Monkey Men vs. Bible Thumpers (Evolution vs. Creationism)

[Adam!]

Go bananas.

[Adam!]

Let's get this party started. From another thread:

religion is based on faith, which is belief that does not rely on evidence. On the other hand the theory of evolution springs from the scientific method, the most important foundation of which is physical evidence. So the concept of 'evidence' separates the two theories. This is not a small gap. I would argue that this difference make the two theories polar opposites.

We're all working off of the same evidence here. If you give 3 accountants the same box of receipts, you will get 3 different tax returns. From what I've read so far on the subject, it would take a lot more faith for me to believe in darwinian evolution than creation. There are plenty of resources that take the same evidence and disprove evolution and/or help confirm creation.

It sounds like you think there is a logical flaw in the theory of evolution, or that it is a far fetched idea. In that case it would certainly take a leap of faith to believe in it, so from your perspective it makes sense that you see a similarity between religion and evolution. However, I (and most people that I know) have never heard any logically sound argument against Darwinism, so I believe in it without faith. For a lot of people this absence of faith makes evolution the exact opposite of religion.

However, I am interested in hearing your arguments against evolution.

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

So, I'll start with my biggest problem, I don't mean with evolution, but with myself. When I hear something that makes sense to me, I don't always remember it well enough to regurgitate it. I figure, oh, I see and it makes sense, I can keep the point in mind, and forget the details. Forgive me in advance.

This book has some great information in it. The author set out to disprove Christianity originally.
Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846
I heave read some of this, and mean to get back to it soon.

This page has some interesting stuff on it..
http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Christ has a lot of good stuff in it, too. And it's an easy read. Although, it's design isn't to disprove evolution, rather than show how he came to his conclusion of Christ's existence and resurrection. Similar to the other author, his wife became a Christian and he was dissapointed and set out to prove her wrong.

So I don't want to come off like an expert here. I have plenty to learn, it's just that the conclusions I've heard to support creation make more sense to me than the comclusions that support evolution.

[deshead]

When I hear something that makes sense to me, I don't always remember it well enough to regurgitate it. I figure, oh, I see and it makes sense, I can keep the point in mind, and forget the details.

Doesn't that make critical thinking difficult? When someone presents an alternate viewpoint, how do you decide if the evidence they provide outweighs the evidence you accepted for your existing view?

This book has some great information in it. The author set out to disprove Christianity originally.
Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Here's another take on McDowell's evidence.

This page has some interesting stuff on it..
http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

It does. This one does too: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Lee Strobel's book, The Case for Christ has a lot of good stuff in it, too. And it's an easy read.

I had a hard time with it, actually, mostly because of the glaring omissions. Strobel is a good writer, but a sub-par journalist. This page effectively summarizes my difficulties with that book in particular. And here's a site from a guy who has a problem with Strobel's "Case For ..." books in general. The site isn't as well-written as Strobel's books, but it's backed with a lot more fact-checking!

[Kapitano]

http://www.carm.org/evolution.htm

Interesting collection of essays.

"Did Charles Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed?" is a long essay which nowhere mentions that Darwin was a lifelong and fervant christian.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution" argues that, because entropy involves chemical structures simplifying over time (it doesn't), and evolution theory involves species increasing in complexity over time (it doesn't), evolution violates entropy.

"Charles Darwin comments on the human eye" notes that Darwin responds to critics who said highly complex biological stuctures could not come about by 'mere chance'. But it never tells us what Darwin's response was. He summerised the notion that later became known as 'Stratified Equibrium' - that species adaptation occurs as tiny jumps between stable forms. Darwin was a gradualist - probably the only major difference between his theory and modern evolutionism is that modern thinkers use a 'variable speed' model.

[Adam!]

"The Problem of Genetic Improbability" features some staggeringly poor math. Specifically, Ashby Camp states that there is a 1 in 10^40 chance of any beneficial mutations occurring in an <i>e. coli</i> cell.

Let's assume Mr. Camp did his homework and the numbers he uses are in the ballpark of being correct. If you follow his math along you'll notice he calculates the probability of a specific beneficial mutation occurring, instead of the probability of any beneficial mutation occurring. The real probability should by 10^40 / the # of possible beneficial mutations. He notes that beneficial mutations are combinations of 5 genes chosen out of 10,000 genes. That means the number of possible beneficial mutations is some fraction of 5C10,000 (between 1 and 10^18 different possible mutations). This puts the lower-bound on the actual chance of any possible beneficial mutation occuring closer to 1 in 10^22. Given the fact that it took ~3 billion years for life to evolve from 10,000 gene cells into multi-cellular life forms I think this number sounds at least a little more reasonable.

[bz£]

Yeah, except that you found all this stuff on the Internet so it must be true. To my mind a more important question is this: If humans evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? They need to hurry up and get with the program. I mean, the smart monkeys got all humanized, like, decades ago. Also if monkeys ever learn to play soccer will they be allowed to use their tails, or would that be like a hand ball? If it was legal then maybe that would be proof of some genetic advantage to monkeydom. I mean, it's no robot soccer, but I'd pay to see a monkey World Cup.

[thehipcola]

heh..it's tough to have a serious discussion 'round here, isn't it?

[Kapitano]

heh..it's tough to have a serious discussion 'round here, isn't it?

To have serious discussion you need
(a) Serious people who know what they're talking about and
(b) No one else

We have (a). The problem is with (b).

[HeuristicsInc]

This article is pretty interesting.
http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm
Don't know how plausible the theory is, but it's a good read anyway. It does speak to bzl's "question"
-bill

[j$]

The problem is actually with the concept of 'serious discussion'. Generally and specifically here on the songfight forums. And that's a problem I hope we always have.

[Caravan Ray]

If humans evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys

In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned. Heaven sought order, but the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown. The four worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed. Time, and the pure essences of heaven, the moisture of the Earth, the powers of the sun and the moon, all worked upon a certain rock, old as creation, and it became magically fertile. That first egg was named 'Thought'.

Elementary forces caused the egg to hatch; from it then came a stone monkey.

The nature of Monkey was irrepressible!


See - it all fits.

Pesonally though - I'd like to think that I evolved from a bonobo. Pound-for-pound, they have the largest genitalia of any primate.

[j$]

"Let's assume ...

Let's not, and say we did.

j$

[Caravan Ray]

Also if monkeys ever learn to play soccer will they be allowed to use their tails, or would that be like a hand ball? .

Old World monkeys should be able to use their tails if they want to. However, New World monkeys, such as Brazilian spider monkeys would no doubt use their prehensile tails to their unfair advantage if given a chance. New World monkeys should recieve yellow cards for deliberate 'tailing'. Likewise bonobo's would have to receive red cards if they tried to propel the ball towards the oppositions goal with any part of their abnormally large genitalia.

[thehipcola]

The problem is actually with the concept of 'serious discussion'. Generally and specifically here on the songfight forums. And that's a problem I hope we always have.

With 1242 posts, you are doing your part, aren't you?

ok. Since only I can prevent forest fires..I'll stop polluting this otherwise very interesting thread until I read all the stuff that's been referred to and have something intelligent to contribute.

Unless I think of something funny to say...

[j$]

With 1242 posts, you are doing your part, aren't you?

Bwahahaha yep. Never knowingly on-topic!

[Dan Wrekenhaus 2]

Doesn't that make critical thinking difficult? When someone presents an alternate viewpoint, how do you decide if the evidence they provide outweighs the evidence you accepted for your existing view?

um, I didn't call it a strength of mine... quite honestly, for myself, it is the things less measurable that have happened to myself and the people around me that warrant (for myself) my belief. I just find this interesting. And with the quote I originally responded to, I wasn't trying to go this direction. (although, I am not saying it won't be interesting and I'm going to drop off)

Religion is, and always has been, man's attempt to rationalize and explain natural phenomenon he cannot understand.

For myself, if I break this down, the theory of evolution fits this category. For me, I would look into this because I want to know why I am here, how it started, which to me, is a natural phenomenon.

Perhaps if I would have articulated better, I could've saved some time. I understand there are great differences between Christianity, what I would call a religion, and evolution. Taken in the context, however, I don't think I was far off base with my original comment.

At any rate, I will try and read some of this stuff you guys posted soon.

[Adam!]

"Let's assume Mr. Camp did his homework...

Let's not, and say we did.

Yeah yeah, I'm sure you're just being a smart ass, but in case you're also making some statement about assuming things note that you can invalidate Mr. Camp's argument by adopting the same assumptions he does. I'm not sure if his assumptions are right, but I am sure that his conclusion is wrong.

But, if it was entirely a joke... ha.

[c hack]

Okay, here's the thing. Believing in evolution does NOT preclude believing that the world/universe was created by a God. Fossil evidence pretty much proves that humans evolved from australopithicans (4 ft tall humanoids who lived about 4 million years ago). There's however NO fossil evidence to support the idea that humans evolved from apes (i.e. the lineage stops at australopithicans). So if you believe that we evolved from single-celled organisms, your belief is based on no less faith than the idea that the world was dreated by a God -- that is, they're both nifty ideas that seem to make sense.

But even if you do believe that we evolved from single-celled organisms, that STILL doesn't preclude believing in creation. Who's to say that God didn't create the earth and continue creating it, and evolution is simply the way we got created? We can still have Adam and Eve and all that, if you let go of the idea that 7 days is 7 actual days (and come ON, how can a day be a day if there's no earth turning to measure it?). In fact, science points TO creationism -- how else do you explain the big bang?

The only problems arise when people start taking the Bible 100% literally, and claim that the earth has only been around 6,000 years. I have yet to meet someone who doesn't think that's silly.

[erik]

In fact, science points TO creationism -- how else do you explain the big bang?

Just because science doesn't have all the answers regarding the big bang doesn't imply that creationism is correct. Science doesn't work on the process of elimination because the actual answer may be one that no one has thought of yet.

[Leaf]

Yeah. Seven GOD days. Maybe God measures a day by the rotation of the solar system around his pinky.

Or her pinkie.

[c hack]

Yeah. Seven GOD days. Maybe God measures a day by the rotation of the solar system around his pinky.

Or her pinkie.

Nothing against you personally Leaf, but there's another thing that I'm constantly surprised that everyone doesn't think is stupid: the idea the God has a gender. I mean, anyone who thinks God has a cock and balls -- or tits -- is an idiot. So why do people insist on arguing whether he's male or female?