<p>And Justinian doesn't go to Harvard. I've seen his old posts and he's definitely shooting for way lower schools. Also, on a previous post on this thread I called him 13 and he said something like "Oh well then I must be a genius to be able to discuss like this so just send me to Harvard!" No one actually at Harvard would say that...</p>
<p>I think that Justinian's repeated lying only indicates that he is searching for some credibility through his institution (which is probably actually elementary/middle school), but has only failed.</p>
<p>zogoto- don't forget the various vaccinations people recieve every day from your list! :)
For those who don't know, most every single vaccination you have recieved in your life is different from ones in years past for the same disease as the germs mutate and the medical field needs to compensate accordingly (that's why they are various disease strains now resistant to penicillin and they give you alternatives). The classic example of this is the flu vaccine, which is remade every year based on what the flu is going to look like that year.
Moreover for those who don't "believe" in evolution: why would we be so worried about the avian flu evolving into another strain that could be transmitted between people if evolution didn't occur in the first place?!? Don't get me wrong, you're free to not "believe" in the theory of evolution according to me just as you're free to not "believe" in the theory of gravity as long as you accept your belief as a matter of faith. But if you want to insert your matters of faith into science I'm sorry because it does not work like that, it cannot work like that, and should it ever work like that the entire dicipline would fall apart at the seams.</p>
<p>There's nothing wrong with using evolution to explain how a strain of bacteria can morph into so many different varieties, but there is something wrong if someone declares that humans and other complex life forms "evolved" from dirt - or any element that does not demonstrate the basic characteristics of living creatures - that is, processing energy, storing information, and replicating themselves. Even a simple cell is extremely complex in structure: to build an amino acid you'll need the right type of chemical bonds at the right places to form a protein, and then you'll need to stuck all the proteins together; and then the cell has to programmed to maintain itself: absorb energy, get rid of waste, reproduce. Oh, and back in the days it's not intelligent people with microscopes and probes that are building these cells - the process is conduct entirely by forces of the winds and tides and volcanic eruptions. And to think how much more complex human beings are! There's this joke I heard that goes:
Man: Give me some rocks and dirt and I'll give you life!
God: <em>snatches the rocks away</em> Duuude, those are my rocks. Go get your own.</p>
<p>Besides, evolution is not completely random. Why haven't humans sprouted elephant trunks (it'll be awfully useful for snorkeling), or feathers, or wheels?</p>
<p>Personally, I don't see why evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>Yes, UCLAri. The argument goes like this: I doubt Justinian can help from conceding that evolution occurs on at least some scale (like bacteria to another bacteria, etc.). The problem seems to be from dirt to human. But with the above concession, and the observation that human:simplest early cells::simplest early cells:basic chemicals, then any anti-evolution arguments quickly fall. The only "real" argument left, then, is that of young-earth, which even many Bible-thumpers are afraid to believe in.</p>
<p>"Personally, I don't see why evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive."</p>
<p>There is a principle that is (almost) universally acknowledged in science called Okkam's Razor. (You could get into a huge philosophical debate but that would be another thread)
"In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed"
An illustration of this principle. The concept of a creator as God could easily be replaced with another idea for example, that the universe is merely one large computer program and that there is a donkey in another universe who is arbitrarily pressing keys on the computer to account for the randomness. The reason that this doesn't sound likely is because we are making more assumptions than needed. Creationism assumes that there is a creator (Yes, there is no logical "proof" of a creator, that is not possible as many philosophers have demonstrated) Evolution on the other hand, does not assume anything; rather it is an scientific explanation that can be deduced from basic physical principles. This is what makes evolution so appealling to scientists. Creationism is not the most simple theory - you are inserting an extra axiom and as a rule, scientists do not insert axioms to prove something. (Why don't we just insert an axiom that says that the Riemann Hypothesis is true and leave it at that? Why do we have to actually prove it?)</p>
<p>A second point: I am surprised that nobody brought this up (or perhaps I am too lazy to sift through all of the threads) but there has been the claim that atheists cannot live moral lives (or something to that order). Why is it necessary to have a god to follow the moral guidelines that are set out in the bible? Aren't the concept of a creator and the other parts of the bible mutually exclusive?</p>
<p>There are some other points that I wish to address that have not been cannot be elaborated on here without further thought - the issues of relativism, micro vs macro evolution and more.</p>
<p>Note to self: Elaborate on the probability that the universe would turn out. Anthropic principles, a priori probabilistic statements etc.</p>
<p>The odds of stringing together just 100 amino acid molecules into a protein by chance is equal to a blind man finding a single special grain of sand somewhere in the Sahara Desert thrice over. Or as Sir Frederick Hoyle puts it, the odds are equal to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and accidentally assembling a fully functional Boeing 747. Even if you took all the carbon in the universe, dumped them onto Earth's surface, and allowed it to chemically react in the fastest way possible and left it alone for a billion years, the odds of creating one functional protein is 10 to the 60th power. No matter how long you stare, scream, beg, or swear at that pile of dirt in your yard, it's not going to turn into a living thing.</p>
<p>And don't think you will have an eternity to accomplish that either. According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe is "only" 14 billion years old; the Earth and solar system is about 5 billion years old, and the time gap between when the earth is cool enough to support life and the emergence of life was about 400 million years.</p>
<p>ps)...and I'd prefer not be labeled as a "bible-thumper", a real wonderful nickname though you hardly know my views on other issues.</p>
<p>I'd like someone to answer the question though, lets say I subscribe to the fact that it's all far to complex to have come together randomly, and that there must be some sort of diety, what is there to prove that it's the chistian/jew/islam diety, and not the hindu, or the zoroastrian or Zeus up there?</p>
<p>purrli, I was hoping that someone would bring up that issue.
I think that there is a mistake in reasoning that argument. Richard P. Feynman gave this example. If I go outside and look at a car liscence plate on a car that is driving by, I can think to myself, wow, out of all of millions of cars in the world, what are the odds that I would see that exact licensce plate. Another example. Lets say we have a circle in R2, or the plane of real numbers. Choosing any arbirtrary point in that circle, I can say that the odds of me picking that particular point are 0. (Because there are an infinite of points.) Once I go and pick out any point, I can say that about the point that I had just picked out! Trillions of neutrinos pass through the earth every day. If on passes through my hand, I can say, "Wow, it must be a miracle because out of all the neutrinos in the universe, that one passed through my hand!"
The point: After the fact, probabilistic statements are meaningless.
I can see possible objections to this argument, but to refute them I point out that probability is based on uncertainty, not unknowability. (In case someone happens to think of the argument that I had in mind.)</p>
<p>On a seperate note, arguing for the other side (on a different matter) do not underestimate the power of faith. This concept goes back to our idea of truth. Even mathematics is a constructive activity. (Even the Bourbakists acknowledge this!) Blah blah blah. You get the point.</p>
<p>One can't really argue about religion since religious beliefs are so ingrained into people's psyches that they have a hard time seeing another person's POV. Also, most statements can't be proven true or false if we are arguing about it, and it concerns religion. </p>
<p>Zogoto, the vast majority of Christians do believe in evolution. That is, the evolution of organisms going on today. You'd be hard-pressed to find one who doesn't. Does Justinian really dispute that evolution is currently taking place?</p>
<p>stewie, a rather major tenet of christianity is that we are formed in imago dei. evolution is necessarily not goal-directed. how are those two things compatible?</p>
<p>Good question. There are a couple of explanations for this. First of all, you could take the view of Aquinas. That God, the original mover and designer of events, has set this evolution into motion, that He knows what is going on and has made provisions from the start.</p>
<p>am aware of aquinas' view--but of course, if god has made provisions, evolution becomes goal-directed. and if he has not, we're talking deism and not christianity.</p>
<p>i am not saying we can't have christians with wilful cognitive dissonance. and when i convert, i'll be one of those. i'm just saying that christianity is really not conducive to the teaching of evolution.</p>