There is a whole section about Evolution.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life

 

I haven't been here long, but I'm sure these questions have been asked more than once, and I'm sure you'll find the answers if you take a moment to look.

If they are going to be redundant with the same questions shall we be redundant with the same responses? A little searching of the board they would find the same questions answered over and over... 

That we don't have a full answer to everything does not disprove a theory related not to the origin of the universe or even to the origin of life, but only to the origin of man.

The beautiful difference between science and religion is that we embrace unknowns. Scientists have hypothetical answers to some questions and have gotten as far as developing solid theories to others, but the not yet known does not disprove what we do know anymore than it proves that there is some god.

God has always been what people have used to fill in the unknown. Before we found out about the sperm and the egg, god put the baby there. The Church was sure the sun revolved around the earth. We've answered many, many questions and God just hasn't shown up in the research. As we work happily to keep answering the questions can we please stop being hindered by the answers that were made up back in the dark ages?

Were did the first single celled organism come from? I don't know. Where did your god come from? I bet my question gets answered first.

 

1) Others have said it already, but I'll say it again: Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, or "whre everything came from". Period.

2) Christians are the ones who believe "something came from nothing". Atheists understand that the base matter of the universe has always existed. 

[/i][/b]just going off of what you all have said, i know. my point is this. if everything here evolves, what did it evolve from? what seems to me is that everyone wants to say that humans adapted and evolved, but what was it that they evolved from? Im not talking about the neaderthal or any other pre-homosapien. my question stems from further back.

lets take all species of all creatures, both current, and extinct. Where did they come from? Did they evolve from one another, or where they seperate from each other in the first place? This is the crucial link that seperates faith from science. The concept of things coming from virtually nothing is disproved by science itself. the law of conservation of matter explains that well. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This is why scientific theories are so hard to believe. this is supposed to be a law. Fact that cannot be refuted by a test. My faith tells me that the supernatural occured and can answer all of these questions. for those who want to criticize that christians answer all the unknowns with God, thats because that is the answer. I dont have to have some person tell me that God did it for me to believe it, so why do you have to have science tell you the reverse?

I know that faith is this complex thing that involves us stepping out of our little boxes into a world of unknown and trust, but why is it that i, as a christian, an criticized for it? How many atheists [b][i]TRUELY give up their ideals about everything and take a moment to give God a chance? I know, some will say " I was a christian and God never showed himself." That means nothing to me. i have been a christian for over 4 years now and i have seen the things in my life that God has ordained, but have only really had that in depth touch from God a few times. Its not faith thats the problem, its the fear in our own heart. If you think im preaching, im not. i want you to understand that even christians who believe dont always feel God right there beside them, but they still believe.

And i really dont appreciate the comment about me entering high school. Believe me, high school, cake walk. my questions are only based on the lack of a definative answer. Science is proven wrong daily. Science is not reliable. An unchanging faith will always be there.

I said all that to ask these questions. i dont want to see trivial responses to these. i want in depth and thought out answers. Sarcasm doesnt make me want to listen to what is said, so if you are serious on this debate, please answer seriously.

Do you understand what happens if your wrong?

Wouldnt you rather live your life believing in a God, who may not be real, and not have to worry about the consequences, then live without belief and find out after its too late?

What keeps you from believing? from trying to understand?

 The first thing to exist has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution explains how life developed once it arose, the study of cosmology is the realm in which you would learn about the existence of matter.  The law of conservation of matter shows us that the most likely scenario is that matter is eternal and has always existed, it didn't come from anywhere, it has existed forever, and will always exist.

 No, evolution doesn't claim there was a need for anything. 

 

You came from your parents, so how come your parents still exist?  (yes, this is how poor your question was)

That would be true IF science says things, but it doesn't. It's a tool we use, WE say things, the evidence we have says things.

 

So I take it your going to get off the computer, dump your medicine, avoid getting shots for viruses, and live in the forest.

Well if you have a rational mind you can always admit, "I was wrong" and there is not doctrine to keep you from doing this. Where as I think many theists fear the words "I was Wrong", because doctrine does not allow it. 

 

OK so what you are really asking is how life began? Sorry for such a long off topic explanation of evolution but that is what the ape question sounded like. So where did life begin? How did life begin? I have no clue. Maybe life on earth arrived on stellar winds as bacterial spores. Maybe it started as self-replicating molecules. I don’t know, we as a species don’t know.

However, this also sounds like you are once again just unclear on how evolution works. All species both current and extinct came from other species. Sometimes the original species sticks around sometimes it goes extinct. In the “first place” there was one species. It diversified to fit various niches as they appeared.

Here is what I think separates religious folk from not so religious folk. I have no clue how life began I am OK with that. I don’t need to know. Not knowing how it began does not lead me to believe that there must have been a creator. Just because we don’t know what exactly happed millions of years ago does not prove the existence of a creator (nor does it disprove) all it proves is that we don’t know.

Is this like when it was not known what the cause of disease was so God was the answer but now we know what the cause of disease is so God isn’t the answer? Or is it just what we don’t know now that God is the answer? I don’t mean to mock, I just want clarification.

I think that is the point. I need evidence to believe an unlikely statement, I required evidence before I was convinced that evolution was plausible. You don’t need evidence, you have faith (blind faith). I do not have the capacity for blind faith.
When I was Christian I did not expect to feel god’s presence constantly, I just wanted to feel it once, something to base my faith on. I do not have “fear in my own heart” I do not fear punishment from a jealous (I mean loving) God. I do not fear death (though I am sure you won’t believe me) mostly because I do not believe there is a hell, so I don’t have much of a chance of ending up there. I do not fear for unconverted loved ones, friends, or strangers.
What keeps me from believing? A total lack of evidence of any kind. Nothing keeps me from trying to understand. I am constantly trying to understand. Not succeeding very well, once again though, that is OK.
I am willing to give you a serious well though out in depth answer to any question you want to ask. I must warn you though, as a mere human I may not know the answer. Ask away. If you could repost the questions you are referring to I would appreciate it. I think in all the debate, argument, and misunderstanding your questions may have become a bit clouded. If you could restate them I am willing and eager to give it a shot. (No sarcasm meant, honestly)

There is really only one reply to this, evolution has nothing to do with need. Natural selection is not about need. There is no need.

Evolution is not a being that sits that and thinks “we need a stronger creature”. Evolution is not even about strength. It is about filling niches. Evolution has nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with populations. It is about survival and reproduction.

Natural selection is a mechanism by which populations evolve but it is not the only mechanism. Genetic drift is another mechanism by which populations evolve. Natural selection is the mechanism that most people have heard of and most people misunderstand.

The way in which your questions are put make it impossible to answer in terms of evolution because your questions don’t have anything to do with evolution. If you would like to learn about the exact mechanisms by which “eating” is theorized to have evolved then it would be best to put this question to an evolutionary biologist. I do not know enough about bacteria to answer this question, maybe some one else on this forum does or if you want I can point you towards a forum where there is some one.

 

 Two shots for Pascal's Wager?  I've only been here about a week and I can already see that I'm going to be taking a lot of shots. 

Not really. I know why, and how. I've thought about it a lot over the years. The trick is to get you to realize how absurd it is.

It's not a thought, it's a fact. Evolution exists, and we see it happen.

I don't think we came from nothing either.

You make the assumption that there was a first thing to exist. I do not. Therefore your question is irrelevant.

Again you make assumptions within your questions that are not based on fact. Why do you assume there is a need to exist? Or that there wasn't one and there now is?

There are a number of theories as to how life could have formed from chemical interactions. None of them have anything to do with evolution however. That's a seperate scientific theory.

Actually, humans evolved from a family that split a long time ago. We all went off on our different evolutionary tracts at the time. The species we evolved from no longer exists.

How do you know they aren't?

Your question is flawed because it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not "based soley on just the need to create the strongest possible creature, and to rid the gene pool of the weakest". That is a very deep misunderstanding you have there.

The word 'need' implies a mind that needs. There is no 'need' for evolution, it just happens when the conditions are right. The thing that starts evolution is replication. It is like asking 'what caused the need for fire?' Nothing caused the need, because there is no 'need' for fire. What causes fire is a temperature high enough to cause an oxidation reaction. There is no 'need' for such a temperature, it just happens sometimes. 

Of those three, the one that came first was the ability to consume food. From that, once food became more scarce, the desire for food evolved. Also from that, once the organism gained a dependence on the food, the 'need' for the food evolved.

Actually, you are displaying more lack of knowledge in evolution when you say this. Sophisticated systems with several interconnected parts often develop simultaneously over millions of years. First part A evolves a little bit, then part B evolves a bit to 'catch up with' A, then part C evolves a bit. Then the cycle starts over. At each stage, the entire system gets a tiny bit better with every step. At the end of this process, the entire system is interlocked such that neither a fully formed A, nor B, nor C could have evolved purely on its own. Thankfully, A and B can support the evolution of C; B and C can support A; and A and C can support B.

It's like building a log house. First you put two logs down (east-west), then lay two logs on top of them perpendicular (north-south), then two more on top again (E-W), then two more (N-S), until you have four interconnected walls. Now, none of the walls can stand without the other three walls, but all four of the walls were built together in steps, so they all support each other as the house 'evolves'. 

and i have a comment on the explainations i see about the fact that evolution can create these great creatures abilities. I want you to look into a book called the case for a creator, written by lee strobel, a former life long atheist. In it he learns of a scientist who compares microbiology to that of a generic everyday mouse trap. another scientist shows him where this comparison fails to meet the microbiology standards.
Here are the steps Michael Behe used to describe this failure:

1. Darwin said in his own Origins of Species "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed in which could not have possibly been formed by numerous successivem modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
2. Therefore, the complex molecular mocromachines that make up cells must have been developed a bit at a time, small step by small step. For instance, using the example of the mousetrap, maybe first there was just the platform, which evolved over time into a platform with a hammer, then to a platform with a hammer and a spring, and so on.
3. But Darwin's theory of natural selection, or "survival of the fittes," says that systems that work the best are the ones that survive and develope further. And a mousetrap that is just a flat wooden platform doesnt work. So according to natural selection, it wouldnt develope any further; it would become extinct.
4. Like the mouse trap, molecular machines are irreducibly complex. Without all their partsin the right places, they do not work. Since natural selection chooses systems that are already working, any incomplete molecular machines would bite the evolutionary dust, not develope bit by bit. Oh, and one more thing: These micromachines are too complex for all their parts to come together all at once by random process.

Behe asks the question: "If creation of a simple device like this requires intelligent design, then we have to ask, 'What about the finely tuned machines of the cellular world?' If evolution can't adequately explain them, then scientists should be free to consider other alternitives."

And thats not from me. Check it out for yourselves.

For further looking:
Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemmical Challenge to Evolution. New York; Touchstone, 1996

1) Evolution does not require a first thing. Your error is in thinking that it does. So you have created a problem that does not exist.

2) You are wrong about evolution again. Evolution does not require any kind of need. It is entirely a matter of the automatic side-effects of competition between self-replicating entities. Obviously....those that self-replicate better force out those that don't. After billions of years you have humans and the ebola virus and trichinosis.

3) Humans ARE apes, are STILL apes. We did not come from them. Think of it this way. If you came from your parents, why do your parents still exist? Though the analogy is not entirely precise, it should help you to see why your question is ridiculous.

I often say that one of the few things that atheists and theists should be able to agree on is that there has never been nothing. You can't get something from nothing, as the old saying goes.

The irony is that creationism appears to claim that god magically created something from nothing. In this way, most 'creationists' disagree with themselves (which is precisely what contradiction means). They both accept and deny at the same time that something can come from nothing.

Now my question to you is: Why couldn't there be nothing?

As far as I can tell, there could have been nothing just as well as there could have been something. It just so happens that there isn't nothing.

Has it occured to you that there is no reason that there is something rather than nothing?

"It aint whywhywhy. It aint whywhywhy. It just is." - Van Morrison

As others have very clearly pointed out you have no concept of what evolutionary theory really observes. The tired arguements have been responded to on this board over and over, covered in great detail all over the internet by well established and well respected scientists. Documented in many, many well researched books and various findings and studies have been peer reviewed over and over again. Evolution is a fact and is observable. Hovind, Behe and Strobel misrepresent the basic premises of the theory in hopes of planting the seeds of doubt in laymen who do not care enough to delve deeper into the science.

The arguements you are putting forth are easily refuted, and have been refuted in this very thread.

The question is, why does the theory of evolution seem to shake the foundation of the christian faith? Do you feel less special knowing all life on this planet came from a common ancestor? Will your life be any different knowing that evolutionary theory is a fact? 

Your bible professes special creation, FROM DIRT!! How can evolution make you feel any less special than that?

you say that you want to look into the scientific proof of how everything got here. i have given scientific and mathematical proof. what more would you ask for? Infinity cannot happen, therefore things have a begining, for those who want something that began, The Earth. Then, scientists have disbunked many of the same arguements i see here. The best arguements i have heard so far on this site would be from deludedgod. Im interested in his forum and im reading, not seeing it come together, but reading. I did my research and everyone here wants to give the same tired answers to my same tired questions, until i challenge it with math and your very own science. If you really want to prove me wrong, prove infinity to be a value. Look at my last postings and read the facts that lay before you. Einstien led the charge, the greatest mind in history began the disproof. I would encourage you to check my math. Go back and see if changes. Check better into your theories about evolution. Many scientists believe that Darwin's evolutionary tree is upside down!!! That in itself is enough proof. You want to look into something, check that.

You criticize but don't want to try and teach. I am open minded enough to read and at least look at it from your point. I dont care if anyone on here was a christian, because for you to claim that you were a christian, you would have truely repented. That is the only way to be a christian. It is said, "For I am the way the truth and the life. Noone comes through the father except through me." Christ is the only way. You want to claim ex-Christian, i dont buy it. Based on what i have read, thats not christianity. If you cant sit down and piece together an argurment that your own science doesnt refute, what does that tell you? Im sorry. i may believe in a God, but at least i know that my beginings come from somewhere other than luck.

Too many scientists will tell you that we are in the perfect spot for creation. They will also tell you that the chances of life just happening are ridiculous. Too many factors have to come together at the same time in this perfectly ideal environment. they cant even find a place for amino acids to have come together. And that spot would have to have enough nitrogen, which just cant be found. Again, look at your own facts.

Chemist Henry F. Schaefer, James Tour of Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice U., Fred Figworth- the professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale, The director of the center for Computational Quantom Chemistry all doubt evolution. These are major names for those of you who want me to give them. Check them out for yourselves. And there are even more. Im sorry, but nothing in this thread has impressed me.

You say we ask all the same questions, and wonder why. Ill tell you why, the answers dont answer the questions. Try something new.

Says who? On what proof? Wouldn’t god be infinite? Unborn and undying.


I will try to teach. I will try not to criticize.

Your previous post:

This in itself isn’t proof, just a quote. I am assuming this is just to lead into #2.

Again I am assuming this is still the lead in not actual proof. I would also like to say that a mousetrap is a poor analogy. I personally don’t like analogies it is too easy to point out their inevitable problems and ignore the bigger issue. So forgive me if I don’t address your analogy, I will leave that to someone else.

You have only proven so far that a mouse trap can’t evolve. I will agree with that.


Here, I am assuming, is the evidence you are speaking of.
Irreducible complexity:
I will try to teach you why this is a poor argument. If I am not convincing I would also ask that you visit this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
It provides full explanations of why this argument is not valid, including links to peer-reviewed biochemical papers. Much better credentials than I can offer.
One common example used by ID proponents is the bacterial flagella. It is also a good example for showing one of the weaknesses of the IR argument. The IR argument assumes that a reduced version of the final structure must be used for the same function. This is not the case. For instance, precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.



Links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
These links cover the scientific arguments well. If you don’t understand part, point it out, we will try to help clarify.
I will just say that even if something is highly improbable that does not make it impossible. Chances against winning the lottery are high, but some one usually does. It is very unlikely to be hit by lightning but people do.



I can only say that far more scientists support evolution. Perhaps, most scientists are wrong, which I doubt, but it could be. Even if evolution were false, I would still ask you to give positive evidence for a creator. Disproving a scientific theory does nothing more than disproving a scientific theory, it does not prove god exists and it most especially does not prove a specific religion’s god exists. Can we agree on that? Even if you prove the existence of a creator, I would still need evidence that your version of god is correct. You would need to prove to me that god has the attributes you say he does. So I would like to ask you for proof. No need to prove a creator exists, just show me prove that he is who you think he is.

Or if you prefer you can make a list of the attributes god has. I (and others I am sure) will let you know why I don’t agree, or why I don’t think it is possible. Then you can respond and show us your proof. Sound good?

I have tried to avoid any personal attacks, I have tried to explain to you why I don’t believe what you do. Let me know if there are points that need expansion.

Is there a single scientist who would say we aren't in the perfect spot for creation?  Obviously we are, because we're here talking about it.  Take a moment to also observe we're also in the perfect spot for earthquakes, cancer, birth defects, and getting wiped out by an occasional asteroid, among other things.  

How so?  If you roll a pair of dice 50 billion times and get double  sixes once, do you consider that one instance ridiculous?  In case the analogy isn't clear:  double sixes -> life on earth; the other 49,999,999 dice rolls -> all the other planets in the galaxy and beyond, where presumably life has not emerged.

There are countless stars and planets throughout the universe.  Is it really that astounding that the factors should come together  at least once?  Each time you roll the dice, your chances of getting double sixes improve. 

There are way to many things to say here. Im sick of this. I just want answers. Now all that i am hearing is whinning. Vastet, im sorry, but your wrong. Infinity has no value and therefor cannot be real. Ask any mathmetician. I did. its an imaginary number. It cannot happen in real life. And the comment about God being infinite, in a way. If God is real, he would transcend time. Like the bible says, to God a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day. He cannot be measured in time. And so my math, at the very least stays strong. And all the comments made to try and belittle me, they mean nothing. Like i said in the very beginning of this thread, im not like anyone else on this site. I dont care if you bash me, and i care less if you just want to say things to make me mad. Im human, ill get mad, but i let it go. this thread has now gotten to the point where proof is getting scarce and all im seeing is a pathetic attempt to belittle someone. if this gets deleted, oh well, its the truth.

If you want to disprove me, at the very least, DISPROVE MY MATH!!!!! That is a type of proof you want, concrete facts. Vastet, you made the comment "I don't have to. Infinity is possible. That's all that matters." Well if thats the case:
I dont have to prove God exists, its possible, thats all that matters. Not the same, why???? Where is the proof? Now its my turn. I slowly got to the point im at in this thread for a reason. just to see what would happen when there was an arguement that i have yet to see any answer for.

So dont make comments you cant or wont back. im sick of the petty crap that is being posted and expected to be taken as proof. Just saying its true doesnt make it so.

And about all the different denominations of christianity, they still believe christ is the son of God and that he was resurrected. Now thats the truth.

We are surrounded by them on a daily basis.  How many numbers are there between zero and one?  Well, I can keep throwing zeroes behind that decimal point, and there's nothing stopping me from doing so.  The only solution to the question is that there are an infinite number of numbers between any two numbers.

I saw your question earlier about getting rid of all the even numbers in a marble bag with infinite marbles, but the problem is that something that is infinite is not tangible.  You can't have a bag with infinite marbles because as I take them out of the bag and start counting, I will always have a finite number.  The number can be astronomically high, but it is FINITE.

So infinities do not exist when dealing with tangible things, such as the number of grains of sand on a beach, or the number of atoms in a mole of air.  However, when things are taken from the concrete to the abstract, infinities abound.

When you approach the speed of light, your mass will rise until it becomes infinite.  When you fire a laser beam into space, until it collides with something, it will continue travelling in one direction for an infinite amount of time and travel an infinite distance.

Someone mentioned the Euclidean example of walking around and around a circle; a circle has a set circumference, but that doesn't mean it can't be traversed ad infinitum.

 I don't discuss the rest of what you pondered, because I'll leave that to the people who know more about biology, but I figured I'd let you know about infinities.

Good luck with your deconversion.  I can see you starting to understand that some of what you hold faith in might be for the birds (or bats, depending on how closely you read your Bible).

...from the mind of Family Guy.

Typical theist. Dodge and dodge and run away.

No you aren't.

No I'm not.

What is value? We can empirically illustrate the existance of infinity. I did so in my previous post. You sir, are a bald faced liar.

Any mathemetician worth his weight in water would tell you that infinity has no place in practical mathematics. Not one would tell you that it doesn't exist at all. Every one will point to pi as proof of infinity.

Proven lie.

Fictional claptrap. You might make a good dungeons and dragons author. Making up things as you go along, or spouting pre-made up things taught to you by the church or other spokesmen. You can't prove there's any such thing as "transcending time". You theists make so many fantastic ideas to try and prove god, it'd be amusing if it weren't for the fact you actually believe it.

I've destroyed it twice now. Care to go for a third?

I call it like it is. If you lie, I'll call you a liar. If you whine about it, I'll point and laugh at your patheticness. I don't care if you care or not, but you invited ridicule by posting ridiculous assertions without evidence. Reap what you sow.

I did already. Infinity exists.

Invalid attempt, though I applaud the try for it's originality. [/sarcasm]
You said infinity doesn't have a value and therefore can't exist, I proved a value isn't required for it to exist. Infinity is a concept, not a number. All you've done with your rebuttal is prove that the concept of god exists, of which we well know. That doesn't mean god exists.

Repeat those words to yourself over and over until they sink in.

Maybe it is. That's quite the generalization you've made there. But it's not one I care about, so it's not one I'll bother to argue. Especially since it doesn't prove anything. The Jews and Moslems believe jesus existed too. How do you know they aren't right? The Jews existed ages before the Christians did. But the name is mentioned nowhere in Wicca. Nowhere in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or any other religion predating christianity. Nor is there mention of the Christian god.

If you're gonna start with a comment I made, how about actually using a comment I made?

I said matter is most likely eternal not "the world." 

If you don't agree with me then what created your god?

 

The Universe had a beginning, Hawking and I agree.  Matter is eternal, Hawkins and I agree.

 

The theory of inherent dishonest in theism states that a theist must be ignorant and or dishonest when defending a god.  Which was it for you?  What led you to mischaracterize my position in your strawman and then tear it down?  Was it ignorance of my position or dishonesty?

 

I could ask why “irrational” questions from people who appear to be unwilling to listen to your arguments take precedence over “rational” questions?

I will start up a new thread with specific questions I have about various attributes Christians believe god has and why. Hopefully you will be able to find time to answer. If others butt in with sidetracks, or attacks, feel free to ignore them. Though to be fair if any theist post sidtracks or attacks I will ignore them as well.

New Thread 

 I can't see how it would blow your mind, do you believe God has existed eternally?  If so, why is it so hard to understand?