FSMism- A Viable Alternative to Evolution

[Fluffy The Hamster]

Hah haaaaa.

[Gimli]

if there is a god, why can't I see him? this question does not seem to bother millions of people now does it?

I thought that this god was really a monster made of noodles sorry . Anyway it is true that you don't need to see God for him to exist in fact it all you can do is believe, though there is strong proof for a Creator.

[Ancientwanker]

Yeah, sure, strong proof for a creator. Thats why they call it faith.

[Temujin]

if there is a god, why can't I see him? this question does not seem to bother millions of people now does it?

I thought that this god was really a monster made of noodles sorry . Anyway it is true that you don't need to see God for him to exist in fact it all you can do is believe, though there is strong proof for a Creator.

well the thing is, the "proof" used to say there is a creator, is the same proof used to explain why there is a flying spaghetti monster.

this can mean 2 things

1 there is no creator both are fiction based on "faith"

2 the flying spaghetti Monster is equally valid as "god"

[Reverend L. Lamb]

Amen Temujin

[Sir Saladin]

There is no evidence to support creationism or evolution. I don't think either should be taught in a public school. Science should be about facts that are discovered through research not just guessing. And when someone is just guessing or hoping it should be presented as such, not as a fact.

[pzler]

There is no evidence to support creationism or evolution. I don't think either should be taught in a public school. Science should be about facts that are discovered through research not just guessing. And when someone is just guessing or hoping it should be presented as such, not as a fact.

actually there is loads of proof for evolution.(think of all the fossiles and everything)
at my school we where taught evolution as well as creationism and where allowed to choose what we believed. i think that's probably the best system (considering the fact that many people still value religion a lot)

[Ilex]

Galapagos Islands' birds (cannot remember the name of the specie in english) are a great example of evolution. They origin from the same specie, but have specialised in different egological areas, to get the food required to survive. (There were no birds in Galapagos before the given specie came).

[Ancientwanker]

There is no evidence to support creationism or evolution. I don't think either should be taught in a public school. Science should be about facts that are discovered through research not just guessing. And when someone is just guessing or hoping it should be presented as such, not as a fact.

lol

The only place that evolution isnt long established is in your mind. Between the fossil record in the rock and the genetic fossil record which compliments it, there is no doubt.

Creationism should be taught in world religion, not science class as its not science in any way. The supreme court of the united states has ruled its not science and thats why they dont teach it in public schools. Better luck next time. Even the creationists have given up on creationism as being hopelessly based on the bible. Thats why they have thrown so much weight behind the ID movement. Its scrubbed down creationism where they remove the actual bible references and the nuttiest ark theories.

[Can 'O' Soup]

There is no evidence to support creationism or evolution. I don't think either should be taught in a public school. Science should be about facts that are discovered through research not just guessing. And when someone is just guessing or hoping it should be presented as such, not as a fact.

Actually, the scientifc method requires guessing first, then research and experimentation. Without guessing, there would be no science. The only evidence that can be found for creationism is in people's heads. I will pose you a question now. If God is perfect, how can He give one shit about us? If he is perfect, He will know what has the highest priorities in the universe, right? If He can always make more humans, why care?

[Johnathan Andrews]

Argh.  After trying not to get involved in another one of these debates, I couldn't sleep without posting at least once.

I used to be a staunch Atheist, and believed that science had completely explained away the use, and the possibility of the miraculous, which includes the existance of God.  The reason for my mindset came from being taught evolution as a FACT in public school.  Class after class, for many years, never viewed evolution as a THEORY, and only talked about creationism as a passing joke (the ID movement wasn't even in its infancy during these years).  The problem was that evolution is a theory, and cannot be 100% proven.  You may find EVIDENCE that lends credence to the theory of evolution, but you can never prove the theory.  (Note: you can never actually PROVE creationism either, for it is a theory as well.  Therefore, it takes FAITH to believe in either evolution or creation.)

After taking several high science courses (Quantum Mechanics, Advanced Physics, Vulchanism, Dinosauria, Anatomy & Physiology, ect), I was shocked to find out that science had not explained away God.  Most of the things that were taught as fact in my science and history courses actually proved to be theories.  Thankfully, some teachers actually took some time to explain several problems with the theory of evolution (though they themselves were all evolutionists).

This is when I began to realize that, since there was at least a possibility of the existance of a higher power, I had best find out if God really exists, and what he wants.  I would have never even examined the possibility of the existance of God if it were not for evolution being taught (quite correctly) as a THEORY.  After a year of carefully researching ID, creationism, and evolution, I came to the personal conclusion that the evidence for creation is convincingly stronger than the theory of evolution (I won't go into further details, but if someone is curious, I'll elaborate in a personal message).

Science, simply put, is the search for truth.  I think it is proper to allow students to consider evolution as well as intellegent design.  People should be told that both models of the origin of the Universe are theories, and thus cannot be 100% proven.  I think people who are raised outside of church should read a few books written by an ID proponent or a creationist.  I also would suggest that people who grow up in the church and remain there all of their lives should read a few books about evolution.  

There are quite a few good books out there on either side of the debate.  Though I just recently discovered the book, "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel (who happened to become a Christain rather than an Athiest based on the preponderance of the evidence) does an excellent, and fairly balanced job of presenting classical arguments of evolution, and testing them in the light of creationism.

For a more technical read, I would reccoment "Darwin's Black Box."  I forget who wrote this book, but it is written by a person who is critical of evolution, but is not a Christian either.

Oh, and by the way, there are numerous distinguished scientists who are begining to doubt the viability of macro evolution.  A few years ago, about 100 prominent (mostly non-Christian) scientists used their own money to  put an advertisment in Discover magazine, which voiced their hesatation to embrace macro evolution as a theory.  And they are not alone.

In summary, no one should discount either theory until they have actually taken time to consider both options.  Furthermore, it is very important to teach people (creationists and materialists) that there are other possibilities to the curriculum that is being taught.

[Nairagorn]

In my opinion, it does NOT require faith to believe in evolution. That's one of the biggest arguments used, and it's totally wrong.

We can watch evolution in action. Look at elephants. They're hunted for their tusks. Well, a few generations of this and guess what? Elephants are being born that never generate tusks! Having tusks if a trait that is determental to the survival of the species, and the elephants that carry the no-tusk gene are reproducing and surviving. A few hundered years of this and similar stimulus and you have an elephant that is the beginnings of a new species. A few millenia and you've got your new species.

We see the same thing in breeding fruit flies. They live very short lives, many generations in a week, and we can watch as mutations occur and are replicated. If its enviornment decides a mutation is beneficial that family breeds and survives.

Intelligent design (and it's big brother Creationism) are NOT science and should be taught in philosophy class.

"God did it" is NOT an answer that can be accepted in the scientific method.

[Fluffy The Hamster]

I'm one of the few who doesn't care. All I care is that "Something happened" billions of years ago. And that lead to the human race being born.

[Johnathan Andrews]

Yes, natural selection is good science, and can be observed.  However, it is a common falacy to equate natural selection with evolution.  Just because there is change within a species over time does not equate one species changing into another type or kind of species.  Again, there may be adaptative changes within a specific species, brought on (by nature/ by God), but that in no way can equate to or explain the change of one species into another.  This is not to say that NO change within a species ever occurs.  However, cats will never become elephants, or anything besides a cat.  Its ancestor may be a tiger, or a sabre tooth, or a cheetah, or a jaguar, ect.  Fish cannot grow legs and lungs (we can discuss the lungfish in further detail if you wish).  Microorganisms cannot create themselves out of amino acids.  

The stanley Miller experiment that generated amino acids, by the way, presupposed the wrong kind of early environment when he generated amino acids (the basic building block of life).  99% of scientists (including athiests, christians, and those of other faiths) believe that the composition of early earth is entirely different from the composition they had believed to exist.  When you duplicate the stanley miller experiment, given the knew knowledge about the composition of early earth, you generate a toxin, rather than amino acids.  Oddly enough, the toxin that is generated closely resembles embalming fluid, which is not exactly a great medium for life to "spontaneously" create itself.

As far as mutations, yes, they do occur.  As life continues, our DNA gets more and more scrambled, along with all other types of life.  However, by definition, a mutation (in the context of DNA) ALWAYS results in the LOSS of information, not in new information being created.  This is DEevolution, not change that continually gets better.  The only beneficial type of mutation is when LOSS of information turns out to be a positive.  For example, a fish that lives on the bottom of the ocean could have mutated (note, it is STILL a fish), and lost its eyes, to a certain extent.  Fish on the bottom of the ocean, for the most part, use their eyes very little, if ever.  An eye is a very sensative and vunerable organ, so the loss of eyes in a species that lives on the bottom of the ocean would be a beneficial change.  However, this is observed very rarely.

Oh, and to say that it does not take faith to believe in evolution is quite funny, if you look at it.  To presuppose that there is no faith (believing in something that is not 100% certain)  needed for evolution is only possible if YOU have attained 100% of all the knowledge of the universe.  Only then is there no need of any kind of faith, because all other options would be exhausted.  You may believe that there is better evidence for evolution, which is fine, but there is no person in the world that has knowledge of everything throughout the universe.  

Basically, you need to look at creationism, ID, and evolution, and find which has the most evidence.  Don't start with the presuposition that miricles and God are impossible, and don't start with the assumption that we cannot know any truth outside of the bible.  Then, whichever you find more plausable, go ahead and believe (have faith, of one sort or another) in it.

[Nairagorn]

cats will never become elephants, or anything besides a cat.

Quite true, don't think anyone has ever suggested this, except as an argument for ID. However, given enough time, a housecats descendants could be very different from a housecat. A few millenia of natural selection could leave you with something like a saber tooth tiger.

Natural selection is a function of evolution.

you need to look at creationism, ID, and evolution, and find which has the most evidence.

Well, seeing as how evolution is the only one with any evidence at all, I'd have to say that's the best theory yet.

::edit::

by definition, a mutation (in the context of DNA) ALWAYS results in the LOSS of information,

Incorrect. Not my statement unfortunately, I'm not that smart:
 "...biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)-- bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years."

BTW, what part of Memphis are you in? I used to live right outside of Eads.