Intellectualism at UCLA

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of California - Los Angeles
101

<p>
[QUOTE]
"again, the origin of life has NOTHING to do with evolution."</p>

<p>I know it doesn't. It was God. So are you saying life did not evolve? Anyways, I believe I've been trashing macroevolution as well.

[/QUOTE]

show me evidence for a god.</p>

<p>evolution is the changing of a species over time. if it's not alive, it's not a species. evolution applies to life AFTER the origin</p>

<p>macroevolution occurs when there is a sudden change in the envorinment. such as a new virus, or the lack of sun from CRAZY ASTEROIDS CRASHING!!!!!
it is also the added product of microevolution. you know, this subject in the debate is just over semantics...</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
"evolution IS a fact. species change over time. you see it in fossil evidence, you see it in bone structures, and even now antibiotics are becoming less effective because bacteria have evolved to become more resistant. the only debate about it is HOW evolution happens. science points toward natural selection."</p>

<p>Uh-huh, yes, and I agree! Microevolution lives! I already addressed that! But show me evidence for macroevolution?

[/QUOTE]

i'm not completely sure what type of evidence you're looking for, but look at above</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
"there are varying degrees of brainwash, so yes. it does matter. and when i said brainwash in schools, it's usually the teachers that do it, not faulty school systems; although history textbooks are known to be too patriotic."</p>

<p>Do you read?</p>

<p>"evolution IS a fact."</p>

<p>I rest my case about the "theory" label. This product of our great education system just proved my point. Thank you!

[/QUOTE]

....
if you don't accept evolution as a fact then you aren't really worth debating with. saying evolution doesn't exist is like saying trees don't actually grow. i've already explained that the theory part is HOW it occurs. and i don't know why you disagree with evolution, but you acknowledge that "microevolution" exists.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
"well first, the division of species is more or less arbitrary. second, what are you talking about? why would the finches change into a completely new species if their beaks were all that needed to change to allow them to survive? and yes, we can see bacteria evolve. but the slower the reproductive rate, the longer it will take for a species to evolve. that's why we haven't seen any noticeable change in mammals, etc. except in fossils."</p>

<p>Not really. We have definitions for species. Fossils??! Show me the transitional fossils. Like I already said, we have nothing but unconnected species, living and extinct. No clear transitional fossils exist. We can see micro evolution, and we've seen it regress. We cannot fairly exptrapolate to macroevolution.

[/QUOTE]

yeah, and our definitions are arbitrary. just like our definitions for justice, love, etc. what is a "clear transitional fossil" to you? and what's the definition of macroevolution that you're using? you need to define your terms if you're not going to use the accepted scientific ones. and you can't just add the word "clear" before transitional fossil and expect me to know exactly how clear you want it to be</p>

<p>and i've noticed that all you've been trying to do is disprove evolution. you're not giving any evidence for the existence of a god and you've ignored my requests for them. and i'll say it again, "science was wrong so religion is right" isn't going to be an acceptable argument.</p>

102

<p>I don't have the time or energy to reprint this stuff for you, so check it out yourself if you really want to learn. I just found these recently. Most of my argments come from books I have read over the summer or past year. Fair</a> Science Committee - Bias in textbooks
Top</a> Evidences for Creation - Arguments for Creationsim
Scientific</a> Evidence against Evolution (concise and short) - Flaws of the THEORY of evolution
Evolution</a> Fossil Record - The fossil record's proof for creationism
Evidence</a> For Creationism</p>

<p>There's so much more. Unless I see some new and compelling questions that are respectful too, I'm gonna take a break from this part of the forum and go back to asking questions about college. Peace! :D</p>

103

<p>
[QUOTE]
This is such bull. Atheists love this, but in reality, you believe in things. Atheism is a belief in the absense of a God, and is based on at least as much FAITH as any other religion. You seem to be arguing pretty hard for a BELIEF!

[/QUOTE]

uhm, i think IM the one that gets to define my OWN position in the argument. atheism is the lack of belief in a god. that's all. there's no claim being made so WE are not the ones that need to supply evidence. we are NOT saying that god does not exist, however. we say that there is not enough evidence to make that claim.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I haven't heard evidence against creation except by saying there is no evidence for it.

[/QUOTE]

and it's a good argument, don't you think? try to disprove the invisible pink unicorn. since it's made to be indisprovable, it must exist hmmmm?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
And that's a delightful little rant you posted from someone else, but it is substance-less. Our bodies are beautifully made for our type of life, and if there are flaws, maybe they're a result of your precious microevolution that changes species after creation. Creation WAS cursed after the fall, so the mocking of the possibility is judgmental. You have faith in evolution and natural selection, I have faith in God. And are you really jealous of an octopus? We and the octopus are made for different things, but that really cracked me up.

[/QUOTE]

that "rant" was for humor purposes only. and um you're really starting to sound irrational. you say the rant is substanceless but then you say god exists because "we're beautifully made"? and science doesn't reuire faith. we go with what the evidence says and that is all. religion requires faith because you believe claims based on NO evidence.</p>

<p>and having HORRIBLE vison, yes, i do envy octopus eyes.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
And yes science and religion go together. Yahooo's Einstein quote on the previous page was perfect. God created science, which is his tool for us to discover more about him and his creation. That's my best guess at how the two go together. It's unfair to find the two mutually exclusive.

[/QUOTE]

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
guess he changed his mind, huh?</p>

<p>to scientifically support a claim, you MUST have evidence FOR the claim. that's why religion cannot coexist with science. it requires faith while science does not. just take a look at yourself: you talk like god existing is a fact. but really, where is the evidence? you havent posted any.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
And I can't give you a rundown of the evidence for creationism. Maybe if we had a chance to have a long one-on-one talk I could go through it, but I'm hardly God's most talented debater and I really don't have the energy or time (we should've started this mid-summer when college wasn't about to start). Go read some frickin' books, please, and broaden your knowledge. I've researched both sides and for this I can make an informed decision. I doubt you've ever read a book by a Christian author on a Christian topic, Mr. muffin. Try Timothy Keller, Dan Story, and/or Lee Strobel. All very much intellectuals in their approach to analyzing the merits or Christianity. I've suffered through Dawkins and Sam Harris. Try going the other way for research and new opinions and evidence.

[/QUOTE]

trust me, i've already debated with plenty of theists. i've heard their arguments and they don't make logical sense.</p>

<p>i can see i'm not going to convince you this way so i'd like to start another approach on INTERNAL inconsistency:</p>

<p>premise:
god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving</p>

<ol>
<li>god decides to create the universe</li>
<li>because he is all knowing he knows exactly what is going to happen in the universe when he decides to make it</li>
<li>because he is all powerful, he can change anything he wanted in the universe</li>
<li>he decided to create a universe where adam and eve sin and where atheists speak the devil</li>
<li>god gets mad and eternally punishes people, etc.</li>
</ol>

<p>questions:
1. why would he get mad at his creations
2. how is eternal damnation in any way "loving"?
3. where's the free will?</p>

104

<p>salty- i read some of the first 3 sources and whoever wrote them must be hella ignorant or just really dumb. show the biologists at UCLA this and they'll laugh</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
questions:
1. why would he get mad at his creations
2. how is eternal damnation in any way "loving"?
3. where's the free will?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In extremely basic terms, God=love. In order for there to be love, there must be free-will, which obviously opens up the possibility for humans to commit evil. Without free-will, love cannot exist. There's also a nice book that addresses many of these type of questions called "Letter's from a Skeptic." </p>

<p>Because there are so many unanswered questions in this world, it is best to keep an open-mind. I definitely believe religion and science are reconcilable.</p>

106

<p>I can't wait until Salty has to take LS1.</p>

107

<p>


</p>

<p>but if God is truly omniscient, he would know who he would damn at the moment creating them. Pretty cruel if you ask me.</p>

108

<p>
[QUOTE]
In extremely basic terms, God=love. In order for there to be love, there must be free-will, which obviously opens up the possibility for humans to commit evil. Without free-will, love cannot exist. There's also a nice book that addresses many of these type of questions called "Letter's from a Skeptic."</p>

<p>Because there are so many unanswered questions in this world, it is best to keep an open-mind. I definitely believe religion and science are reconcilable.

[/QUOTE]

are you saying that god's actions define what love is? so i can send someone to a year of damnation (as opposed to eternal) and it'll be loving?</p>

<p>the rest of this post doesn't address what you quoted from my post. i'm asking why we have free will if everything was already predetermined for us when god created the universe.</p>

<p>of course, there's the obvious answer: assuming the christian god exists as the bible says, we don't. but christians don't want to admit that because it means their whole religion is flawed</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
but if God is truly omniscient, he would know who he would damn at the moment creating them. Pretty cruel if you ask me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, many theologians argue that God chooses to limit his omniscience so that humans can exercise their free-will. But then, was this sacrifice truly worth it?</p>

110

<p>if you limit your omniscience, you're no longer omniscient. the bible never said anything about god being omniscient SOME of the time.</p>

111

<p>Ooh, this thread has attracted me...so if I may just add my two cents:</p>

<p>mr muffin and yahooo bring up the philosophical question of whether or not free will CAN even exist simultaneously with an omnipotent god's omniscience. After all, if all is already known, if one path is set, then how can alternatives exist?</p>

<p>And the question of what "love" is provokes even deeper discussion...what I personally found over the past year during Theory of Knowledge discussions with my friends at Starbucks (I'm a total nerd, in case you haven't realized) is that most issues of this type (philosophical, ethical, theoretical) truly come down to the definitions with which one imbues one's concepts.</p>

<p>So are there any philosophical discussion groups at UCLA? If so, that would be truly exciting!!</p>

112

<p>we've had discussion similar to this in english... for example, some believe that God is not ubiquitous, because he could not have been present for those who suffered during the holocaust</p>

<p>we also learned one view that his omniscience could be seen as him looking at a tapestry. each thread would be the life of a person, and together they represent time from beginning to end, god being separate</p>

<p>about evolution... I can see valid points from both sides of the argument. about evolution going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy), I could see a counterargument that natural selection helps to prevent disorganization. the "all mutations are bad" statement sounds like nonsense</p>

<p>muffin, I think what salty means about micro/macro-evolution is that there are countless examples that we can observe about species changing to better fit their niche, but unfortunately it seems like we haven't witnessed many (any?) real transitions from one species to another</p>

<p>the Miller-Urey experiment.. I don't think biologists are afraid to say that this has been disproved. in ap bio, we watched a video where scientists discussed several different theories about the beginning of life. it was really well done because it really only concluded with "we don't know," and was able to show that a few of the scientists were a bit overconfident about the validity of their own theories, meaning that none of them should be subscribed to blindly</p>

<p>incidentally, my ap bio teacher has religious faith. I think that we learn about evolutionary theories more so we can open our mind to scientific discoveries than trying to indoctrinate us. tying back to palin, I don't think it's a good idea to teach creationism at schools, if not only to expose evolution for the benefit of those who are willing to listen, religious or not</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
I can't wait until Salty has to take LS1.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I cant wait until Salty has to take any class that utilizes the scientific method.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>As a side note, life is unfair.</p>

<p>But you said... </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>I'll assume we all know the scientific method.. there are subtle differences but it is generally like this: <a href="http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/overview_scientific_method2.gif%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/overview_scientific_method2.gif&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, from my understanding of the scientific method, a scientific hypothesis HAS to be testable/disprovable/rejectable, or else it is a bunch of ****. Everyone agree? Yes? Good! If not, then what type of crazy science are you talking about? </p>

<p>So Salty, how does creationism (which you said is NOT disprovable), and science (whose methodology REQUIRES the use of hypotheses that ARE disprovable), mix together? </p>

<p>Maybe it's about time we reform the scientific method. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Muffin's pink unicorn example was classic. I personally would have gone for the fire-breathing purple unicorn. Haha.</p>

114

<p>^moo. I wrote that quote, not salty, making your response negligible. lol</p>

115

<p>Let me edit, there you go. The idea is the same. LOL</p>

116

<p>
[QUOTE]
we've had discussion similar to this in english... for example, some believe that God is not ubiquitous, because he could not have been present for those who suffered during the holocaust</p>

<p>we also learned one view that his omniscience could be seen as him looking at a tapestry. each thread would be the life of a person, and together they represent time from beginning to end, god being separate

[/QUOTE]

both of these are good ideas, ASSUMING GOD EXISTS. it's kinda strange how we have to make excuses for him though. everything would be much simpler if we just took him out of the picture</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
about evolution... I can see valid points from both sides of the argument. about evolution going against the 2nd law of thermodyncamis (increasing entropy), I could see a counterargument that natural selection helps to prevent disorganization. the "all mutations are bad" statement sounds like nonsense

[/QUOTE]

the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will TEND TO increase over time. there are exceptions, life being one of them. life REQUIRES an input of energy, so it's different from other systems. shuffle a deck of cards enough, and it will appear ordered. not like "order" has a rigorous meaning anyways. the 2nd law isn't a valid argument against the formation of life without a god.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
muffin, I think what salty means about micro/macro-evolution is that there are countless examples that we can observe about species changing to better fit their niche, but unfortunately it seems like we haven't witnessed many (any?) real transitions from one species to another

[/QUOTE]

yes we have, in bacteria and viruses. we haven't in the more advanced animals because the reproductive rate is so slow.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
the Miller-Urey experiment.. I don't think biologists are afraid to say that this has been disproved. in ap bio, we watched a video where scientists discussed several different theories about the beginning of life. it was really well done because it really only concluded with "we don't know," and was able to show that a few of the scientists were a bit overconfident in the validity of their own theories, meaning that none of them should be subscribed to blindly

[/QUOTE]

this is cool because science is okay with saying "we don't know". religion isn't. they HAVE to have an answer for everything, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
incidentally, my ap bio teacher has religious faith. I think that we learn about evolutionary theories more so we can open our mind to scientific discoveries than trying to indoctrinate us. tying back to palin, I don't think it's a good idea to teach creationism at schools, if not only to expose evolution for the benefit of those with a more open mind

[/QUOTE]

yeah, there are scientists who've studied organisms in more detail and wondered "how the hell could this have happened??" then they start practicing a religion. i don't call them scientists. it's okay to consider the existence of some deity, but putting your faith in one of them is unscientific.</p>

117

<p>


</p>

<p>Of course it wasn't worth it. Damnation for good, but non believers is not fair at all. And what about unborn infants that have been wiped out due to abortion?; should they be damned?</p>

118

<p>
[quote]
And what about unborn infants that have been wiped out due to abortion?; should they be damned?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is generally believed that unborn infants, handicapped people, and other individuals who do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions are NOT "damned."</p>

119

<p>then what about non believers?</p>

120

<p>yoohoo yahoo... god cannot be omniscient at any time or at that point people stop having free will</p>