Evolutionism or Creationism

[Dolly]

1) Evolutionism doesn't blankly mean we came from monkeys.
2) You can be an evolutionist while being Christian.

[amerikajin]

Okay, this one's a doozy, so let's get started...

Originally Posted by leshinor

What I wanted to point out here is that we should consider the universe as a whole and not just Earth. The possibility that life started to appear even after billions of years is low but if we think of the universe, or at least the planets that we are sure that have life on them, we will see that the probability that life would appear in one of all those planets rises exponentially. If life hadn't appeared on Earth, for example, and had done so on Mars, then the intelligent beings that would eventually come to existence would wonder about the exact same thing. Also, even if there is a tiny possibility of something happening then it is enough for it to happen. For example, if I threw a coin 10 times then the probability of getting tails all 10 times is 1/1024 if I'm not mistaken. This mean that if I do that trial 1024 times then it is highly probable that i would get that result 1 time. This doesn't mean though that I might not get it at my very first attempt.

The only planet that intelligent life can exist on in our solar system, as well as in nearby solar systems, is earth. Mars once had water, which is a necessity for life, yes, but Mars is too far from the sun for proper life to exist (as is Pluto). It's too cold. Mercury is much too close to the sun. The other planets are gaseous. Scientists have been searching the entire universe for any other planet with the proper set-up to support intelligent life and have yet to find one. The exact specifications that are needed for even unintelligent life such as plants or animals are so specific that even they could not exist on any planet other than earth. Our distance from the sun, our atmosphere, the moon, the amount of water on the planet, even our solar system's position in the milky way galaxy and the galaxy's position in the universe help support life. So, yes, I am thinking of the universe as a whole.

And as far as chances, I'm not talking about 1/1024 chance...try flipping that quarter your whole life, then have one of your children flip it through their whole life, then have one of their children flip it through their whole life and let each time be heads and that might be close to the most basic structures appearing (proteins, lipids, etc...for DNA, add a few more generations).

Originally Posted by leshinor

Exactly, the New Testament states that those people would be judged according to their life in general, however, Dante put all people, except from some very few like Moses, in hell with their only sin being that they did not believe in God even if they hadn't the chance to hear about Him. I am not saying this is Christianity's point of view, I'm just saying that I disagree with this idea, which is Dante's.

First of all, the New Testament happened AFTER Christ was crucified, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven, which means that BEFORE Christ, people were judged solely on their abidance of the law (full abidance is in no way possible because we are all greedy, disgusting sinners). When I wrote what you commented the above quote on, I was discussing this comment you made earlier:

Originally Posted by leshinor

Well, in Dante's Inferno, he says that all people who died before Jesus were sent on the first level of hell (the least painful... lol). When Jesus 'died' he won over death and went through hell, picked up the believers, opened the gates to heaven and took them there. I cannot accept this as the truth because I do not believe that such a merciful God would let his believers go to hell when they didn't do anything bad... Dante also says that all people who did not believe in the Christian God remained in hell even if they were excellent people... Of course they were in the first level of hell too that isn't that bad but I still cannot accept this...

In this part, people are not judged on whether they believe in God, but whether they follow His Laws. NO ONE fully followed God's Laws, so, yes, they were sent to hell. When Jesus died, the new covenant (which is where all you have to do is believe) came into play, which allowed Jesus to rescue the captives in Hell. Anyway, like you said, this is Dante you were discussing, not Christian Theology. Don't base whether you believe in God and His Son, Jesus, on one philosopher's writings. Read the Bible, read the commentaries on the Bible, go to church, talk to knowledged believers, and talk to God, Himself (pray). I also cannot fully state how close Dante's Divine Comedy is to Christian Theology as I have not read any of those books, I can only use my knowledge of Christian Theology to respond to your arguments.

Originally Posted by Dolly

1) Evolutionism doesn't blankly mean we came from monkeys.
2) You can be an evolutionist while being Christian.

Dolly, thank you. For everyone out there, I will reiterate something I said in my first post. I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. The evolution I believe in, however, is the proven MICROEVOLUTION, not the THEORY of macroevolution.

[leshinor]

Originally Posted by amerikajin

The only planet that intelligent life can exist on in our solar system, as well as in nearby solar systems, is earth. Mars once had water, which is a necessity for life, yes, but Mars is too far from the sun for proper life to exist (as is Pluto). It's too cold. Mercury is much too close to the sun. The other planets are gaseous. Scientists have been searching the entire universe for any other planet with the proper set-up to support intelligent life and have yet to find one. The exact specifications that are needed for even unintelligent life such as plants or animals are so specific that even they could not exist on any planet other than earth. Our distance from the sun, our atmosphere, the moon, the amount of water on the planet, even our solar system's position in the milky way galaxy and the galaxy's position in the universe help support life. So, yes, I am thinking of the universe as a whole.

Yeah, I know that our planet is the only one that can support life. But, the universe is huge, some even say it is endless, so even a tiny possibility might be probable to happen in this huge space. I am not saying I believe all this happened out of luck, just saying that it is not as outrageous as some might believe.

And as far as chances, I'm not talking about 1/1024 chance...try flipping that quarter your whole life, then have one of your children flip it through their whole life, then have one of their children flip it through their whole life and let each time be heads and that might be close to the most basic structures appearing (proteins, lipids, etc...for DNA, add a few more generations).

Yeah, I know the chance is not 1/1024 but something much much smaller, so small that we might not even be able to perceive it, I just wanted to give an example.

First of all, the New Testament happened AFTER Christ was crucified, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven, which means that BEFORE Christ, people were judged solely on their abidance of the law (full abidance is in no way possible because we are all greedy, disgusting sinners). When I wrote what you commented the above quote on, I was discussing this comment you made earlier:



In this part, people are not judged on whether they believe in God, but whether they follow His Laws. NO ONE fully followed God's Laws, so, yes, they were sent to hell. When Jesus died, the new covenant (which is where all you have to do is believe) came into play, which allowed Jesus to rescue the captives in Hell. Anyway, like you said, this is Dante you were discussing, not Christian Theology. Don't base whether you believe in God and His Son, Jesus, on one philosopher's writings. Read the Bible, read the commentaries on the Bible, go to church, talk to knowledged believers, and talk to God, Himself (pray). I also cannot fully state how close Dante's Divine Comedy is to Christian Theology as I have not read any of those books, I can only use my knowledge of Christian Theology to respond to your arguments.

I do not base my religious opinion on Dante's writings, I just wanted to bring up his opinions and discuss them!

[SkY93]

Originally Posted by soulten

They started form a small single cell organism and slowly evolved over roughly billions of years to get where we are today.If you want to learn how it started go google it.

B. Earth is a term we use to name our planet, your question is like asking "Who created gravity?" No one did, we gave it a name to try to understand it.

C. His mom and dad did.

I follow evolutionism, more believable proof and ideas.

Science could be called my major... and i find that it was never explained how that single cell got here....and all the proof and facts all have their limits that can be pushed but still fall short... Science is the answer of why.... God is the answer to all...

[analogZero]

Originally Posted by SkY93

Science could be called my major... and i find that it was never explained how that single cell got here....and all the proof and facts all have their limits that can be pushed but still fall short... Science is the answer of why.... God is the answer to all...

Limit's an interesting point to bring up. The mathematical term of limits might interest you then. It's sort of bridges the idea of how something can logically come from nothing.

[Stray_Pube]

Originally Posted by amerikajin

The bacteria flagellum is one example (of several) of specified-complexity as if it had slowly evolved, gathering piece by piece, it would have been unfit for reproduction and therefore at a complete disadvantage - basically, evolution would wipe it out. But some bacterium have flagellum. So the question posed is: HOW? Evolutionism would actually say it shouldn't. Creationism, or intelligent design, gives us an answer - they were made that way.

Holy shit, THANK YOU for saying something about the flagellum. I hope you know that there is another bacteria that has a flagellum-like organelle, it has the SAME EXACT poteins as in a working flagelllum, but it has several parts missing, yet it has a function, to inject its RNA into another cell. It has evolved this way because it needed a way to survive, so it produced this form of the flagellum.

And dont you DARE say intelligent design, it is not that, its Creationism. A religious belief, not science.

I have a program I want you all to watch. Its called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Look for it at pbs.org.

[mellowguy]

I really don't want to get into this again- oh well. Lets say the probability of a strand of dna evolving on a planet is 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Large number, yes? Now, how many planets are there in the universe? Well, some modern studies say that there are 300,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Recent german computer simulations put the number of galaxies as high as 500,000,000,000, as far as we know. Average number of planets around a star? No idea. Lets say 2, for now. That multiplies out to 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Divided by the above... gives us three millionths of a percent that life will evolve on any of those planets. So, as a rough, unproven, highest likely number of planets with dna on it, we get- 90,000,000,000,000,000, 90 quadrillion planets that would have life on them. Again, this is fuzzy, unproven, weird, unscientific equations, but it proves my point. Even with the chance being so small, the sheer number of places it could happen will even it out.

[leshinor]

Originally Posted by mellowguy

I really don't want to get into this again- oh well. Lets say the probability of a strand of dna evolving on a planet is 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Large number, yes? Now, how many planets are there in the universe? Well, some modern studies say that there are 300,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Recent german computer simulations put the number of galaxies as high as 500,000,000,000, as far as we know. Average number of planets around a star? No idea. Lets say 2, for now. That multiplies out to 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Divided by the above... gives us three millionths of a percent that life will evolve on any of those planets. So, as a rough, unproven, highest likely number of planets with dna on it, we get- 90,000,000,000,000,000, 90 quadrillion planets that would have life on them. Again, this is fuzzy, unproven, weird, unscientific equations, but it proves my point. Even with the chance being so small, the sheer number of places it could happen will even it out.

Nice! That was what I was trying to say! Thanks Mellowguy!

[amerikajin]

Originally Posted by Stray_Wolf

Holy shit, THANK YOU for saying something about the flagellum. I hope you know that there is another bacteria that has a flagellum-like organelle, it has the SAME EXACT poteins as in a working flagelllum, but it has several parts missing, yet it has a function, to inject its RNA into another cell. It has evolved this way because it needed a way to survive, so it produced this form of the flagellum.

And dont you DARE say intelligent design, it is not that, its Creationism. A religious belief, not science.

I have a program I want you all to watch. Its called Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. Look for it at pbs.org.

If you had read the rest of my comments, you would know the flagellum is not the only argument for specified-complexity, each and every cell is also an argument as they all contain DNA. Don't just pick and choose what you debate against as you have yet to prove the majority of my argument wrong and have yet to prove this one incorrect either. Technically this isn't even a question science can answer, as science has to deal with the study of empirical evidence and we cannot actually empirically study this. Evolution can never be more than a theory. There is no way to test whether the flagella came from the other cell or if they were both created.

And, yes, I firmly believe in Creation, but there are others out there who are not 'religious' and would rather not call it such, so I use the term intelligent design as an overarching one. After all, what else is creation other than a design planned and implemented by an intelligent being?

Originally Posted by mellowguy

I really don't want to get into this again- oh well. Lets say the probability of a strand of dna evolving on a planet is 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Large number, yes? Now, how many planets are there in the universe? Well, some modern studies say that there are 300,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. Recent german computer simulations put the number of galaxies as high as 500,000,000,000, as far as we know. Average number of planets around a star? No idea. Lets say 2, for now. That multiplies out to 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Divided by the above... gives us three millionths of a percent that life will evolve on any of those planets. So, as a rough, unproven, highest likely number of planets with dna on it, we get- 90,000,000,000,000,000, 90 quadrillion planets that would have life on them. Again, this is fuzzy, unproven, weird, unscientific equations, but it proves my point. Even with the chance being so small, the sheer number of places it could happen will even it out.

And, as I have been saying: it's not just the number of planets out there, but the number of planets out there that could allow for habitable climates for life to exist, let alone prosper the way it would have to for evolution to come this far. So far, scientists have not found a single planet on which life can thrive other than Earth. You can't just look at the quantity of the galaxies, stars, or planets out there, you have to look at the quality. The placement of the galaxy in the universe is important: the planet could not be near the center of the universe. If earth truly were the center of the universe, as people used to think, earth wouldn't even exist anymore...I highly doubt it would've even existed back when people first thought they were in the center of the universe. Also, there are three types of galaxies in the universe: globular, cluster, and spiral. The only type of galaxy stable enough for a planet that can sustain life is a spiral galaxy. Not only that, the solar system the planet needs to be in has to be in one of the distant arms otherwise the pull of gravity is too strong for a proper orbit and other stars could be too close and could also effect a proper orbit. Not to mention, any planet has to be at a certain distance from the star so they don't get too hot (Mercury, Venus) or too cold (Mars, etc). Not to mention the planets would have to be solid, not gaseous and would need a proper atmosphere. Now, why don't you apply that to your statistics?

[mellowguy]

I did apply it to my statistics. Were you to make it 1000 times less likely, there would still be billions of life likely planets. Plus, the fact that scientists haven't found any yet doesn't prove anything, because not only do we lack the equipment to really search, how many could we have looked at- 5, 10, 1000, 10000? We're talking about quadrillions over quadrillions over quadrillions here. Our planetary observations are not enough to prove anything.