[_ Old Earth _] Kirk Cameron grateful for Atheist help

[John]

Chalk a BIG one up for the Creationists.

[youtube:2zph9fiw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnPC_c8XmSE&feature=sub[/youtube:2zph9fiw]

 

[Barbarian]

I wonder if those guys realize that at the end of the book, Darwin wrote this:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
(last sentence in The Origin of Species)

I'm guessing that donations are falling off, and Comfort decided he needed a stunt to get the cash flowing again.

 

[azlan88]

The mutilating of books shows the athiests' true colors. They don't want open discussion, and they don't want to open their minds, either.

 

[Barbarian]

duplicate, please delete

 

[Barbarian]

The mutilating of books shows the athiests' true colors.

Comfort and Cameron aren't atheists. They claim to be theists. Tacking on material to Darwin's book is foolish and intellectually dishonest, but that doesn't make them atheists.

They don't want open discussion,

I wonder how those guys would react, if atheists produced an edited Bible. No, I don't wonder. They'd go ballistic. Rightfully so. Of course, altering the Bible is blasphemous, in addition to being dishonest.

and they don't want to open their minds, either.

The guys on both sides of this one, are unfortunate fanatics who think the ends justify the means. Pray for them.

 

[azlan88]

I wasn't talking about Cameron and Comfort. I said that the atheists who tore up pages from the books are in the wrong. I'm proud of what my brethren did with those books. They showed how intellectually closed-minded the scientific community is. Cameron and Comfort may have brought thousands to Christ, but even if the new converts only measured in the hundreds or less, they still exposed the them.

 

[Rick W]

What I see is a suppression of freedom of speech. May as well burn the printing presses of opposing view if only one view is to be supported.

 

[Brokendoll]

I don't think a couple of hotheads flying off the handle constitutes a challenge to the freedom of speech. ;) Most atheist I know would adamantly defend that right no matter who is doing the talking.

As for Ray Comfort, I haven't read what he put in the book, but if it is equal of quality to what he has produced earlier, I don't think evolutionary scientists need to worry much. He hasn't exactly made many striking arguments as far as I can see, and there is a reason he is often reffered to as the "banana man"...

Creationists can talk all they want, but the fact of the matter is that so far they have produced absolutely zilch in the form of evidence for their "theories" or against evolution, and when doing science, evidence is what matters. Oh, and again, there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that goes against there being a god.

 

[jasoncran]

Would you build a house using the means of the natural selection? Good luck getting that done anytime soon. yet we are to believe and accept that is how it happened.

I can understand where mr.barbarian comes from, though i disagree with that.

 

[Brokendoll]

Would you build a house using the means of the natural selection? Good luck getting that done anytime soon. yet we are to believe and accept that is how it happened.

Well, the word "natural" selection implies that there should be some kind of selection pressure in nature that would affect the production of houses.

And if you want to be pedantic about it, that already exists. Cadflies and termites are good examples of this. But that's not what we would call technology (even if termite mounds certainly are advanced enough).

If we return to the world of technology, processes very much like natural selection are used to design many things, including biplanes for boats and networking of many kinds, including pipelines for irrigation and the transportation of oil.

So, yes, if we could program the necessary criteria into a piece of software that in turn designs our houses that could be very useful indeed. I don't think anyone has tried that yet, but I don't see any reason it couldn't work.

 

[jasoncran]

is it guided or just blind, if blind then building a house by that method says very little about our intellegence. I dont think that we slap things together and hope they work. we do experment but we have a planned result.

 

[Brokendoll]

is it guided or just blind, if blind then building a house by that method says very little about our intellegence.

The process is "blind" in that one only programs the criteria to be met, and then the software takes care of the rest, using trial and error through the use of millions of "mutations" per hour, and it produces real applicable and highly efficient results. The "bad" results are discarded, just like in nature, and the "good" results are kept and built upon in future "generations". Once the most efficient design is found (based on the given criteria), the pipeline/whatever is ready to be built. And I suppose it says something about our intelligence that we have at least figured out this highly effective way of achieving results. Of course, through the use of computers we don't have to wait for "nature" to take it's course, and instead we can run millions of generations through our "natural" selection matrix in no time at all.

I dont think that we slap things together and hope they work. we do experment but we have a planned result.

Actually, that is pretty much what happens. Small random changes that are tested, in which the ones that are an improvement is kept, and the ones who are not are discarded. That is, by the way, more or less how evolution works in nature. And like in nature we are looking for a more efficient, economic design, the main difference being that a species is measured up against its invironment (i.e. how well adapted it is), while we set our own criteria for "efficient".

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but we guide and observe, you say that natural selection isnt guided. something is testing and elementing it. machines dont assemble themselves at first until we built those robots that could build and even then those things require maintanance.

i will remain very agnostic towards evolution for quite a while

 

[Brokendoll]

yes, but we guide and observe, you say that natural selection isnt guided.

Natural selection is by definition "natural", that is, the result of natural processes. We can copy that mechanism with our own criteria and use it in computer models to help us design more efficient solutions to many of our problems.

machines dont assemble themselves at first until we built those robots that could build and even then those things require maintanance.

Well, we already have machines assembling machines, but we have yet to reach the point where we can produce self-maintaining robots. I'm confident that is only a matter of time though. Still that is somewhat besides the point. Evolution as a process is being used in many areas to aid design and construction.

i will remain very agnostic towards evolution for quite a while

That is, of course, your choice, but you should know that Evolution, by it's very definition (changes in allele frequences over time) is a verifiable and indisputable fact. You might as well deny the existence of gravity as deny the existence of evolution.

 

[John]

That is, of course, your choice, but you should know that Evolution, by it's very definition (changes in allele frequences over time) is a verifiable and indisputable fact. You might as well deny the existence of gravity as deny the existence of evolution.

We Creationists do not deny evolution we just think it has limits. Variations certainly happen but that does not mean that fish turned into amphibians into reptiles and then to mammals and that somehow humans are related to bananas. partly due to the fact that the evidence for such claims is non existent.

 

[lordkalvan]

We Creationists do not deny evolution we just think it has limits. Variations certainly happen but that does not mean that fish turned into amphibians into reptiles and then to mammals.

What mechanism can you identify that prevents this process of variation across time resulting in the rise of new species.

partly due to the fact that the evidence for such claims is non existent.

The evidence for such claims is certainly not non-existent and can be found in the fossil record, in homologies, in molecular biology, in the geographical distribution of species and in comparative physiology, to name a few areas of research that support evolutionary theory. You may contest the interpretation of the evidence, but you cannot argue that it does not exist.

 

[Brokendoll]

That is, of course, your choice, but you should know that Evolution, by it's very definition (changes in allele frequences over time) is a verifiable and indisputable fact. You might as well deny the existence of gravity as deny the existence of evolution.

We Creationists do not deny evolution we just think it has limits. Variations certainly happen but that does not mean that fish turned into amphibians into reptiles and then to mammals and that somehow humans are related to bananas. partly due to the fact that the evidence for such claims is non existent.

Right. Then explain this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

 

[jasoncran]

engineers do build parts to fail deliberalelty in some cases. ie plastic power steering pump pulleys,vs the older metal ones.

does evolution do that? if the process is natural then it must be blind then as it has no intellegence to it. another fancy way of saying its by chance. i know that game.
why would the natural selection care about whether the animals live or die.

If natural selection is the cause of all things then why should we who are superior care about the lower animals after certain animals will die out due to an inability to adapt, ie the panda. We stand between that animal and extinction.

 

[Brokendoll]

engineers do build parts to fail deliberalelty in some cases. ie plastic power steering pump pulleys,vs the older metal ones.

does evolution do that?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here. Could you rephrase or expand on the question please?

if the process is natural then it must be blind then as it has no intellegence to it. another fancy way of saying its by chance. i know that game.

Nobody said evolution was based on chance. Blind means (in this context) unguided. Not random.

why would the natural selection care about whether the animals live or die.

Nobody said it did. Natural selection has no opinion on the matter. It is not concious. It is merely a natural process.

If natural selection is the cause of all things

And nobody said natural selection is the cause of all things. Natural selection is the process in which those animals and plants that are in some way better adapted to their environment get to bring their genes on to the next generation.

then why should we who are superior care about the lower animals

Because we are dependent upon the environment in which we live, and the biodiversity of plants and animals are a huge part of that. Oh, and it remains to be seen whether we are indeed "superior".

after certain animals will die out due to an inability to adapt, ie the panda. We stand between that animal and extinction.

Actually, recent reports state that the panda might be ok after all. While their numbers are are low (someplace around 3000 individuals I think), their genetic diversity is fairly good.

However, whether we do something or not, animals and plants -will- go extinct, as they have for millions of years. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take more care of our environment. Not because we need to save the world, but because, ultimately we might need to save ourselves.

 

[jasoncran]

some say otherwise on the panda. i'm not advocating not caring for the animals.

engineers build parts that they know cant handle the job, does evolution do this?
ever wonder why some parts fail early on a car. i have seen some of the reasons, poor design or delibarately designing them to fail. One doesnt place rubber parts in the path of hot exhaust for a reason, either poor design or to make money. car manufactures make far more money on parts then the car as a whole.