Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

[ParkBoyz]

@ parkboyz ....

So now if more then a couple people agree on something, they are cheerleaders?

I guess the same can be said about you and everyone that agrees that creationism is even remotely close to being a reaslistic possibility. All you simpley need to do is provide some real answers or reasons as to why i should even consider creationism.

This isn't going to work with me unless you're agnostic, if you're an atheist, please provide some "real answers" or reasons as to why I should even consider that there isn't a God. Please show some evidence for this universal negative. The burden of proof is on both of us, not me and I am not trying to convert you.
http://www.blogorithm.com/archives/2005/07/proving_a_unive.php

Also, the cheerleaders are the ones who make the offshoot comments of praise for one and condemnation of another with out even putting forward any detailed arguments addressing what has been covered over the last couple of pages themselves. That is sickening and only shows the level of bias and immaturity on these forums.

 

[GTS]

what the fuck is your point? find one.

why are u so angry all the time brah? Is the earth living? Do living things die?

 

[ParkBoyz]

why are u so angry all the time brah? Is the earth living? Do living things die?

Don't worry, many atheists are just wretched human beings with no social life. Social outcasts who rebel against the status quo and are frustrated because nobody believes them. Not speaking on Csmoke directly but I won't rule out the possibility that this applies to him..

 

[2-0-Sixx]

Please show some evidence against this universal negative. The burden of proof is on both of us, not me and I am not trying to convert you.
http://www.blogorithm.com/archives/2005/07/proving_a_unive.php

The burden of proof lies upon the person making a claim. Atheism simply means the lack of belief in a god or gods. It isn't up to the Atheist to disprove God since he isn't the one making the claim in the first place.

If I were to tell you at I have a purple flying midget in my closet that kills stray dogs at night, it isn't up to you to disprove my claim, no it would be up to me to prove to you, or at least offer some sort of supporting evidence if I wanted to be taken seriously.

Don't worry, many atheists are just wretched human beings with no social life.

So are many theists:

 

[Cmoke]

Don't worry, many atheists are just wretched human beings with no social life. Social outcasts who rebel against the status quo and are frustrated because nobody believes them

You know theres a point where i start to really feel sympathetic towards people like you, i mean i do, i feel really bad. You are going to live your life under false pretences, believing that a supernatural supreme being will save you when your misguided life is over. When really the only thing that comforts you and your supposed "meaning" to life, is your imagination. You sit here and generalize a catagory of people, so im returning the favor, only i use logic, common sense, and reasoning, And you rely on faith, false hope, and your vivid imagination to create some kind of persona to comfort you and guide you. I live my life to accomplish things i want to, and to make myself and others around me happy. I dont step carefully because im scared of living in sin, i live my life to the fullest and make my own decisions, you live a life of fear, and termoil, a life full worrying about going to hell and sinning, and for what? For something you can't prove even exists. And its not just you.....no one can. Why? Why have blind faith and live your life under standards of something you can't touch, hear, smell, taste, or see....? And thats not even the problem here, you can do whatever you want, the thing is you run your mouth around here spitting names out at people and telling them that their POV is wrong. Then you are straight forward questioned on providing proof of your claims....and you ask me to disprove something you claim exists...its like 2-0 said....thats not my job to disprove your claims....you are the one saying people are wrong, rediculous, and you go as far to generalize people simply because they dont follow your religous tirade...If you cant explain yourself, then dont run your mouth about others, force feeding your rediculous theories into this conversation if you cant back it up.

 

[ParkBoyz]

Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution


http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
June 5, 2007


Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”

Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication. The first section lists featured articles of various types which are of higher interest to readers, which is then followed by a complete list of the articles. The featured articles are therefore listed twice on this page (once in the featured articles section and again below in the complete list).
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

^Bibliography included in link..

 

[ThaG]

This isn't going to work with me unless you're agnostic, if you're an atheist, please provide some "real answers" or reasons as to why I should even consider that there isn't a God. Please show some evidence against this universal negative. The burden of proof is on both of us, not me and I am not trying to convert you.
http://www.blogorithm.com/archives/2005/07/proving_a_unive.php

Also, the cheerleaders are the ones who make the offshoot comments of praise for one and condemnation of another with out even putting forward any detailed arguments addressing what has been covered over the last couple of pages themselves. That is sickening and only shows the level of bias and immaturity on these forums.

The burden of proof is entirely on you, don't try to use Creationists Favourite Tactic #1 and shift the burden of proof.

You formulate the hypothesis "God exists". I don't formulate any hypothesis other than pointing out the evidence for the existence of God is zero. The burden of proof is entirely on you, moreover it is a fundamental principle that the affirmative position should be proved not the opposite.

The biggest evidence opposing the idea of a supreme God is how the idea was developed historically. I will ignore YEC because this is too easy to refute. The fact is that there were no people on his Earth capable of writing a book until very recently. There is absolutely no historical or factual evidence that the bible was ever written by anyone else than some ignorant desert nomads. Same with every other religious text. The idea of a "supreme God" is older than the Bible but, curiously, all those Gods have been rejected long ago, and the idea can be easily traced to prehistorical people trying to explain things that were mystery for them. That is assuming we abandon the YEC crap altogether and focus on the evidence.

In short: we have numerous gods rejected long ago and one (whether it's called God or Allah) that is still believed but is derived from ideas existing before the texts were written. It is easy to prove how erroneous these texts are themselves and how crucial for the ideology events like the Flood never really happened. This means that these texts are either not the "word of God" or God lied when dictating them to people. But then, why would he dictate them to people long after they have developed various cults and religions that
didn't include him at all (again, assuming YEC is the crap it is). Native people in Australia and North America had never heard about God before europeans came (and I am sure they wish they have never heard about him). The paleontological/archaeological evidence points that there were modern people for the last more than 50,000 years (again, assuming YEC is the crap it is). All these people had their religions, often very different from monotheistic ones, and "God" never revealed himself to them. All the available paleontological and historical evidence points that what most believe today is the particular fairy tale of one group of ancient people - the jews and this fairy tale was just as much fabricated as those of other groups.

To sum it up: if you believe in YEC, you are killed by physcis and geology, if you believe in an Old Earth, you are killed by historical evidence, because the much more plausible and supported by evidence hypothesis is that people made up God rather than that he revealed himself to them (please, do not mention "the life of Jesus Christ", because this is the last thing I could consider evidence)

 

[ThaG]

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
June 5, 2007


Editors's Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”

Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books.

We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design. The articles are grouped according to the type of publication. The first section lists featured articles of various types which are of higher interest to readers, which is then followed by a complete list of the articles. The featured articles are therefore listed twice on this page (once in the featured articles section and again below in the complete list).
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640

^Bibliography included in link..

it gets funnier and funnier...

It is ridiculous to claim that the fact that scientists also publish non-peer-reviewed works supports the validity of the creationists non-peer-reviewed works:

1. that doesn't make creationist's nonsense less absurd

2. the point was that creationists never publish anything pee-reviewed, something scientists do every day

3. all those books cited were published in an era when there were very few if any peer-reviewed journals (there was not a single one in Copernicus' time)

About the list cited:

most of these journals are either creationist (which doesn't count for obvious reasons) or they hardly have an IF>1

just look at the names:

DEBATING DESIGN
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature
Darwinism, Design, & Public Educatio

same applies to the books

BTW isn't it interesting how the DI is so desperate for scientific credibility and all it could do is compile a list of <50 articles compared to the hundreds of thousands supporting evolution?

 

[ParkBoyz]

The burden of proof is entirely on you, don't try to use Creationists Favourite Tactic #1 and shift the burden of proof.

You formulate the hypothesis "God exists". I don't formulate any hypothesis other than pointing out the evidence for the existence of God is zero. The burden of proof is entirely on you, moreover it is a fundamental principle that the affirmative position should be proved not the opposite.

The biggest evidence opposing the idea of a supreme God is how the idea was developed historically. I will ignore YEC because this is too easy to refute. The fact is that there were no people on his Earth capable of writing a book until very recently. There is absolutely no historical or factual evidence that the bible was ever written by anyone else than some ignorant desert nomads. Same with every other religious text. The idea of a "supreme God" is older than the Bible but, curiously, all those Gods have been rejected long ago, and the idea can be easily traced to prehistorical people trying to explain things that were mystery for them. That is assuming we abandon the YEC crap altogether and focus on the evidence.

In short: we have numerous gods rejected long ago and one (whether it's called God or Allah) that is still believed but is derived from ideas existing before the texts were written. It is easy to prove how erroneous these texts are themselves and how crucial for the ideology events like the Flood never really happened. This means that these texts are either not the "word of God" or God lied when dictating them to people. But then, why would he dictate them to people long after they have developed various cults and religions that
didn't include him at all (again, assuming YEC is the crap it is). Native people in Australia and North America had never heard about God before europeans came (and I am sure they wish they have never heard about him). The paleontological/archaeological evidence points that there were modern people for the last more than 50,000 years (again, assuming YEC is the crap it is). All these people had their religions, often very different from monotheistic ones, and "God" never revealed himself to them. All the available paleontological and historical evidence points that what most believe today is the particular fairy tale of one group of ancient people - the jews and this fairy tale was just as much fabricated as those of other groups.

To sum it up: if you believe in YEC, you are killed by physcis and geology, if you believe in an Old Earth, you are killed by historical evidence, because the much more plausible and supported by evidence hypothesis is that people made up God rather than that he revealed himself to them (please, do not mention "the life of Jesus Christ", because this is the last thing I could consider evidence)

Foolish! Like I've stated, the burden of proof is on both the atheist and theist as both are stating claims of certainty, period. If the self-generation of life is not accepted by the individual to be a feasible hypothesis, then creationism is the only other alternative. Since from a materialistic point of view there is no way to definitively prove or disprove if God exists, they are both a matter of faith in that aspect. What you cite as evidence against God and the various texts, springs merely from a hopelessly poor misunderstanding of them.

it gets funnier and funnier...

It is ridiculous to claim that the fact that scientists also publish non-peer-reviewed works supports the validity of the creationists non-peer-reviewed works:

1. that doesn't make creationist's nonsense less absurd

2. the point was that creationists never publish anything pee-reviewed, something scientists do every day

3. all those books cited were published in an era when there were very few if any peer-reviewed journals (there was not a single one in Copernicus' time)

About the list cited:

most of these journals are either creationist (which doesn't count for obvious reasons) or they hardly have an IF>1

just look at the names:

DEBATING DESIGN
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature
Darwinism, Design, & Public Educatio

same applies to the books

BTW isn't it interesting how the DI is so desperate for scientific credibility and all it could do is compile a list of <50 articles compared to the hundreds of thousands supporting evolution?

In other words, you have no answers or rebuttals to the said data contained within, no problem....

 

[Cmoke]

ill be checking in now and then to see if you end of providing at least a shred of evidence supporting your creation theory..dont take too long..

 

[ParkBoyz]

ill be checking in now and then to see if you end of providing at least a shred of evidence supporting your creation theory..dont take too long..

Clearly you haven't been paying attention, so please do not hold your breath..

 

[Psilo707]

Damn, I didnt read through the entire thread (those are some long ass replies), but I can't understand how any person could not believe in evolution at this point. Especially a credited scientist within a field like Biochemistry and other physical sciences. It's obvious that evolution is the true factor at work when it comes to the survival of any and every species of life. If you don't believe in it, I urge you to take a step back and try and see the grand scheme of things. There are huge amounts of indirect evidence, clues, and truthfully it should be common sense at this point.

Claiming evolution is "not a proven scientific theory" seems about as extreme to me as saying "the law of gravity is not a proven scientific theory". Yes probably as obvious as gravity. The entire aspect of 'mutation' being the mechanism for the variance and transformation of life makes total and absolute sense, and there has never been another theory of life process that has been so solid and withstanding through time.


And any trustable and realistic scientist (or even person) also understands why obtaining DIRECT and concrete evidence for evolution is extremely hard, and fairly improbable using current technology - which will definitely get better very soon, and we WILL see the data and hard numbers that everyone seems to want come streaming out at that point. The reason it's so hard is because evolution works on a very slow scale relative to human life. It works on a multi-generational scale and the mechanisms it uses within the gene pool to modify all species takes a slow and subtle path to create permanent change. But on a more broad (cosmic) scale, the effects of mutation are actually happening fairly quickly, and the universe would see the change within an instant of time. (or a God, or whatever you believe in).

The idea of everything being physically created by will through a deity is much more obsurd and outrageous than the concept of evolution proposed by Darwin and all real scientists who have followed him. I'm not saying "there is or isnt a God" here, but I'm saying that if there is one, it didn't just spawn life from nowhere. It must have created evolution itself, to help populate the world with conscious life. If you must believe in a God, at least take the deism stance over theism.

 

[Psilo707]

Foolish! Like I've stated, the burden of proof is on both the atheist and theist as both are stating claims of certainty, period. If the self-generation of life is not accepted by the individual to be a feasible hypothesis, then creationism is the only other alternative. Since from a materialistic point of view there is no way to definitively prove or disprove if God exists, they are both a matter of faith in that aspect. What you cite as evidence against God and the various texts, springs merely from a hopelessly poor misunderstanding of them.

I just wanted to make a quick point about one more thing... and that is that even if we can't physically prove that a God exists or not, we can definitely speak on the probability of one's existence. This is the main argument of the God Delusion book by Dawkins, and id highly recommend a person from either side of belief to at least read the chapter where he is speaking on the probability factor. There is so much evidence that we are living in a universe that is constant and solidified with physical laws, and that no evidence of a deity altering our fate or direction has ever been shown, and that the only claims of this existing are from each 'individual' person having their own religious experience or awakening. Which is obviously the brain playing tricks on us. It's fully natural to believe in a creator, and to finally see 'through' that.. i believe is the true enlightenment.




p.s. sorry if i repeated some aspects that have already been said here, i did give the thread more of a look and edited out a lot of what i had up there.

 

[ThaG]

Foolish! Like I've stated, the burden of proof is on both the atheist and theist as both are stating claims of certainty, period. If the self-generation of life is not accepted by the individual to be a feasible hypothesis, then creationism is the only other alternative. Since from a materialistic point of view there is no way to definitively prove or disprove if God exists, they are both a matter of faith in that aspect. What you cite as evidence against God and the various texts, springs merely from a hopelessly poor misunderstanding of them.

Do you understand what an atheist is?

Believers say "God exists"

Atheists' position is "I don't believe you"

The proof of burden is entirely on the affirmative position, but as it was already said, you have mastered the art of denial no matter how hard you were knocked down

In other words, you have no answers or rebuttals to the said data contained within, no problem....

Do you ever feel uncomfortable when you lie so openly?

You were literally shredded and you say "I have no rebuttal"....

Check again points 1, 2, 3 and think again next time you claim publishing in a creationism journal with an Impact Factor close to zero (for comparison - Cell's IF is around 30) counts as a credible peer-reviewed publication for creationists.

"We can't get my nonsense published by credible peer-reviewed journals so we will make our own journal, review it together and publish there and it will be peer-reviewed"...

It doesn't work like that

 

[Hemp]

Claiming evolution is "not a proven scientific theory" seems about as extreme to me as saying "the law of gravity is not a proven scientific theory". Yes probably as obvious as gravity. The entire aspect of 'mutation' being the mechanism for the variance and transformation of life makes total and absolute sense, and there has never been another theory of life process that has been so solid and withstanding through time.


And any trustable and realistic scientist (or even person) also understands why obtaining DIRECT and concrete evidence for evolution is extremely hard, and fairly improbable using current technology - which will definitely get better very soon, and we WILL see the data and hard numbers that everyone seems to want come streaming out at that point. The reason it's so hard is because evolution works on a very slow scale relative to human life. It works on a multi-generational scale and the mechanisms it uses within the gene pool to modify all species takes a slow and subtle path to create permanent change. But on a more broad (cosmic) scale, the effects of mutation are actually happening fairly quickly, and the universe would see the change within an instant of time. (or a God, or whatever you believe in).

you see, im a believer in evolution, but i ask you this, what is the cause of these "random mutations" to go a certain direction without their being a consciousness or a brain of some sorts thats allowing these brainless atoms to mutate towards a certain goal?
how are these mutations very presice in their goal rather than doing more destruction than growth?(thats if you are a believer of the chaos theory)

 

[Psilo707]

^ Very good Q's. Heres what i got

The "cause" of mutation is simply nothing more than random error as DNA and
RNA replicate themselves. It's a glitch in the system, an accident. Mutation is a very destructive force, and is the cause of every single disease that human beings have, especially including those like Down Syndrome, given from birth. But even though its a destructive force, just like you said, it also can work the exact opposite way and create a change in a species that allows them to survive more strongly than they did so before. Once a mutation happens and the individual species takes no harm from the change and begins to reproduce, the mutation will no longer be 'considered' a mutation and the new, improved genetic codes will be able to be transmitted further down the line.

They have no goal, they don't know what they are doing. It's pure chance that a DNA replication slip happens. And it very, very rarely happens. the only reason we see it happening is because we each have billions of strands of DNA code in us, so obviously some of those are going to show up. The chance of a single DNA replication causing a screw up is one in millions.

I agree that it seems like a higher consciousness could be at work. I definitely see why believing that has been with humanity for its entire existence. But in reality, this unbelievable situation that's happening is simply an act of nature, and will hold constant everywhere in the universe where there is life, and that even though there is probably no single "deity", the universe itself definitely isn't mindless and it has set a solid direction for itself since the beginning.

 

[Psilo707]

p.s. just wanted to add one more thing about this:

what is the cause of these "random mutations" to go a certain direction

Sometimes mutations 'do' make a species either go the wrong way, or stay neutral (without change).

and those are the hundreds of millions of extinct species throughout time.

Humans are the first species to be able to counter the fact that evolution is a destructive force, because we can adapt ourselves to the environment.

 

[Hemp]

thank you for your indepth response.
I see where you are comming from but i will elaborate on your point.
since these genetic mutations are random, than how random is it for a single mutation to allow us to grow a tongue in our mouth for a specific purpose, teeth to chew on food, lungs which connect to our nostrils and allow us to breathe and smell,nails or "claws" being right at the tips of our fingers with their specific purpose, and the list goes on.
the only way i can see each of these mutations to occur perfectly, is if they are all just one mutation rather than each individuals.


now you said that even tho theres probably no single deity, the universe itself is conscious.
well THIS consciousness of the whole universe which includes every single atom is what i believe Gods consciousness/existance lays.
you know how our consciousness is electrical? While scientists agree that deep down to our core, we are all made up of the same one thing, which is Pure Energy.

i can see a very close relation between electricity and pure energy, therefore, i dont see it as an absurd thing for a Universal Cosmic Consciousness to exist within this pure energy which makes up everything, and which i believe is what allows these mutations to go this certain direction.


thanks again for understanding what im trying to say because this is the first time ive gotten a response with somebody taking notice to this rather than say shit like "YOU DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT MUTATION"

 

[ThaG]

thank you for your indepth response.
I see where you are comming from but i will elaborate on your point.
since these genetic mutations are random, than how random is it for a single mutation to allow us to grow a tongue in our mouth for a specific purpose, teeth to chew on food, lungs which connect to our nostrils and allow us to breathe and smell,nails or "claws" being right at the tips of our fingers with their specific purpose, and the list goes on.
the only way i can see each of these mutations to occur perfectly, is if they are all just one mutation rather than each individuals.

Totally wrong

Mutations are random and it should be noted that mutation is every variation in the genome that appeared de novo in the genome of an individual. It is generally not harmful, neutral or useful by itself, but only as long as it influences the phenotype and in the context of the environment the organism is living in.

The genetic variation provided by mutations is sampled by natural selection.

There is no single mutations that allows you to grow a tongue, to say this reveals gross ignorance of basic biology and lack of understanding of evolution. While it is true that great "leaps" forward can occur in evolution, the process is usually slow and involves modifications of already present structures rather than making up new "parts".

Second, there is no "purpose" or direction in evolution, and this is very important to be well understood. It's time to grow up and realize things don't necessarily have purpose, including our existence. Evolution does not result in a ladder but in a tree with many branches and just as the tree is shaped by the environment it lives, so are the products evolution shaped by the conditions of the environment. There is no purpose in having tongues other than the fact this trait was selected in evolution because it was useful for survival. No organ exists because it had to, it, in its present form, is the product of accumulation of random genomic variations over vast periods of time that were selected by evolution. Because they were selected by evolution, we appear to be so well adapted to the environment we live in that people without sufficient understanding of biology think we are designed. In fact we are not designed but most of us are ignorant about why us that and think we are.

now you said that even tho theres probably no single deity, the universe itself is conscious.
well THIS consciousness of the whole universe which includes every single atom is what i believe Gods consciousness/existance lays.
you know how our consciousness is electrical? While scientists agree that deep down to our core, we are all made up of the same one thing, which is Pure Energy.

Totally wrong again

1. Our mind is not electrical, just because you've heard signals are transmitted through neurons by chemoelectrical signals, that does not mean our mind is "electrical". Impulses traveling along axons are electrical, but synaptic transmission is chemical and it is the connections between neurons that serve as the basis of the "mind". BTW "mind" is an empty term for it is just a label for the patterns of neuronal activity in our brain that allow us to react and adapt adequately to the dynamic environment we live in.

2. What the hell is "pure energy"?

i can see a very close relation between electricity and pure energy, therefore, i dont see it as an absurd thing for a Universal Cosmic Consciousness to exist within this pure energy which makes up everything, and which i believe is what allows these mutations to go this certain direction.

If you can see a "very close relation between electricity and pure energy" would you please be so good to reveal to use what exactly it is and how it influences our neurons on a molecular level? There's a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can do it. If you can't keep your nonsense for yourself.

thanks again for understanding what im trying to say because this is the first time ive gotten a response with somebody taking notice to this rather than say shit like "YOU DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT MUTATION"

well, before I can reply without saying "you don't know shit about mutations" you need to demonstrate that you have learned something about it, unfortunately I will have to wait for this for an indefinite amount of time....

 

[ParkBoyz]

I just wanted to make a quick point about one more thing... and that is that even if we can't physically prove that a God exists or not, we can definitely speak on the probability of one's existence. This is the main argument of the God Delusion book by Dawkins, and id highly recommend a person from either side of belief to at least read the chapter where he is speaking on the probability factor. There is so much evidence that we are living in a universe that is constant and solidified with physical laws, and that no evidence of a deity altering our fate or direction has ever been shown, and that the only claims of this existing are from each 'individual' person having their own religious experience or awakening. Which is obviously the brain playing tricks on us. It's fully natural to believe in a creator, and to finally see 'through' that.. i believe is the true enlightenment.




p.s. sorry if i repeated some aspects that have already been said here, i did give the thread more of a look and edited out a lot of what i had up there.

I disagree totally, if you want to talk probability statistics, the chance that billions of atoms and molecules amalgamated in this order(even over millions of years) is like dropping twigs out of the sky and expecting to build a house(assuming that the twigs attract to each other and fit together in the right position). With all due respect, I don't buy this at all. There is not one shred of evidence opposed to a supreme consciousness, yet there are probability factors that oppose arguments against it. This includes the fact that given our present cosmological theories, there is no action known that is able to create time and space, meaning that before the Big Bang's inflationary period, all physical laws known to man break down for some strange reason towards the beginning. The Big Bang created time and space, therefore some force that is external to our universe brought fourth the actual bang. By process of elimination, this is a scientific fact, which is why we have something called M-Theory which seeks to explain it, which is a matter of blind faith as M-theory has no basis other than trying to explain what happened(using mostly quantum principles) and propose a theory of "everything" that combines all of the four forces.. Now either you'd have to take everything these people propose at face value, even given the lack of evidence, or simply come to terms with the fact that there are forces out there that we don't understand, forces which I prefer to label as "God", whether a tentative scientist avoids such a concept or not. No one has found God because they haven't looked.

thank you for your indepth response.
I see where you are comming from but i will elaborate on your point.
since these genetic mutations are random, than how random is it for a single mutation to allow us to grow a tongue in our mouth for a specific purpose, teeth to chew on food, lungs which connect to our nostrils and allow us to breathe and smell,nails or "claws" being right at the tips of our fingers with their specific purpose, and the list goes on.
the only way i can see each of these mutations to occur perfectly, is if they are all just one mutation rather than each individuals.


now you said that even tho theres probably no single deity, the universe itself is conscious.
well THIS consciousness of the whole universe which includes every single atom is what i believe Gods consciousness/existance lays.
you know how our consciousness is electrical? While scientists agree that deep down to our core, we are all made up of the same one thing, which is Pure Energy.

i can see a very close relation between electricity and pure energy, therefore, i dont see it as an absurd thing for a Universal Cosmic Consciousness to exist within this pure energy which makes up everything, and which i believe is what allows these mutations to go this certain direction.


thanks again for understanding what im trying to say because this is the first time ive gotten a response with somebody taking notice to this rather than say shit like "YOU DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT MUTATION"

Actually, you're on the right track Hemp, these "random" mutations wouldn't of allowed us(life) to survive past its infantile stages, assuming that all of these random atoms and molecules spontaneously amalgamated in the first place. They try and rip holes through irreducible complexity but it makes a lot more sense.

In essence, everything is energy as mass converts into energy and vice versa, we are all "pure energy", with this not being restricted to the electrical impulses from the chemical reactions within our brain, however, the "energy" in which you refer to is of course our consciousness, which is not fully explained by electrical impulses(hence OBEs/astral-projection, parapsychology, unconscious coma-dreams, actual DeJa vu, etc, etc..).

This "Universal Cosmic Consciousness" is merely a manifestation of everything imo, as everything is interconnected, which is actually confirmed by quantum physics(see Einstein's "spooky action at a distance")... There are particles that can affect other particles which are light years away, instantaneously (speed faster than light travel and seemingly infinite)! Something that Einstein didn't believe but can be observed today. There is no so-called "scientific evidence" or psychological/logical reasoning that can be seen as proof against a creator, just none.