This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Believers: How do you deal with evolution?

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
3 weeks ago#81
Oh I agree! Literally why I am learning to breathe properly: I don't do it properly. I breathe in such a manner that keeps my heart rate up and my mood heightened.
Soi Disantra.

User Info: Gndlf_the_grey

Gndlf_the_grey
3 weeks ago#82
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
Wait... are you saying that GOD had to invent death-by-nitrogen because we don't understand it?


No of course not, it is an excerpt from an article to explain what you asked about nitrogen:

Talk to me about all of those wonderful Nitrogen receptors that would have to stimulate breathing!


The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

User Info: Gndlf_the_grey

Gndlf_the_grey
3 weeks ago#83
DeadlyNinjaBees posted...
I still don't understand how ANY of that dismissed anything I posted


You say evolution and dismiss God, I look at what you presented and see design and give glory to God
zinformant posted...
You make many assumptions including the above. Instead of viewing evolution as a conspiracy to rebel against God (where it's a silly argument, anyway, as evolution makes no direct claim about biogenesis,
Guilty, yes. I see it as the only reason why the evolution theory exists.
zinformant posted...
try to understand how complexity and order emerge stepwise over millions of years
Really, I don't get this. I should believe that we are evolving or have evolved to what we have today over m.o.y.a.
We are supposedly getting "smarter", but my opinion is that through the collective trial and error and accumulation of knowledge we have reached unprecedented technological advancements in the last few decades alone. It did not take millions of years and we did not become more intelligent in this short period of time.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
(edited 3 weeks ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
3 weeks ago#84
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
Guilty, yes. I see it as the only reason why the evolution theory exists.

Evolution exists to explain the diversity of live and changes thereon over time, not the advent of life. Do you understand this distinction? What you are claiming demonstrates lack of knowledge about the subject. Theological claims against evolution have been made, but yours is not one of them.
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
I should believe that we are evolving or have evolved to what we have today over m.o.y.a.

I mean, your DNA in all of your cells is being mutated as we speak. This is a daily occurrence. There is cellular machinery to repair much of this, but the point is that nucleic acids are a fragile record. On the scale of populations and over not only generations but epochs, that record can and does change. This is not a remarkable observation, either.
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
We are supposedly getting "smarter",

This has nothing directly to do with the subject at hand.
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
but my opinion is that through the collective trial and error and accumulation of knowledge we have reached unprecedented technological advancements in the last few decades alone. It did not take millions of years and we did not become more intelligent in this short period of time.

To elabrate, technology is irrelevant to this discussion until only recently (where the term Anthropocene has become popular as human actions make novel, unprecedented, and arguably irreparable effects on the world). Moore's Law is incredible, but this does not have anything to do with speciation rates. Moreover, do not think I don't notice that you neglected to address the other parts of my last note.

A common theme I notice is that naturalists tend to be versed in theology, but theologians tend not to be versed in the natural sciences. This makes discussion difficult when one side dismisses the findings of one discipline while the other is open to learning.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: Gndlf_the_grey

Gndlf_the_grey
3 weeks ago#85
zinformant posted...
Evolution exists to explain the diversity of live and changes thereon over time, not the advent of life.
How can there be a distinction between evolution and origin of life?
To explain evolution there needs to be a point of origin for reference.

zinformant posted...
I mean, your DNA in all of your cells is being mutated as we speak. This is a daily occurrence. There is cellular machinery to repair much of this, but the point is that nucleic acids are a fragile record. On the scale of populations and over not only generations but epochs, that record can and does change. This is not a remarkable observation, either.


Gene mutations can be classified in two major ways:
Hereditary mutations are inherited from a parent and are present throughout a person’s life in virtually every cell in the body. These mutations are also called germline mutations because they are present in the parent’s egg or sperm cells, which are also called germ cells. When an egg and a sperm cell unite, the resulting fertilized egg cell receives DNA from both parents. If this DNA has a mutation, the child that grows from the fertilized egg will have the mutation in each of his or her cells.
Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur at some time during a person’s life and are present only in certain cells, not in every cell in the body. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if an error is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed to the next generation.

In my honest opinion, I think that in a debate for or against evolution, we should consider all aspects of a certain species. Aspect being, like I mentioned intelligence. Intelligence consequential evolution.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151218085616.htm
Is evolution intelligent?
It expands what we think evolution is capable of. It shows that natural selection is sufficient to produce significant features of intelligent problem-solving." For example, a key feature of intelligence is an ability to anticipate behaviours that that will lead to future benefits.
Why did brain size increase in human evolution?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/brains
Brain size increases rapidly
Human brain size evolved most rapidly during a time of dramatic climate change. Larger, more complex brains enabled early humans of this time period to interact with each other and with their surroundings in new and different ways.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
(edited 3 weeks ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
3 weeks ago#86
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
How can there be a distinction between evolution and origin of life?
To explain evolution there needs to be a point of origin for reference.

The point of origin for evolution is almost always infinitely shallower than biogenesis. For example, when discussing avian evolution, we look might look at Archaeopteryx (which is an organism that most folks have vague familiarity with). The origins of life contribute nothing to the understanding of this organism or the outset of avian biology from a saurian world. Or, suppose I was interested in horse evolution (which, by the way, is fascinating). I'd look even closer to the present than that.
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
Is evolution intelligent?

You should know that most of us frown upon large quotation blocks. If you are not here to discuss subjects yourself, discussion tends to be over. However, this question demands an answer. No, evolution is not intelligent. Of course, it is unclear what pertinence any of your quotation blocks have.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?
(edited 3 weeks ago)

User Info: Gndlf_the_grey

Gndlf_the_grey
3 weeks ago#87
Merely the fact that you wish to disregard intelligence in the case for or against evolution. I quoted to state that it is regarded as a factor. Not only my opinion
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
(edited 3 weeks ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
3 weeks ago#88
By whom, by what metric, and for what purpose? Dinosaurs were reasonably intelligent, so, if you really want to go there, we're looking at hundreds of millions of years ago (which disregards that the majority of the time precedes the dinosaurs). That is not rapid development. I do not claim expertise on human evolution, as it is not a subject that particularly interests me, but it would stand to reason that adding cortical connections to (building a network within) the frontal lobe serially over hundreds of thousands of years has an additive effect. Circling back, then:
Gndlf_the_grey posted...
We are supposedly getting "smarter", but my opinion is that through the collective trial and error and accumulation of knowledge we have reached unprecedented technological advancements in the last few decades alone. It did not take millions of years and we did not become more intelligent in this short period of time.

You cite the allegedly rapid evolution of humans in attempt to discredit its own premise? That does not follow; nevermind the fact that, as with the dinosaurs, most genetic crafting precedes humans. It's extraordinarily anthropocentric to focus on this snippet of history when there is so much else around us demanding attention. Most paleontology studies invertebrates, many of which never developed any meaningful intelligence. And, of those that did, they developed it arguably quickly. Cephalopods are brilliant by invertebrate standards; did they evolve intelligence too quickly to not have been created in an instant? That's shoehorning, really.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: Gndlf_the_grey

Gndlf_the_grey
3 weeks ago#89
From what I've read, the argument for intelligent design vs evolution:
Creationists argued that something like the complexity of the eye could not have randomly evolved and therefore a need arose to label evolution as being intelligent in order to explain apparent intelligent designs.

I further recall some idea that when certain hominids discovered/created fire, they were able to cook and eat meat, which resulted in bigger brain mass. This allegedly eventually evolved into homo sapiens.

zinformant posted...
It's extraordinarily anthropocentric to focus on this snippet of history


On the contrary, I do not attempt to focus on human beings as opposed to animals. I have little to none expertise on the subject of alleged animal evolution.
My intentions are to focus on the creation of man and everything else by God as opposed to entertaining the idea of evolution.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

User Info: DeadlyNinjaBees

DeadlyNinjaBees
3 weeks ago#90
But that's like me saying "I want to focus on my career and making more money by spending more time with the kids". You can't have both just to make things easier to think about. I think we've SUCCESSFULLY demonstrated evolution in this topic. What HAS NOT been demonstrated is "God did it!". Why? Because while there are aspects to the evolutionary process that demand answers and working theories, God's hand needing to be there is not one of them.

See, Creationists "zoom in" and look for hidden complexity that "only God could be responsible for". If you're looking that microscopic, that far into it for the answer you WANT, two things happens:

- Biased results and findings: Plus, why is it only the small, harder to see stuff? Why can the bigger stuff not reveal God-level complexity we can't work-out?

- You'll drive an answer being found: When that twonk decided tht e.coli had a godly "onboard motor tail" that simply could not have evovled (but has in fact evolved seperately multiple times...), you challenge somebody to answer the question. Same thing recently happened with the touchy topic of "bee flight".

See, the problem with "intelligent design" is it as a "field" where the researcher is simply aiming for a FIXED RESULT (proof of God) rather than a replicating outcome. That's not scientific. It's the individual trying to PROVE that God exists to the self. If douubt did not exist, the concept of Intelligent Design would not exist. Please also not that only 2nd and 3rd worl countries teach Intelligent Design. Arab countries teach it as it allows knowledge to be passed on without going against the Islamic faith. And it's a problem as it is misinformation.
Unfortunately, no matter how much we'd all like God to be a part of your education, he's not "real" or observable enough for that to be realistic. Society acknowledges this, but just does not communicate it.
Soi Disantra.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Believers: How do you deal with evolution?
  • Post New Message