Atheists and evolutionists: Can u give me your opinion on these articles?

Question

Why random chance is weak explanation for our universe
http://everystudent.com/wires/claypots.html

New science on genetics that Darwin didn't know
http://everystudent.com/wires/aboutevolution.html

Answer 1

The first article has no author, but it's still relatively easy to challenge the assumptions it makes.

In regards to why a clay pot would (or would not) spring into being from raw materials, there are two points to consider:
1) What REASON would nature have for WANTING a clay pot to exist?
2) A Clay pot is not ALIVE. Only living things can evolve towards greater complexity through natural selection.

Creationists use the "wristwatch parts in a bag" argument all the time, but what they (conveniently) leave out is that a wristwatch is a complex mechanical device MADE BY A LIVING BEING, not by nature. It would NEVER appear randomly in the natural world, so asking why it wouldn't assemble itself is pointless. Complexity in nature and man-made complexity are two entirely different things.

Nature WANTS complex animals like humans because complex animals are very good at putting their DNA into new generations. This is all nature cares about. Why nature wants this, I'll admit, remains a mystery.

The second article was written by a retired MEDICAL DOCTOR, not a paleontologist, and it only cites pro-religious sources (one of which, not surprisingly, is one of the authors own texts.)

Hardly definitive, let alone convincing material.

(boy did this guy get torn a new asshole. Good job gang :-)

Answer 2

The second one first, because I find evolution more interesting. The whole thing is simplistic and misleading. The genes for short roots are gone? There never were genes for short roots; there were genes which might lead to roots slightly longer or slightly shorter than those of the parent plant. If slightly longer or slightly shorter provide an advantage, then those genes will prosper in the gene pool, but there will still always be genes to reverse the process by slight variation in either direction. If you want to understand this subject, read a book by an expert in the field, not someone who wants to promote a religious agenda. Try Richard Dawkins. Notice that this writer spends some time explaining that which is accepted, then glosses over the part where he challenges it. That technique fools you into thinking he is talking sense. Where is his explanation for the idea that information is lost in evolutionary change? Now I will look at the other one and come back.
I'm back and, oh dear, that one is plain idiotic. Take two bags of watch parts. Put one down on the table and note the unorganized state of the pieces. Now shake the other one and try to make the pieces in that one unorganized in EXACTLY the same way. You will not be able to do that either. Still impressed with that argument? As for the fact that the universe is organized such that we can exist, well, obviously. In all the universes which are not organized that way we do not exist to marvel at it. What would you expect? This argument has been knocked down so many times I am not going to spend any more time on it. Dawkins has covered all these silly little problems. Really, look him up.

Answer 3

this will take me a minute to read...

...reserving answer slot: be back in 5...
------------------------------------------------------
*EDIT*
Ok. Back. The first article, about "Common Sense," is a complete misrepresentation of what evolution actually says. So even though it makes sense, it's actually irrelevant. What's even more funny is it contradicts the second article, which actually does a decent job explaining the basic idea of evolution.

First, let me give you a correct picture of how random chance plays in evolution. You will need 10 coins for this demo. Ready?

Ok. Throw all the coins up in the air. When they come back down they will be randomly scattered. Some heads, some tails. This is your starting gene sequence. What we are going to do is "mutate" this gene over a couple generations into a new species. Heads are good genes, tails are bad.

Natural SELECTION acts on this initial random mutation, so all the head genes get pulled aside because they are passed to the children. Take the rest of the coins (all the tails), and throw them up in the air again.

Some more random heads and tails now, right? Natural SELECTION acts on this new gene set, and passes all the heads to the children. Take the tails that are left and flip them again.

You can see that after only a few "generations," this organism will have an entirely different gene structure than the original. It probably couldn't even mate with the original now, so it would be a new species. What are the chances you could throw all the coins up at once and get all heads -- really, really small. Is that how evolution works? Not at all.

This is better analogy for evolution than the watch-parts in a bag crap that this site is trying to sell. You should consider learning your science from scientists, not preachers.

As for the second article, it is better, but still rests on a disproven assumption. Mutations can absolutely create new information. Mutations are just changes while copying -- whatever they can do, they can undo. This is not the comic-book definition of mutations, this is real life. If you want some evidence to back this up, check out the references on this page. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

(Hey, I read yours...)

Take care.

Answer 4

Both of those articles are common I.D. propaganda that misrepresent what evolution is and then show that this misrepresented evolution is flawed.

For example, the bit about the eye. Of course a full human eye could not come about from just the random assemblage of molecules. But if you take the time to do the research, you'll find that biologists have traced out the gradual evolution of the eye from very simple light sensitive receptors to full eyes, and that this has happened more than once along different lines of development. Did you know that they human eye is poorly designed compared to the octopus? See the link below.

If you are genuinely interested in learning why both of those articles are seriously flawed, there are many excellent books that you can read. Try Richard Dawkin's "Climbing Mount Improbable".

Answer 5

Bravo for trying,Chained,but they aren't going to accept any new information that may actually burst their little bubbles.I posted a website that was written by a scientist and former atheist of 31 years who said that atheists are becoming more extreme and less reasonable as more knowledge is gained through scientific studies that Intelligent Design is actually being proved.It has come to the point that they are actually offering over $1,000,000 to anyone who can come up with an explanation that corresponds to empirical biochemical and thermodynamic reality and be published in a well-respected peer reviewed science journal.In contrast,the revelation of creation from the Bible is being confirmed with the advancement of science. Since science and education are atheists main arguments for not believing in God and His creation of the universe,I wonder what excuses they will fall back on when science finally irrefutably proves that evolution,in all aspects,certainly didn't happen by chance.I wonder then if they will say science is "brainwashed,feebleminded,uneducated."

If you wish to check out the website I am referring to,it is:

www.godandscience.org

It is full of scientific facts.Atheists would say we can't prove anything from a site written by a Creationist,but keep in mind,this guy is a scientist,and he was also an atheist for 31 years,so he knows every argument atheists ever came up with,and he has the answers to those arguments.
I just watched a show tonight called "The Privileged Planet" where there were scientists and astronomers saying that the universe couldn't possibly have come into existence as a fluke happening.They didn't want to come right out and say God created it,but they did say that a supernatural,intelligent being had to have created the universe for it impossible to have happened on it's own.

Answer 6

Lordy, lordy. The old "well if you throw computer parts in a bucket and shake it around you won't get a computer!" argument. Well that is very true. But that is NOT what evolution is. That's not the "random chance" that evolution is. The random chance in evolution is mutation in DNA. If a mutation in DNA gives an organism a beneficial trait, over many years it will pass on its DNA more than those that don't have it, and gradually the mutation becomes the norm, and as these mutations build and build on each other, you get new species. The mutation itself is random, but not the passing on of it, which is very logical.

Of course Darwin didn't know all of the genetics. As the article says, he was around over 100 years ago! But taking his survival of the fittest argument and putting it into action for billions of years, macroevolution will occur.

If you thought coming from monkeys was scary, imagine that all life came from very simple bacteria!

Answer 7

Just because you have a hole in you knowledge doesn't imply a God. You answer nothing by putting one there to explain the Universe, you merely move the question back a step to explain the same thing about the nature of God. And you did that with no evidence to support the extra step.

Evolution happened. It is very clear in the fossil record. Get over it. Science quibbles about many details, but not the big picture. The fact that science debates how the pieces fit is because science is always willing to correct for errors.

Answer 8

My opinion is that I've read them many times and they still don't seem to understand the concepts of evolutionary theory or the beginnings of the universe very well. My other opinion is that you should try posting actual scholarly articles rather than ones from creationist websites--try finding scientists who will agree with what those cute little articles said. No really. Try.

My final opinion is: if you want to ask an actual question about this material, or ask for fully informed opinions, ask scientists. Meaning, ask on a science board. Thank you.

Answer 9

UGH! The same old anti-evolution apologetics... sooo sooo tired. It's time to let go of our ancient hocus pocus explanation of things and start looking to science for answers to how our world operates. You don't believe Jesus makes lightning do you?

When creationists use science they do so in a very manipulative way. They start off with the premise that there is a god that created everything and then they set out to find evidence that supports the theory. Usually this evidence itself is manipulated to be favorable to creationism and often times the evidence that refutes the claim is ignored outright. Never trust the science of a website that uses scientific language and also has the word "Jesus" on it.

Answer 10

Random chance is a weak explanation for anything and is not the explanation for evolution.
Darwin didn't study genetics.
You, like other creationists seem to be against the science of evolution because you think that it is against God. The science of evolution doesn't have anything to say about God at all.