News Creationists object to Spore

Belief

Exactly, he "believes" it. It's not logical it's a belief. Probably because believing it gives him some sort of comfort and he needs some kind of absolute meaning to his life.

As long as he doesn't try to force his belief on me or others then I'm mostly not concerned.

 

kylew, i have a simple question:

is there any way that some day (after someone shows you without shadow of a doubt that evolution is real or very close to real) you will consider evolution as true or a possibility of truth?

if the answer is "no", you are dogmatic, people should refuse to debate with you, therefore my debate with you ends before it starts.

if the answer is "yes", please state the "holes" in the theory so we can see if they are holes or smudges.

 

theory:

law:

The source is m-w.com (dictionary).

I guess there is some flexibility in the definition, but in most scientific contexts, a theory is not absolute and is open for debate or adjustment, while a law considered absolute.

In other words, at least in the context I've seen, theories are open to doubt, laws are not. I think it's analogous to "fact" and "educated opinion."

 

Galileo died of natural causes, actually. Also, the issue over which there was controversy was not whether the earth was round. The issue was heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. While it was certainly an injustice, Galileo was simply placed under house arrest after he was made to recant. Of note is the fact that, about one century after Galileo's death, Pope Benedict XIV authorized the printing of Galileo's works with only slight censoring of one of them. By 1835, there was no opposition the Galileo's work by the Catholic Church.

It should also be said that the Church has officially apologized for what happened to Galileo and he has been recognized by Church officials (including Popes) as a great scientific mind.

Anyway....

Evolution does not necessarily conflict with Christianity. I know that many Catholics believe in theistic evolution (the idea that God used the evolutionary process to bring about the world as we know it). Indeed, the current Pope has been very favorable towards it in his writings. However, the Church does not require that Catholics believe in either creation or evolution.

 

The funniest thing about the blog, is that people of the opinion that the game is a case for evolution rather than intelligent design, is that they're suggesting that god sucks at playing video games, and also that they play video games as well as god.

God viewed as so personified as to be a dude at his pc is a little silly. Though such a guy should be able to choose to play flawlessly, in such a scenario.

With regards to evolution, cyrilthefish really gets it, and is explaining it the best.

About intelligent design, I'm always confused as to why creationists don't believe evolution is the mechanic through which intelligent design is expressed. All these species had to get here somehow, right? If there's a consciousness that can know everything that could possibly happen for billions of years into the future, it seems totally plausible that the universe could be created such that all the chaotic events that happen would lead to the desired set of species, without any interference after it's started. To say that's not possible is to put serious limits on the foresight and capability of a view of god that is normally suggested to be powerful enough to do that.

With regards to perfect species, when we say creatures have problems, and species go extinct, I think it's missing the real point, similar to people who are misunderstanding evolution as something that magically causes legs to jump out of live fish. I believe what's meant by species and things being perfect, is that this situation, these flawed bodies, etc., is perfect for us to have the experiences we came here to have. There's tons of different views of the meaning of life, but, to make an analogy, I think most of us agree that when we think back to our favorite videogames, they are not the ones that were a breeze, but the ones that challenged us a bit, and carried with them psychological reward for overcoming something tough.

 

Please be ignorant quietly.

I want you to understand, I'm not trying to insult you. When I use the term 'ignorant,' I mean exactly that; "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified." If I intended to call you stupid, I'd have done so directly. With that in mind, please try to view the following as an opportunity to learn, rather than an insult or baseless disagreement.

There's a lot of trouble caused by the choice of the word 'theory' to describe scientific achievements. This is because the dictionary definition is essentially "speculation," which does indeed make theories fairly useless to science. However, a scientific 'theory' is really nothing of the sort; rather, 'theory' is nearly the highest-ranking title in all of science. A scientific law is the only more concrete title, and is really only used for mathematical situations, such as the laws of thermodynamics (you can't get better than 100% efficiency and energy can't be created or destroyed) and Newton's laws. In order for something to be a scientific theory, it has to meet several conditions: It has to be well-supported by observations or experimental evidence, and has to make predictions which can be tested and potentially found false (for example, god can't be a theory because there's no way to disprove god's existence).

Here's a brief list of other scientific theories; if a scientific 'theory' is truly useless then I'm sure you won't find anything in the list which actually affects your daily life:
-Atomic Theory, how atoms look and behave
-Theory of Computation, used to develop computer algorithms
-Decision Theory, used in economics and statistics to make predictions
-Plate Tectonics, describing the composition of the Earth and the cause of earthquakes
-Circuit Theory, the basis of electronic circuit design and hydraulic power systems
-Probability Theory, used in statistics to determine probabilities
-Acoustic Theory, describing how sound works
-Antenna Theory, used to calculate how radio antennas work
-Special Relativity Theory, used to define the length of a meter and describe why the clocks on fast-moving satellites run slow

To everyone in the thread attempting to stay on-topic, I am deeply sorry. I don't really feel like debating evolutionism, but whenever someone drags out that old 'but evolution is just a theory' line, I get antsy.

In all honesty, I'm surprised it took until after the game was released for the religious outcry to begin. Don't you all remember The DaVinci Code and Harry Potter being denounced? I suppose although The DaVinci Code is a fiction book, it has the appearance or pretense of truth. But Harry Potter? Spore isn't the first time something with clearly benign intentions has been set upon.

 

Having just finished Blind Faith by Ben Elton I have to say it feels good to see so many people argue a creationist's opinion.

On topic:

I can see where he's coming from, if you're a true believer in god and creation this game might be offending but I don't think anybody would ever have the idea of a law suit against EA/Wright anywhere else than the USA.

Nice read though.

 

Hmm, does this mean the Catholic Church adapted and evolved?

 

The level of ignorance on this most important of topics is breath-taking. Perhaps the most annoying thing is that people who know *nothing about it at all* still think they are entitled to disagree with it in a way they'd never even dream of doing for any other branch of science.

It's analogous to walking up to a mathematician and saying 'Well because I don't understand how calculus works and don't really like the sound of it you must be wrong and it doesn't exist'. And then they whine on about how they are entitled to their 'opinion' as if that counts for anything! Why does someone's gut feeling about something trump *actual knowledge*? I mean, have any of the people going on about creationism here even read On the Origin of Species? No? So why do you think you are entitled to voice an opinion as if you don't actually know anything about the topic then?

I personally spent three years at university studying evolution, genetics and all the related topics as well as, of course, all the reading on it I do in my own time. I was also lucky enough to be under the tutelage of a lady who is probably the foremost academic in the world on the subject of Charles Darwin and evolutionary biology. I'd be very interested to know why the *opinion* of someone who knows *nothing* about the actual subject, never even read a book about it or anything, thinks they can speak with any degree of certainty on it? How on earth can you justify that? Anyone?

/rant

 

Evolution in proof:

In the early 1880s when English and Ireish settlers came across the island of Newfoundland off the coast of North America, they discovered two breeds of dog that were suitable for domesticating: one that was known as a St. John's Dog, and a breed that would eventually be known as a Newfoundland. Given the island's rocky coast, ship wrecks were common, and it was soon witnessed that the Newfoundland had an incredible swimming ability, single dogs being known to save 50+ sailors from ship wrecks by themselves. As a result of this ability, this breed of dog was favoured by the settlers: they got more food, favourable living conditions and generally a better life. As a result, the breed flourished, growing bigger and stronger with each generation, where as the other breed, the St. John Dog, dissapeared (it's mainland coisons eventually evolved into what we call today Labradors).

The massive success of the Newfoundland wasn't anyone's decision, it was the result of a random series of events that placed the dog on this particular island at this particular time in its history, and secured a strong future. Had the settlers never landed on the island, the breed may well have died out or evolved into something else through breeding with the St. John's Dog. As it happens, it's amazing swimming ability is due to the fact its a) huge, and b) has webbed feet, a mutation that must have occured at some point in the previous centuries and passed down to future generations. It is theorised it happened as a result of Norweigen fisherman bringing (and subsequantly released) Mastifs to the island in the 1400s, which bred with the native ansestors of the Newfoundland and produced the mutation. And in case you're wondering, neither of the Newfoundland's ansestors had webbed feet. This wasn't selective breeding, as the Norweigen fishermen had no-way of knowing 400 years later the settlers would need a big swimming dog, it was just an accident. As a result of pedigree breeding, i.e. preventing evolution, the Newfoundland still has webbed feet now.

Even if God did produce animals in his favoured way, the above example alone shows that since then, everything's changed a bloody lot! Regardless of whether we were made from scratch or not, no-one can deny that evolution doesn't happen on a daily basis.

 

Basically, yes. There is living evidence to support a connecting family tree here and there. There are animals that neatly bridge the transitional steps between different species: the coelacanth, the platypus (some dead ones too: Archaeopteryx, Protoavis). The genes that regulate cell division in us are identical to those that regulate cell division in yeast, to name one instance. We can actually track how the eye evolved (which doesn't take as many genetic mutations as you'd think --that's been proved too) through different species existing today.

Not at all true. Certain alpine plants have been shown to have evolved to produce foliage more efficient at catching the sun and withstanding harsh winds over the last 300 years. Moreover, some mutations do not appear to serve an advantage until they combine with another mutation --but had the first one not happened, the second one couldn't have occured (similarly each evolutionary step closes off another possible pathway. It's all chance, like a river meandering through an ever changing landscape). New Scientist recently published a nice article showing that principle at work.

Again, not true. A lot of DNA actually doesn't do anything (anymore), and then suddenly acquires a function (again) or works in combination with other DNA. The same genes do different things in combination with different genes. There is a lot of Emergence and Reiteration --it is incredibly complex stuff. Mutations have been demonstrated to cause bacteria to be able to use as food substances that were previously useless or even toxic. Organic structures suddenly acquire a new function (the flagella "motor" being a case in point). In larger, more complex organisms such mutations are more subtle, but in humans there is already proof that famines in grandparents cause genetic metabolic adaptations in their grandchildren. As I said: complex stuff.

Ask a mudskipper. At some point a species of fish is pushed to its ecological edge by the competition. Say a long warm spell in global weather patterns or shift in the landscape causes the rivers to shrink. Some offspring's "useless" mutation that went unnoticed because it didn't do anything at all in the river (and useless mutations get passed on too because they don't offer a disadvantage) or some mutation that perhaps even was a noticeable disavantage, suddenly acquires a useful function in this new context. They manage to adapt a bit better and survive a bit longer, and pass this on to the offspring. Re-iterate this process over a few ten thousand generations. Presto: mudskipper.

Same goes for people and gorillas. Both primates. But you'd argue that they're different species altogether. It's all about where you draw the line, and how far back. We don't come from birds, but we share the same ancestors. However we'd have to go to before the dinosaurs to see where the branches split.

It doesn't. It's all random chance. In a large population, those who have slightly more useful traits for surviving in that environment have a slighly higher chance to make it to procreation, and pass these genes on. Repeat for the next generation, and the next... over sufficient time all those random, turn-out-to-be-useful-right-now mutations accumulate. The less useful ones become extinct. The ones that make no difference one way or the other just come along for the ride. Maybe they stay useless. Maybe one day things change and suddenly they are suddenly useful instead. Maybe they combine with another mutation to result in something new. Who knows? It's all chance, and it is always changing.

Thing is, a basic bacterium like the E. Coli replicates every 20 minutes. That's a chance for a mutation to occur every twenty minutes. Multiply that over the number of offspring, and after, say, one year (25632 generations) you have 1.0019564818796487597476608003317e+7716 offspring (luckily, most of them die before replicating else we'd live in a solar system that is a giant ball of bacteria out to Pluto), with as many chances of mutation. Put natural selection on that as a filter and there is bound to be some accumulative evolution. It all adds up.

With longer living, slow replicating life forms like ourselves things take a lot longer, but it still happens. We (and the life forms around us) are not the end product of a long process of sophistication. Sophistication has nothing to do with it. We are the current, good-enough-to-make-it-to-the-next-generation result of a continuous process of adaptation to ever changing circumstances. We are always a work in progress, always changing, with no higher aim than to make it to the next generation. Over enough time we could become simple dumb lizards again if that is what it takes to survive to the next generation (some people would argue we are already on our way). There is no ambition involved, no values, no preference, no refinement. As long as we survive long enough to put our offspring on this Earth, it's good enough. Ad infinitum.

The problem is (as I can see from your arguments) that you don't understand how evolution works. You think it is Darwinist natural selection a la 1800's in its simplest terms. Science has moved on a bit since then. Evolution is a much more complicated theory, with mountains of supporting evidence but also complex, counterintuitive principles (that are nonetheless observable even around you right now). And most people don't really know the theory, or the models and principles, or understand how they work, so they dismiss it as fantasy.

 

Sorry to break up the fun kids, but the site's a fake.

But the Bible teaches us that God was not done with man. For we were His creation and He then spoke to Noah in Genesis 8:21-27 after the flood.
“21. The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never gonna give you up.
22. “Never gonna let you down.”
23.”Never gonna run around and desert you.”
24. “Never gonna make you cry.”
25. “Never gonna say goodbye.”
26. “Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.”
27.”Never truly believe anything you read on the Internet. There will always be cases of Poe’s Law.”

It’s these teachings that I’ve spent my life learning, believing and becoming, that have made me the woman that I am today.

Now where do those verses sound like they're coming from? It looks like everybody in the thread got trolled, and the only ones looking stupider than those going "hahaha creationists" are the creationists scrambling to defend their beliefs.

 

God is playing Spore with us... so why can't I play Spore on my PC