IMO the positives and the negatives weigh each other out when dealing with religion. Whether you have one or not.
This is the analogy that I use to counter how only a supreme being could create something as detailed and "perfect" (ha!) as the human being. Say I've got a playlist on my ipod 4 songs long, and it's on random (for argument's sake it's on repeat for those keeping score). What are the odds that it would still play in sequential order? Well shoot that'd be pretty neat, but rare. What are the odds that it'd play the same song 4 times in a row? Well damn that'd be even more impressive right? However, it'd be the same probability. What if I'm really hoping that the next song on the playlist is a single song I want to listen to. The odds of it happening are so slim, 1/4, compared to it not happening (75%), however the odds of any other song playing are still the same, 1/4. Apply the same logic to how we arrived at our genome, our form, biology, etc. The odds of anything else happening would be 99.99999999% (too lazy to do the math based on "n" number of acid chains), but the odds of any other single "human" genome is the same. Now, yes it's not that cut and dry. Natural selection, more specifically external forces have had a direct influence and so it's not really chance. Still, I can't help but think that the idea that our form is so perfect that some God must have created it is RIDICULOUSLY and (what's worst) so obviously biased that I don't know how serious people can take that idea, well, seriously.
There is evidence of no natural selection for billions of years after the first life was formed. How do you explain that?
uh, what proof is that? It's been in every textbook I've had. It was just featured on my midterm today. Or, are you drawing a line between natural selection (the why) and evolution (the how)?
Who cares about your text book? Natural selection is hugely flawed. Life formed as single celled organisms about 1B years after the earth formed. For about another 2B years, it didn't evolve at all. Those same single celled organisms are found throughout the fossil record for that period, and there's no other differentiated life forms. So there was zero natural selection going on. The earth certainly evolved geologically over that time, giving life a reason to evolve/adapt. Evolution and natural selection do not at all explain the cambrian explosion. Here you had a huge variety of life forms appear in the fossil record all at once. There's not enough time in that equation for generations and eons of natural selection to do what it's advertised to do. Finally (for this post), the dinosaurs didn't disappear because they evolved into something of a higher order. There was a catastrophic event that wiped them out. That wasn't the only cataclysmic event in the geologic and fossil records. The theory of Evolution doesn't account for these events.
Who cares about my text book, is that serious? Gee, Denny I wonder why no one has picked up your ideas to teach in every science classroom (save the midwest, but that's another thread) through the graduate level. "Hey, don't listen to everybody else, let me tell you how it really happened!" -random guy on the internet.
Explain ZERO random mutations over near 2B years. That's the point. As for the text books, they taught the world was flat for a long time, too. I believe in Evolution, just pointing out that it's not exactly explaining everything.
From what I know, that isn't true. All of the creatures on this world adapt to their environment. Through many generations, changes slowly happen. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I am always right. I am God.
for starters, I'll offer the polar bear, which evolved from a brown bear about 100,000 years ago, I believe.
I agree. Now explain why life established itself as a single cell organism and didn't evolve for another 2B years.
Yeah Denny I'm sure the scientific method was as objective back then, and I'm pretty sure you'll still get crucified for speaking blasphemies like that these days too. C'mon.
I raised 3 issues with Evolution that your text book apparently didn't. Why didn't it? And do the issues raised even give you a reason to think for yourself instead of accepting what the textbook says?
I never have and never will be a religous person. I respect religion and have nothing against those that believe in God (or whatever they may call him), I just find it pointless. To me, it's too far fetched to really believe in.
The textbook decides it doesn't want to cover what Denny Crane thinks and now natural selection is false. Awesome! I have thought for myself. I've reviewed the information that's been presented to me and I've accepted it. Also being a person who appreciates an objective decision, I appreciate the fact that it's so widely supported from grade school up through our highest levels of education.
