bit-gamer.net

Creationists object to Spore

Creationists object to Spore

Already creationist movements have risen up and begun protesting against EA's Spore.

It has begun. The first inevitable backlash against EA's Spore has started, with creationist bloggers starting a massive anti-spore campaign which seems to miss out on the point that Spore, if anything, is an example of intelligent design and not evolution.

"You would think that as a member of the Episcopal Church, a smart man like Will Wright would not be capable of creating Spore. However, we must be reminded that the Episcopal Church is the only church in america that ordains homosexuals on a regular basis," says the Anti-Spore blog.

Hm - classy.

"I have received many comments saying that the game is more like intelligent design than evolution and I must say I very much disagree after using Craigslist to find someone who would allow me to watch how the game is played," says the blogger in response to our previous 'intelligent design' argument. Of course, in the process of saying all this it has unwittingly been revealed that the blogger doesn't even have a copy of Spore to play.

"Yes, the game allows the player to choose how the character looks. But the game guides you through the evolutionary theory.
If you create a character that functions badly, and you can not eat, or fight, or move fast. You have difficulty surviving. Thus you must through trial and error select a design that works. Which is the fundamental “survival of the fittest” theory behind evolution.
"

"God did not create us through trial and error. He did not make millions of mistakes until deciding on the final concept. Each of his concepts were perfect on the first try."

There is some good news however, which is that even the controversial creationist bloggers have contempt for Jack Thompson. After being attempting to contact Jack Thompson at the recommendation of campaign supporters, the blogger came to the following conclusion; "Turns out that Jack Thompson is a terrible lawyer."

Incidentally, if you want to make up your own mind about Spore then you can check out our nine-page review and graphical analysis of Spore. If you want to hear what Will Wright says about Spore and what he has tried to accomplish with the game then you can check out this lecture he gave on the topic too.

Do you agree with the anti-Spore campaign? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

92 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
ChaosDefinesOrder 10th September 2008, 11:19 Quote
"He did not make millions of mistakes until deciding on the final concept"

hahahahahahahahahaha the Human body has sooooo many flaws it makes me laugh out loud whenever I see creationists saying that!
Torwald 10th September 2008, 11:19 Quote
Some ppl have waaay too much free time... This is only a GAME, but it seems they don't get it. Why they didn't react when StarCraft was released, or Sims ? :P
seveneleven 10th September 2008, 11:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder
"He did not make millions of mistakes until deciding on the final concept"

hahahahahahahahahaha the Human body has sooooo many flaws it makes me laugh out loud whenever I see creationists saying that!

My thoughts exactly :D How many types of human beings have existed before homo sapiens?Quite a lot!This guy thinks like a medieval priest - you know back when Gallieleo said that the Earth was round and the church fried him!Pathetic...
Arkanrais 10th September 2008, 11:41 Quote
Quote:
Each of his concepts were perfect on the first try
yah-huh. my cataracts, wisdom teeth and semi-functioning pancreas disagree.
don't these people have anything better to do? these people should be re-labeled 'cretinists'.
liratheal 10th September 2008, 11:46 Quote
I just finished reading the site when I caught this post :D

What I want to know is, the guy "I understand people get defensive when they know they are wrong" or something to that tune, yet, he's the one getting his knickers in a knot about a game?

I mean. It's a game. You can ignore it by simply not looking at it. EA/Will Wright aren't going knocking on doors, unlike certain Relgious groups, forcing the game on you.

Man up - If something doesn't suit your religion, have yourself a big bag of shut the **** up and ignore it. Unless it's funny, like this site for example.
DougEdey 10th September 2008, 11:55 Quote
Oh lawl. I do like the way they try and justify their words! Did God know exactly what to create us like? Who created Him?

Btw, eurl is missing a closing brace.
alastor 10th September 2008, 11:55 Quote
Tagline has a typo on the front page, and one of the eurl links is broken...tut tut Joe :p

Yet another example of fundies completely missing the point because of their faith-induced short sightedness.
Tyrmot 10th September 2008, 11:58 Quote
Of course, the opinion of anyone ignorant enough to believe in creationism doesn't count for anything anyway... But it was inevitable that they'd get up in arms about this I suppose *sigh*

Still, as mentioned at least it's good for a laugh in a quiet moment.. Quote:

'This entire game is propaganda aimed directly at our children to teach them evolution instead of creationism, or “intelligent design” if you go for stupid PC terms.

The object of the game is to evolve from a “spore” into demon-like intelligent space creatures that violently take over the galaxy.'

HAHAHAHA! brilliant
biebiep 10th September 2008, 12:02 Quote
Funniest blog EVER
Baz 10th September 2008, 12:06 Quote
I call fake on this - I just don't see someone being this stupid being able to write a blog.
PhenomRed 10th September 2008, 12:06 Quote
Lol, its hilarious how they link Spore to Homosexuality, as if the two go hand-in-hand or something.
hitman012 10th September 2008, 12:07 Quote
I hope you realise that this is probably a joke.
bowman 10th September 2008, 12:08 Quote
It's just a joke blog, and it's fairly obvious too..
LeMaltor 10th September 2008, 12:26 Quote
Please don't report crap like this Bit-tech, we do not care :p
Herbicide 10th September 2008, 12:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkanrais
[...]these people should be re-labeled 'cretinists'.

*snerk*

s/creationist/cretinist Userscript anyone?
Singularity 10th September 2008, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMaltor
Please don't report crap like this Bit-tech, we do not care :p

Yes we do, I need a good laugh :D
Stuey 10th September 2008, 12:48 Quote
Don't feed the greedy troll ******* [edit]******[/edit] [2ndedit]schmuck[[2ndedit]- remove the link to that site from the article. He's obviously just trying to lure people in so that google pays him big bucks for the traffic.

delete, delete, delete!

[2nd edit comment]man, it takes a lot of trouble to find a mild word that makes it through the swear filters!
UrbanMarine 10th September 2008, 13:01 Quote
I think it's just a joke but wouldn't surprise me. It's a game....if you don't like it don't play it, don't buy and go play in traffic.
ben_jt 10th September 2008, 13:29 Quote
Why does it matter if it promotes any idea, factual or not? It's a GAME, for fun and notably fictional.

How about we take a religious-based game, for instance Black and White (disclaimer, I have never played it myself), and let science supporters pick it to pieces?

Alternatively, we let the religious objectionists to Spore play B&W. Then, those the people who could object that B&W does not fit their beliefs of the world can then play Spore unhindered. No? Ah well, was worth a try.
Sebbo 10th September 2008, 13:30 Quote
"God did not create us through trial and error. He did not make millions of mistakes until deciding on the final concept. Each of his concepts were perfect on the first try."
i hold that earth is one of many planets in the universe housing one of his failed attempts, and that the universe may in fact be a game of Spore to God
we can play Spore inside a game of Spore, which may in fact be another game of Spore for another game of Spore... (yay, recursion)
Mentai 10th September 2008, 13:30 Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to outright call creationists ignorant (although many of them are), but this kind of thing is just embarrassing.
Arkanrais 10th September 2008, 13:32 Quote
hawky84 10th September 2008, 13:49 Quote
"God did not create us through trial and error. He did not make millions of mistakes until deciding on the final concept. Each of his concepts were perfect on the first try."

hmm that is why the Raphus cucullatus became extinct then? Because God didn't make any errors in that creation did he, the dodo was just perfect, I mean look how many there are walking around out side my office...
Cadillac Ferd 10th September 2008, 13:53 Quote
I wonder what the Craigslist posting this guy put up sounded like...

Also I feel that someone should found a blog for rational thinking objecting to people who object to everything for ignorant reasons, that would be a good read.
Redbeaver 10th September 2008, 13:53 Quote
........... what..... the ..............

sometimes i am embarassed to be a Christian. sorry.
Quote:
"God did not create us through trial and error. He did not make millions of mistakes until deciding on the final concept. Each of his concepts were perfect on the first try."

if we'r perfect on the first try, we wouldn't look like the way we are now. we would live hundreds of years too.

oh, and i love the dodo example lol
EnglishLion 10th September 2008, 14:09 Quote
Like all I agree - its a game - if you don't like it don't play it! (which I suppose is what a boycott is anyway!?!)

I get really sick of middle aged people mouthing on about computer games when they've never played a single one. On the radio a few months ago an ill informed 'mum' made a comment about how 90% of console games contain a violent aim, I promptly stopped at the local supermarket to survey the XBOX360 top 20 shelf to find that it was actually only 7 out of 20, that's 35%! Most games were sports, SIMs or Racing.


However, I do like this quote from Tyrmot, I sure hope he doesn't believe that the universe began with a 'big bang' that to me seems far less likely...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrmot
Of course, the opinion of anyone ignorant enough to believe in creationism doesn't count for anything anyway...
theevilelephant 10th September 2008, 14:22 Quote
Silly muppets. What really has me in fits is the notion that God can't defend him/her/itself so they must intervene on God's behalf. If God hates evoltion theory let God deal with it, and prove us all wrong :P
kylew 10th September 2008, 14:26 Quote
Personally, I can't stand the theory of evolution, and the portrayal of it as fact by people who admit it's just a theory, but just because I don't like the theory doesn't mean I have to 'hate on' everything that's slightly to do with it.

I played spore last night, and while I think evolution is a joke, I quite enjoyed spore. You don't have to take everything so seriously, when you play a FPS where you run around killing hundreds of people, that doesn't mean you condone the killing of hundreds of people. Or when you play GTA, you aren't condoning the acts in the game, because it's not real, it's a fictional story that shouldn't have any bearing on anyone person's life (other than those who think they're actually real).

Hey look, a top of the range PC just APPEARED in front of me! It's got specs not even thought of yet!

That's just as likely to happen as evolution is true :p

Apparently, evolution is the one scientific theory taken as fact, that they aren't able to prove using a formula, when something is to be taken as fact, it needs its own formula that works, evolution doesn't have this, yet is still taken as fact, oh well... :D

Either way, people need to get over them selves really, spore is fun and not an attempt to misinform the whole gaming community, a lot of religious groups do far worse things and get a way with it, address those issues before complaining about petty things such as easy going games. If they put the same amount of effort into fixing the problems around the world as they do complaining, I reckon the world would be a better place.
Tyrmot 10th September 2008, 14:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishLion
However, I do like this quote from Tyrmot, I sure hope he doesn't believe that the universe began with a 'big bang' that to me seems far less likely...

Probably more of a small whimper :P
Tyrmot 10th September 2008, 14:31 Quote
@ kylew - probably flamebaiting I know, but still - no-one with any brains takes evolution as *fact* - it is simply the best theory we have at the moment. Anyone who knows anything about evolution (or indeed the scientific method in general) knows that. If you want to go and setup straw men, there are plenty of fundie forums that would welcome you with open arms!
CardJoe 10th September 2008, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Personally, I can't stand the theory of evolution, and the portrayal of it as fact by people who admit it's just a theory, but just because I don't like the theory doesn't mean I have to 'hate on' everything that's slightly to do with it.

I played spore last night, and while I think evolution is a joke, I quite enjoyed spore. You don't have to take everything so seriously, when you play a FPS where you run around killing hundreds of people, that doesn't mean you condone the killing of hundreds of people. Or when you play GTA, you aren't condoning the acts in the game, because it's not real, it's a fictional story that shouldn't have any bearing on anyone person's life (other than those who think they're actually real).

Hey look, a top of the range PC just APPEARED in front of me! It's got specs not even thought of yet!

That's just as likely to happen as evolution is true :p

Apparently, evolution is the one scientific theory taken as fact, that they aren't able to prove using a formula, when something is to be taken as fact, it needs its own formula that works, evolution doesn't have this, yet is still taken as fact, oh well... :D

Either way, people need to get over them selves really, spore is fun and not an attempt to misinform the whole gaming community, a lot of religious groups do far worse things and get a way with it, address those issues before complaining about petty things such as easy going games. If they put the same amount of effort into fixing the problems around the world as they do complaining, I reckon the world would be a better place.



You need to research more before you make these points. I at least had the decency to grow up as a christian, spend years in bible camp and summer school, study Philosophy and Ethics at A-Level and be active in discussions and debates with Christians on a number of topics before I turned around and started shooting holes in the biblical theory. Can't you do the same, if only to ensure that your arguments aren't blatantly flawed?

Start here, and at least watch it without an open mind before you shoot holes in it, even though his view is aggresively contrary to you. It delves into proofs, which is more than you are able to do when you say that evolution is false.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458
kylew 10th September 2008, 14:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrmot
@ kylew - probably flamebaiting I know, but still - no-one with any brains takes evolution as *fact* - it is simply the best theory we have at the moment. Anyone who knows anything about evolution (or indeed the scientific method in general) knows that. If you want to go and setup straw men, there are plenty of fundie forums that would welcome you with open arms!

*cough*

You're being worse than I am to be honest, I didn't insult you or anyone else, I insulted the theory. Stop flame-baiting and being a fool just because I don't agree with what you think. You're entitled to think what you want and so am I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe


You need to research more before you make these points. I at least had the decency to grow up as a christian, spend years in bible camp and summer school, study Philosophy and Ethics at A-Level and be active in discussions and debates with Christians on a number of topics before I turned around and started shooting holes in the biblical theory. Can't you do the same, if only to ensure that your arguments aren't blatantly flawed?

Start here, and at least watch it without an open mind before you shoot holes in it, even though his view is aggresively contrary to you. It delves into proofs, which is more than you are able to do when you say that evolution is false.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458

There's many things that discuss how it's an extremely flawed theory, just as many as there are that support it, and I maintain my opinion on that it's a very flawed theory, just because I don't share your opinion doesn't mean I need to 'grow up'.

I wasn't actually arguing the point with anyone. I expressed my opinion, read the rest of my post and take note of it instead of nit-picking the parts you disagree with.

Ignorance, dismissing what I say and stating that I'm being ignorant because I'm dismissing the theory of evolution? Yet you tell me that some one 'delving in to proofs' is more than I am able to do is bascially telling me I'm wrong, but by trying to put an intelligent spin on it. Tell me I'm wrong, I don't care, but don't complain about me being closed minded that I dismiss a theory whilst you're dismissing my opinion.
Tyrmot 10th September 2008, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
*cough*

You're being worse than I am to be honest, I didn't insult you or anyone else, I insulted the theory. Stop flame-baiting and being a fool just because I don't agree with what you think. You're entitled to think what you want and so am I.

You insult people not theories. Only a fool would try and 'insult' a *theory*. Anyone with half a brain would simply offer at least one single fact to try and disprove/question it. You did neither.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
when something is to be taken as fact, it needs its own formula that works
- nuff said there really
Tyrmot 10th September 2008, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
but don't complain about me being closed minded that I dismiss a theory whilst you're dismissing my opinion.

When you understand the difference between a *theory* (in the scientific sense) and an *opinion*, then come back and talk about whether evolution is valid or not

[OK no more feeding the trolls]
kylew 10th September 2008, 14:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrmot
You insult people not theories. Only a fool would try and 'insult' a *theory*. Anyone with half a brain would simply offer at least one single fact to try and disprove/question it. You did neither.

- nuff said there really

Insult isn't restricted to people, of course you can insult a theory, the same way you can insult a person's intelligence, or workmanship.

As for your second point, I'm talking about scientific theories, I'm sure deep down you knew that, you just wanted to complain a bit more. I'll rephrase it easier for you to understand.

Scientific theories that are proved as fact, need a formula to support the theory, evolution doesn't have a formula, yet it's still taken as fact and portrayed as fact by a lot of people. Most school science teachers portray it as fact that I've came across. :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrmot
When you understand the difference between a *theory* (in the scientific sense) and an *opinion*, then come back and talk about whether evolution is valid or not

[OK no more feeding the trolls]

So you're insulting me for not agreeing with your opinion, and that I'm closed minded for dismissing evolution, and acting as if it's fact, yet you're still convinced that you're being open-minded and not dismissing anything? You can't call some one for dismissing something while dismissing their opinion yourself. That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

So you're basically saying:

'I'm right, you're wrong, but if you tell me that I'm wrong, then you're being foolish and being dismissive of what I think, and you're just stupid and can't think for yourself.'

:?
quack 10th September 2008, 15:06 Quote
Please read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Evolution is much a fact and a theory as gravity, unless you want to try and disprove gravity now. Sheesh.
Tyrmot 10th September 2008, 15:10 Quote
That wooshing noise was my point going over your head.
Haramzadeh 10th September 2008, 15:19 Quote
Even if it is a joke blog, it's pretty hilarious. :D
hawky84 10th September 2008, 15:26 Quote
evolution has to be one of the longest running theories that has yet to be fully proven (apart from looking out-side and not seeing a primordial soup) and lets face it no christian or other has come up with any evidence that the theory is flawed... or that God exists
jfab199+ 10th September 2008, 15:28 Quote
I can't say anything that hasn't been said already. I found these on amazon a while ago and found them amusing and thought I would share:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=evolution+car+emblem&x=0&y=0

I love the n'chips one.
hawky84 10th September 2008, 15:31 Quote
here we go gotta love the first line : -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth."
ParaHelix.org 10th September 2008, 15:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawky84
here we go gotta love the first line : -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth."

LMFAO ****ing epic.
Vash-HT 10th September 2008, 16:08 Quote
I find it weird that he claims humans were perfectly created. Isn't it one of the cornerstones of christianity and similar religions that humans are imperfect and need god/jesus to forgive us?
kylew 10th September 2008, 16:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParaHelix.org
GROW UP STUPID BRAIN WASHED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE! IT'S A DAMN GAME!!!

It's not religious people, it's people who want to complain about anything. Something doesn't tally with their beliefs, kill it with fire! But this isn't just restricted to people who are religious. A lot of people turn 'funny' when some one expresses something they don't agree with, rather than just saying you disagree, they feel the need to pursue an end to what they don't agree with. I'm a religious person, yet spore doesn't bother me in the slightest, it's a fun game in my opinion. It's just people can't handle their beliefs being questioned because of how strongly they think everyone needs to follow them, or there's something wrong with them, as some people have shown on her about being an evolutionist. It's a human thing, and people have been doing it for thousands of years. I've said I think evolution is a joke, but calm down, it's my opinion you don't have to insult me because you think you're right.

People get the same about graphics cards, processors, peripherals, games consoles, movies and anything else people express and interest in. Nothing wrong in being a 'fanboy' but don't think you can kick and scream when some one tells you that they think your graphics card is crap.
[USRF]Obiwan 10th September 2008, 16:30 Quote
Separation of Game and Religion is a must. Like the supposed to be separation of State and Religion.
I say religion is the destruction of our world, and believing in any religion is a statement that you are thinking, you are better then everyone else.
kylew 10th September 2008, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]Separation of Game and Religion is a must. Like the supposed to be separation of State and Religion.
I say religion is the destruction of our world, and believing in any religion is a statement that you are thinking, you are better than everyone else.

That's a good example of ignorance. Arrogance has nothing to do with some one being religious. your statement itself is arrogant. Basically saying that you're not allowed to be religious, otherwise you think you're better than I am. You're talking about self-righteous religious zealots who condemn everyone who doesn't think the way they do, which is something you're almost doing. From experience, some of the most pathetic people I've ever met were religious people, who did think they were better than others, who incidentally turned out to be weirdos involved in a whole host of bad goings on, and some of the worse, backward people I've ever met. But this isn't religion, it's people with unhealthy obsessions. They say self-righteousness is the sickness of a religious person. Which is proven true on many many occasions, but it's like trying to label some one from a certain race to be a certain way. People ruin religions, not religions ruin people, in my opinion, especially those abuses of chior boys, they're ruining their religion, it's not the religion ruining them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]Separation of Game and Religion is a must. Like the supposed to be separation of State and Religion.
I say religion is the destruction of our world, and believing in any religion is a statement that you are thinking, you are better then everyone else.

Though I do agree that state and religion should be separate for the sake of being able to accommodate people from many different backgrounds and cultures.
cyrilthefish 10th September 2008, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Personally, I can't stand the theory of evolution, and the portrayal of it as fact by people who admit it's just a theory, but just because I don't like the theory doesn't mean I have to 'hate on' everything that's slightly to do with it.

I played spore last night, and while I think evolution is a joke, I quite enjoyed spore. You don't have to take everything so seriously, when you play a FPS where you run around killing hundreds of people, that doesn't mean you condone the killing of hundreds of people. Or when you play GTA, you aren't condoning the acts in the game, because it's not real, it's a fictional story that shouldn't have any bearing on anyone person's life (other than those who think they're actually real).

Hey look, a top of the range PC just APPEARED in front of me! It's got specs not even thought of yet!

That's just as likely to happen as evolution is true :p

Apparently, evolution is the one scientific theory taken as fact, that they aren't able to prove using a formula, when something is to be taken as fact, it needs its own formula that works, evolution doesn't have this, yet is still taken as fact, oh well... :D
I am genuinely confused how you can possibly see evolution as 'a joke' what possible evidence do you have against it?*
there is absolute bucketloads of hard evidence for evolution, and none for creationism

What evidence do you have of a better theory?**

*closest i've ever seen is creationists just pointing out gaps in the fossil record, which is silly considering how incredibly rare it is for animals to be fossilised.
** 'god did it' is not a valid theory, it's just a get-out-of-jail-free card for explaining anything that requires no evidence and at the end of the day, explains nothing about the universe or how things work.

pic very related:
http://server50734.uk2net.com/temp/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png
Haramzadeh 10th September 2008, 17:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash-HT
I find it weird that he claims humans were perfectly created. Isn't it one of the cornerstones of christianity and similar religions that humans are imperfect and need god/jesus to forgive us?

He means perfect as in physical, not moral. Which makes sense if you believe in the Bible or Quran literally. If God is the creator and a perfect being, the idea of our creation going throught "drafts" and a process of corrections and upgrades would be basically saying your God isn't perfect and can't get things right the first time round.

Of course the empirical evidence in our evolutionary history and the many problems and issues with our own biologies proves exactly that!
Krikkit 10th September 2008, 17:24 Quote
Now now people, no flaming please. Any more and I'll start polishing the suspension hammer tbh.
UrbanMarine 10th September 2008, 17:33 Quote
Some people were made in the back of cars, some in bathrooms, some in showers, some were oops etc...
jweller 10th September 2008, 17:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torwald
Some ppl have waaay too much free time... This is only a GAME, but it seems they don't get it. Why they didn't react when StarCraft was released, or Sims ? :P

But you don't understand. This game is played by innocent, impressionable, easily corruptible CHILDREN!! Satan is working his evil through game developers to turn our kids away from the one true doctrine of creation and to the sin of evolution. *tongue firmly in cheek*
HourBeforeDawn 10th September 2008, 18:24 Quote
see this is why I think religion is the root of everything bad going on in this world ~_~
UrbanMarine 10th September 2008, 18:31 Quote
I worship the cheap hookers and beer Gods. I'm sure I could find a blog against it.
MrMonroe 10th September 2008, 18:31 Quote
Now that the game is actually out, you'd think you guys would stop using the year-old, outdated screencap of the creature editor.

Y'all need some more Intelligent Design up ins.
Jordan Wise 10th September 2008, 18:46 Quote
The ignorance of religion makes my blood boil...
PhoneyVirus 10th September 2008, 19:01 Quote
Jack Thompson is stupid AS MY @SS an is a terrible lawyer, other big mouth to my list. MrMonroe is right stop using the year-old, outdated screencap of the creature editor.
Nexxo 10th September 2008, 19:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Personally, I can't stand the theory of evolution, and the portrayal of it as fact by people who admit it's just a theory, but just because I don't like the theory doesn't mean I have to 'hate on' everything that's slightly to do with it...

...Hey look, a top of the range PC just APPEARED in front of me! It's got specs not even thought of yet!

That's just as likely to happen as evolution is true :p

Apparently, evolution is the one scientific theory taken as fact, that they aren't able to prove using a formula, when something is to be taken as fact, it needs its own formula that works, evolution doesn't have this, yet is still taken as fact, oh well... :D
Let's start with establishing a common basis to debate from.

1. Do you accept that we inherit the genes of our parents (i.e. sunflowers beget sunflowers, dogs beget dogs, humans beget humans)?

2. Do you accept that these genes can spontaneously mutate and offspring can exhibit a slight alteration of a trait that the parents did not?

3. Do you accept that by selective breeding, you can make those small changes incremental, and hence breed distinct features (as we have been doing in lifestock, pets, plants etc. for centuries, to enhance yield, strength or certain physical characteristics)?

All these things are observable facts that we use to our advantage in breeding livestock, plants and pets. OK, now the next step:

4. Do you accept that certain traits, in certain ecological circumstances or environments, may give an animal or plant a slight survival advantage over its competing peers and thus make it more likely to procreate and pass these advantageous traits on to its offspring?

5. Do you accept that therefore, over generations the environment itself (including competing life forms) acts as a selective pressure, kind of doing the selective breeding that farmers or dog breeders would, thus resulting in animals and plants that are better suited to their particular environment?

All these things have been observed too. Now here comes the tricky bit:

6. Do you accept that if this process carries on long enough, you can (but do not inevitably have to, it's all down to selective pressures) end up with species that are very different from their ancestors millions of years ago? I mean, look at the chihauhua and the wolf. Kind of different, no? That was just 4000 years or so of selective breeding. Now imagine a million years.

"Ah", you will now say, "but they are still both dogs. It's not like, say, humans and apes". Isn't it? Look at the chimp and the human. Perhaps not that much more different than a chihuahua and a wolf. We make the distiction between human and ape, but the fact is, we're both primates.

Now the bits which you (I suspect) struggle with:

7. Do you accept that the earlier a species diverges, in the more different directions they evolve?

8. Do you accept that simple organisms, over time, can evolve into something much more complex?

Again, both have been observed. I remind you of how we all started out as a single fertilised ovum, for instance. Ain't emergence wonderful. Evolution also involves nonlinear dynamics, reiteration, chaos theory and many other observed biological and physical principles. Although it takes a long time to observe evolution in full swing (although it has been done --luckily some life forms live very short and procreate real fast), all the necessary principles have been observed. We even exploit some of them in creating new breeds of plant and animal to suit our needs.

I could go on, but it would become a long post. In short, if you don't find evolution plasuible, it is because you don't really understand how it works.
kempez 10th September 2008, 19:28 Quote
Ah, gotta love Nexxo stepping in. I was waiting for that moment. Well said that man (as damn usual :D)

I knew we'd start getting people objecting to Spore, it was all a matter of time really. I just wish some of the people criticising games in this way would play them first, then create a reasoned and sensible opinion based on that experience. Bit much to ask I expect.
Aterius Gmork 10th September 2008, 20:18 Quote
I love the quote in one of Terry Pratchet's books when he writes that fossils are just left behind by the gods to confuse us, so they have some fun watching us.

Not that I don't believe in evolution, I do. Or err. I actually don't care tbh.
kylew 10th September 2008, 20:33 Quote
@nexxo, selective breeding is one thing, completely changing from one type of creature to another is completely different. You're talking about people theorising that reptiles became birds and that sea animals became land animals with legs.

Mutations that have been observed are either negative, or serve no advantage to the animal.

The way DNA works, is that it can't gain additional information, when a mutation occours, it's either an ommisson, or an addition of something that's alread there, and additional limb, finger, ear, toe and so on. or missing a limb, eye, fingers and so on.

The likelyhood of a creature 'mutating' and the mutation being a useful mutation enough times to turn into a leg is extremely unlikely. How does a sea creature's body know that it needs 'legs' to walk on the surface? Or it needs lungs to absorb oxygen from the air?

You don't get that type of thing out of selective breeding, you just get variations on what's already there. So your example of a wolf being selectively bred into a chihuahua just exhibits the point that they're both still dogs. they have the same features, they're just a different shape.

You're describing it as if chihuahuas have wings and can fly, whereas wolves don't.

As for the environment changing an animal's make up, how can the animal's body know what it needs to change for it to get it right, so many times that it proves useful?

Why don't you just acept that it's my opinion on the matter, while your own is different? Stop trying to dismiss what I say while complaining that I'm dismissing evolution. Learn that people don't all need to think the same.

And anyway, for those that keep commenting on me complaining about the game, read my posts, I have stated a few times already that I have no issue with the game, I like spore and think it's fun to play. regardless of the fact that I think evolution is a joke.
kempez 10th September 2008, 20:41 Quote
Nobody's arguing with you about the game, they're actually keeping the discussion sort of on topic by *shock horror* commenting on the article

Let's just hope you soon become a feature of the Darwin Awards because despite your poor (and fatally flawed) arguments against Nexxo's points, you are indeed subject to evolution. Bad luck :)
Furymouse 10th September 2008, 20:47 Quote
Ignorance is ignorance wether by a religious bigot or a ambivelant bigot. What's the point of debating one way or the other? It proves nothing and won't change somebody's mind to believe what you believe.

But I will say that his view of us being perfect, well thats just crap. Even the Bible says thats wrong. Perfection , at least according to my religion, is not something attained in this life. But it is a goal we strive for.

But trying to force someones religion on another wether it be creationistic or evolutionistic, is just stupidistic ( yes, it had to be done.) :)
mbenoni7 10th September 2008, 21:17 Quote
If creationists are all idiots, at least they're not as dumb as people who could read that blog and think it's sincere...
Stuey 10th September 2008, 21:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Let's start with establishing a common basis to debate from.

1. Do you accept that we inherit the genes of our parents (i.e. sunflowers beget sunflowers, dogs beget dogs, humans beget humans)?
Yes
Quote:

2. Do you accept that these genes can spontaneously mutate and offspring can exhibit a slight alteration of a trait that the parents did not?
Yes
Quote:

3. Do you accept that by selective breeding, you can make those small changes incremental, and hence breed distinct features (as we have been doing in lifestock, pets, plants etc. for centuries, to enhance yield, strength or certain physical characteristics)?

All these things are observable facts that we use to our advantage in breeding livestock, plants and pets. OK, now the next step:
Yes
Quote:

4. Do you accept that certain traits, in certain ecological circumstances or environments, may give an animal or plant a slight survival advantage over its competing peers and thus make it more likely to procreate and pass these advantageous traits on to its offspring?
Yes
Quote:

5. Do you accept that therefore, over generations the environment itself (including competing life forms) acts as a selective pressure, kind of doing the selective breeding that farmers or dog breeders would, thus resulting in animals and plants that are better suited to their particular environment?

All these things have been observed too. Now here comes the tricky bit:
Yes
Quote:

6. Do you accept that if this process carries on long enough, you can (but do not inevitably have to, it's all down to selective pressures) end up with species that are very different from their ancestors millions of years ago? I mean, look at the chihauhua and the wolf. Kind of different, no? That was just 4000 years or so of selective breeding. Now imagine a million years.
Maybe, but when I imagine "a million years," I see a yellow submarine, blue police box, and a bucket of fried chicken.
Quote:

"Ah", you will now say, "but they are still both dogs. It's not like, say, humans and apes". Isn't it? Look at the chimp and the human. Perhaps not that much more different than a chihuahua and a wolf. We make the distiction between human and ape, but the fact is, we're both primates.
The list of differences between human and pig is quite short as well.
Quote:

Now the bits which you (I suspect) struggle with:

7. Do you accept that the earlier a species diverges, in the more different directions they evolve?
Yes
Quote:

8. Do you accept that simple organisms, over time, can evolve into something much more complex?
No.
Quote:

Again, both have been observed. I remind you of how we all started out as a single fertilised ovum, for instance. Ain't emergence wonderful. Evolution also involves nonlinear dynamics, reiteration, chaos theory and many other observed biological and physical principles. Although it takes a long time to observe evolution in full swing (although it has been done --luckily some life forms live very short and procreate real fast), all the necessary principles have been observed. We even exploit some of them in creating new breeds of plant and animal to suit our needs.

I could go on, but it would become a long post. In short, if you don't find evolution plasuible, it is because you don't really understand how it works.
Now you're just throwing big words at everyone. Does evolution involve chaos theory in a statistical sense? I suppose it is more logical a chaos effect rather than a random effect.

Anyways, I think that this thread is heading in a downward spiral. I mean, once Nexxo is dragged into things, it's pretty much over.

Now my two cents...

Kylew, you're right, evolution is a theory - a plausible one, and it should not be disregarded just because there are no formulas that fit it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. For the most part, much of our scientific principles are just trusted. You could say that it's a type of faith. Can we see subatomic particles? No, but we can see their effects and other proof that they exist. Can we see extrasolar planets? Nope. But we can detect them, and through scientific reasoning, we know for a fact that they're there.

A formula is just a mathematical representation of a theory. Sometimes it comes before the logic, sometimes the logic comes first. There is substantial evidence that evolutionary theory is accurate. Is there absolute proof? I don't think so. But is there enough proof that the theory can be considered a law? Yes.

For the most part, I can sympathize with creationalists. However, I do not think that this blogger is a creationalist - as I mentioned,I think he's simply trying to divert attention to his blog to earn a hefty advertising revenue check.
JrRRr 10th September 2008, 21:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furymouse
But trying to force someones religion on another wether it be creationistic or evolutionistic, is just stupidistic ( yes, it had to be done.) :)

And I think that's the essence in what kylew are trying so hard to state.. ..as it's also a comment I totally agree with.

I admit I often get frustrated over other peoples view on things, when they ought to know that they are wrong and I'm right. :( :p But I try my best not to let that become an issue between me and them.. ..all though I have several times failed miserably in trying to do just that. But hey.. ..I'm only human, right? And it gives us the opportunity to apologize to each other and admit that we're not as noble as we'd like to think..

People up through the ages has thought many crazy things, but just because we think that something are absolute facts, doesn't necessarily mean that it is so. A a saying goes: "Never say never! - Never!" ;)
EnglishLion 10th September 2008, 21:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Let's start with establishing a common basis to debate from.

1. Do you accept that we inherit the genes of our parents (i.e. sunflowers beget sunflowers, dogs beget dogs, humans beget humans)?

2. Do you accept that these genes can spontaneously mutate and offspring can exhibit a slight alteration of a trait that the parents did not?

3. Do you accept that by selective breeding, you can make those small changes incremental, and hence breed distinct features (as we have been doing in lifestock, pets, plants etc. for centuries, to enhance yield, strength or certain physical characteristics)?

All these things are observable facts that we use to our advantage in breeding livestock, plants and pets. OK, now the next step:

4. Do you accept that certain traits, in certain ecological circumstances or environments, may give an animal or plant a slight survival advantage over its competing peers and thus make it more likely to procreate and pass these advantageous traits on to its offspring?

5. Do you accept that therefore, over generations the environment itself (including competing life forms) acts as a selective pressure, kind of doing the selective breeding that farmers or dog breeders would, thus resulting in animals and plants that are better suited to their particular environment?

All these things have been observed too. Now here comes the tricky bit:

6. Do you accept that if this process carries on long enough, you can (but do not inevitably have to, it's all down to selective pressures) end up with species that are very different from their ancestors millions of years ago? I mean, look at the chihauhua and the wolf. Kind of different, no? That was just 4000 years or so of selective breeding. Now imagine a million years.

"Ah", you will now say, "but they are still both dogs. It's not like, say, humans and apes". Isn't it? Look at the chimp and the human. Perhaps not that much more different than a chihuahua and a wolf. We make the distiction between human and ape, but the fact is, we're both primates.

Now the bits which you (I suspect) struggle with:

7. Do you accept that the earlier a species diverges, in the more different directions they evolve?

8. Do you accept that simple organisms, over time, can evolve into something much more complex?

Again, both have been observed. I remind you of how we all started out as a single fertilised ovum, for instance. Ain't emergence wonderful. Evolution also involves nonlinear dynamics, reiteration, chaos theory and many other observed biological and physical principles. Although it takes a long time to observe evolution in full swing (although it has been done --luckily some life forms live very short and procreate real fast), all the necessary principles have been observed. We even exploit some of them in creating new breeds of plant and animal to suit our needs.

I could go on, but it would become a long post. In short, if you don't find evolution plasuible, it is because you don't really understand how it works.

Not just because I wanted to quote the lonest post and therefore make mine longer but rather that I wanted to add that the most obvious visible sign of evolution at work is the length of the beds and height of the doors in old stately homes and castles from victorian and edwardian times. People WERE smaller. Surely the fact that we as a race are now taller is evolution at work.

I personally don't believe that evolution is the reason for diversity as we now see it on the planet, I believe that there were many starting points but that evolution has played a part in the shaping of life to the point where it now is. Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive theories. Or at least they don't have to be.
mbenoni7 10th September 2008, 21:32 Quote
I regret calling all people who could fall for this dumb, but seriously now. An article describing "creationist bloggers starting a massive anti-spore campaign" over a single joke blog? Maybe I should have said that the only people who would "fall" for this would be those who want their beliefs confirmed.
Herbicide 10th September 2008, 21:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
regardless of the fact that I think evolution is a joke.
How do you come to think this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
The way DNA works, is that it can't gain additional information, when a mutation occours, it's either an ommisson, or an addition of something that's alread there, and additional limb, finger, ear, toe and so on. or missing a limb, eye, fingers and so on.
Nope - a mutation is a random corruption of one (or more) chromosomes in a particular animal (or more properly, organism - $DRUG-resistant bacteria (like MRSA, anyone?).
Whether a particular mutation survives or not is all down to environmental (indeed, evolutionary) pressure: Does [the mutation] confer an advantage to the organism in question, when set in the same environment as it's fellows? In the case of eg: MRSA, the answer is yes, as it survives in the presence of Methicillin, which kills the non-resistant strain (hence the pressure to evolve).
Boogle 10th September 2008, 21:37 Quote
I think much of the issue with evolution is that people don't understand / grasp just how long its been going on for. Its not like one day a fish is borne with 4 legs. Over the course of human history we've got taller and taller - and that's just a few thousand years. Millions of years is a massive step up...

Either way, creationism entertains me greatly. 'God created everything all at once'. Almost 2 thousand years later fossils are catalogued, dinosaurs are found, etc. 'Ummm ignore those'. So you get two (maybe three) major schools of thought:

'It was gods will - testing us, whatever'
'It's meant to be taken as a metaphor... but the rest is golden'
'God set everything up - then let the rest take its course' - this one I can't really count, since it basically admits the bible is rubbish and therefore I doubt you can call it 'christian' as opposed to 'based on christianity'

It curiously misses out the more likely explanation - there was no knowledge of dinosaurs / fossils at the time, so the authors of the texts couldn't take it them into account. The bible was written by people - not god.

Either way, people can believe whatever they want - its called freedom. I don't agree with religious views being given any weight above and beyond what they are - beliefs. Science should take the centre stage every time since it relies on actual evidence - it can also be improved and refined upon.

Oh yeah and to the guy banging on about formulae. Do you even know what a formula is? You're hanging on to something which you heard from someone else and clinging on to it as if it was an arrow into the heart of evolution. To put it another way, if I couldn't explain how gravity worked - does that mean gravity can't possibly exist?

There's a general rule - the more outlandish your claim, the stronger your evidence must be. So for example, if you're going to say something like 'an omnipotent being created everything in 7 days', then you better have some damn good evidence - like all creatures having been around since the very beginning (blatently not true, due to fossil records, extinctions, etc.). Of course the converse is true - if you're going to say evolution is the way the world works, you too must have some startling evidence. Fortunately, there is! Darwin spent decades working on his theory, and many people since then have gone on to find more and more evidence. In the meantime, Christianity has done little more than point to a book written many years ago by various authors. Well, that's not much different than me going into a library, picking a book, and saying it answers all things... is it?

Religion will be around forever, there's no getting around that. But having it gaining influence rather than losing it - that scares me. Before long we'll be back to the middle ages where everyone is scared of god, and the local vicar/priest has ultimate power.
JrRRr 10th September 2008, 21:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbenoni7
I regret calling all people who could fall for this dumb, but seriously now. An article describing "creationist bloggers starting a massive anti-spore campaign" over a single joke blog? Maybe I should have said that the only people who would "fall" for this would be those who want their beliefs confirmed.

Good call. They would certainly be in the target group: "Hey, this guy is probably on to something good. I'll support him, the words do sound right. Check the facts? No, takes too much time" Kinda reminds me of Cipher in The Matrix:"Ignorance is bliss!"
EnglishLion 10th September 2008, 21:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbicide
How do you come to think this?
Nope - a mutation is a random corruption of one (or more) chromosomes in a particular animal (or more properly, organism - $DRUG-resistant bacteria (like MRSA, anyone?).
Whether a particular mutation survives or not is all down to environmental (indeed, evolutionary) pressure: Does [the mutation] confer an advantage to the organism in question, when set in the same environment as it's fellows? In the case of eg: MRSA, the answer is yes, as it survives in the presence of Methicillin, which kills the non-resistant strain (hence the pressure to evolve).

I think the problem in the theory with regard sea creatures becoming land dwelling is that they surely would need an array of simultaneous advantageous mutations all at the same time. No use for legs to walk on land if you can't breathe air, no use for lungs to breathe air if you can't eat the food available on the land etc etc....
And that's without looking into how many mutations are required in a fish to produce just a 'knee'. Not an entire working leg with nerve function etc.

I'm all for evolution as a theory for small changes but not from sea to land - that really doesn't pass with me!
cyrilthefish 10th September 2008, 21:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
@nexxo, selective breeding is one thing, completely changing from one type of creature to another is completely different. You're talking about people theorising that reptiles became birds and that sea animals became land animals with legs.
check the fossil record, you can clearly see this happening over (admittedly huge) periods of time.
there is much hard evidence to support this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Mutations that have been observed are either negative, or serve no advantage to the animal.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
"Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
The way DNA works, is that it can't gain additional information, when a mutation occours, it's either an ommisson, or an addition of something that's alread there, and additional limb, finger, ear, toe and so on. or missing a limb, eye, fingers and so on.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
The likelyhood of a creature 'mutating' and the mutation being a useful mutation enough times to turn into a leg is extremely unlikely. How does a sea creature's body know that it needs 'legs' to walk on the surface? Or it needs lungs to absorb oxygen from the air?
fins to hard fins that can drag creature across land
hard fins to small bony protrusions that can drag creature across land better
over time you end up with legs

no scientist is claiming legs went *poof* and spontaneously appeared overnight.

and as for the evolving lungs part. there are examples of fish that live in low oxygen water that gulp air to supplemnt the gills.
It's not a huge advance to rudimentary lungs over a long period of time
http://www.lookd.com/fish/airbreathing.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
You don't get that type of thing out of selective breeding, you just get variations on what's already there. So your example of a wolf being selectively bred into a chihuahua just exhibits the point that they're both still dogs. they have the same features, they're just a different shape.
and over time the differences get so large they can no longer breed together, add lots more time and they can end up very different.

i get the feeling you don't like evolution because you're under the impression people are saying that it's a relatively quick process... it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
You're describing it as if chihuahuas have wings and can fly, whereas wolves don't.
now you just seem to have gone off into silly mode
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
As for the environment changing an animal's make up, how can the animal's body know what it needs to change for it to get it right, so many times that it proves useful?
what? since when has anyone said the body needs to 'know' when to change?
*gah* this idea is so wrong i don't even know where to start
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Why don't you just acept that it's my opinion on the matter, while your own is different? Stop trying to dismiss what I say while complaining that I'm dismissing evolution. Learn that people don't all need to think the same.
i accept it's your opinion, but facts clearly completely disagree with almost every notion you seem to have about evolution
that is why people are dismissing your opinions
cyrilthefish 10th September 2008, 22:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishLion
I think the problem in the theory with regard sea creatures becoming land dwelling is that they surely would need an array of simultaneous advantageous mutations all at the same time. No use for legs to walk on land if you can't breathe air, no use for lungs to breathe air if you can't eat the food available on the land etc etc....
And that's without looking into how many mutations are required in a fish to produce just a 'knee'. Not an entire working leg with nerve function etc.
Or look at it in another way:
look at the link in my previous post about the fish that have limited air breathing skills.
once a creature has that, getting out of the water for short periods to escape predators/feed or whatever suddenly gives you a huge advantage, even if it's only as limited as simply 'beaching' yourself on land for a few mins. over a long time you will get variations that will spend longer and longer amounts of time on land
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnglishLion
I'm all for evolution as a theory for small changes but not from sea to land - that really doesn't pass with me!
If think a lot of people think the same. they're thinking in too large jumps of changes, it's actually a very gradual thing
hitman012 10th September 2008, 22:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Mutations that have been observed are either negative, or serve no advantage to the animal.
What about bacterial resistance to antibiotics? That's pretty favourable to the bacteria, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
The likelyhood of a creature 'mutating' and the mutation being a useful mutation enough times to turn into a leg is extremely unlikely. How does a sea creature's body know that it needs 'legs' to walk on the surface? Or it needs lungs to absorb oxygen from the air?
It doesn't "know" anything. The mutations are entirely random, but the net result is a gradually improving adaptation to the environment: organisms with "favourable" mutations are more successful and hence more likely to pass on their genes. This puts the other organisms at a relative disadvantage, decreasing their chances of survival.

Take my earlier example: say that your doctor prescribes antibiotics to treat a bacterial infection. There are billions of these bacteria in your body and, until your immune system kicks in, they're breeding at an incredible rate. Once every few thousand divisions or so, an error in replication, or a stray cosmic ray, or whatever, will cause a mutation. In all likelihood, that mutation will be either useless or damaging, and so the bacterium dies.

However, after hundreds of millions of divisions, is it not possible that one bacterium somewhere in your body will have a mutation that confers resistance to the antibiotics? That bacterium is obviously going to survive while the others are wiped out. Natural selection at work. How else can you explain it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
You don't get that type of thing out of selective breeding, you just get variations on what's already there. So your example of a wolf being selectively bred into a chihuahua just exhibits the point that they're both still dogs. they have the same features, they're just a different shape.
Well, we're not trying to turn dogs into birds. We're artifically emphasizing characteristics that we find favourable over a very short timespan. Give it a few million years and you'll get something much more interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
As for the environment changing an animal's make up, how can the animal's body know what it needs to change for it to get it right, so many times that it proves useful?
As mentioned countless times, the animal's body doesn't "know" anything. The process is entirely random - evolution has no goal, it just is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Why don't you just acept that it's my opinion on the matter, while your own is different? Stop trying to dismiss what I say while complaining that I'm dismissing evolution.
Although you're welcome to your opinion, why would you believe something that flies in the face of all the available evidence?
zimbloggy 11th September 2008, 01:06 Quote
i am a die-hard creationist, but i don't give a hoot about this game. it features evolution, yes, but thats in culture everywhere. these bloggers do not represent the majority of creationism.
jweller 11th September 2008, 01:11 Quote
The existance of "God", or a god, Zeus, unicorns, visits by aliens, santa clause or any other supernatural entity can't be logically proved/disproved so don't waste your typing.
Measter 11th September 2008, 01:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuey
But is there enough proof that the theory can be considered a law? Yes.

It's my understanding that laws describe the effects of something, and theories explain why it happens.
Phil Rhodes 11th September 2008, 01:17 Quote
A particularly good bit of ammunition for creationists, though very rarely fired, is actually somewhat pre-evolution. The amount of time required for basic amino acids to spontaneously assemble in that primordeal soup we hear so much about is, going by sheer statistics, entirely too long. Theories abound on this, one particularly current one being that it's a process comparable to crystallisation - and we knew that crystals formed long before we knew why.

What's important is that we accept that we do not know these things and seek answers. We do not throw up our hands in defeat and claim our imaginary friend did it.
jweller 11th September 2008, 01:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitman012
Although you're welcome to your opinion, why would you believe something that flies in the face of all the available evidence?

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.
DXR_13KE 11th September 2008, 01:29 Quote
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.
Stuey 11th September 2008, 02:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measter
It's my understanding that laws describe the effects of something, and theories explain why it happens.
theory:
Quote:
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

law:
Quote:
a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b: a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions

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."
Steely 11th September 2008, 05:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by seveneleven
My thoughts exactly :D How many types of human beings have existed before homo sapiens?Quite a lot!This guy thinks like a medieval priest - you know back when Gallieleo said that the Earth was round and the church fried him!Pathetic...
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.
dylAndroid 11th September 2008, 06:27 Quote
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.
crazybob 11th September 2008, 06:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Personally, I can't stand the theory of evolution, and the portrayal of it as fact by people who admit it's just a theory, but just because I don't like the theory doesn't mean I have to 'hate on' everything that's slightly to do with it....

...Apparently, evolution is the one scientific theory taken as fact, that they aren't able to prove using a formula, when something is to be taken as fact, it needs its own formula that works, evolution doesn't have this, yet is still taken as fact, oh well... :D
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.
perplekks45 11th September 2008, 07:54 Quote
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. ;)
Scirocco 11th September 2008, 08:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely
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.

Hmm, does this mean the Catholic Church adapted and evolved? ;)
Tyrmot 11th September 2008, 11:55 Quote
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
Bauul 11th September 2008, 12:01 Quote
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.
Nexxo 11th September 2008, 12:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
@nexxo, selective breeding is one thing, completely changing from one type of creature to another is completely different. You're talking about people theorising that reptiles became birds and that sea animals became land animals with legs.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
Mutations that have been observed are either negative, or serve no advantage to the animal.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
The way DNA works, is that it can't gain additional information, when a mutation occours, it's either an ommisson, or an addition of something that's alread there, and additional limb, finger, ear, toe and so on. or missing a limb, eye, fingers and so on.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
The likelyhood of a creature 'mutating' and the mutation being a useful mutation enough times to turn into a leg is extremely unlikely. How does a sea creature's body know that it needs 'legs' to walk on the surface? Or it needs lungs to absorb oxygen from the air?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
You don't get that type of thing out of selective breeding, you just get variations on what's already there. So your example of a wolf being selectively bred into a chihuahua just exhibits the point that they're both still dogs. they have the same features, they're just a different shape.

You're describing it as if chihuahuas have wings and can fly, whereas wolves don't.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
As for the environment changing an animal's make up, how can the animal's body know what it needs to change for it to get it right, so many times that it proves useful?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylew
regardless of the fact that I think evolution is a joke.
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.
Tulatin 11th September 2008, 20:58 Quote
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.
Jasio 11th September 2008, 21:01 Quote
God is playing Spore with us... so why can't I play Spore on my PC :(
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums