Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[leibowde84]

so 100 years worth and still nothing. maybe aliens tried and failed- all of them? perhaps- but that's where the Fermi paradox comes in. Any single civilization with tech. not much greater than ours could have colonized the entire galaxy many times over by now- a galaxy in which Earth would have stuck out as prime vacant real-estate. Yet this apparently never happened in billions of years- ancient alien theories not withstanding of course- but were quickly getting into some far from safe assumptions to explain away the silence.

Alright, this might be the most blatantly false claim I have ever heard. Our technology is not even remotely close to being able to even travel to the planets in our own solar system, much less outside it to travel to other solar systems. Further, we don't know whether travel of this kind will ever be possible, as we are limited by the speed of light.

 

[Yerda]

the survival of an improved species is of course not chance, we agree there!, I'm talking about that improvement which gave it superiority in the first place, design or chance?

Mostly chance.

 

[leibowde84]

the survival of an improved species is of course not chance, we agree there!, I'm talking about that improvement which gave it superiority in the first place, design or chance?

This leads me to believe that you are ignorant of the fact that most genetic mutations are either neutral or harmful to the organism istelf. Rarely are they beneficial. There are always tons of "attempts" before a beneficial one is settled upon.

 

[leibowde84]

It get's into semantics a little, some argue whether Neanderthals are sapiens etc, also as we touched on- gene pools can be altered from mixing as opposed to mutation- but essentially no, I don't think modern humans are chance creations

When you have countless mutations (most neutral) over billions of years, chance seems very likely. What makes you doubt it? I mean, why do we have tailbones, wisdom teeth, and all the other things we no longer use/need? If we were designed as is, we weren't designed very well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Alright, this might be the most blatantly false claim I have ever heard. Our technology is not even remotely close to being able to even travel to the planets in our own solar system, much less outside it to travel to other solar systems. Further, we don't know whether travel of this kind will ever be possible, as we are limited by the speed of light.

You don't think Mars is doable? For extra solar- you could take it up with Hawking for one, he believes it's our destiny to colonize the stars. Though it's true he has made a few blatantly false claims!
We could reach the nearest in decades, pretty daunting, but probably a higher chance of survival than the first Atlantic crossings.

Ultimately I think desire, curiosity, purpose is a better measure of what will happen than wrestling with the ponderous details of technological feasibility. If we were talking just a single life-time ago, about the feasibility of a handheld GPS system for example..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This leads me to believe that you are ignorant of the fact that most genetic mutations are either neutral or harmful to the organism itself. Rarely are they beneficial. There are always tons of "attempts" before a beneficial one is settled upon.

That would be my point exactly. If it were down to random mutations only, natural selection would favor the least harmed, the least damaged version of it's predecessor.- Nothing demands net improvement by this process

 

[leibowde84]

You don't think Mars is doable? For extra solar- you could take it up with Hawking for one, he believes it's our destiny to colonize the stars. Though it's true he has made a few blatantly false claims!
We could reach the nearest in decades, pretty daunting, but probably a higher chance of survival than the first Atlantic crossings.

Ultimately I think desire, curiosity, purpose is a better measure of what will happen than wrestling with the ponderous details of technological feasibility. If we were talking just a single life-time ago, about the feasibility of a handheld GPS system for example..

I agree. Anything is possible. But you are assuming that it is possible and, thus, more advanced beings should have contacted us by now. That is utterly ridiculous. I think that it is far more likely than not that life exists all over the cosmos. Bbut I am not confident that humans will ever make contact. I certainly don't assume that we will ever be able to.

 

[leibowde84]

That would be my point exactly. If it were down to random mutations only, natural selection would favor the least harmed, the least damaged version of it's predecessor.- Nothing demands net improvement by this process

That isn't true. Natural selection describes a process by which beneficial mutations make it more probable that an organism will procreate. Your claim isnt logical, as natural selection doesn't "choose" anything.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When you have countless mutations (most neutral) over billions of years, chance seems very likely. What makes you doubt it? I mean, why do we have tailbones, wisdom teeth, and all the other things we no longer use/need? If we were designed as is, we weren't designed very well.

There's no slam dunk argument as I've said- but one way to look at it;

Natural selection itself goes without saying, your aliens could excavate our auto junk yards, plot the various species on an almost identical tree showing the natural selection of incremental improvements over time. complete with some large gaps, mass extinctions, varying traits according to local environment , sudden explosions of innovation, a few regressions, redundant features, but a general trend towards greater complexity, functionality, and diversity, yes?

We know of course that the changes in design to be selected from here were not random, they were overwhelmingly beneficial by design with a smattering of detrimental ones. totally opposite from evolution as you just said right? Yet this process leads to an almost identical tree of life as we see in the fossil record

Random mutation is the exact mirror of this, random mutations to be selected from are overwhelmingly detrimental with a smattering of improvements as we agree.
What would it look like if the auto co. decided to save on R+D and simply make entirely random changes and let the best be selected.

Natural selection still operates, but since there are far more detrimental changes, the best is now in practice the least damaged. The car with the broken passenger seat warmer is selected over the one with the broken engine. And so on as we lose the radio, windscreen, roof, brakes, but can at least still move- while regressing back to the simplest, homogenous, basic design that answers it's simplest fitness function- mobility- the first basic bicycle at the base of the tree.

Reverse the imbalance of good/bad choices and you reverse the direction of change

must run will respond later- I appreciate the thoughtful conversation

 

[leibowde84]

There's no slam dunk argument as I've said- but one way to look at it;

natural selection itself goes without saying, your aliens could excavate our auto junk yards, plot the various species on an almost identical tree showing the natural selection of incremental improvements over time. complete with some large gaps, mass extinctions, varying traits according to local environment , sudden explosions of innovation, a few regressions, redundant features, but a general trend towards greater complexity, functionality, and diversity, yes?
We know of course that the changes in design to be selected from here were not random, they were overwhelmingly beneficial by design with a smattering of detrimental ones. totally opposite from evolution as you just said yes? Yet this process leads to an almost identical tree of life as we see in the fossil record
Random mutation is the exact mirror of this, random mutations to be selected from are overwhelmingly detrimental with a smattering of improvements as we agree.
What would it look like if the auto co. decided to save on R+D and simply make entirely random changes and let the best be selected.
Natural selection still operates, but since there are far more detrimental changes, the best is now in practice the least damaged. The car with the broken passenger seat warmer is selected over the one with the broken engine. And so on as we lose the radio, windscreen, roof, brakes, but can at least still move- while regressing all the way back to the simplest, homogenous, basic design that answers it's simplest fitness function- mobility- the first basic bicycle at the base of the tree.
For life, the fitness function is replication, no more, no less- that would be the result (at best) of random mutation and natural selection left to it's own devices.

must run will respond later- I appreciate the thoughtful conversation

Let me get this straight. Do you actually believe that most of the mutations were beneficial. Because it is FACT that, from the evidence, the vast majority were either neutral or detrimental. So, can you just verify this assumption you are making before we go on?

 

[David M]

Sticks and stones..
Here's the larger context if it helps

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Dawkins

Oh look, a 19 year old quote made when research into the Cambrian was just starting properly, ask Dawkins if he would say that today when considering all the pre-cambrian fossils found in the intervening years, now we do have ancestors of some of those invertebrate groups, and the research continues.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

That would be my point exactly. If it were down to random mutations only, natural selection would favor the least harmed, the least damaged version of it's predecessor.- Nothing demands net improvement by this process

You're starting to catch on! This is why sharks and crocodiles have changed very little over the past few millennium; they are already perfectly suited for their environment!

 

[gnostic]

You don't think Mars is doable? For extra solar- you could take it up with Hawking for one, he believes it's our destiny to colonize the stars. Though it's true he has made a few blatantly false claims!
We could reach the nearest in decades, pretty daunting, but probably a higher chance of survival than the first Atlantic crossings.

Decades? Seriously?

The nearest star - Proxima Centauri - is a mere 4.24 light years away, which is about 24.4 trillion miles away.

The New Horizons have just recently arrived at Pluto, and that journey took almost 10 years to travel 7.8 billion miles. And that's on unmanned spacecraft.

Try centuries, Guy.

Let's just say that if you were to travel Proxima Centauri, you won't reach it during your lifetime, especially with our current technology of space travel...even if you live to 100.

 

[McBell]

I'm interested in the truth either way.

Yet you keep repeating the same bold faced lie over and over....

Interesting definition of the word "truth" you must have.

 

[McBell]

not without upsetting people!

perhaps then you should stop repeating the same bold faced lies over and over?

 

[SkepticThinker]

incase you missed/forgot the larger quote/context- here it is,

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins

In case you missed what I said, we've been over this before, at least twice.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Crunch the numbers, and don't think the odds look good, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth probable.

What numbers are you smoking? You act as though we live in a small universe. The universe is so unbelievably vast we actually don't know its true size. We have estimations but we currently only know the size of our visible universe. We don't have an uncommon star, we don't have an uncommon planet size or structure. We don't have an uncommon moon. The existence of gas giants such as Saturn aren't uncommon. Nothing about our situation is uncommon. Multiple common things occurred at the same time to have life here. Do you know how many stars are in the Milky way? Between 200 and 400 billion stars. At least 100 billion planets. There are 100 billion galaxies observed so far and more every day. We are a relatively small galaxy. Larger galaxies would actually be more hospital to a planet like ours. It would have a vastly larger hospitable zone for example.

So in the known universe so far, after doing the math it comes out to be an impressive estimated 1 trillion Earth like planets.

 

[Etritonakin]

Until a classroom is able to teach absolute truth -and proof thereof..... should not a classroom explain all ideas that have not absolutely been proven false -thereby imparting an accurate view of the present state of understanding?

(Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.)

Why not reason together? Why not acknowledge that which is known and unknown to each and all -especially given our temporary nature?

If we believe we have limited time -do good to each other accordingly.

If we believe we have infinite time -do good to each other accordingly.

Is there a difference?

Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Mat 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
Mat 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek... for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

[McBell]

Until a classroom is able to teach absolute truth -and proof thereof..... should not a classroom explain all ideas that have not absolutely been proven false -thereby imparting an accurate view of the present state of understanding?

Non-science has no business in a science class.
Period.
So no, creation, being as it is not science, has no business in a science class.

 

[Etritonakin]

Non-science has no business in a science class.
Period.
So no, creation, being as it is not science, has no business in a science class.

So science classes should not have been created by their creators.
I'm trying to understand -please be patient with me.


I actually agree that a science class should teach only science. Science has its place, but reality is far more than the sum of its parts. Science is but one tool -and inadequate alone.