Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Zachriel
That is a very interesting rephrasing of Genesis and may actually be an accurate statement.

I had actually written God as saying "Let there be a U(1) gauge symmetry" which would be enough to ensure the existence of light, but I thought this would be too technical for your guys.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Don't worry about it - your English seems pretty good for a non-native speaker.

Gosh I really apreciate that. As an American I have to try real hard to match Liverpudlian.

The problem with creationism is that you can never disprove it.

I disprove it all the time.

No matter what evidence you can come up with for evolutioin, the creationist can always turn round and say that God created it that way just to fool us. Therefore arguing against creationists in terms of factual evidence seems a bit pointless.

The Creationists CAN'T say that. They dodge, evade, and just plain prevaricate rather than claim Jehovah would tell a fib.

After all if Jehovah would lie with creation itself whats to stop him from lying in the Bible?

Never seen one single creationist that would accept that inevitable conclusion. So they never try that dodge on me twice.

It is better to agrue with creationists from the viewpoint of philosophy. Evolution would seem to be a marverlously elegent way for God to go about the creation process.

'And God said "Let there be electromagnetic radiation": BANG!'

Go ahead and try that. I have results you will have philosophy. I have been arguing creation vs evolution for considerable length of time(by internet standards) and I am pretty sure I have done better with evidence and logic than anyone can do with philosophy.

Some people won't change. Others will. Its those that think that will change.

[MrBaggins]

In reply to Rogan Josh

This is exactly what i'm saying with religious evolution. Religion just back peddles to encompass whatever made it blatantly wrong (if it can.)

For instance, the Catholic Church decided it couldn't win an 'Evolution doesn't exist' argument, so they back peddled to say God started it all in motion. Which will be valid up until someone proves it otherwise.

Essentially, the message from religion is: we're about the general idea, not those annoying little details, and forget what we said last week.

[player1]

Both Creation and Evolution can exist.

How?

Big Bang == CREATION

All after == EVOLUTION


As for Bible, why not consider all written in it as metaphorical, and not literaly.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Essentially, the message from religion is: we're about the general idea, not those annoying little details, and forget what we said last week.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

This is exactly what i'm saying with religious evolution. Religion just back peddles to encompass whatever made it blatantly wrong (if it can.)

Try not to let "Christians" confuse you as to what the Bible is about. It is not a science book. It is not a history book. It is an anthology of stories concerning the human condition and his relationship with God.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by player1
Both Creation and Evolution can exist.

How?

Big Bang == CREATION

All after == EVOLUTION


As for Bible, why not consider all written in it as metaphorical, and not literaly.

Consider this was the case. "God" starts big bang and sits back and watches the show. God doesn´t interfere at all after that, god just watches. It´s a bit boring, but after a few billion years, humans evolve and start to worship this so called God. God is happy that millions of people worhsip him for no apparent reason. He did not create the human and he won´t interfere with them at all. So what´s the point believing in this god anyway? Answer: there is none.

Only if you believe God created Man is there any point in worshipping God, and I think we all see that all evidence says God did not create Man.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Try not to let "Christians" confuse you as to what the Bible is about. It is not a science book. It is not a history book. It is an anthology of stories concerning the human condition and his relationship with God.

It is scientific insofar as a big claim of the bible is that god created everything. If he didn't then whats he got to do with us?

God only exists through self-referential evidence of the Bible. God inspired the Bible which says God exists. Thats like saying Aliens really did create the human race, because L Ron Hubbard said so in his book. That had some stories in it about the human condition. What makes his implausible stories better or worse than the bibles?

You've failed to address a fundamental statement I made... 'and forget everything we said last week'. Religion changes to survive. If someone wrote a religious book at the time... and said thats it, then they'd need to be terribly ambiguous about the nature of a god or whether he did create or inspire anyone, since it would be under scrutiny for the rest of history. Unless you revise it. Exactly what the church has done through history.

[player1]

You can also consider that God exsists beyond time and space, and that he knew, knows or will know that BIG BANG would make sentinent species (humans).

[player1]

Originally posted by player1
You can also consider that God exsists beyond time and space, and that he knew, knows or will know that BIG BANG would make sentinent species (humans).

Ok this is all for philosophical discussion, but question: "Does God exsist?" has nothing to do with bashing Evolution, or making "pseudo-science neo-Creationist" claims.

[Spiffor]

I wonder what's the official position of the Pope about this. Now that Galileo has been reabilitated, the Bible is officially considered as metaphorical material by the Vatican.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by player1
You can also consider that God exsists beyond time and space, and that he knew, knows or will know that BIG BANG would make sentinent species (humans).

Just religious back peddling to encompass current scientific limits. No basis in proof... or is this the 'gospel of player1' ?

[Lincoln]

Hello again everyone,

There seems to be a few basic problems here that need to be addressed. First there is the “speciation” argument. Hawaiian Wallabies and Australian Wallabies are both birds. That was Drako’s point. He and other rational people are looking for proof of a real change from one distinct animal to another. His point is still valid. It is speculation that asserts that it is possible for a catfish to turn into a cat, not evidence. Also the dog thing proves with several hundred years of experimentation that a wolf or dog remains in the same family and does not turn into another creature over time. What is proved is Variation within a particular kind of animal not evolution form one kind to another. Speculation is needed to prove otherwise. Experimental evidence shows that Drako was correct here. Of course the evolutionist will say that it simply takes more time. But in the mean time the prima facie evidence supports the view of Drako and the evolutionist must rely on speculation and subjective interpretation of fossils.

I see that no one has attempted to overthrow the information laws that I posted yet. No, I did not use the theory of Claude Shannon here because he does not address the true nature of information contained in a biological organism. That is not a refutation of Shannon’s work. Werner Gitt on the other hand address information not only on a statistical level as did Shannon but also on the true higher levels which define specified coded information which is in reality contained in DNA. So I must prove this here, I suppose so here goes:

In a tiny seed there exists all of the information necessary to make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a fully functioning organism. This is simply fact. It is the information contained in coded form in DNA that supplies all of the information for this miracle of life to take place. So let’s look on all five levels of information and see if DNA fits the definition.

1. Statistics.

This is a given and is what Shannon explored and is agreed by all. Statistics answers the following questions: 1. How many letters does the supposed alphabet contain? Answer; 4 (ACTG). 2. How many “words” are there in the “language”? Answer; About 64 (codons or triplets made up of the 4 letters). 3. How frequently do certain letters and words occur? This question defines a language as opposed to simply patterns or repeats of the same letter or word. DNA obviously is more than repeats and patterns. The statistical level helps us to understand the brevity or verbosity of information and the efficiency of communication but it gives us no clue to the actual meaning. For example if I sent a telegram which said “By all means come as fast as you can without delay or unnecessary preoccupation with trivial matters” that would be more information than if I simply said “Come now!”. The more detailed explanation is not considered on a statistical level – only the amount of information, i.e., more in the first and less in the second. As you can see, the increased information in the first example is largely fluff. The essence is in the second example and it is also more efficient because it uses less energy.

2. Syntax.

This is information in coded form. The questions that must be answered here include: 1. What combinations of letters (or symbols) make up the code? Answer; Any combination of ACTG (quaternary code) in triplets. 2. What criteria are used for constructing the code? Answer; It is composed of triplets that represent (generally) one of 20 amino acids. 2. What is the mode of transmission? Answer; It is transmitted chemically. Is it a true code? Answer; Yes, because DNA is irregular and the coded information within it cannot be explained by the laws of physics or chemistry. That is, the lateral attractions of ACTG are the same regardless of order along the string of nucleotides. Also the code has been broken and the translation method has been discovered. The syntax level of information is basically the grammar of the code. Or what is the acceptable order of words? In DNA the “words” must combine in a specific order so that the specified protein can be manufactured. Repeated words are allowed.

3. Semantics.

This is the actual meaning of the words or “sentences”. Both of the above requirements may have been met but we still do not know what this all means so that a seed can grow into a tree or whatever. For example I could say, “there is a barn flavored dog rising along the moon that caught a racoon that was transmitted sarcastically about the ionosphere.” That sentence is grammatically correct (according to WP grammar check) but there is no clear meaning. A developing seed needs to have instructions that make sense. This is accomplished in DNA by ordering the amino acids in a logical order that foresees the translation and eventual folding of the protein or enzyme into a specific shape and quality. “Make a tRNA molecule according to the following instructions . . . “ for example. Therefore the meaning of those instructions is to assemble amino acid “A” with amino acid “G” and amino acid “H” and amino acid “R” etc. in a specific order that has meaning to the organism.

4. Pragmatics.

This is the practical level. What does this actually do? Answer; It makes specific proteins. The whole idea of the code is to actually do something practical which is the making of specific proteins with a specific function that perform specific tasks that are useful in the organism. DNA when translated by the ribosomes and the accompanying machinery actually produces the desired product. Information to be useful must actually do something. The information contained in DNA actually works and has a practical value.

5. Apobetics.

Purpose or goal. What is the purpose of all of this? Answer; To make, regulate, maintain and reproduce a specific animal or plant. In other words, all of the other levels of information are combined to produce the goal which is a dog or a tree or whatever. The coded information in DNA accomplishes the goal that was intended. The seed was intended to make a tree. The goal was accomplished and the purpose was achieved.

Now about the question of the watchmaker analogy. Everyone who has objected to that analogy has used a circular argument to support their view. The fact that a living organism is self replicating and is affected by environment and other factors does not prove the inappropriateness of the analogy unless it is already assumed that evolution is a fact and it operates even before life exists. Of course that is the question of this thread so you are answering a question with a belief in evolution. Also, the entire purpose of the analogy is to show the absurdity of a machine arising from the earth spontaneously. The fact that a biological machine is even more complicated than the analogy only strengthens the case of the creationist.

“How do microbes acquire drug resistance?”

They either manipulate existing information like a computer program does or they a acquire new information from an outside source.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
Ok this is all for philosophical discussion, but question: "Does God exsist?" has nothing to do with bashing Evolution, or making "pseudo-science neo-Creationist" claims.

Exactly right.

[DaShi]

Re: Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
This error in the game shouldnt go unnoticed.

I find it humerous yet very disturbing that Theory of Evolution is considered a Wonder of the world in Civilization 3.

Its Humerous because its a fraud! There is no proof or evidence that supports evolution. Yeah you heard right THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION! Please if you do have evidence of evolution then come forward. Scientists all around the world today have no scientific evidence of evolution. In fact, a majority of the scientific community have given up on the dying theory of evolution and some have even declared it to be a joke. It is also humerous because it is even called a Theory at all. Its a hypothisis at best.

Lets look at the different stages that a new concept must go through to become a working law of nature. First the concept must be presented and asked. It becomes a hypothisis, it makes a good point and deserves some time to test. After it has been tested in a number of different situations and posibilities and it holds true, it becomes a Theory. After better evaluation and experiments it continues to be true in all situations it becomes law.

Never has any evedence been provided in favor of evolution. Scientifically it doesnt pass hypothisis. After the 6th edition of his book Origin of life : Theory of Evolution, Darwin himself acknowleged that evolution is false and no evidence supports it. On his death bed Darwin admited that evolution was a fraud.

Its humerous that Theory of Evolution is considered a wonder in Civ 3. Its also hilarious that its bonus is two free technological advances what a joke . If evolution did anything its hurt the scientific community. For as long as Evolution has been clinged onto as fact by some scientists despite the lack of scientific proof makes science look bad. Generations to come will puzzle over how the joke that is evolution was ever passed off as a theory. Evolution is a great blunder not a wonder.

However it is very disturbing that Evolution is still around. Its seriously disturbing how evolution is passed off as fact in our culture. We teach it as fact to our children. Its in our highschool and even college textbooks. Its on TV. And its FALSE. Its even in our vidio games like Civ 3. Civ 3 targeted audience is children and young adults. Its disturbing that evolutions is passed off as fact when it is false.

Evolution is the root of our social problems today.

The facts are out there. You just have to open your eyes and think for yourself.

The theory of Relitivity would have been a much better choice as a wonder. Unlike Evolution The theory of Relitivity has been proven fact and is now today considered a law of nature and physics. Many of the theorys Einstien proposed have led to many scientific advances today. Einstein also was a brilliant and kind man. Darwin on the otherhand was a very bitter man, a racist, sexist and also not very bright.

Anyway i hope sid doesnt let this error of claiming the theory of evolution to be a wonder of the world occur in the next civilization.

1