Finally, proof there is no God.

[WinstonWolf]

If God, who created the universe, wanted to start again he'd just fling the earth off to a distant galaxy rather than piss about with floods.

[jmorgan]

WinstonWolf said:

If God, who created the universe, wanted to start again he'd just fling the earth off to a distant galaxy rather than piss about with floods.

Why bother, the solar system is full of planet killers. Bit like etch a sketch. Shake it about a bit and start again.

[WinstonWolf]

jmorgan said:

WinstonWolf said:

If God, who created the universe, wanted to start again he'd just fling the earth off to a distant galaxy rather than piss about with floods.

Why bother, the solar system is full of planet killers. Bit like etch a sketch. Shake it about a bit and start again.

if I was God I'd play planet billiards if I was unhappy with something.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ash73 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

How about a 2oz acorn to a 500 ton oak tree. I just a few hundred years.

You're saying an acorn evolves into an oak tree?

Given that evolution is a series of tiny and gradual changes, absolutely.

You seem to be suggesting that a single cell organism can't become a 50 ton dinosaur. You didn't say mouse, or wren, but 50 ton dinosaur, and that suggests it's the size differential that is worrying you.

Well if an acorn can become an oak tree, then if nothing else, it proves that tiny things can change into huge things. Given that fact, what's you basis for adopting your position.

[///ajd]

i

ash73 said:

Acorns evolve to oak trees, omg

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You seem to be suggesting that a single cell organism can't become a 50 ton dinosaur.

Think for a minute about what I wrote...

ash73 said:

England said:

We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there

Is this actually true? Do birds suck more orderliness from their environment than dinosaurs? Does life always evolve to be more energetic, or does it adapt to the amount of energy available? I'd like to see some examples that fit the formula.

Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?

The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

i

ash73 said:

Acorns evolve to oak trees, omg

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You seem to be suggesting that a single cell organism can't become a 50 ton dinosaur.

Think for a minute about what I wrote...

ash73 said:

England said:

We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there

Is this actually true? Do birds suck more orderliness from their environment than dinosaurs? Does life always evolve to be more energetic, or does it adapt to the amount of energy available? I'd like to see some examples that fit the formula.

Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?

The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?

An acorn growing into an oak tree is not evolution, it's growth.

A single dinosaur egg turning into a fully grown dinosaur isn't evolution, it's growth.

A single called life form, mutating, dying, reproducing and constantly changing, ending up as a dinosaur, now that would be evolution.

[///ajd]

REALIST123 said:

///ajd said:

i

ash73 said:

Acorns evolve to oak trees, omg

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You seem to be suggesting that a single cell organism can't become a 50 ton dinosaur.

Think for a minute about what I wrote...

ash73 said:

England said:

We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there

Is this actually true? Do birds suck more orderliness from their environment than dinosaurs? Does life always evolve to be more energetic, or does it adapt to the amount of energy available? I'd like to see some examples that fit the formula.

Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?

The acorn > oak is not even evolution, just the progress of one species, but it illustrates a point. Plus the 50t dinosaur probably did start out as a single fertilised egg cell, though I know you were suggesting you were doubtful as to whether the species could evolve in such a way. So what is you position?

An acorn growing into an oak tree is not evolution, it's growth.

A single dinosaur egg turning into a fully grown dinosaur isn't evolution, it's growth.

A single called life form, mutating, dying, reproducing and constantly changing, ending up as a dinosaur, now that would be evolution.

Fully agree, does Ash73 agree such evolution is possible without a deity? If not, what role does a deity have between amoeba and t rex?

[turbobloke]

///ajd said:

If not, what role does a deity have between amoeba and t rex?

There's no need for a deity to have a role. I suspect you were making the same point, so we agree! On the other hand, not having one role will still have theists pointing to other roles relating to meaning and purpose.

[Troubleatmill]

More evidence for evolution month by month, year by year....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3171...

[s2art]

ash73 said:

but how does a modern 50 gram bird absorb and dissipate more energy than a 50 ton dinosaur?

Obviously it doesnt, but that not the point. Simply put, the existence of life (emergence and evolution) dissipates more energy than life not emerging. No point looking at a single organism, a shedload of cockroaches probably dissipates more energy than a T-Rex, and for that matter the megatonnes of plankton probably puts the cockroaches to shame.

[///ajd]

ash73 said:

///ajd said:

Again ash, are you questioning evolution and suggesting a deity is involved?

I think I answered this earlier in the thread, sorry if I'm repeating myself. Darwinian evolution is the best theory we have, but there are some problems, specifically macro evolution is an extrapolation; by that I mean evolution is time based, give it enough time and completely new species emerge, but we haven't directly observed it. What we have observed is ebb and flow in the gene pool from selection, which is a form of evolution, and from there one can extrapolate a theoretical macro change.

Also a time-based theory is at odds with a billion years of single-celled stagnation followed by the Cambrian explosion, where a huge number of species, and *all* the modern building blocks for life, were created in a few million years; subsequently there have only been "configuration" changes. There are plenty of possible explanations, one doesn't need to regress to mystical "intelligent design", but we are only part way to understanding the process. I do think the evolution of complex components such as the eye and visual cortex is remarkable, staggering even.

However, I don't think Darwinian evolution says anything about the origin of life, only the natural process by which it adapts to its environment. If you adopt Dawkin's position of DNA as self-replicating software carried about by biological machines, what purpose does it serve? How did it originate? Is it unique to Earth? I think a creator is a possibility and there may be a higher purpose; the former based on logic the latter pure speculation. I quite like Carl Sagan's quote "we are a way for the universe to know itself".

England's new theory of entropy-led evolution says it is inevitable, which is interesting, but only raises more questions. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation and some supporting evidence. Can the theory make any predictions? Single-celled to dinosaurs fits ok with subsequent generations sucking more orderliness from the environment; but how does a modern 50 gram bird absorb and dissipate more energy than a 50 ton dinosaur?

TL/DR acorns to oak trees really tickled me, bless

Thanks for the reply.

I would agree the origin remains unexplained, but intuitively it seems likely a theory like Englands will explain it without recourse to a deity. This is only based on all the other things science has explained, it seems the trend is that they will fill more and more gaps.

As such I'm sure its obvious I don't feel there is a role for a deity in these processes. For me whether its making a human out of thin air, or just creating the 20-odd amino acids vital for life - if these are to be instigated by a deity, then both cases would equally invoke the problems of a so called intelligent designer.

[cymtriks]

WinstonWolf said:

If you change the account to something else it becomes plausible

The point is that the original authors did not see the world the way we do. Also some context is required.

As I pointed out earlier "every animal" would not mean every animal in the world if a modern day farmer was told to get every animal onto a truck to evacuate his farm. It probably didn't mean every animal in the world to Noah either. In the context of a hasty evacuation of the tribal settlement it would mean their farm animals.

Also there is a clear candidate for the Flood circa 2900BC. It covered a huge area and would certainly have seemed like "the whole world" to anyone living on the plains of Iraq at the time.

The problem is that both the religious and the non religious are reading the text without regard to the period in which it was written or to the context of the event.

[PhillipM]

ash73 said:

but how does a modern 50 gram bird absorb and dissipate more energy than a 50 ton dinosaur?

Do 50 tons of birds dissipate more energy than a single 50 ton dinosaur?

I rather suspect the do, to be honest.

[scorp]

ash73 said:

but we haven't directly observed it.

Would this count as observation of evolution ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evoluti...

[Troubleatmill]

cymtriks said:

The point is that the original authors did not see the world the way we do. Also some context is required.

As I pointed out earlier "every animal" would not mean every animal in the world if a modern day farmer was told to get every animal onto a truck to evacuate his farm. It probably didn't mean every animal in the world to Noah either. In the context of a hasty evacuation of the tribal settlement it would mean their farm animals.

Also there is a clear candidate for the Flood circa 2900BC. It covered a huge area and would certainly have seemed like "the whole world" to anyone living on the plains of Iraq at the time.

The problem is that both the religious and the non religious are reading the text without regard to the period in which it was written or to the context of the event.

But you are dodging the point about God wanting to wipe us all out.
Or is that out of context too?

Also - any views on racist Jesus or him and his Dad being quite keen on smiting babies and children? (Go back a few pages)

Edited by Troubleatmill on Monday 9th March 06:58

[Burwood]

scorp said:

ash73 said:

but we haven't directly observed it.

Would this count as observation of evolution ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evoluti...

any evolution denyer should be ignorred for the idiot they are. Evolution is a fact, accepted by the pope and Church of England.

[Moonhawk]

cymtriks said:

The point is that the original authors did not see the world the way we do. Also some context is required.

Isn't this essentially the line unbelievers take. Rather than the bible being the word of god - it is simply a book written by men who saw the world in a certain way. They explained that which they didn't understand with "god did it".

Once we recognise that the original authors saw the world differently to the way we do - it's not a huge leap to suggest that they also saw god where none exists.

[Derek Smith]

cymtriks said:

The problem is that both the religious and the non religious are reading the text without regard to the period in which it was written or to the context of the event.

If belief in a religion is based on the bible, i.e. is one of the abrahamic religions, then it is either the inspired word of god or it is not. It would appear to me to be accepted by most sensible people, both religious and non-religious, that Moses 1 is an explanation of the universe according to nomads who would, nowadays, be seen as uneducated.

For the rest of the chapters opinion becomes more divided. It is the same demographic for the authors but much of what is written is not so unscientific, so cannot be challenged that way.

We also find that a lot of explanations for occurrences, such as two bears killing 42 children, are attributed to the actions of a vindictive god, a convenient catch-all for those looking for a meaning to an horrific event. We see the same today when relatives of those killed in major or minor incidents look for a reason for the deaths. It is difficult to accept such things are a rigged lottery.

Then we have those who hear, or say they hear, voices in their heads and then perform some horrendous act. God told me to throw my daughters to the mob. Oh, that's all right then.

I assume we also have those who think that they can make a positive change to society and attack the organisation. But as you don't vote for you vicars, bishops and cardinals, once they are in position, they don't have to make any effort.

Religions are always corrupt initially or become corrupt. They are political parties, looking for power and control.

Then we have god. I mean, in all honesty, does anyone really think god will come down and look at any religion and be satisfied as to what has been done in her name? I can't help thinking there would be an awful lot of smithing going on.

Those who invent their own religion, picking stuff up from this chapter, in this book, or perhaps a good idea from a discussion on Loose Women, are doing exactly what humanists do: trying to be moral. So why the need for a god? One who obviously doesn't give a damn about individuals and doesn't bother to make appearances any more, not since smartphones and video cameras anyway.

Whether there is a god or not is a pretty silly question as we have no consensus as to what a god might be. My idea is someone who can transcend the laws of physics, chemistry and biology at will, who can do anything she wants, make anything, and destroy it. That's not the end of it. The most difficult bit would be in not becoming so fed up with not having to make any effort that they don't kill themselves. What a life, eh? Fancy knowing everything.

No wonders she's vindictive, capricious and smites a lot. Who wouldn't?

There might well be a god. We have to hope there is not.

[///ajd]

Moonhawk said:

cymtriks said:

The point is that the original authors did not see the world the way we do. Also some context is required.

Isn't this essentially the line unbelievers take. Rather than the bible being the word of god - it is simply a book written by men who saw the world in a certain way. They explained that which they didn't understand with "god did it".

Once we recognise that the original authors saw the world differently to the way we do - it's not a huge leap to suggest that they also saw god where none exists.

I think the fact that intelligent religious people don't jump to that seemingly obvious conclusion is why it generates so much discussion. Belief is not simple, or you could argue from your example above, rational. But we've discussed that.

Interesting to see a merican try and rubbish the science behind the moths in 2002; I wonder what the motive was? Thankfully science has since confirmed the science behind the observed evolution in moths is sound.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ash73 said:

by that I mean evolution is time based, give it enough time and completely new species emerge, but we haven't directly observed it.

Yes we have. Experiments have been done where we have seen a new species of bacteria evolve from a different species. Bacteria being ideally suited for this type of experiment due to the fast turnover of generations.

As for acorns and oak trees, you completely miss the point, deliberately I suspect. Evolution is simply gradual change over a period of time. The Porsche 911 has evolved, my job has evolved. Your specific example was a single cell organism evolving into a 50 ton dinosaur. Your issue seemed to be with discrepancy of size. Otherwise why pick 50 ton dinosaur? Why not pick cat?

My example was to point out that little things turn into big things all the time, and no one doubts it.