at 300,000 km per second. I just accept that scientist know what they are talking about. So some have faith in religion and other faith in mainstream science (and some a mixture of both).
But really my faith in science whether that be evolution or the speed of light is not really the same sort of faith as religious belief. I could in theory go to university and study physics and examine the same evidence that has convinced other scientists. There is nothing like this in religion. Religion really does come down to faith. (I am paraphrasing an argument by Richard Dawkins btw).

First your ideal that single cells do not have senses is wrong. They respond to light, tempature, chemicals in their enviroment(taste and smell), vibrations, and touch. They even communicate with each other. All the basics are there allready. The difference is that we have many specialized cells doing only one thing instead of one cell doing it all. As for the ear, many of the steps have been found in the fossil record. For example the bones in the middle ear started as jaw bones of are reptile ancesters. The rest I do not recall in enoff detail. Even if I did no one can give you a detailed step by step account. Rather it is more like a large jigsaw puzzle, you know what the picture is even when pieces are missing.

@spyman, good point.

@warsprite, I think ZaZa meant the first single celled organism didn't have senses and wondered how they evolved.

@dave bishop - how does he know the first single cell organism had no senses. As warsprite points out, current single cell organism do react to light and temperature and a number of other stimuli (vibration, touch, chemicals, etc.)

ZaZa's initial assumption is flawed, therefore his entire premise that evolution couldn't have started because there was no reason for it to (that is the basic point, when you boil it down to it's essence) is flawed.

@ Spyman

"But really my faith in science whether that be evolution or the speed of light is not really the same sort of faith as religious belief. I could in theory go to university and study physics and examine the same evidence that has convinced other scientists. There is nothing like this in religion. Religion really does come down to faith."

I'm curious as to why you might accept Dawkins' argument as plausible. There certainly is a corollation in religion as it is studied in the same vein as any other discipline at the college level. It is also certainly possible to look at the evidence that has convinced others and form an opinion based upon that anecdotal evidence.

Certainly Dawkins would counter that the experinces of individuals are not evidence in the same manner as the data produced in experimentation. He does seem to bounce back and forth from philosopher to scientist when it suits him to do so. Speaking as a scientist he'd be right on a certainl level, but he could also strike down all philosophies and arts with the same stroke. Even in hard sciences experimentation isn't the only research method. Not everything needs to be nor indeed can experimented upon. If a philosophy works for an individual, nobody grills him about the experimental basis for his ideas. So the question is left, why single religion out using an argument that could just as easily be used to question the validity of history and literature? For that matter, if the argument is not convincing when used against those disciplines, (for instance most of us probably see the need to study history and literature) then how could it be any more valid when used against religion?

I thought ZaZa's point was that nature was to complex to be random, and that hearing needed more than one fluke to be useful, unhelpful things would have evolved to make it work.

You're right that we don't know that early life had no senses ... I suppose though I thought that it was believed to be the most basic life possible... just something that could replicate itself.
Your view will depend on where you believe the first life came from.

I just have a question for all of you Big Bang fans out there.

What caused the Big Bang?

Luck:]

Interesting video I've found on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

No "physical" proof here, but he offers his program for your use and gives a visual depiction of his results

God caused the big bang, then sat back to watch the show