Why Invoke God?

[arX]

There are various things such as sight, and hearing which no matter how much an environment demands, I don't see it evolving just like that.

You "can't see it" because you haven't studied it and you are arguing against it purely on the basis of admitted ignorance. Nothing evolves "just like that".

I suggest you get Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable where he dedicated a whole chapter (The Forty-fold Path to Enlightenment) on the evolution of the eye in what is the best case study I've read on the subject.

It's a good introduction for the layperson.

[Angry Citizen]

There are various things such as sight, and hearing which no matter how much an environment demands

Okay. Let's take it from the top.

Some creatures do not react to light at all. They are blind. Common creatures exist in cave ecologies.

Other critters react scarcely to light. At best, they have a light-sensitive collection of cells which allows them to orient by an extremely powerful light source. An example is the sunflower.

Still more critters possess a slight ability to discern reflections of the light, and tell these reflections from the actual light source. Something akin to a moth would be a good example, probably.

Other critters can focus, but not very well. Such creatures typically don't use eyesight for more than detecting movement. The classic example of a T-Rex only being able to see you if you move (though a myth that has since been cast into doubt) is great for illustrative purposes.

And then there are creatures like in the animal kingdom, with binocular eyesight, high focusing power, and even examples of telescoping lenses. Some creatures possess the ability to see outside of 'typical' spectrums.

And the point of all this? This shows the evolution of the eye, from its primitive roots as a collection of cells which happen to have mutated to the point of being sensitive to light, all the way down to eagle's eyes or chameleon's eyes or rattlesnake's eyes. Given three billion years to work, evolution can do so much.

Not that this explanation will matter to you. You'll just run and hide and ignore my careful exposition, simply because an old book told you some stupidity about clay. At best, you'll dodge it as skillfully as a Spaniard when faced with a raging bull. This, my friend, is what your religion does. It takes known scientific facts and forces you to ignore them, all because you can't wrap your head around it. Like I said, you are a rapist of logic.

[Offeror]

Okay. Let's take it from the top.

Some creatures do not react to light at all. They are blind. Common creatures exist in cave ecologies.

Other critters react scarcely to light. At best, they have a light-sensitive collection of cells which allows them to orient by an extremely powerful light source. An example is the sunflower.

Still more critters possess a slight ability to discern reflections of the light, and tell these reflections from the actual light source. Something akin to a moth would be a good example, probably.

Other critters can focus, but not very well. Such creatures typically don't use eyesight for more than detecting movement. The classic example of a T-Rex only being able to see you if you move (though a myth that has since been cast into doubt) is great for illustrative purposes.

And then there are creatures like in the animal kingdom, with binocular eyesight, high focusing power, and even examples of telescoping lenses. Some creatures possess the ability to see outside of 'typical' spectrums.

And the point of all this? This shows the evolution of the eye, from its primitive roots as a collection of cells which happen to have mutated to the point of being sensitive to light, all the way down to eagle's eyes or chameleon's eyes or rattlesnake's eyes. Given three billion years to work, evolution can do so much.

Not that this explanation will matter to you. You'll just run and hide and ignore my careful exposition, simply because an old book told you some stupidity about clay. At best, you'll dodge it as skillfully as a Spaniard when faced with a raging bull. This, my friend, is what your religion does. It takes known scientific facts and forces you to ignore them, all because you can't wrap your head around it. Like I said, you are a rapist of logic.

You're only telling me that there are certain organisms that have lesser abilities than others. You started yourself by giving example of some creatures that do not react to light at all, and are blind. Theoretically speaking, will such blind creatures always remain in such a state or can evolution give them a chance?

Were the early microbes that came about as a result of chemical reactions or whatever, capable of reacting to light or were they blind in the sense that you used the word? You've stated examples of different creatures having different capabilities, which you rightly said is an explanation for a theory.

I'll consider running and hiding around, when you give me something better than that.

[Scire]

I don't find a man who is prostrating on the ground even remotely proud about something in himself.

The natural selection example which you have given is very well known to me, and actually its the most convenient example anyone could come up with to support his argument. There are various things such as sight, and hearing which no matter how much an environment demands, I don't see it evolving just like that. Actually I'd like to see your explanation for these. Also why giraffes had long and short necks in the first place?

Sure. Sight: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye



Ear: Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:

CB302: Ear evolution

a stage in ear evolution:

Evolution of Ear Is Noted in Fossil - washingtonpost.com

As to why giraffes had long/short necks in the first place, this occurs because there are differences in the genes determining neck length across the giraffes. Genes determine the physical characteristics of an organism. (Genotype and Phenotype) So your question essentially becomes: why do different giraffes have different genes for neck length?

There are two main ways genes change across individuals. One is mutation, which is pretty much random mixing:

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other mechanism is when the organism "conciously" (you know what i mean) resuffles its genes. In sexual reproduction, it obviously occurs when two parents sexually reproduce. They mix their genes together and the offspring receives a combination:

Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

asexually reproducing organisms have this mechanism:

Genetic recombination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The result of these processes is to induce genetic variation (and hence physical variation) into a species so that natural selection can "pick" (it's not a thinking thing) the characteristics best suited for survival.

I recommend The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins if you want to learn more.

EDIT

Theoretically speaking, evolution says that the creatures which are nearly blind right now have the potential to evolve powerful eyesight given time and the right environment.

[Silent Munkey]

The answer is pretty simple to me. Ignorance. Not in the negative sense of the word but just the fact that they don't know something and have a need for a god to explain it.

What happens when you die? Nothing? Something? No one knows because to actually die and come back is pretty much impossible. (Not like drowning or being brain dead for a few minutes..) No one knows so it is give to a god.

What is the meaning of life? Nothing? Something? It is something you have to figure out for yourself. Some people don't care to do that so they give it to a god.

How did the universe come to be? No one really knows so it is given to a god.

God was created by man to answer all the questions that were not able to be answered at the time. Once all of these questions are answered gods will not longer have a purpose in ones life and will then be a part of history.

[Nightwriter]

There's always going to be a ton of stuff we don't know, and it makes us feel better to think that there is something out there that knows it.

I always thought these "evidence" debates were silly. Lack of evidence is so far down on my "reasons I'm an atheist" list. It's almost not there.

[Scire]

I'm curious, why do you find it silly?

[freefallife]

If there is no God then life came about as a result of the random movements of inanimate matter. Do you think that is easier to believe than to believe that God exists?

Yes, and here's why. It's really not that random. You creationists like to call it just random chance that the probability of such events occuring is so impossible that it is evidence that a god must have done it.

These events are not random. They are governed. Governed by chemistry and essentially the electromagnetic force. There isn't an infinite amount of possible combinations for these atoms. They explore possible combinations governed by their attraction. Attractions which make them more stable. (I think I learned this one in 7th grade)

Saying that these combinations are completely accidental random chances is like saying that there is an almost infinite probability of a rock falling in any direction from a given point. However, it's not random at all. The direction a rock falls is not governed by chance or accident. It's governed by gravity...the gravitational force.

[truthsayer]

To all the theists out there:

I'm curious, why do you feel the need to have God in your lives? Where does God provide a good explanation for a phenomenon that science doesn't? Before you offer one, consider if you think science will NEVER be able to explain it (given the exponential rate at which we have been developing our technology) and please offer a reason why.

Moreover, how can you justify theorizing God in the first place (there is no evidence).

PS loser this is the thread

Looking forward to reading the responses.

What is most astonishing to me is that Scire has presumed from the start that the issue is a debatable one in the absence of a clear definition of God. I would concur that there are certain descriptions of God which find implausible, but specific constructs are not addressed in the original post.

Have you once considered that some might define God as everything? Do you then contend that the intuitive concept of "everything" is untenable? And if God is regarded as the prime mover, the mathematics and booleans, and the Tao, the force of order which gives things their shape, would you contend that no such thing exists? If so, then you eschew the concept of logic and truth value itself, so what are you seeking on a forum dedicated to debate, if not a logical avenue to truth?

You cite science as a contradiction to God? You need to open your mind much further, my friend. Science is staring into the unfathomable face of God. There is no contradiction, just minds to narrow to wed the two conceptually.

I'll leave you with a humbling thought; Einstein, who we might conjecture to be your and my better scientifically speaking, had a expressed reverence for God, a reverence for the universe which makes it rather absurd to see you attempt to couple that awareness with an ignorance of or disregard for scientific thought.

[Angry Citizen]

Have you once considered that some might define God as everything?

But that is not the most commonly accepted definition of God. When you substitute the word "God" into the meaning "reality", you are no longer talking about God.

You cite science as a contradiction to God? You need to open your mind much further, my friend. Science is staring into the unfathomable face of God. There is no contradiction, just minds to narrow to wed the two conceptually.

Again, you are changing the definition of God to suit your purposes.

I'll leave you with a humbling thought; Einstein, who we might conjecture to be your and my better scientifically speaking, had a expressed reverence for God, a reverence for the universe which makes it rather absurd to see you attempt to couple that awareness with an ignorance of or disregard for scientific thought.

I'll counter with an embarrassing thought: Einstein wasn't actually talking about God. He was a known pantheist/agnostic. Furthermore, Einstein is no more our god than Jesus or Vishnu, and is thus ill-prepared to speak for the entire atheist community. Seems to me that you're playing language games with us. I assure you, your redefinitions will not go unchallenged.

[Scire]

What is most astonishing to me is that Scire has presumed from the start that the issue is a debatable one in the absence of a clear definition of God. I would concur that there are certain descriptions of God which find implausible, but specific constructs are not addressed in the original post.

Have you once considered that some might define God as everything? Do you then contend that the intuitive concept of "everything" is untenable? And if God is regarded as the prime mover, the mathematics and booleans, and the Tao, the force of order which gives things their shape, would you contend that no such thing exists? If so, then you eschew the concept of logic and truth value itself, so what are you seeking on a forum dedicated to debate, if not a logical avenue to truth?

You cite science as a contradiction to God? You need to open your mind much further, my friend. Science is staring into the unfathomable face of God. There is no contradiction, just minds to narrow to wed the two conceptually.

I'll leave you with a humbling thought; Einstein, who we might conjecture to be your and my better scientifically speaking, had a expressed reverence for God, a reverence for the universe which makes it rather absurd to see you attempt to couple that awareness with an ignorance of or disregard for scientific thought.

If you're assuming a deistic view of God, A God which cannot interfere in the universe He created, then I guess that's more reasonable from an objective standpoint. But even then, there's no logical justification. I was referring mainly to Judeo-Christian faiths which really narrow down specifics. Science, I believe, contradicts those rather well.

If by God you mean nature, then it comes down to definition I guess. You're right, I should've stated which definition of God I meant. I meant the kind of God which is intimately involved in human affairs.

By the way, you are aware that Einstein believed in this kind of God:

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

- Albert Einstein

[Offeror]

Sure. Sight: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:

Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye



Ear: Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:

CB302: Ear evolution

a stage in ear evolution:

Evolution of Ear Is Noted in Fossil - washingtonpost.com

As to why giraffes had long/short necks in the first place, this occurs because there are differences in the genes determining neck length across the giraffes. Genes determine the physical characteristics of an organism. (Genotype and Phenotype) So your question essentially becomes: why do different giraffes have different genes for neck length?

There are two main ways genes change across individuals. One is mutation, which is pretty much random mixing:

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The other mechanism is when the organism "conciously" (you know what i mean) resuffles its genes. In sexual reproduction, it obviously occurs when two parents sexually reproduce. They mix their genes together and the offspring receives a combination:

Meiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

asexually reproducing organisms have this mechanism:

Genetic recombination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The result of these processes is to induce genetic variation (and hence physical variation) into a species so that natural selection can "pick" (it's not a thinking thing) the characteristics best suited for survival.

I recommend The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins if you want to learn more.

EDIT

Theoretically speaking, evolution says that the creatures which are nearly blind right now have the potential to evolve powerful eyesight given time and the right environment.

I am not debating evolution but only suggesting that there are signs of design all over the place.

Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not a scientist, so I wouldn't give my opinion over an expert opinion of a scientist, but I am only attempting to show design. Even the links you provided relating to eye evolution, you will notice they begin with organisms that already had a photoreceptor cell, and what happened after that is in front of us.

My initial argument was from the very primitive thing on this planet which I assume didn't have this nerve cell as they called it, to the organisms that developed the photoreceptive cell that according to the links is the foundation of the eye. You will probably be able to reconcile the two with the help of mutation which are surely random events (another Roll of the Dice).

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said it the Roller of Dice would've been better off playing in a Casino.

Only a most stupid person would make an attempt of proving science as nonsense in this century, I'm only suggesting design all over the place nothing else. If I may say so there are signs of evolution, and there are signs of design. It is different stages of different species that forms the basis of evolutionary evidence, and there is so much we are leaving on chance.

The way evolution is presented to me, from the starting point to the present day, it seems to me that despite the fact that there is acceptance of a very remote chance of life originating, and intelligent life, and hearing and sight, etc. but surely with the size of universe we've got, there should be good likelihood of life somewhere else, and a reasonable chance that the laws of evolution would take that life somewhere along the line, to a sophisticated form. Maybe thats the reason some scientists believe that there would be life somewhere in the universe, and some people also expect an alien visit some day.

I assert positively that I would accept the explanations in the links provided, but it doesn't lessen Design in my world, nor does it eliminate God, because design requires an intelligent Creator.

The only issue is that God didn't create a creation that popped out of nothing i.e. An elephant baby pops out of nothing, etc. that is the evidence against design. God didn't just give us ears and sight but he gave that to animals too, that is evidence against God. If there were a God, He would've just given eyes and ears to us, and all the animals would've been deaf and blind, or maybe they weren't needed, so He should not have created them.

I think its greater evidence of an intelligent Creator that He didn't use his powers without method, so that things might have popped out of nothing. Rather there was a method in how everything happened. The laws that govern our universe, are a systematic method of creation.

The Rainbow looks great, and the mangoes still taste delicious. The Creator is indeed perfect.