General Ignorance of Science

[Atjan]

You have obviously not bothered to put in a stitch of research.

Claiming the chances of this or that being so unlikely is an old creationist tactic. It's fallacious. I'll leave it up to Douglas Adams to illustrate:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

So you believe there is a fair chance of randomly thrown together elements forming a living creature, however simple?

[Atjan]

Ha ha. That is brilliant Morne. You are raising a future generation of scientists - good on you.

Atjan, while I also have no intention of getting into an argument, allow me to point out that most of the claims you make are completely spurious. For instance, the age of the earth (4.6 billion years) has been settled for some time now and the idea that 'proof is scarce' is simply a mindless mantra repeated ad nauseam by the uninformed. The scientific community is largely agreed on the veracity of evolution. If you are not going to believe science, which proceeds on the basis of research and peer review, what are you going to believe? You clearly do not understand how evolution works and, talking of improbable, is the idea that some supernatural being created everything in six days about 6000 years ago more believable?

I don't believe IN science. To believe in evolution as presented, you believe IN science. Don't get me wrong, I don't say its all nonsense. I'm saying that, looking at it critically brings a few doubts as to how plausible it all is. You're making it about religion, which is a more explosive topic than disussing what weight of vinyl sounds better on Ellies interconnects. One should be careful of eating the theory up as a religious fanatic would dogma.

[bkgengwe]

why do people think that if you don't believe in evolution and big bang theory you automatically believe that the the biblical account is the truth, both views have limitations, no one has answered the question of creation satisfactorily! unfortunately people think if you don't believe the one, then you must believe the other. for example, can someone explain, how and why, if everything came from an amoeba (which is bollocks in any case) did the amoeba evolve into a chicken in one instance and a worm in another and still a bug in another?! why did the amoeba actually end up as a human being with all of its complex respiratory,excretoy,digestive and all other systems, and then into a completely different organism such as a tree, a mushroom and fish and birds, doesn't make sense does it? why did the amoeba evolve into something with an intellect, memory,feeling etc. why did the amoeba evolve into something that needs, social groups, has a need to be loved and to love and to worship, why did the amoeba evolve into something that enjoys music, movies etc? and remember this amoeba is a result of a big accidental explosion. I invite all the big bang theory adherents to an experiment to verify their claim, let's all put them into a small room or big room, expose them to an explosion and lets see what comes from them if they beleieve their theory, surely they should put their money where their mouths is.

[mahleu]

I knew this thread would go this way. I'm sure the OP did too.

Evolution and creation can both have giant holes in them depending on perspective. To stand in one camp and call everyone else stupid is all well and good, until some new evidence appears proving both wrong.

[---------]

So you believe there is a fair chance of randomly thrown together elements forming a living creature, however simple?

Given enough time (billions of years) and the right circumstances (enough energy from the sun, an atmosphere, etc.), absolutely.

I don't believe IN science. To believe in evolution as presented, you believe IN science .... One should be careful of eating the theory up as a religious fanatic would dogma.

There is literally a world of difference between dogma and science. As I said, if you don't believe in science, what other body of knowledge exists that is subject to the same stringent criteria and review?

why do people think that if you don't believe in evolution and big bang theory you automatically believe that the the biblical account is the truth, both views have limitations, no one has answered the question of creation satisfactorily! unfortunately people think if you don't believe the one, then you must believe the other. for example, can someone explain, how and why, if everything came from an amoeba (which is bollocks in any case) did the amoeba evolve into a chicken in one instance and a worm in another and still a bug in another?! why did the amoeba actually end up as a human being with all of its complex respiratory,excretoy,digestive and all other systems, and then into a completely different organism such as a tree, a mushroom and fish and birds, doesn't make sense does it? why did the amoeba evolve into something with an intellect, memory,feeling etc. why did the amoeba evolve into something that needs, social groups, has a need to be loved and to love and to worship, why did the amoeba evolve into something that enjoys music, movies etc? and remember this amoeba is a result of a big accidental explosion. I invite all the big bang theory adherents to an experiment to verify their claim, let's all put them into a small room or big room, expose them to an explosion and lets see what comes from them if they beleieve their theory, surely they should put their money where their mouths is.

Arch, I'm sorry, but you are simply betraying your ignorance. University libraries contain millions of peer-reviewed books and journal articles that answer all the 'doubts' you raised. To repeat, if you do not believe in the prevailing truths of science, what do you base your arguments on? Do you know more about these things than the people whose lives are devoted to study and understand how creatures evolved? Finally, your comments about the Big Bang theory are just silly and do not deserve a response.

[---------]

I knew this thread would go this way. I'm sure the OP did too. Evolution and creation can both have giant holes in them depending on perspective. To stand in one camp and call everyone else stupid is all well and good, until some new evidence appears proving both wrong.

mahleu, you are obviously prescient. I had no intention to stir a debate on evolution. However, like some of the comments above, you completely miss the point. The idea that evolution and creation are equally fallible is not only ridiculous, but also laughable. The one depends on research and proof, while the other simply relies on faith (i.e. belief in the absence of any evidence). Please, can we avoid pointless debates and comment of the causes and consequences of a generalised ignorance of science?

[Steerpike]

One question that has always intrigued me, and I imagine we will have no verification anytime soon:
"Is religion an inevitable consequence of evolution?"

I suspect the answer is 'yes' but I'm rather hoping it's 'only sometimes'.

[KenMasters]

I suspect the answer is 'yes' but I'm rather hoping it's 'only sometimes'.

I think any brain evolved to the point at which it would begin to ponder, with no other significant knowledge base on which to draw, would anthropomorphise the world around it in order to understand it.

[Stefan]

Look up the Miller-Urey Experiment, and Louis Lerman's Bubble theory for apretty plausible explantion to the formation of complex molecules and cells.

Evolution itself is a process of chance. You need to understand the fundamental elements that leads to a species evolution. And then seeing the dramatic changes in such short time frames(10000+ years), it's miniscule compared to odd billion years of earths history - so yes, a carbon and a nitrogen atom meets each other, froms a nucleic acid. Two or more nucleic acid lolecules meet to form RNA, next thing you have is a protein, and then a living cell. Very plausible imho over a few billion years.

[perfectionist]

Look up the Miller-Urey Experiment, and Louis Lerman's Bubble theory for apretty plausible explantion to the formation of complex molecules and cells.

Evolution itself is a process of chance. You need to understand the fundamental elements that leads to a species evolution. And then seeing the dramatic changes in such short time frames(10000+ years), it's miniscule compared to odd billion years of earths history - so yes, a carbon and a nitrogen atom meets each other, froms a nucleic acid. Two or more nucleic acid lolecules meet to form RNA, next thing you have is a protein, and then a living cell. Very plausible imho over a few billion years.

Trouble is it takes longer than the age of the earth according to the scientific community to get to humans from elements.

Plus the upper echelon of the science world are now in agreement that because of the way the human body is "put together" and continues to do things in a factory type of system something has to have created a plan, and when i say plan i mean a blue print.

This doesn't mean i stand in the corner of the bible puncher but it does make one think of many possibilities. For example why did humans have to originate on earth. Humans could have started somewhere else and come here from a dieing planet.

 

[d0dja]

>in such short time frames(10000+ years)

That would be roughly the time frame needed to convince a creationist that they are basically talking out their hat, and until they do a stitch of actual research (instead of spouting the fact-free arguments of the "but it's FAR too complicated to be possible" camp), will continue to do so.

You can't argue fact against ignorance.

So. Oppo. Any good?

[GearSlave]

Wow, I really do feel stupid when such big words are being thrown about.

Nothing further to add to this thread I'm afraid

[Stefan]

Trouble is it takes longer than the age of the earth according to the scientific community to get to humans from elements.

Plus the upper echelon of the science world are now in agreement that because of the way the human body is "put together" and continues to do things in a factory type of system something has to have created a plan, and when i say plan i mean a blue print.

This doesn't mean i stand in the corner of the bible puncher but it does make one think of many possibilities. For example why did humans have to originate on earth. Humans could have started somewhere else and come here from a dieing planet.

 

Do you believe in scientology?
What makes you think humans are really that special. Throughout the animal kingdom, human characteristics are exhibited; emotions/feelings, memory, being able to learn, decide what's right/wrong, communicate etc. We're just more advanced.

[MorneDJ]

Have soo much to add, but my ears are still ringing from the WHOOOOOSSSHHHHH sound as my deadline passed me today ... and I am still busy. Fortunately my definition of today includes 11:59:59.

[Andrew]

as my deadline passed me today

Oh? You have those running away from you as well? I thought I was alone in Deadline Misery.